Percentage of CAC coins in pcgs holder vs others?
Gazes
Posts: 2,315 ✭✭✭✭✭
I saw an ad for pcgs touting in recent auctions that the overwhelming cac coins were in pcgs holders. Is there data which is public which identifies the percentage of cac coins that are pcgs vs ngc ?
0
Comments
I do not believe there is any public data to definitively answer that question.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Wow! 4 to 1? The total might not be that high but that's a decent sample to view.
Trends mean absolutely nothing. Judge the unique coin in your hand, that's the only one that matters. Buy the coin not the holder.
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
Just look at the Heritage auctions results. 4 to 1 in many series is about right.
When I was reviewing the Newman, Gardner, and Dick Osburn sales for % of CAC stickers, it was sort of eye opening. As I recall both Gardner and Newman stickered in the 55-65% range overall. The PCGS % were higher than NGC but not alarmingly so....maybe 60-40 or 55-45. Osburn was off the charts though. Its overall PCGS sticker rate was 38% and NGC was 3%.....13X !! The average for that seated half collection of approx 150 coins was 19%.
I would sort of expect if the stickering rate averages out to around 40%....that the break down would be 60-70% PCGS and 30-40% NGC....or something close to that. A lot depends on the series, the grade, and the value of the coin. You'll get a fairly even split on common date MS65 Morgan dollars. You won't get close to an even split on MS65 capped bust halves. The situation is aggravated by the fact that a nice NGC MS65 CBH will eventually find its way into a PCGS holder....skewing the results. A common date NGC MS65 Morgan that is just nice for the grade, will stay in that holder.
Well whats missing from the equation is how many PCGS coins are sent to CAC vs how many NGC coins are sent into CAC in the specific time frame say one year. Then how many of each service actually sticker..
What we seem to have is anecdotal data, certainly not informational statistics. Without CAC archival information we really have no idea of the actual figures. Cheers, RickO
The ratio of coins that I send to CAC is about 5:1 in favor of PCGS but my CAC success rate for NGC holders is 100%.
Congratulations. That's not easy to do. Gene Gardner had one of the best eyes in the business advising him and I don't think their NGC rate was over 45%. But if you're looking for the best available, sometimes you have to accept it in the grade it comes in, or downgrade it at an almost sure loss you yourself. My NGC sticker rate was at best 40%, because I bought what I liked. In many cases they were raw coin buys that ended up in the holders NGC chose for them. If the goal was to get a 100% sticker rate for all our slabbed purchases, we could all be insanely critical and only buy the most certain slabbed coins that were just superb for the grade....passing on 98% of everything else that came along. In a way, this is where we are today, with a huge chunk of the coin market not considered very worthy any more. If you're buying raw coins with competition at auction (or even did that from 1986-2008)....a 100% NGC sticker rate won't or wouldn't have been maintained for very long.
Maybe part of the reason I haven't bought a major coin for over 6 years, the longest in my career, is because the goal of "collecting" today is to get a sticker. Whatever I learned from 1974-2008 didn't matter in 2009-2016. The coins and collections are now almost secondary to the slab, grade, and stickers. Not the hobby I grew up with. I didn't mind living with the TPG's as the decider of values from 1986-2008. But, now with more parties added in, it's too many hands in the pot....even if there is a perfectly valid reason for why it has evolved as such. I understand the rules of the new sandbox. I also have the option not to play in it.
Any quality NGC coin that is solid for the grade, and worth $500-$1,000 or more, and carrying a CAC sticker, is in process of being converted over to a PCGS coin....if only for the fact that it will be worth 10-30% more as such, a potential input to a PCGS registry set, and more liquid in the market place. For the same reason NGC coins look to be more low end when attending shows, they will also appear to be stickered a lot less. Economics 101. The current owner can take the high road and suggest no such thing will happen on their watch, and I commend them for that. But, the next guy may think differently.
One of my best coins is one I bought at auction raw in 1988 where it graded NGC MS65. The coin has remained NGC now for 28 years and was stickered back in Nov 2008. I tried the coin a couple times for a cross w/o success. It's certainly a slow process to get to the PCGS holder. But, this one will make it, and possibly at a higher grade.
