It really is unfortunate that Market Observations drift towards CAC and number of slabs they have reviewed and rarities that 99% of collectors will never be able to afford.
Neither really matter to the degree that collectors are lead to believe.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>I don't see CAC as part of the maturation process. They are around because coin grading took a wrong turn around 1996-1998. The grading of the Pittman and Eliasberg coins was quite liberal compared to what had come in the decade before them. It only loosened further from there. While there was a need to grade more coins in the supergrades (ie MS67-MS68) there wasn't a need to make MS63's and MS64's into MS65's and AU's into MS61 to MS63. If today's standards were selected in 1986-1987 and maintained we'd have been fine. But, that's not what happened. I suspect that the current system won't hold up and a 3rd set of grading standards will evolve out of this current set in the next 5-10 years. If I were a TPG I'd be working towards a system that didn't require coins to be stickered to fetch top dollar. I wouldn't want the success of my product to be tied to a 3rd party's opinion. >>
And what a pain the butt it is for those of us who have purchased good coins to have them all re-graded at considerable cost ... and it galls us further when you run into coins that have CAC stickers that don't deserve them. >>
And you never seem to fail to let us know about them... >>
You are correct because they are out there, and rather than slamming CAC critics you should urge CAC to tighten up its standards. You of all people should have more clout than any of us.
When you put yourself on a very high pedestal it should come as no surprise when people point out the flaws. >>
I think Bill is asking too much of CAC to be perfect in all respects. The absolute most one should hope for is that they would own up and purchase any mistake they've made, and JA does do that. Beyond just having a CAC label on your slabbed coin, ultimately it's up to the consumer to determine if a coin is right for them, really a nice piece and worthy of the price asked. That hasn't changed in over 150-ish years of American numismatics, and it requires you to train your eye if you're interested in not getting hosed. To this end, Bill's advice to attend auctions and lot viewings is crucial, if that's the level of coin you want to play at. Lot less pressure with stuff like circ Peace dollars.
<< <i>I don't see CAC as part of the maturation process. They are around because coin grading took a wrong turn around 1996-1998. The grading of the Pittman and Eliasberg coins was quite liberal compared to what had come in the decade before them. It only loosened further from there. While there was a need to grade more coins in the supergrades (ie MS67-MS68) there wasn't a need to make MS63's and MS64's into MS65's and AU's into MS61 to MS63. If today's standards were selected in 1986-1987 and maintained we'd have been fine. But, that's not what happened. I suspect that the current system won't hold up and a 3rd set of grading standards will evolve out of this current set in the next 5-10 years. If I were a TPG I'd be working towards a system that didn't require coins to be stickered to fetch top dollar. I wouldn't want the success of my product to be tied to a 3rd party's opinion. >>
And what a pain the butt it is for those of us who have purchased good coins to have them all re-graded at considerable cost ... and it galls us further when you run into coins that have CAC stickers that don't deserve them. >>
And you never seem to fail to let us know about them... >>
You are correct because they are out there, and rather than slamming CAC critics you should urge CAC to tighten up its standards. You of all people should have more clout than any of us.
When you put yourself on a very high pedestal it should come as no surprise when people point out the flaws. >>
I think Bill is asking too much of CAC to be perfect in all respects. The absolute most one should hope for is that they would own up and purchase any mistake they've made, and JA does do that. Beyond just having a CAC label on your slabbed coin, ultimately it's up to the consumer to determine if a coin is right for them, really a nice piece and worthy of the price asked. That hasn't changed in over 150-ish years of American numismatics, and it requires you to train your eye if you're interested in not getting hosed. To this end, Bill's advice to attend auctions and lot viewings is crucial, if that's the level of coin you want to play at. Lot less pressure with stuff like circ Peace dollars. >>
CAC has an easier job than PCGS and NGC have. All CAC has to do is say "I like the coin, and it gets a sticker," or "I don't like or want to market this coin so it gets no sticker." The grading services have to assign a technical grade to coin, even if it is not attractive. CAC can just say no. Their job is a lot easier. CAC has the easier job, and therefore their batting average should be a lot better.
For example in a recent auction I saw an 1877 Proof-65 Twenty Cent piece in big name third party holder. The technical grade was correct (no hairlines or significant marks with a 5X glass), and the coin was totally original and had never been dipped. Yet the coin was tarnished, and the toning was not attractive. Would CAC sticker this piece? Probably not. Yet the grade is correct. The TPG did nothing wrong IMO.
The coin I pointed out was a Type 1 gold dollar in an MS-63 holder. Even I with, my near sighted vision, have to use a 10X on these tiny coins. With that device it's hard to believe that a competent grader would miss an "L" scratched in above the head of Ms. Liberty, but it was there. A casual collector might miss it, but an expert grader should not. CAC should not be missing this stuff, especially when its fans start making claims that coins with their approval are worth significantly more.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
My question is really how much of the TOP end market really effects the middle and bottom end?
I think they are largely disconnected at this point given the huge disparity in pricing. Middle-class collectors can no longer realistically "graduate" to building world-class sets. I'm not sure if the analogy is particularly valid, but in the stock market it's never a good sign when "high flyers" are setting price records while the broad market languishes. Such a lack of breadth often indicates a "blow off top". Coins are different animals at least in part because it's rare that an investor ever takes pride in his portfolio of stocks. It's more common (and far easier) in stocks to dump holdings based strictly on negative price action.
<< <i>I don't see CAC as part of the maturation process. They are around because coin grading took a wrong turn around 1996-1998. The grading of the Pittman and Eliasberg coins was quite liberal compared to what had come in the decade before them. It only loosened further from there. While there was a need to grade more coins in the supergrades (ie MS67-MS68) there wasn't a need to make MS63's and MS64's into MS65's and AU's into MS61 to MS63. If today's standards were selected in 1986-1987 and maintained we'd have been fine. But, that's not what happened. I suspect that the current system won't hold up and a 3rd set of grading standards will evolve out of this current set in the next 5-10 years. If I were a TPG I'd be working towards a system that didn't require coins to be stickered to fetch top dollar. I wouldn't want the success of my product to be tied to a 3rd party's opinion. >>
And what a pain the butt it is for those of us who have purchased good coins to have them all re-graded at considerable cost ... and it galls us further when you run into coins that have CAC stickers that don't deserve them. >>
And you never seem to fail to let us know about them... >>
You are correct because they are out there, and rather than slamming CAC critics you should urge CAC to tighten up its standards. You of all people should have more clout than any of us.
When you put yourself on a very high pedestal it should come as no surprise when people point out the flaws. >>
I think Bill is asking too much of CAC to be perfect in all respects. The absolute most one should hope for is that they would own up and purchase any mistake they've made, and JA does do that. Beyond just having a CAC label on your slabbed coin, ultimately it's up to the consumer to determine if a coin is right for them, really a nice piece and worthy of the price asked. That hasn't changed in over 150-ish years of American numismatics, and it requires you to train your eye if you're interested in not getting hosed. To this end, Bill's advice to attend auctions and lot viewings is crucial, if that's the level of coin you want to play at. Lot less pressure with stuff like circ Peace dollars. >>
CAC has an easier job than PCGS and NGC have. All CAC has to do is say "I like the coin, and it gets a sticker," or "I don't like or want to market this coin so it gets no sticker." The grading services have to assign a technical grade to coin, even if it is not attractive. CAC can just say no. Their job is a lot easier. CAC has the easier job, and therefore their batting average should be a lot better.
For example in a recent auction I saw an 1877 Proof-65 Twenty Cent piece in big name third party holder. The technical grade was correct (no hairlines or significant marks with a 5X glass), and the coin was totally original and had never been dipped. Yet the coin was tarnished, and the toning was not attractive. Would CAC sticker this piece? Probably not. Yet the grade is correct. The TPG did nothing wrong IMO.
The coin I pointed out was a Type 1 gold dollar in an MS-63 holder. Even I with, my near sighted vision, have to use a 10X on these tiny coins. With that device it's hard to believe that a competent grader would miss an "L" scratched in above the head of Ms. Liberty, but it was there. A casual collector might miss it, but an expert grader should not. CAC should not be missing this stuff, especially when its fans start making claims that coins with their approval are worth significantly more. >>
It sounds like you aren't hearing me. Assuming you weren't grossly mistaken about seeing the "L" scratched into the coin (sure it wasn't in the plastic?) you could get word to JA and they'd take it off the market. No one is perfect, so holding perfection as the immovable standard on any party seems silly.
If the 30 to 40 percent premium for CAC material is correct, I would expect a high percentage of accuracy.
And BTY the "L" was not "on the plastic." I've been looking for that coin for over a year, so I did not reject it out of hand.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I think there is the esoteric market (wealthy people) and what I consider the real coin market (coins most collectors can afford).
I could care less about the esoteric market and its end users who are falling over each other for registry material. What I am interested in is the bid movement of say the Walker Short Set or a complete Walker Set in say MS65, the 48 piece commem set in say MS 65, Morgan and peace dollars in MS65 (common dates). I track parameters from the real coin market vs Bullion. So far the real coin market is losing to bullion this year. A guy sat down at my table - he said his collection consisted of 20 halves, 20 dollars, 20 US Gold type coins, 20 type, and 20 quality world in PCGS / NGC in slab storage boxes. When he filled them all up, he started looking for upgrades. Just a bulk accumulator. He said the halves were the most fun a mix of type, commems, walkers, and Franks. I really like that philosophy, just buy whats affordable and fun, bulk up, enjoy. Its unreal seeing what some coin realized at auction in the CDN in 5 or 6 figures and knowing one would use that money on a nice, car, house, boat, or sugar baby. I guess those people already have all that and the coin spending is just for grins.
Track market parameters for the area of the market that you collect and invest in.
Bill I really appreciate your pointing out some of the things you have observed on CAC coins. I value your opinions on this and thanks for sharing.
<< <i>I think there is the esoteric market (wealthy people) and what I consider the real coin market (coins most collectors can afford).
I could care less about the esoteric market and its end users who are falling over each other for registry material. What I am interested in is the bid movement of say the Walker Short Set or a complete Walker Set in say MS65, the 48 piece commem set in say MS 65, Morgan and peace dollars in MS65 (common dates). I track parameters from the real coin market vs Bullion. So far the real coin market is losing to bullion this year. A guy sat down at my table - he said his collection consisted of 20 halves, 20 dollars, 20 US Gold type coins, 20 type, and 20 quality world in PCGS / NGC in slab storage boxes. When he filled them all up, he started looking for upgrades. Just a bulk accumulator. He said the halves were the most fun a mix of type, commems, walkers, and Franks.
Track market parameters for the area of the market that you collect and invest in. >>
I would consider a complete walker set in 65 to be financially Esoteric although the rest seems like solid advice.
<< <i>...... CAC is insignificant. 2% of the TPG non-modern volume (moderns make up HALF the TPG's volume), 1% of their total volume. CAC is overrated, over revered, over talked about >>
It's not 2% of the non-modern volume. It's much larger. A more important number to look at is market value of the coins they have stickered. They just went through the Newman and Gardner collections. Pogue is next. This will be hundreds of millions of dollars reviewed....and only a couple thousand coins. That's not 2% of the upper end market. I'd bet that 25-50% of the upper end market has been reviewed or soon will be. Do a poll here of collections valued over $150K and I'd bet >50% of them have been CAC reviewed. CAC is not over-rated when it comes to coins valued over $1,000. It's cheap insurance for those who want to know where their collections stand if they have not yet been reviewed. The Simpson collection has probably all been CAC reviewed....another $150 MILL in value....plus every Registry set that Legend is building or has built. CAC rules the top 5-10% of the coin market. Let's not forget that gold provided a huge boost to the coin market from 2002-2008. And then when the recession hit gold "saved" many coin dealers during the 2009-2011 run. But from 2011 onward I'd have to say that the high end coin market (with CAC) has kept the overall coin market afloat the past 3 years, much like gold did from 2009-2011. Without that extra infusion of liquidity the coin market would have done much worse.
A friend of mine has a top notch early type collection that he's been building since the early 1980's. A lot of those coins are in early holders and are no brainer wonderful coins. In his case I suggested he not send them in to CAC since his time frame for selling or passing on the coins is 20 yrs down the road. Who knows what the market landscape will be then? I suspect most every one of these coins will sticker. In my mind it's better to keep the coins fresh, unseen to the market, and unstickered until it's closer to the time to pass them on to this heirs. The one exception I made concerned some early holdered gem bust NGC coins. Since the market currently discounts heavily for typical NGC bust type it would be to his advantage to get stickers on those no bar code NGC fatties.
CAC doesn't have to be "accurate" as they are only identifying coins that they want to buy for their own account or their customers. As long as they are "accurate" for themselves, it doesn't matter what you or I think. In essence, they cannot be wrong if they want to buy a coin and then sticker it. I'd suppose their "error" rate is <2% (an error occurs when they buy a problem coin and totally missed that issue). Some dealers handle a huge volume of coins each year that run across a wide grading spectrum, many of them "problem" coins that you or I couldn't come close to navigating properly or efficiently. Are they "inaccurate" because they buy a "problem" coin and can make 10% on it? As long as they profit by it, they was "accurate." And so would be CAC.
The coin market has changed grading standards a number of times in the past 40 years. Even when our coins didn't have slabs around them the standards changed and so did the value of our coins (think 1980-1982) when standards tightened up like crazy. With or w/o slabs the standards will continue to change, sometimes tighter and other times looser. Expect to have your coins graded more times going forward. The TPG's want to see your old coins come back over and over again. They will do whatever it takes to try and make that happen. JA's job of placing a sticker on a coin is minimal risk as all he is stating is that he'd be a buyer of that coin at his current posted bid price. The TPG still has the primary risk of guaranteeing the holdered grade. If JA makes a mistake he just sends the coin back to PCGS or NGC if it's been altered or messed with in any way. JA is not going to make many mistakes when it comes to counting marks and hairlines and evaluating luster and toning. It is easier for any of us to decide if we're a buyer of a currently holdered coin. We don't have to grade it from raw where the odds are higher that we make a big mistake. The old raw coin auctions worked the same way. There might be 100 bidders for a coin. 95 of them might grade it MS64+ or less. 3 might grade it MS65. And 2 might grade it MS65+. The numerical average says this coin in MS64 or less. Yet the coin WILL sell to one of those 5 bidders for MS65 money. And as long as those 5 bidders/dealers/collectors felt the coin was MS65 there would be buyer support at MS65 money. That market mechanism is still in existence today even though 95% of players focus on the numerically assigned grade and nothing else.
<< <i>...... CAC is insignificant. 2% of the TPG non-modern volume (moderns make up HALF the TPG's volume), 1% of their total volume. CAC is overrated, over revered, over talked about >>
It's not 2% of the non-modern volume. It's much larger. A more important number to look at is market value of the coins they have stickered. They just went through the Newman and Gardner collections. Pogue is next. This will be hundreds of millions of dollars reviewed....and only a couple thousand coins. That's not 2% of the upper end market. I'd bet that 25-50% of the upper end market has been reviewed or soon will be. Do a poll here of collections valued over $150K and I'd bet >50% of them have been CAC reviewed. CAC is not over-rated when it comes to coins valued over $1,000. It's cheap insurance for those who want to know where their collections stand if they have not yet been reviewed. The Simpson collection has probably all been CAC reviewed....another $150 MILL in value....plus every Registry set that Legend is building or has built. CAC rules the top 5-10% of the coin market. Let's not forget that gold provided a huge boost to the coin market from 2002-2008. And then when the recession hit gold "saved" many coin dealers during the 2009-2011 run. But from 2011 onward I'd have to say that the high end coin market (with CAC) has kept the overall coin market afloat the past 3 years, much like gold did from 2009-2011. Without that extra infusion of liquidity the coin market would have done much worse.
A friend of mine has a top notch early type collection that he's been building since the early 1980's. A lot of those coins are in early holders and are no brainer wonderful coins. In his case I suggested he not send them in to CAC since his time frame for selling or passing on the coins is 20 yrs down the road. Who knows what the market landscape will be then? I suspect most every one of these coins will sticker. In my mind it's better to keep the coins fresh, unseen to the market, and unstickered until it's closer to the time to pass them on to this heirs. The one exception I made concerned some early holdered gem bust NGC coins. Since the market currently discounts heavily for typical NGC bust type it would be to his advantage to get stickers on those no bar code NGC fatties.
The coin market has changed grading standards a number of times in the past 40 years. Even when our coins didn't have slabs around them the standards changed and so did the value of our coins (think 1980-1982) when standards tightened up like crazy. With or w/o slabs the standards will continue to change, sometimes tighter and other times looser. Expect to have your coins graded more times going forward. The TPG's want to see your old coins come back over and over again. They will do whatever it takes to try and make that happen. JA's job of placing a sticker on a coin is minimal risk as all he is stating is that he'd be a buyer of that coin at his current posted bid price. The TPG still has the primary risk of guaranteeing the holdered grade. If JA makes a mistake he just sends the coin back to PCGS or NGC if it's been altered or messed with in any way. JA is not going to make many mistakes when it comes to counting marks and hairlines and evaluating luster and toning. It is easier for any of us to decide if we're a buyer of a currently holdered coin. We don't have to grade it from raw where the odds are higher that we make a big mistake. The old raw coin auctions worked the same way. There might be 100 bidders for a coin. 95 of them might grade it MS64+ or less. 3 might grade it MS65. And 2 might grade it MS65+. The numerical average says this coin in MS64 or less. Yet the coin WILL sell to one of those 5 bidders for MS65 money. And as long as those 5 bidders/dealers/collectors felt the coin was MS65 there would be buyer support at MS65 money. That market mechanism is still in existence today even though 95% of players focus on the numerically assigned grade and nothing else. >>
Really enjoy your insights, rr! Regarding your friend and his plan to sell 20+ years down the road, the landscape will almost certainly change more -- tighten, loosen, tighten again. Since he's not planning to sell currently, nothing need be done with his old NGC fatty type -- question though, do you think he'd be better served, 20 years hence, to crack them out and get graded per whatever standard is most in vogue then? Or should they remain in their fatty holders, and get a stickered approval (from JA or whomever) is providing such a service at that time?
One way or another, a great coin will be a great coin. But the owners will absolutely be best served to present them in a holder that has the most market acceptability/approval for the grade assigned, and thus highest potential price realized. You could take any terrific type coin, say an early PCGS piece in a Pogue-like grade of 68 or something -- crack it, send it to ANACS, SEGS, whatever and get a grade, likely the same or better -- but as long as people would then question what it was doing in such a holder, and wondering what problems it must have unseen, to be relegated to such a holder, means that just won't happen. Be fun to see what the next 20 years brings to the nosebleed market -- I'll just be an interested observer, in any case.
People really need to look at CAC in a new light now that PCGS has watered down their warrenty to really only cover doctoring and grade. Any coin that is contaminated or turns bad is no longer covered. A TPG holder is no longer an absolute protection that the coin inside isn't a horrible mess now that the mechinism to remove these from the market has been cut. These bad coins are now pushed into the (at cost) conservation service which means many will simply be dumped to unsuspecting collectors instead of throwing more money at a bad coin. IMO this undermines the whole mission of the TPGs and really opens the door for companies like CAC.
Really only a CAC sticker is the full warrenty against being left with a worthless dud remaining in the hobby.
While not perfect, I really don't get why people take objection to having an expert set of eyes look over their coins and add a sticker of approval that in most cases increases its value and liquidity all while adding insurance for only a few dollars. Is there a better value out there that I don't know about?
The market has different tiers that are driven by different factors.
There is a high end market driven by rarity and condition rarity by those that have the desire to have among the finest known.
There is a market driven by the Registry Sets-
There is a market driven by collectors that seek to own the finest examples that fall within their financial means. And within this market, there are those that look for originality, quality for the grade or just the look of and history behind a coin and coin series.