My post was a little tongue in cheek. The number of NGC slabs I have submitted is fairly small, and many of the PCGS slabs I submitted that did not sticker were purchased many years ago without a lot of thought. Every one of the NGC coins I have submitted is actually a duplicate of what I have in PCGS. Because I enjoy the registry, I will almost always purchase PCGS coins because I can find what I want if I look long enough and it saves the hassle of crossing etc. But while looking at the types of coins I collect, I see a lot of NGC coins and we all know the feeling we get when a coin s stands out in our opinion. What that happens, I will pick it up. I am not looking to cross these, I just like them.
As for your thoughts on the goal now getting a sticker and a holder and not the coin, I can see your point. But your post brought to mind a lesson that I learned as a blackjack dealer in a casino many years ago. I would go to the sports book and make straight bets on college and pro football. With a straight bet you should figure that you will win half your bets since it is a 50/50 bet. The book just wants the 5% of the gross it will theoretically earn. So why was I losing about 70-80% of my bets.
Well I thought about it and realized I was betting not on the team that I thought would win, but on the team that I wanted to win. I was betting for fun. After a couple of years I finally decided to become dispassionate about my betting. I no longer bet with my heart, but with my head. Which team was going to beat the spread. From that point on I won 70% or so of my bets. I was betting to make money, and I was, but I was no longer having fun.
So when it comes to a hobby, I have fun. I buy what I like. If it CAC's, all the better. If it doesn't, it still stays in the collection. If I lose money when it comes time to sell, then meh....I don't care. If some can balance the two and both have fun and make money, great. I have to separate the two.
As a last observation, I think being astute in watching the ins and outs of the hobby can provide the best of both worlds. Recently, there has been a good deal of talk about how strict PCGS has been since new graders have been added and I have seen evidence that this is true. What that means to me is that for a certain range of cert numbers, most of the coins coming out of PCGS have been A and B coins. I have been aggressively buying these newly graded coins and have been pleased with them in hand and have enjoyed a strong sticker rate. When given lemons......
I've been hearing similar anecdotal accounts for the past 10-15 years, that such and such a TPG was grading real strict now (ie don't send any coins in right now). And then I'd attend the next show or two and so difference on the bourse floor or in the newps in dealer's cases. I passed on most of them. Yes, from week to week or even month to month grading can become stricter. From year to year, I haven't seen any evidence of that since the TPG's opened up. When I see 1986-1996 grading again....I'll know it when I see it. I just don't expect to see it. And how could going back to generally tighter standards be good for the TPG's at this point?
I totally agree!
The Rosen numismatic advisory has published inside CAC information on percentage success rates at certain grade levels with certain coin series. In the article I can't recall a big disparity toward PCGS, however there remains the question whether the NGC coins would cross even if they were CAC approved to PCGS.
In this case it is about brand perception and value. If more and more collectors rely on sticker companies as a regular step in the collecting process, and the perception is that more of TPG X's coins don't sticker, than do, then prices/perception/demand for TPG X's unstickered coins drops, so sale prices drop. and submissions drop. If TPG aligns themselves in grading so that the perception is that most of TPG X's holders sticker, perception of brand value increases and so does the sale price of, and demand for, TPG X's holders. And so more may buy unstickered holders for strong prices because the perception is 'I don't need a sticker, TPG X's coins always get a sticker.'
And, in reality, not a single perception has to have a scintilla of proof to have meaningful impacts to the bottom line.
Now my head really hurts.
Panexpoguy, I agree with all of your points about perception in the marketplace. However, I find it hard to believe you could be losing or winning 70% of your bets unless these were uneven odds bets or we're talking about a very small number (<50) of bets. Betting on your heart should be a 50/50 proposition (at least in terms of expected dollars) as it is statistically uninformed. Also, the lines are simply too good.
And roadrunner, while many people are focused on slabs and stickers, that doesn't have to be YOUR focus. Obviously, it will matter more in proportion to the amount that you are selling in such a market.
Find it as hard to believe as you wish, it does not change the reality. I did not say I was a professional sports bettor, I said I was a professional blackjack dealer who bet football games. I also did not say I bet many, many games. I did not say I bet very large amounts per game. And no, the lines are not too good. Or at least they weren't too good when I played. You could walk through a dozen clubs and find a number of different spreads for the same game offered at the same time. If I had bet against Mike Tyson in his first 20 professional fights because I hated him and loved the underdog would I have broken even since I was betting with my heart?