One question that is rarely discussed and that is the expectations of collectors. What expectations do collectors have in the pursuit of the coins? How do your expectations as a collector influence your thought process? Is there an adequate appreciation that all coins within a series will have a significant difference in the end mint product to the point that two coins graded MS65 will look different? And can even be significantly different? Take a look at an 1880-s Morgan that grades MS65 and place it next to a 1904. Do they both share the same quality and look? No... Not even close. Collectors have the benefit of hindsight and just often do not see the challenges associated with producing coins as well as how coins have been handled and stored.
Coins were meant to enter the stream of commerce and some were spent and have a unique history. That history, in part is captured by wear and how it survived. Do collectors really see this side of a coin? Today more than ever, the expectation centers around the look of a coin instead of its intended purpose. The expectation seems to focus more on how that the look can be shaped and then captured in the most favorable light by a numerical grade and then reinforced by a fourth party. Revisiting our expectations as collectors just might provide some insight to develop coin collecting for future generations.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>People really need to look at CAC in a new light now that PCGS has watered down their warrenty to really only cover doctoring and grade. Any coin that is contaminated or turns bad is no longer covered. A TPG holder is no longer an absolute protection that the coin inside isn't a horrible mess now that the mechinism to remove these from the market has been cut. These bad coins are now pushed into the (at cost) conservation service which means many will simply be dumped to unsuspecting collectors instead of throwing more money at a bad coin. IMO this undermines the whole mission of the TPGs and really opens the door for companies like CAC.
Really only a CAC sticker is the full warrenty against being left with a worthless dud remaining in the hobby.
While not perfect, I really don't get why people take objection to having an expert set of eyes look over their coins and add a sticker of approval that in most cases increases its value and liquidity all while adding insurance for only a few dollars. Is there a better value out there that I don't know about? >>
100% agree with you Crypto, on all accounts, well said. I think CAC opinion is a very good value, depending on your coin, the more expensive, the more worthwhile it is. (I have many cheap coins where CAC would be perfectly fine, but not really needed.) CAC isn't perfect, no, but I can't understand why Bill is a pill about them. With a collection of his caliber, should he ever wish to part with any of it, I would think CAC would be a must. Do CAC coins get a 30-40% premium, and that's what he's complaining about? Then that's the market singing that tune, not CAC. As far as that goes, then Bill or anyone interested in "not overpaying" (I don't like to overpay either if I can help it) needs to scour the market for CAC-worthy pieces out there that just haven't been to the bean factory yet. Another collecting challenge -- what it's all about.
<< <i>The market has different tiers that are driven by different factors.
There is a high end market driven by rarity and condition rarity by those that have the desire to have among the finest known.
There is a market driven by the Registry Sets-
There is a market driven by collectors that seek to own the finest examples that fall within their financial means. And within this market, there are those that look for originality, quality for the grade or just the look of and history behind a coin and coin series.
One question that is rarely discussed and that is the expectations of collectors. What expectations do collectors have in the pursuit of the coins? How do your expectations as a collector influence your thought process? Is there an adequate appreciation that all coins within a series will have a significant difference in the end mint product to the point that two coins graded MS65 will look different? And can even be significantly different? Take a look at an 1880-s Morgan that grades MS65 and place it next to a 1904. Do they both share the same quality and look? No... Not even close. Collectors have the benefit of hindsight and just often do not see the challenges associated with producing coins as well as how coins have been handled and stored.
Coins were meant to enter the stream of commerce and some were spent and have a unique history. That history, in part is captured by wear and how it survived. Do collectors really see this side of a coin? Today more than ever, the expectation centers around the look of a coin instead of its intended purpose. The expectation seems to focus more on how that the look can be shaped and then captured in the most favorable light by a numerical grade and then reinforced by a fourth party. Revisiting our expectations as collectors just might provide some insight to develop coin collecting for future generations. >>
Great post, coinkat. I agree that as a collector now, I am mainly focused on the aesthetics of my collection, taking care to get specimens (best I can) that are problem-free. I don't price shop much, I problem shop, I try to look at all aspects of the coin that might bother me aesthetically, so that I don't (hopefully) buy in haste and repent in leisure. I still do of course, not being perfect, but try to minimize that best I can. But the 12-13 year old me was intrigued by old dates, obsolete designs and tying historical facts and happenings to the particular dates on the coins in front of me, who might have held what, that sort of thing. It hasn't completely left me yet.
<< <i>I think there is the esoteric market (wealthy people) and what I consider the real coin market (coins most collectors can afford).
I could care less about the esoteric market and its end users who are falling over each other for registry material. What I am interested in is the bid movement of say the Walker Short Set or a complete Walker Set in say MS65, the 48 piece commem set in say MS 65, Morgan and peace dollars in MS65 (common dates). I track parameters from the real coin market vs Bullion. So far the real coin market is losing to bullion this year. A guy sat down at my table - he said his collection consisted of 20 halves, 20 dollars, 20 US Gold type coins, 20 type, and 20 quality world in PCGS / NGC in slab storage boxes. When he filled them all up, he started looking for upgrades. Just a bulk accumulator. He said the halves were the most fun a mix of type, commems, walkers, and Franks.
Track market parameters for the area of the market that you collect and invest in. >>
I would consider a complete walker set in 65 to be financially Esoteric although the rest seems like solid advice. >>
I definitely agree and I don't have any desire to complete a Walker Short Set. I do bulk up on nice Walkers from this era when I have the urge. I use the valuation in the CDN for the short set to for my own tracking on where the bids are going on these issues. I do an index which I internally refer which I call the CDN 4000 which is generic Morgan Dollars, generic Peace Dollars, the Walker short set, and the 48 piece silver commem set all in MS65. (Walkers, Dollars, Commems). I then have this as on bar on a graph with another which is a silver and gold composite, and then individual bars for silver, gold, platinum tracking all from 1-1-14. I also have another bar for the CCDN Composite which around 1008 vs 1000 for 1990. I do my own homework and my opinions here are my own. I also track some of the PCGS indexes as well. Mainly I just want to see how the stuff I am involved in is doing vs the base date.
<< <i>Really enjoy your insights, rr! Regarding your friend and his plan to sell 20+ years down the road, the landscape will almost certainly change more -- tighten, loosen, tighten again. Since he's not planning to sell currently, nothing need be done with his old NGC fatty type -- question though, do you think he'd be better served, 20 years hence, to crack them out and get graded per whatever standard is most in vogue then? Or should they remain in their fatty holders, and get a stickered approval (from JA or whomever) is providing such a service at that time?
One way or another, a great coin will be a great coin. But the owners will absolutely be best served to present them in a holder that has the most market acceptability/approval for the grade assigned, and thus highest potential price realized. You could take any terrific type coin, say an early PCGS piece in a Pogue-like grade of 68 or something -- crack it, send it to ANACS, SEGS, whatever and get a grade, likely the same or better -- but as long as people would then question what it was doing in such a holder, and wondering what problems it must have unseen, to be relegated to such a holder, means that just won't happen. Be fun to see what the next 20 years brings to the nosebleed market -- I'll just be an interested observer, in any case. >>
We don't know the answer. So the best course imo is to do nothing and leave those coins in their current holders. There's no downside to that. Those old holders are still respected and odds are good they will be considered something special 20 years from now. They can always be cracked out. There will always be raw and fresh coins hitting the market. I went through several iterations of cracking out my best coins from 1997-2007 as the grading standards shifted. In hindsight, I wouldn't do that again. Just leave them be and wait until it's time to sell. At that point evaluate the landscape and do what makes financial sense to your specific situation. For all we know there will be a shift to fresh/raw coins again where coins will get cracked out in droves to simulate "freshness." No way to predict the next turns.
Crypto's post above is quite stunning. I hadn't really considered the TPG's backing away from their guarantees. If CAC starts to become the lone supporter of those coins they too will tighten their standards and distance themselves from anything that could be considered the least bit problematic (toning, marks, dipping, etc.). It would then take a moose of a coin to earn a sticker. In all likelihood they would probably just leave the market and rely on the coins they had already stickered. But if PCGS is not guaranteeing coins that turn in the holder, don't most of those come from doctoring in the first place? So do they cover doctored coins that have turned? How can one possibly make that distinction with accuracy?
If you want a CAC quality coin but only want to pay unstickered PCGS money? That's easy. Buy an NGC stickered coin that you like. The coin will often carry a discount (esp. at auction) and down the road you might consider cracking it out and getting it holdered the other way. Many or most times the NGC coin will be nicer than an unstickered PCGS coin. It's free money imo. Someday the NGC holder scourge will lift...at least for the nicest coins. Forget the crossing game as almost nothing worth anything gets crossed, especially gem 19th century silver type coins (my own personal experiences).
<< <i>Really enjoy your insights, rr! Regarding your friend and his plan to sell 20+ years down the road, the landscape will almost certainly change more -- tighten, loosen, tighten again. Since he's not planning to sell currently, nothing need be done with his old NGC fatty type -- question though, do you think he'd be better served, 20 years hence, to crack them out and get graded per whatever standard is most in vogue then? Or should they remain in their fatty holders, and get a stickered approval (from JA or whomever) is providing such a service at that time?
One way or another, a great coin will be a great coin. But the owners will absolutely be best served to present them in a holder that has the most market acceptability/approval for the grade assigned, and thus highest potential price realized. You could take any terrific type coin, say an early PCGS piece in a Pogue-like grade of 68 or something -- crack it, send it to ANACS, SEGS, whatever and get a grade, likely the same or better -- but as long as people would then question what it was doing in such a holder, and wondering what problems it must have unseen, to be relegated to such a holder, means that just won't happen. Be fun to see what the next 20 years brings to the nosebleed market -- I'll just be an interested observer, in any case. >>
We don't know the answer. So the best course imo is to do nothing and leave those coins in their current holders. There's no downside to that. Those old holders are still respected and odds are good they will be considered something special 20 years from now. They can always be cracked out. I went through several iterations of cracking out my best coins from 1997-2007 as the grading standards shifted. In hindsight, I wouldn't do that again. Just leave them be and wait until it's time to sell. At that point evaluate the landscape and do what makes financial sense to your specific situation.
Crypto's post above is quite stunning. I hadn't really considered the TPG's backing away from their guarantees. This will also tend to take them off the hook for all the sloppy grading from 1997-2008. If CAC starts to become the lone supporter of those coins they too will tighten their standards and distance themselves from anything that could be considered the least bit problematic (toning, marks, dipping, etc.). It would then take a moose of a coin to earn a sticker. In all likelihood they would probably just leave the market and rely on the coins they had already stickered. >>
I noted that above from Crypto and I don't know the specifics, what the TPG's are now guaranteeing vs. not. Will be interesting to see how that develops. About the only thing I know of in the past was that cutoff date for PCGS after which they wouldn't guarantee the color on red copper if holdered after X date, but supposed to guarantee copper color for coins they graded earlier? I only happened to notice at the time because I made my rare group of coins submission and among them were a 1920 that graded a nice 65red, and a nice 1909-P Indian that annoyingly came back questionable color. Back it went for attempt #2, and it came back as 64RB, which I agree with. Both of those made it in before the new copper color policy, so I suppose if they ever shift, I'd be covered. Shouldn't be an issue thankfully, as I've had them both 20 years prior to sending them in, and they've remained nice as I got them.
Cryptos post is a real good one with lots of info and good advice.
Howerver, in looking at any coin (stickered or not), one should use their own common sense in pricing it and analyze it vs their grading standards. Are you paying too much above bid bc its in a CAC stickered holder. In bidding I might add $25 but that's about it. No 30% premium for me. I track what these are bringing on ebay to draw my own conclusions. That a coin is a CAC coin which I believe would be a hard sell to my customers (toning or marks I don't like about it in terms of my grading skills) or something I really consider a C coin which may be tough to sell will hold me back Thats nice that a TPG and CAC have their opinion, one should have theirs too.
Agree cougar, CAC is not a panacea for all ills, but if I wish to spend $1000+ on a coin, it's nice to know that it met with JA/CAC approval as well. And the more expensive the outlay, the more I might appreciate knowing it also got their OK. But ultimately I would have to like the coin too, of course.
Awhile back ATS and with regard to comics, I poked fun at (I think deservingly so) some jokers trying to do the CAC thing but for CGC comics. Which is fine and all well and good and maybe there could be a need for vetting CGC comics (putting aside for a moment, the fact that evaluating a comic in the slab is a different animal than evaluating a coin in a slab) but the problem was -- who were these comic-sticker guys? Just some schmoes with an opinion, and in my opinion, one no better or worse or more informed than mine. As such their "service" was a joke.
The reason CAC is different than say, me putting a pretty sticker on a coin slab that says "great!" is the opinion, eye and guarantee behind it. The wannabe comic sticker guys either didn't know or more likely, hoped that people wouldn't notice, that fact.
<< <i>Really enjoy your insights, rr! Regarding your friend and his plan to sell 20+ years down the road, the landscape will almost certainly change more -- tighten, loosen, tighten again. Since he's not planning to sell currently, nothing need be done with his old NGC fatty type -- question though, do you think he'd be better served, 20 years hence, to crack them out and get graded per whatever standard is most in vogue then? Or should they remain in their fatty holders, and get a stickered approval (from JA or whomever) is providing such a service at that time?
One way or another, a great coin will be a great coin. But the owners will absolutely be best served to present them in a holder that has the most market acceptability/approval for the grade assigned, and thus highest potential price realized. You could take any terrific type coin, say an early PCGS piece in a Pogue-like grade of 68 or something -- crack it, send it to ANACS, SEGS, whatever and get a grade, likely the same or better -- but as long as people would then question what it was doing in such a holder, and wondering what problems it must have unseen, to be relegated to such a holder, means that just won't happen. Be fun to see what the next 20 years brings to the nosebleed market -- I'll just be an interested observer, in any case. >>
We don't know the answer. So the best course imo is to do nothing and leave those coins in their current holders. There's no downside to that. Those old holders are still respected and odds are good they will be considered something special 20 years from now. They can always be cracked out. There will always be raw and fresh coins hitting the market. I went through several iterations of cracking out my best coins from 1997-2007 as the grading standards shifted. In hindsight, I wouldn't do that again. Just leave them be and wait until it's time to sell. At that point evaluate the landscape and do what makes financial sense to your specific situation. For all we know there will be a shift to fresh/raw coins again where coins will get cracked out in droves to simulate "freshness." No way to predict the next turns.
Crypto's post above is quite stunning. I hadn't really considered the TPG's backing away from their guarantees. If CAC starts to become the lone supporter of those coins they too will tighten their standards and distance themselves from anything that could be considered the least bit problematic (toning, marks, dipping, etc.). It would then take a moose of a coin to earn a sticker. In all likelihood they would probably just leave the market and rely on the coins they had already stickered. But if PCGS is not guaranteeing coins that turn in the holder, don't most of those come from doctoring in the first place? So do they cover doctored coins that have turned? How can one possibly make that distinction with accuracy? >>
Slam dunk doctoring such as moved metal seems to be going through but I haven't heard of a single putty, PVC, spotting or rancid dip residue that has been accepted. I personally had the rep at a show in Baltimore tell me if I submitted it under warrenty it was just going to go in the system for months and months and be rejected anyway.
While I get it from a profit perspective why they are doing this, I just don't know what it is going to do to their brand value and consumer confidence when over time the market gets saturated with worthless coins in graded holders.
a little bit like around the early 2000s when the market was full of white VF anacs coins and what not and people lost faith in all anacs holders even the good ones. Hope not, I only really buy and use PCGS.
<< <i>Really enjoy your insights, rr! Regarding your friend and his plan to sell 20+ years down the road, the landscape will almost certainly change more -- tighten, loosen, tighten again. Since he's not planning to sell currently, nothing need be done with his old NGC fatty type -- question though, do you think he'd be better served, 20 years hence, to crack them out and get graded per whatever standard is most in vogue then? Or should they remain in their fatty holders, and get a stickered approval (from JA or whomever) is providing such a service at that time?
One way or another, a great coin will be a great coin. But the owners will absolutely be best served to present them in a holder that has the most market acceptability/approval for the grade assigned, and thus highest potential price realized. You could take any terrific type coin, say an early PCGS piece in a Pogue-like grade of 68 or something -- crack it, send it to ANACS, SEGS, whatever and get a grade, likely the same or better -- but as long as people would then question what it was doing in such a holder, and wondering what problems it must have unseen, to be relegated to such a holder, means that just won't happen. Be fun to see what the next 20 years brings to the nosebleed market -- I'll just be an interested observer, in any case. >>
We don't know the answer. So the best course imo is to do nothing and leave those coins in their current holders. There's no downside to that. Those old holders are still respected and odds are good they will be considered something special 20 years from now. They can always be cracked out. There will always be raw and fresh coins hitting the market. I went through several iterations of cracking out my best coins from 1997-2007 as the grading standards shifted. In hindsight, I wouldn't do that again. Just leave them be and wait until it's time to sell. At that point evaluate the landscape and do what makes financial sense to your specific situation. For all we know there will be a shift to fresh/raw coins again where coins will get cracked out in droves to simulate "freshness." No way to predict the next turns.
Crypto's post above is quite stunning. I hadn't really considered the TPG's backing away from their guarantees. If CAC starts to become the lone supporter of those coins they too will tighten their standards and distance themselves from anything that could be considered the least bit problematic (toning, marks, dipping, etc.). It would then take a moose of a coin to earn a sticker. In all likelihood they would probably just leave the market and rely on the coins they had already stickered. But if PCGS is not guaranteeing coins that turn in the holder, don't most of those come from doctoring in the first place? So do they cover doctored coins that have turned? How can one possibly make that distinction with accuracy? >>
Slam dunk doctoring such as moved metal seems to be going through but I haven't heard of a single putty, PVC, spotting or rancid dip residue that has been accepted. I personally had the rep at a show in Baltimore tell me if I submitted it under warrenty it was just going to go in the system for months and months and be rejected anyway.
While I get it from a profit perspective why they are doing this, I just don't know what it is going to do to their brand value and consumer confidence when over time the market gets saturated with worthless coins in graded holders.
a little bit like around the early 2000s when the market was full of white VF anacs coins and what not and people lost faith in all anacs holders even the good ones. Hope not, I only really buy and use PCGS. >>
It's a concern, Crypto, especially when one earns their living trading these things. I'm just a small end-user collector so for me it's not a livelihood deal. Maybe a question worth taking up the ladder to HRH? I can only imagine he's a busy guy but I was most impressed, long in the distant past, when he emailed me back about a PCGS question I had.
<< <i> Slam dunk doctoring such as moved metal seems to be going through but I haven't heard of a single putty, PVC, spotting or rancid dip residue that has been accepted. I personally had the rep at a show in Baltimore tell me if I submitted it under warranty it was just going to go in the system for months and months and be rejected anyway.
While I get it from a profit perspective why they are doing this, I just don't know what it is going to do to their brand value and consumer confidence when over time the market gets saturated with worthless coins in graded holders.
a little bit like around the early 2000s when the market was full of white VF anacs coins and what not and people lost faith in all anacs holders even the good ones. Hope not, I only really buy and use PCGS. >>
Good to know. Thanks for that.
If someone has a lot of gem or choice gold, the putty issue is important, especially when only 5-20% of all gem gold will sticker. If you want to avoid PVC, putty, spotting or rancid dip potential I guess a good method is to buy wonderfully toned original coins with nice pedigrees (ie Sunnywood's 1901-s quarter). These are coins that haven't changed a lick in 20-50 years. Moved metal? I would hope most of us can spot that problem on our own.
<< <i>Really only a CAC sticker is the full warrenty against being left with a worthless dud remaining in the hobby >>
Don't be naive. Is it written in stone somewhere that their policies will never change? All it takes is enough money going out the door to cover "environmental damage" for a guarantee to be revoked.
<< <i>Really only a CAC sticker is the full warrenty against being left with a worthless dud remaining in the hobby >>
Don't be naive. Is it written in stone somewhere that their policies will never change? All it takes is enough money going out the door to cover "environmental damage" for a guarantee to be revoked. >>
Yeah, but. The problem is, if the TPG has $ going out the door to cover environmental damage, they ought to tighten the screws on their process (to catch more ED before it gets holdered) vs. revoking their guarantee that they will make any holdered ED that comes to light, right. Of course, they can revoke their guarantee -- they can also experience a loss of market confidence in their product if more and more "iffy" stuff is seen, and a guarantee is heard to no longer be in effect. That seems rather naive (or shortsighted, or both) as well.