I just got a submission back from CAC that consisted of 6 coins. 3 were PCGS and 3 were NGC, all 3 PCGS coins passed and 2 of the 3 NGC coins passed. I know it's a very small sample rate, but I didn't take into consideration the TPG slab as to weather I thought it would bean or not. I simply went by the coin that was in the holder with the grade indicated and not by who graded it.
In the end, I think most NGC coins that get the CAC approval end up in PCGS plastic and then get CAC'd again. More than likely that's why there appears to be less NGC coins with CAC stickers for sale. The CAC sticker gives more confidence on trying for the crossover to PCGS, which then ends up with a better bottom line when selling.
I was buying PL or DMPL Morgan's that I thought would sticker. I submitted a total of 18 coins 9 PCGS and 9 NGC. 6 PCGS received the green sticker and 4 NGC stickered. I recently crossed 3 of the NGC that did not sticker to PCGS, and I am considering resubmiting to CAC in the new holder as I felt the coins should have stickered.
I don't want to sidetrack this, but you didn't dispute any of my qualifications. Therefore, it doesn't sound like we have any disagreement. If you don't bet often and happen to get a little lucky, sure you can win 70%. Also, if you were betting against Mike Tyson, you would have expected to lose most of the time as he was the heavy favorite so that wouldn't have been a 50/50 proposition. Also, I never implied you were a pro gambler, only that even the best pros do not win 70% of the time. Yes, the lines have gotten better over time and I do not know when you were betting. If you didn't bet much when you were losing then again, 70% is certainly plausible. I was only making the point that it would be hard to maintain such a low average over time (again, assuming you are making even-money bets). If you are making uninformed bets, you should return the average +/- random variation - the vig. Nothing less, nothing more. If you didn't bet a lot, then random variation is going to play a big part in this.
Anyway, I understand your point about how you play the game as it relates to betting and coin purchases. The coin market is much less efficient than the sports betting market, and someone with your experience should definitely be able to take advantage of opportunities when they become available and I applaud your mindset and approach to doing so.
Unfortunately, when it comes time to sell, my focus has to match the market focus. And slabs and stickers will drive the majority of the prices. So, I will continue to hold back my buying until the current market focus changes.
That would be an excellent test of consistency for CAC. I would encourage you to do it, especially since the stickers will get you more value. Ideally, they would reject the 3 crossed coins...demonstrating perfect consistency and zero holder bias.....if it were a perfect world. Now if they see more liquidity and use of PCGS PL and DMPL's they just might sticker some or all of them. I'd bet you get 1 or 2 out of the 3. They might not want to give you 3 of 3 on principle alone.
Where did you see/hear that? I have never heard of NGC applying different standards to either side of the coin.
Presenting anecdotal evidence is not the same as a stated difference in grading philosophy. I would say, in my experience, that NGC, at the margins, is a little easier on DPL coins but that doesn't have anything to do with one side.
"NGC common date Morgans often have only a PL reverse, but DMPL obverse. NGC uses a different standard for DPL Morgans, regarding the reverse of the coins. PCGS requires full mirror depth on both sides for DMPL designation, NGC does not."
Might be thinking of the NGC* ?
I agree that the data is not there. In fact, I kick myself for believing the hype instead of the data as I was not always sending the NGC coins in. It turns out, this was a mistake, and I am getting CAC acceptance rates between the two companies at about the same rate. Now since I have not been sending NGC Coins at the same intensity as the PCGS coins, I may not have enough data/context, but for now, I am not seeing any bias. Not saying it is not there, just that I am not seeing it empirically yet.
I have asked for and received bids on CAC coins from CAC and was not asked by them if it was PCGS or NGC. Fact.
Been a while but assume it might be the same.
I agree on not side tracking from the sticker rate question so I will provide this and then move back to the OP's topic. I was betting in the early 90's. I bet the Steelers to win having grown up loving them, and was betting against the 49ers because I hated them. Both bad, emotionally based decisions. At the end of my 5 year stint as a dealer I was betting only one game a week, between $200 and $1200 a game in straight bets, about half college and half NFL. Wandering through the smaller books in Tahoe, Reno, and Carson City you could find variances in spreads and use them to your advantage. I agree that the more you play, the more the odds influence your overall success. The last sports bet I ever made was in 1994.