<< <i>Really only a CAC sticker is the full warrenty against being left with a worthless dud remaining in the hobby >>
Don't be naive. Is it written in stone somewhere that their policies will never change? All it takes is enough money going out the door to cover "environmental damage" for a guarantee to be revoked. >>
You're right of course esp consider it is exactly what happened with the TPGs. what I said rings true today though and I hope tomorrow as well but we shale see.
Comments
Neither really matter to the degree that collectors are lead to believe.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't see CAC as part of the maturation process. They are around because coin grading took a wrong turn around 1996-1998. The grading of the Pittman and Eliasberg coins was quite liberal compared to what had come in the decade before them. It only loosened further from there. While there was a need to grade more coins in the supergrades (ie MS67-MS68) there wasn't a need to make MS63's and MS64's into MS65's and AU's into MS61 to MS63. If today's standards were selected in 1986-1987 and maintained we'd have been fine. But, that's not what happened. I suspect that the current system won't hold up and a 3rd set of grading standards will evolve out of this current set in the next 5-10 years. If I were a TPG I'd be working towards a system that didn't require coins to be stickered to fetch top dollar. I wouldn't want the success of my product to be tied to a 3rd party's opinion. >>
And what a pain the butt it is for those of us who have purchased good coins to have them all re-graded at considerable cost ... and it galls us further when you run into coins that have CAC stickers that don't deserve them. >>
And you never seem to fail to let us know about them... >>
You are correct because they are out there, and rather than slamming CAC critics you should urge CAC to tighten up its standards. You of all people should have more clout than any of us.
When you put yourself on a very high pedestal it should come as no surprise when people point out the flaws. >>
I think Bill is asking too much of CAC to be perfect in all respects. The absolute most one should hope for is that they would own up and purchase any mistake they've made, and JA does do that. Beyond just having a CAC label on your slabbed coin, ultimately it's up to the consumer to determine if a coin is right for them, really a nice piece and worthy of the price asked. That hasn't changed in over 150-ish years of American numismatics, and it requires you to train your eye if you're interested in not getting hosed. To this end, Bill's advice to attend auctions and lot viewings is crucial, if that's the level of coin you want to play at. Lot less pressure with stuff like circ Peace dollars.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't see CAC as part of the maturation process. They are around because coin grading took a wrong turn around 1996-1998. The grading of the Pittman and Eliasberg coins was quite liberal compared to what had come in the decade before them. It only loosened further from there. While there was a need to grade more coins in the supergrades (ie MS67-MS68) there wasn't a need to make MS63's and MS64's into MS65's and AU's into MS61 to MS63. If today's standards were selected in 1986-1987 and maintained we'd have been fine. But, that's not what happened. I suspect that the current system won't hold up and a 3rd set of grading standards will evolve out of this current set in the next 5-10 years. If I were a TPG I'd be working towards a system that didn't require coins to be stickered to fetch top dollar. I wouldn't want the success of my product to be tied to a 3rd party's opinion. >>
And what a pain the butt it is for those of us who have purchased good coins to have them all re-graded at considerable cost ... and it galls us further when you run into coins that have CAC stickers that don't deserve them. >>
And you never seem to fail to let us know about them... >>
You are correct because they are out there, and rather than slamming CAC critics you should urge CAC to tighten up its standards. You of all people should have more clout than any of us.
When you put yourself on a very high pedestal it should come as no surprise when people point out the flaws. >>
I think Bill is asking too much of CAC to be perfect in all respects. The absolute most one should hope for is that they would own up and purchase any mistake they've made, and JA does do that. Beyond just having a CAC label on your slabbed coin, ultimately it's up to the consumer to determine if a coin is right for them, really a nice piece and worthy of the price asked. That hasn't changed in over 150-ish years of American numismatics, and it requires you to train your eye if you're interested in not getting hosed. To this end, Bill's advice to attend auctions and lot viewings is crucial, if that's the level of coin you want to play at. Lot less pressure with stuff like circ Peace dollars.
CAC has an easier job than PCGS and NGC have. All CAC has to do is say "I like the coin, and it gets a sticker," or "I don't like or want to market this coin so it gets no sticker." The grading services have to assign a technical grade to coin, even if it is not attractive. CAC can just say no. Their job is a lot easier. CAC has the easier job, and therefore their batting average should be a lot better.
For example in a recent auction I saw an 1877 Proof-65 Twenty Cent piece in big name third party holder. The technical grade was correct (no hairlines or significant marks with a 5X glass), and the coin was totally original and had never been dipped. Yet the coin was tarnished, and the toning was not attractive. Would CAC sticker this piece? Probably not. Yet the grade is correct. The TPG did nothing wrong IMO.
The coin I pointed out was a Type 1 gold dollar in an MS-63 holder. Even I with, my near sighted vision, have to use a 10X on these tiny coins. With that device it's hard to believe that a competent grader would miss an "L" scratched in above the head of Ms. Liberty, but it was there. A casual collector might miss it, but an expert grader should not. CAC should not be missing this stuff, especially when its fans start making claims that coins with their approval are worth significantly more.
My question is really how much of the TOP end market really effects the middle and bottom end?
I think they are largely disconnected at this point given the huge disparity in pricing. Middle-class collectors
can no longer realistically "graduate" to building world-class sets. I'm not sure if the analogy is particularly
valid, but in the stock market it's never a good sign when "high flyers" are setting price records while
the broad market languishes. Such a lack of breadth often indicates a "blow off top". Coins are different
animals at least in part because it's rare that an investor ever takes pride in his portfolio of stocks. It's
more common (and far easier) in stocks to dump holdings based strictly on negative price action.
Submit to MY new service and get a "WOW" sticker.
World of Widgets.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't see CAC as part of the maturation process. They are around because coin grading took a wrong turn around 1996-1998. The grading of the Pittman and Eliasberg coins was quite liberal compared to what had come in the decade before them. It only loosened further from there. While there was a need to grade more coins in the supergrades (ie MS67-MS68) there wasn't a need to make MS63's and MS64's into MS65's and AU's into MS61 to MS63. If today's standards were selected in 1986-1987 and maintained we'd have been fine. But, that's not what happened. I suspect that the current system won't hold up and a 3rd set of grading standards will evolve out of this current set in the next 5-10 years. If I were a TPG I'd be working towards a system that didn't require coins to be stickered to fetch top dollar. I wouldn't want the success of my product to be tied to a 3rd party's opinion. >>
And what a pain the butt it is for those of us who have purchased good coins to have them all re-graded at considerable cost ... and it galls us further when you run into coins that have CAC stickers that don't deserve them. >>
And you never seem to fail to let us know about them... >>
You are correct because they are out there, and rather than slamming CAC critics you should urge CAC to tighten up its standards. You of all people should have more clout than any of us.
When you put yourself on a very high pedestal it should come as no surprise when people point out the flaws. >>
I think Bill is asking too much of CAC to be perfect in all respects. The absolute most one should hope for is that they would own up and purchase any mistake they've made, and JA does do that. Beyond just having a CAC label on your slabbed coin, ultimately it's up to the consumer to determine if a coin is right for them, really a nice piece and worthy of the price asked. That hasn't changed in over 150-ish years of American numismatics, and it requires you to train your eye if you're interested in not getting hosed. To this end, Bill's advice to attend auctions and lot viewings is crucial, if that's the level of coin you want to play at. Lot less pressure with stuff like circ Peace dollars.
CAC has an easier job than PCGS and NGC have. All CAC has to do is say "I like the coin, and it gets a sticker," or "I don't like or want to market this coin so it gets no sticker." The grading services have to assign a technical grade to coin, even if it is not attractive. CAC can just say no. Their job is a lot easier. CAC has the easier job, and therefore their batting average should be a lot better.
For example in a recent auction I saw an 1877 Proof-65 Twenty Cent piece in big name third party holder. The technical grade was correct (no hairlines or significant marks with a 5X glass), and the coin was totally original and had never been dipped. Yet the coin was tarnished, and the toning was not attractive. Would CAC sticker this piece? Probably not. Yet the grade is correct. The TPG did nothing wrong IMO.
The coin I pointed out was a Type 1 gold dollar in an MS-63 holder. Even I with, my near sighted vision, have to use a 10X on these tiny coins. With that device it's hard to believe that a competent grader would miss an "L" scratched in above the head of Ms. Liberty, but it was there. A casual collector might miss it, but an expert grader should not. CAC should not be missing this stuff, especially when its fans start making claims that coins with their approval are worth significantly more. >>
It sounds like you aren't hearing me.
And BTY the "L" was not "on the plastic." I've been looking for that coin for over a year, so I did not reject it out of hand.
I could care less about the esoteric market and its end users who are falling over each other for registry material. What I am interested in is the bid movement of say the Walker Short Set or a complete Walker Set in say MS65, the 48 piece commem set in say MS 65, Morgan and peace dollars in MS65 (common dates). I track parameters from the real coin market vs Bullion. So far the real coin market is losing to bullion this year. A guy sat down at my table - he said his collection consisted of 20 halves, 20 dollars, 20 US Gold type coins, 20 type, and 20 quality world in PCGS / NGC in slab storage boxes. When he filled them all up, he started looking for upgrades. Just a bulk accumulator. He said the halves were the most fun a mix of type, commems, walkers, and Franks. I really like that philosophy, just buy whats affordable and fun, bulk up, enjoy. Its unreal seeing what some coin realized at auction in the CDN in 5 or 6 figures and knowing one would use that money on a nice, car, house, boat, or sugar baby. I guess those people already have all that and the coin spending is just for grins.
Track market parameters for the area of the market that you collect and invest in.
Bill I really appreciate your pointing out some of the things you have observed on CAC coins. I value your opinions on this and thanks for sharing.
<< <i>I think there is the esoteric market (wealthy people) and what I consider the real coin market (coins most collectors can afford).
I could care less about the esoteric market and its end users who are falling over each other for registry material. What I am interested in is the bid movement of say the Walker Short Set or a complete Walker Set in say MS65, the 48 piece commem set in say MS 65, Morgan and peace dollars in MS65 (common dates). I track parameters from the real coin market vs Bullion. So far the real coin market is losing to bullion this year. A guy sat down at my table - he said his collection consisted of 20 halves, 20 dollars, 20 US Gold type coins, 20 type, and 20 quality world in PCGS / NGC in slab storage boxes. When he filled them all up, he started looking for upgrades. Just a bulk accumulator. He said the halves were the most fun a mix of type, commems, walkers, and Franks.
Track market parameters for the area of the market that you collect and invest in. >>
I would consider a complete walker set in 65 to be financially Esoteric although the rest seems like solid advice.
<< <i>...... CAC is insignificant. 2% of the TPG non-modern volume (moderns make up HALF the TPG's volume), 1% of their total volume. CAC is overrated, over revered, over talked about >>
It's not 2% of the non-modern volume. It's much larger. A more important number to look at is market value of the coins they have stickered. They just went through the Newman and Gardner collections. Pogue is next.
This will be hundreds of millions of dollars reviewed....and only a couple thousand coins. That's not 2% of the upper end market. I'd bet that 25-50% of the upper end market has been reviewed or soon will be. Do a poll here of
collections valued over $150K and I'd bet >50% of them have been CAC reviewed. CAC is not over-rated when it comes to coins valued over $1,000. It's cheap insurance for those who want to know where their collections
stand if they have not yet been reviewed. The Simpson collection has probably all been CAC reviewed....another $150 MILL in value....plus every Registry set that Legend is building or has built. CAC rules the top 5-10% of the
coin market. Let's not forget that gold provided a huge boost to the coin market from 2002-2008. And then when the recession hit gold "saved" many coin dealers during the 2009-2011 run. But from 2011 onward I'd have
to say that the high end coin market (with CAC) has kept the overall coin market afloat the past 3 years, much like gold did from 2009-2011. Without that extra infusion of liquidity the coin market would have done much worse.
A friend of mine has a top notch early type collection that he's been building since the early 1980's. A lot of those coins are in early holders and are no brainer wonderful coins. In his case I suggested he not send them in to CAC
since his time frame for selling or passing on the coins is 20 yrs down the road. Who knows what the market landscape will be then? I suspect most every one of these coins will sticker. In my mind it's better to keep the coins
fresh, unseen to the market, and unstickered until it's closer to the time to pass them on to this heirs. The one exception I made concerned some early holdered gem bust NGC coins. Since the market currently discounts heavily
for typical NGC bust type it would be to his advantage to get stickers on those no bar code NGC fatties.
CAC doesn't have to be "accurate" as they are only identifying coins that they want to buy for their own account or their customers. As long as they are "accurate" for themselves, it doesn't matter what you or I think. In
essence, they cannot be wrong if they want to buy a coin and then sticker it. I'd suppose their "error" rate is <2% (an error occurs when they buy a problem coin and totally missed that issue). Some dealers handle a huge
volume of coins each year that run across a wide grading spectrum, many of them "problem" coins that you or I couldn't come close to navigating properly or efficiently. Are they "inaccurate" because they buy a "problem" coin
and can make 10% on it? As long as they profit by it, they was "accurate." And so would be CAC.
The coin market has changed grading standards a number of times in the past 40 years. Even when our coins didn't have slabs around them the standards changed and so did the value of our coins (think 1980-1982) when
standards tightened up like crazy. With or w/o slabs the standards will continue to change, sometimes tighter and other times looser. Expect to have your coins graded more times going forward. The TPG's want to see your
old coins come back over and over again. They will do whatever it takes to try and make that happen. JA's job of placing a sticker on a coin is minimal risk as all he is stating is that he'd be a buyer of that coin at his current
posted bid price. The TPG still has the primary risk of guaranteeing the holdered grade. If JA makes a mistake he just sends the coin back to PCGS or NGC if it's been altered or messed with in any way. JA is not going to make
many mistakes when it comes to counting marks and hairlines and evaluating luster and toning. It is easier for any of us to decide if we're a buyer of a currently holdered coin. We don't have to grade it from raw where the odds
are higher that we make a big mistake. The old raw coin auctions worked the same way. There might be 100 bidders for a coin. 95 of them might grade it MS64+ or less. 3 might grade it MS65. And 2 might grade it
MS65+. The numerical average says this coin in MS64 or less. Yet the coin WILL sell to one of those 5 bidders for MS65 money. And as long as those 5 bidders/dealers/collectors felt the coin was MS65 there would be buyer
support at MS65 money. That market mechanism is still in existence today even though 95% of players focus on the numerically assigned grade and nothing else.
<< <i>
<< <i>...... CAC is insignificant. 2% of the TPG non-modern volume (moderns make up HALF the TPG's volume), 1% of their total volume. CAC is overrated, over revered, over talked about >>
It's not 2% of the non-modern volume. It's much larger. A more important number to look at is market value of the coins they have stickered. They just went through the Newman and Gardner collections. Pogue is next.
This will be hundreds of millions of dollars reviewed....and only a couple thousand coins. That's not 2% of the upper end market. I'd bet that 25-50% of the upper end market has been reviewed or soon will be. Do a poll here of
collections valued over $150K and I'd bet >50% of them have been CAC reviewed. CAC is not over-rated when it comes to coins valued over $1,000. It's cheap insurance for those who want to know where their collections
stand if they have not yet been reviewed. The Simpson collection has probably all been CAC reviewed....another $150 MILL in value....plus every Registry set that Legend is building or has built. CAC rules the top 5-10% of the
coin market. Let's not forget that gold provided a huge boost to the coin market from 2002-2008. And then when the recession hit gold "saved" many coin dealers during the 2009-2011 run. But from 2011 onward I'd have
to say that the high end coin market (with CAC) has kept the overall coin market afloat the past 3 years, much like gold did from 2009-2011. Without that extra infusion of liquidity the coin market would have done much worse.
A friend of mine has a top notch early type collection that he's been building since the early 1980's. A lot of those coins are in early holders and are no brainer wonderful coins. In his case I suggested he not send them in to CAC
since his time frame for selling or passing on the coins is 20 yrs down the road. Who knows what the market landscape will be then? I suspect most every one of these coins will sticker. In my mind it's better to keep the coins
fresh, unseen to the market, and unstickered until it's closer to the time to pass them on to this heirs. The one exception I made concerned some early holdered gem bust NGC coins. Since the market currently discounts heavily
for typical NGC bust type it would be to his advantage to get stickers on those no bar code NGC fatties.
The coin market has changed grading standards a number of times in the past 40 years. Even when our coins didn't have slabs around them the standards changed and so did the value of our coins (think 1980-1982) when
standards tightened up like crazy. With or w/o slabs the standards will continue to change, sometimes tighter and other times looser. Expect to have your coins graded more times going forward. The TPG's want to see your
old coins come back over and over again. They will do whatever it takes to try and make that happen. JA's job of placing a sticker on a coin is minimal risk as all he is stating is that he'd be a buyer of that coin at his current
posted bid price. The TPG still has the primary risk of guaranteeing the holdered grade. If JA makes a mistake he just sends the coin back to PCGS or NGC if it's been altered or messed with in any way. JA is not going to make
many mistakes when it comes to counting marks and hairlines and evaluating luster and toning. It is easier for any of us to decide if we're a buyer of a currently holdered coin. We don't have to grade it from raw where the odds
are higher that we make a big mistake. The old raw coin auctions worked the same way. There might be 100 bidders for a coin. 95 of them might grade it MS64+ or less. 3 might grade it MS65. And 2 might grade it
MS65+. The numerical average says this coin in MS64 or less. Yet the coin WILL sell to one of those 5 bidders for MS65 money. And as long as those 5 bidders/dealers/collectors felt the coin was MS65 there would be buyer
support at MS65 money. That market mechanism is still in existence today even though 95% of players focus on the numerically assigned grade and nothing else. >>
Really enjoy your insights, rr! Regarding your friend and his plan to sell 20+ years down the road, the landscape will almost certainly change more -- tighten, loosen, tighten again. Since he's not planning to sell currently, nothing need be
done with his old NGC fatty type -- question though, do you think he'd be better served, 20 years hence, to crack them out and get graded per whatever standard is most in vogue then? Or should they remain in their fatty holders, and get a
stickered approval (from JA or whomever) is providing such a service at that time?
One way or another, a great coin will be a great coin. But the owners will absolutely be best served to present them in a holder that has the most market acceptability/approval for the grade assigned, and thus highest potential price realized.
You could take any terrific type coin, say an early PCGS piece in a Pogue-like grade of 68 or something -- crack it, send it to ANACS, SEGS, whatever and get a grade, likely the same or better -- but as long as people would then question
what it was doing in such a holder, and wondering what problems it must have unseen, to be relegated to such a holder, means that just won't happen. Be fun to see what the next 20 years brings to the nosebleed market -- I'll just be an
interested observer, in any case.
Really only a CAC sticker is the full warrenty against being left with a worthless dud remaining in the hobby.
While not perfect, I really don't get why people take objection to having an expert set of eyes look over their coins and add a sticker of approval that in most cases increases its value and liquidity all while adding insurance for only a few dollars. Is there a better value out there that I don't know about?
There is a high end market driven by rarity and condition rarity by those that have the desire to have among the finest known.
There is a market driven by the Registry Sets-
There is a market driven by collectors that seek to own the finest examples that fall within their financial means. And within this market, there are those that look for originality, quality for the grade or just the look of and history behind a coin and coin series.
One question that is rarely discussed and that is the expectations of collectors. What expectations do collectors have in the pursuit of the coins? How do your expectations as a collector influence your thought process? Is there an adequate appreciation that all coins within a series will have a significant difference in the end mint product to the point that two coins graded MS65 will look different? And can even be significantly different? Take a look at an 1880-s Morgan that grades MS65 and place it next to a 1904. Do they both share the same quality and look? No... Not even close. Collectors have the benefit of hindsight and just often do not see the challenges associated with producing coins as well as how coins have been handled and stored.