Also, try to remember what the condition of the old NGC holders was as compared to the PCGS holders they are in now. I always wonder how many coins just miss a sticker because a key factor could not be discerned through hazy, scratched plastic. I spend a lot of time polishing the older holders I send to CAC to give them the best view of the coin possible.
This discussion is pathetic. Once again what is inside the holder is not part of the discussion. The actual coin matters. And these percentages of this holder or that holder really just does not matter. Look at the coin and whether it has the quality instead of what a manufactured perception apparently dictates to those unwilling to appreciate that there are critical factors that extend beyond a label and sticker. This discussion really is a disservice to collecting in general.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I had to play with numbers on my recent Cac submission of 118 coins. Beak down
46 NGC coins of which I got 20 stickers (2 of which are Gold) 43.5%
72 Pcgs coins 28 stickers(2 Gold) 38.9%
Total coins 118 and 48 stickers (2 Gold) 40.7%
4 Gold of 118 3.38%
NGC 4.3%
PCGS 2.7%
Wish my whole collection would succeed at that rate but I course I screened for only the best candidates
From 1998-2001, I won 15 out of 16 trips to Vegas just playing blackjack. No doubt in my mind he could have won 70% of his football bets. Long term is not one year or even two. In the end, it all averages out.
On a second try I did submit to CAC 3 Morgan's that failed in NGC holders. After crossing to PCGS, one of three did pass and green sticker. The CAC submission had 12 PCGS coins and 8 passed.
OH gold and CAC and you have very high results: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/973279/greatcollections-the-sierra-madre-gold-collection-of-old-green-holders-unreserved#latest
Major auctions typically include notably more PCGS/CAC vs NGC/CAC coins in the series I collect.
Even the PCGS/CAC examples comprise only about 15% of total offering among Liberty $2.50's and most are the common post 1895 issues.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
Not sure people realize how hard it is to find PCGS/CAC quarter eagles (especially as you say if you eliminate the post 1895 issues)
There is an old interview with JA floating around where he said the proportion of successful NGC v. PCGS coins was roughly equal. I would expect you to see more PCGS CAC coins at auction because the market prefers this combination and many sellers push to crossover coins where the CAC/PCGS premium is strongest.
If I like the coin and PCGS has graded it CAC is of little interest. I think it is primarily a way of gathering modern money (cash). I have watched two $20 1855 O DEs auction one after the other. The non CAC coin brought $9k more and should have. Both were NGC 55 but after seeing the CAC sticker on the coin that brought the lesser price my interest in them evaporated. A good TPA is enough for me but I only collect a very narrow series of coins. Many of the dates in the run have few if any CAC coins. I buy the coin and nothing else. I realize a CAC sticker on many coins makes them a bit more liquid but as a collector I don't buy a coin that I will want to later upgrade as this can be a costly mistake CAC sticker or not.
Not necessarily. It comes down to the collector or the dealer feeding the collector. And in this case circ grades in OGH's are easier to sticker than MS63 to MS66 grades. My first submission to CAC in 2008 included lots of rattlers and OGH's from MS61 to MS64 that I hand picked over the years. They weren't the "no brainer" upgrades because I had already cracked all those out and received upgrades on 50-75% of them. But I was still quite surprised that the overall sticker rate on my old holder gold coins was only about 40%.
Here is an old interview with JA: http://www.caccoin.com/cac-in-the-news/an-interview-with-john-albanese-by-maurice-rosen/
Another set of interviews:
One response on the topic: "Why do NGC CAC’d coins often bring less than PCGS CAC’d coins? Sometimes great deals are to be had in this area. Quite often though, the best of the NGC graded coins have been crossed to PCGS holders, leaving many coin buyers with the mistaken impression that NGC grades more liberally these days than PCGS. That is not the case; the services are comparably strict these days, and have been for some time. Past sins (i.e. ridiculously overgraded coins trapped in their slab tombs) continue to perpetuate this bias, though." http://www.coinraritiesonline.com/index.php?page=entry&thread_id=1&id=192&thread_name=coin+commentary
Recent interview of John Albanese by Warren Mills: http://www.rcnh.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=15&Itemid=114