Coins were meant to enter the stream of commerce and some were spent and have a unique history. That history, in part is captured by wear and how it survived. Do collectors really see this side of a coin? Today more than ever, the expectation centers around the look of a coin instead of its intended purpose. The expectation seems to focus more on how that the look can be shaped and then captured in the most favorable light by a numerical grade and then reinforced by a fourth party. Revisiting our expectations as collectors just might provide some insight to develop coin collecting for future generations.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>People really need to look at CAC in a new light now that PCGS has watered down their warrenty to really only cover doctoring and grade. Any coin that is contaminated or turns bad is no longer covered. A TPG holder is no longer an absolute protection that the coin inside isn't a horrible mess now that the mechinism to remove these from the market has been cut. These bad coins are now pushed into the (at cost) conservation service which means many will simply be dumped to unsuspecting collectors instead of throwing more money at a bad coin. IMO this undermines the whole mission of the TPGs and really opens the door for companies like CAC.
Really only a CAC sticker is the full warrenty against being left with a worthless dud remaining in the hobby.
While not perfect, I really don't get why people take objection to having an expert set of eyes look over their coins and add a sticker of approval that in most cases increases its value and liquidity all while adding insurance for only a few dollars. Is there a better value out there that I don't know about? >>
100% agree with you Crypto, on all accounts, well said. I think CAC opinion is a very good value, depending on your coin, the more expensive, the more worthwhile it is. (I have many cheap coins where CAC would be perfectly fine, but not really needed.) CAC isn't perfect, no, but I can't understand why Bill is a pill about them. With a collection of his caliber, should he ever wish to part with any of it, I would think CAC would be a must. Do CAC coins get a 30-40% premium, and that's what he's complaining about? Then that's the market singing that tune, not CAC. As far as that goes, then Bill or anyone interested in "not overpaying" (I don't like to overpay either if I can help it) needs to scour the market for CAC-worthy pieces out there that just haven't been to the bean factory yet. Another collecting challenge -- what it's all about.
<< <i>The market has different tiers that are driven by different factors.
There is a high end market driven by rarity and condition rarity by those that have the desire to have among the finest known.
There is a market driven by the Registry Sets-
There is a market driven by collectors that seek to own the finest examples that fall within their financial means. And within this market, there are those that look for originality, quality for the grade or just the look of and history behind a coin and coin series.
One question that is rarely discussed and that is the expectations of collectors. What expectations do collectors have in the pursuit of the coins? How do your expectations as a collector influence your thought process? Is there an adequate appreciation that all coins within a series will have a significant difference in the end mint product to the point that two coins graded MS65 will look different? And can even be significantly different? Take a look at an 1880-s Morgan that grades MS65 and place it next to a 1904. Do they both share the same quality and look? No... Not even close. Collectors have the benefit of hindsight and just often do not see the challenges associated with producing coins as well as how coins have been handled and stored.
Coins were meant to enter the stream of commerce and some were spent and have a unique history. That history, in part is captured by wear and how it survived. Do collectors really see this side of a coin? Today more than ever, the expectation centers around the look of a coin instead of its intended purpose. The expectation seems to focus more on how that the look can be shaped and then captured in the most favorable light by a numerical grade and then reinforced by a fourth party. Revisiting our expectations as collectors just might provide some insight to develop coin collecting for future generations. >>
Great post, coinkat. I agree that as a collector now, I am mainly focused on the aesthetics of my collection, taking care to get specimens (best I can) that are problem-free. I don't price shop much, I problem shop, I try to look at all aspects of the coin that might bother me aesthetically, so that I don't (hopefully) buy in haste and repent in leisure. I still do of course, not being perfect, but try to minimize that best I can. But the 12-13 year old me was intrigued by old dates, obsolete designs and tying historical facts and happenings to the particular dates on the coins in front of me, who might have held what, that sort of thing. It hasn't completely left me yet.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think there is the esoteric market (wealthy people) and what I consider the real coin market (coins most collectors can afford).
I could care less about the esoteric market and its end users who are falling over each other for registry material. What I am interested in is the bid movement of say the Walker Short Set or a complete Walker Set in say MS65, the 48 piece commem set in say MS 65, Morgan and peace dollars in MS65 (common dates). I track parameters from the real coin market vs Bullion. So far the real coin market is losing to bullion this year. A guy sat down at my table - he said his collection consisted of 20 halves, 20 dollars, 20 US Gold type coins, 20 type, and 20 quality world in PCGS / NGC in slab storage boxes. When he filled them all up, he started looking for upgrades. Just a bulk accumulator. He said the halves were the most fun a mix of type, commems, walkers, and Franks.
Track market parameters for the area of the market that you collect and invest in. >>
I would consider a complete walker set in 65 to be financially Esoteric although the rest seems like solid advice. >>
I definitely agree and I don't have any desire to complete a Walker Short Set. I do bulk up on nice Walkers from this era when I have the urge. I use the valuation in the CDN for the short set to for my own tracking on where the bids are going on these issues. I do an index which I internally refer which I call the CDN 4000 which is generic Morgan Dollars, generic Peace Dollars, the Walker short set, and the 48 piece silver commem set all in MS65. (Walkers, Dollars, Commems). I then have this as on bar on a graph with another which is a silver and gold composite, and then individual bars for silver, gold, platinum tracking all from 1-1-14. I also have another bar for the CCDN Composite which around 1008 vs 1000 for 1990. I do my own homework and my opinions here are my own. I also track some of the PCGS indexes as well. Mainly I just want to see how the stuff I am involved in is doing vs the base date.
<< <i>Really enjoy your insights, rr! Regarding your friend and his plan to sell 20+ years down the road, the landscape will almost certainly change more -- tighten, loosen, tighten again. Since he's not planning to sell currently, nothing need be
done with his old NGC fatty type -- question though, do you think he'd be better served, 20 years hence, to crack them out and get graded per whatever standard is most in vogue then? Or should they remain in their fatty holders, and get a
stickered approval (from JA or whomever) is providing such a service at that time?
One way or another, a great coin will be a great coin. But the owners will absolutely be best served to present them in a holder that has the most market acceptability/approval for the grade assigned, and thus highest potential price realized.
You could take any terrific type coin, say an early PCGS piece in a Pogue-like grade of 68 or something -- crack it, send it to ANACS, SEGS, whatever and get a grade, likely the same or better -- but as long as people would then question
what it was doing in such a holder, and wondering what problems it must have unseen, to be relegated to such a holder, means that just won't happen. Be fun to see what the next 20 years brings to the nosebleed market -- I'll just be an
interested observer, in any case.
We don't know the answer. So the best course imo is to do nothing and leave those coins in their current holders. There's no downside to that. Those old holders are still respected and odds are good they will be considered something special 20 years from now. They can always be cracked out. There will always be raw and fresh coins hitting the market. I went through several iterations of cracking out my best coins from 1997-2007 as the grading standards shifted. In hindsight, I wouldn't do that again. Just leave them be and wait until it's time to sell. At that point evaluate the landscape and do what makes financial sense to your specific situation. For all we know there will be a shift to fresh/raw coins again where coins will get cracked out in droves to simulate "freshness." No way to predict the next turns.
Crypto's post above is quite stunning. I hadn't really considered the TPG's backing away from their guarantees. If CAC starts to become the lone supporter of those coins they too will tighten their standards and distance themselves from anything that could be considered the least bit problematic (toning, marks, dipping, etc.). It would then take a moose of a coin to earn a sticker. In all likelihood they would probably just leave the market and rely on the coins they had already stickered. But if PCGS is not guaranteeing coins that turn in the holder, don't most of those come from doctoring in the first place? So do they cover doctored coins that have turned? How can one possibly make that distinction with accuracy?
If you want a CAC quality coin but only want to pay unstickered PCGS money? That's easy. Buy an NGC stickered coin that you like. The coin will often carry a discount (esp. at auction) and down the road you might consider cracking it out and getting it holdered the other way. Many or most times the NGC coin will be nicer than an unstickered PCGS coin. It's free money imo. Someday the NGC holder scourge will lift...at least for the nicest coins. Forget the crossing game as almost nothing worth anything gets crossed, especially gem 19th century silver type coins (my own personal experiences).
<< <i>
<< <i>Really enjoy your insights, rr! Regarding your friend and his plan to sell 20+ years down the road, the landscape will almost certainly change more -- tighten, loosen, tighten again. Since he's not planning to sell currently, nothing need be
done with his old NGC fatty type -- question though, do you think he'd be better served, 20 years hence, to crack them out and get graded per whatever standard is most in vogue then? Or should they remain in their fatty holders, and get a
stickered approval (from JA or whomever) is providing such a service at that time?
One way or another, a great coin will be a great coin. But the owners will absolutely be best served to present them in a holder that has the most market acceptability/approval for the grade assigned, and thus highest potential price realized.
You could take any terrific type coin, say an early PCGS piece in a Pogue-like grade of 68 or something -- crack it, send it to ANACS, SEGS, whatever and get a grade, likely the same or better -- but as long as people would then question
what it was doing in such a holder, and wondering what problems it must have unseen, to be relegated to such a holder, means that just won't happen. Be fun to see what the next 20 years brings to the nosebleed market -- I'll just be an
interested observer, in any case.
We don't know the answer. So the best course imo is to do nothing and leave those coins in their current holders. There's no downside to that. Those old holders are still respected and odds are good they will be considered something special 20 years from now. They can always be cracked out. I went through several iterations of cracking out my best coins from 1997-2007 as the grading standards shifted. In hindsight, I wouldn't do that again.
Just leave them be and wait until it's time to sell. At that point evaluate the landscape and do what makes financial sense to your specific situation.
Crypto's post above is quite stunning. I hadn't really considered the TPG's backing away from their guarantees. This will also tend to take them off the hook for all the sloppy grading from 1997-2008. If CAC starts to become
the lone supporter of those coins they too will tighten their standards and distance themselves from anything that could be considered the least bit problematic (toning, marks, dipping, etc.). It would then take a moose of a coin to earn a sticker. In all likelihood they would probably just leave the market and rely on the coins they had already stickered. >>
I noted that above from Crypto and I don't know the specifics, what the TPG's are now guaranteeing vs. not. Will be interesting to see how that develops. About the only thing I know of in the past was that cutoff date for PCGS after which they wouldn't guarantee the color on red copper if holdered after X date, but supposed to guarantee copper color for coins they graded earlier? I only happened to notice at the time because I made my rare group of coins submission and among them were a 1920 that graded a nice 65red, and a nice 1909-P Indian that annoyingly came back questionable color. Back it went for attempt #2, and it came back as 64RB, which I agree with. Both of those made it in before the new copper color policy, so I suppose if they ever shift, I'd be covered. Shouldn't be an issue thankfully, as I've had them both 20 years prior to sending them in, and they've remained nice as I got them.
Howerver, in looking at any coin (stickered or not), one should use their own common sense in pricing it and analyze it vs their grading standards. Are you paying too much above bid bc its in a CAC stickered holder. In bidding I might add $25 but that's about it. No 30% premium for me. I track what these are bringing on ebay to draw my own conclusions. That a coin is a CAC coin which I believe would be a hard sell to my customers (toning or marks I don't like about it in terms of my grading skills) or something I really consider a C coin which may be tough to sell will hold me back Thats nice that a TPG and CAC have their opinion, one should have theirs too.
Awhile back ATS and with regard to comics, I poked fun at (I think deservingly so) some jokers trying to do the CAC thing but for CGC comics. Which is fine and all well and good and maybe there could be a need for vetting CGC comics (putting aside for a moment, the fact that evaluating a comic in the slab is a different animal than evaluating a coin in a slab) but the problem was -- who were these comic-sticker guys? Just some schmoes with an opinion, and in my opinion, one no better or worse or more informed than mine. As such their "service" was a joke.
The reason CAC is different than say, me putting a pretty sticker on a coin slab that says "great!" is the opinion, eye and guarantee behind it. The wannabe comic sticker guys either didn't know or more likely, hoped that people wouldn't notice, that fact.
<< <i>
<< <i>Really enjoy your insights, rr! Regarding your friend and his plan to sell 20+ years down the road, the landscape will almost certainly change more -- tighten, loosen, tighten again. Since he's not planning to sell currently, nothing need be
done with his old NGC fatty type -- question though, do you think he'd be better served, 20 years hence, to crack them out and get graded per whatever standard is most in vogue then? Or should they remain in their fatty holders, and get a
stickered approval (from JA or whomever) is providing such a service at that time?
One way or another, a great coin will be a great coin. But the owners will absolutely be best served to present them in a holder that has the most market acceptability/approval for the grade assigned, and thus highest potential price realized.
You could take any terrific type coin, say an early PCGS piece in a Pogue-like grade of 68 or something -- crack it, send it to ANACS, SEGS, whatever and get a grade, likely the same or better -- but as long as people would then question
what it was doing in such a holder, and wondering what problems it must have unseen, to be relegated to such a holder, means that just won't happen. Be fun to see what the next 20 years brings to the nosebleed market -- I'll just be an
interested observer, in any case.
We don't know the answer. So the best course imo is to do nothing and leave those coins in their current holders. There's no downside to that. Those old holders are still respected and odds are good they will be considered something special 20 years from now. They can always be cracked out. There will always be raw and fresh coins hitting the market. I went through several iterations of cracking out my best coins from 1997-2007 as the grading standards shifted. In hindsight, I wouldn't do that again. Just leave them be and wait until it's time to sell. At that point evaluate the landscape and do what makes financial sense to your specific situation. For all we know there will be a shift to fresh/raw coins again where coins will get cracked out in droves to simulate "freshness." No way to predict the next turns.
Crypto's post above is quite stunning. I hadn't really considered the TPG's backing away from their guarantees. If CAC starts to become the lone supporter of those coins they too will tighten their standards and distance themselves from anything that could be considered the least bit problematic (toning, marks, dipping, etc.). It would then take a moose of a coin to earn a sticker. In all likelihood they would probably just leave the market and rely on the coins they had already stickered. But if PCGS is not guaranteeing coins that turn in the holder, don't most of those come from doctoring in the first place? So do they cover doctored coins that have turned? How can one possibly make that distinction with accuracy? >>
Slam dunk doctoring such as moved metal seems to be going through but I haven't heard of a single putty, PVC, spotting or rancid dip residue that has been accepted. I personally had the rep at a show in Baltimore tell me if I submitted it under warrenty it was just going to go in the system for months and months and be rejected anyway.
While I get it from a profit perspective why they are doing this, I just don't know what it is going to do to their brand value and consumer confidence when over time the market gets saturated with worthless coins in graded holders.
a little bit like around the early 2000s when the market was full of white VF anacs coins and what not and people lost faith in all anacs holders even the good ones. Hope not, I only really buy and use PCGS.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Really enjoy your insights, rr! Regarding your friend and his plan to sell 20+ years down the road, the landscape will almost certainly change more -- tighten, loosen, tighten again. Since he's not planning to sell currently, nothing need be
done with his old NGC fatty type -- question though, do you think he'd be better served, 20 years hence, to crack them out and get graded per whatever standard is most in vogue then? Or should they remain in their fatty holders, and get a
stickered approval (from JA or whomever) is providing such a service at that time?
One way or another, a great coin will be a great coin. But the owners will absolutely be best served to present them in a holder that has the most market acceptability/approval for the grade assigned, and thus highest potential price realized.
You could take any terrific type coin, say an early PCGS piece in a Pogue-like grade of 68 or something -- crack it, send it to ANACS, SEGS, whatever and get a grade, likely the same or better -- but as long as people would then question
what it was doing in such a holder, and wondering what problems it must have unseen, to be relegated to such a holder, means that just won't happen. Be fun to see what the next 20 years brings to the nosebleed market -- I'll just be an
interested observer, in any case.
We don't know the answer. So the best course imo is to do nothing and leave those coins in their current holders. There's no downside to that. Those old holders are still respected and odds are good they will be considered something special 20 years from now. They can always be cracked out. There will always be raw and fresh coins hitting the market. I went through several iterations of cracking out my best coins from 1997-2007 as the grading standards shifted. In hindsight, I wouldn't do that again. Just leave them be and wait until it's time to sell. At that point evaluate the landscape and do what makes financial sense to your specific situation. For all we know there will be a shift to fresh/raw coins again where coins will get cracked out in droves to simulate "freshness." No way to predict the next turns.
Crypto's post above is quite stunning. I hadn't really considered the TPG's backing away from their guarantees. If CAC starts to become the lone supporter of those coins they too will tighten their standards and distance themselves from anything that could be considered the least bit problematic (toning, marks, dipping, etc.). It would then take a moose of a coin to earn a sticker. In all likelihood they would probably just leave the market and rely on the coins they had already stickered. But if PCGS is not guaranteeing coins that turn in the holder, don't most of those come from doctoring in the first place? So do they cover doctored coins that have turned? How can one possibly make that distinction with accuracy? >>
Slam dunk doctoring such as moved metal seems to be going through but I haven't heard of a single putty, PVC, spotting or rancid dip residue that has been accepted. I personally had the rep at a show in Baltimore tell me if I submitted it under warrenty it was just going to go in the system for months and months and be rejected anyway.
While I get it from a profit perspective why they are doing this, I just don't know what it is going to do to their brand value and consumer confidence when over time the market gets saturated with worthless coins in graded holders.
a little bit like around the early 2000s when the market was full of white VF anacs coins and what not and people lost faith in all anacs holders even the good ones. Hope not, I only really buy and use PCGS. >>
It's a concern, Crypto, especially when one earns their living trading these things. I'm just a small end-user collector so for me it's not a livelihood deal. Maybe a question worth taking up the ladder to HRH? I can only imagine he's a busy guy but I was most impressed, long in the distant past, when he emailed me back about a PCGS question I had.
<< <i> Slam dunk doctoring such as moved metal seems to be going through but I haven't heard of a single putty, PVC, spotting or rancid dip residue that has been accepted. I personally had the rep at a show in Baltimore tell me if I submitted it under warranty it was just going to go in the system for months and months and be rejected anyway.
While I get it from a profit perspective why they are doing this, I just don't know what it is going to do to their brand value and consumer confidence when over time the market gets saturated with worthless coins in graded holders.
a little bit like around the early 2000s when the market was full of white VF anacs coins and what not and people lost faith in all anacs holders even the good ones. Hope not, I only really buy and use PCGS. >>
Good to know. Thanks for that.
If someone has a lot of gem or choice gold, the putty issue is important, especially when only 5-20% of all gem gold will sticker. If you want to avoid PVC, putty, spotting or rancid dip potential I guess a good method is to buy
wonderfully toned original coins with nice pedigrees (ie Sunnywood's 1901-s quarter). These are coins that haven't changed a lick in 20-50 years. Moved metal? I would hope most of us can spot that problem on our own.
<< <i>Really only a CAC sticker is the full warrenty against being left with a worthless dud remaining in the hobby >>
Don't be naive. Is it written in stone somewhere that their policies will never change? All it takes is enough money going
out the door to cover "environmental damage" for a guarantee to be revoked.
<< <i>
<< <i>Really only a CAC sticker is the full warrenty against being left with a worthless dud remaining in the hobby >>
Don't be naive. Is it written in stone somewhere that their policies will never change? All it takes is enough money going
out the door to cover "environmental damage" for a guarantee to be revoked. >>
Yeah, but. The problem is, if the TPG has $ going out the door to cover environmental damage, they ought to tighten the screws on their process (to catch more ED before it gets holdered) vs. revoking their guarantee that they will make any holdered ED that comes to light, right. Of course, they can revoke their guarantee -- they can also experience a loss of market confidence in their product if more and more "iffy" stuff is seen, and a guarantee is heard to no longer be in effect. That seems rather naive (or shortsighted, or both) as well.
<< <i>
<< <i>Really only a CAC sticker is the full warrenty against being left with a worthless dud remaining in the hobby >>
Don't be naive. Is it written in stone somewhere that their policies will never change? All it takes is enough money going
out the door to cover "environmental damage" for a guarantee to be revoked. >>
You're right of course esp consider it is exactly what happened with the TPGs. what I said rings true today though and I hope tomorrow as well but we shale see.