@BBN said:
So are we on our way to treating non stickered slabs as if they're raw? Like PCGS grading can't be trusted?
As @jmlanzaf correctly says, absolutely not. However, the reason for our current two-tier market between slabs without a CAC, and those that merit and have a CAC is not that they're treated as raw, but are treated as follows:
1. They may be "C" coins, at the lower end of the grade.
2. They may have surface issues of one type or another.
3. It's possible they may not have been submitted to CAC.
On this third point though, If I'm looking at a coin that's above a certain value (I'll leave that amount out to try to minimize going off topic), and if there's clearly a pricing differential in that grade between those with a CAC and those without, I ask myself, "Why would the owner selling that coin not pay just $15 to try to get a CAC? We can each reach our own conclusions, but my conclusion for coins above a certain value without a CAC is that they were submitted and failed to merit one. Just my opinion for my own conclusion.
What about us thousands of collectors that don't send any coins to CAC and don't plan to?
What about you? When you (or your estate) sell the coins, you can either CAC them to try to maximize value or sell them without CAC. If you sell without CAC, you will get the PCGS assumed-to-have-failed-to-CAC price realized. Or, if the coin is so frigging beautiful that everyone recognizes it as a clear A specimen, you'll get a premium that may or may not be equivalent to the CAC price. It could be more. A lot of people still buy the coin not the holder.
But, your personal due diligence SHOULD require you to consider the market reality not your personal opinion.
You are free to crack them all out and sell them all raw on the internet with grainy cell phone pictures shot from 12 feet away. They are your coins, do what you want. But the would-be buyer(s) will also do what they want which could include refusing to buy raw or refusing to buy CAC'ed or whatever...
@BBN said:
So are we on our way to treating non stickered slabs as if they're raw? Like PCGS grading can't be trusted?
As @jmlanzaf correctly says, absolutely not. However, the reason for our current two-tier market between slabs without a CAC, and those that merit and have a CAC is not that they're treated as raw, but are treated as follows:
1. They may be "C" coins, at the lower end of the grade.
2. They may have surface issues of one type or another.
3. It's possible they may not have been submitted to CAC.
On this third point though, If I'm looking at a coin that's above a certain value (I'll leave that amount out to try to minimize going off topic), and if there's clearly a pricing differential in that grade between those with a CAC and those without, I ask myself, "Why would the owner selling that coin not pay just $15 to try to get a CAC? We can each reach our own conclusions, but my conclusion for coins above a certain value without a CAC is that they were submitted and failed to merit one. Just my opinion for my own conclusion.
What about us thousands of collectors that don't send any coins to CAC and don't plan to?
What about you? When you (or your estate) sell the coins, you can either CAC them to try to maximize value or sell them without CAC. If you sell without CAC, you will get the PCGS assumed-to-have-failed-to-CAC price realized. Or, if the coin is so frigging beautiful that everyone recognizes it as a clear A specimen, you'll get a premium that may or may not be equivalent to the CAC price. It could be more. A lot of people still buy the coin not the holder.
But, your personal due diligence SHOULD require you to consider the market reality not your personal opinion.
You are free to crack them all out and sell them all raw on the internet with grainy cell phone pictures shot from 12 feet away. They are your coins, do what you want. But the would-be buyer(s) will also do what they want which could include refusing to buy raw or refusing to buy CAC'ed or whatever...
I was referring to your conclusion that if a coin doesn't have a CAC sticker......it must have been sent in and failed. Which is far from the truth.
@BBN said:
So are we on our way to treating non stickered slabs as if they're raw? Like PCGS grading can't be trusted?
As @jmlanzaf correctly says, absolutely not. However, the reason for our current two-tier market between slabs without a CAC, and those that merit and have a CAC is not that they're treated as raw, but are treated as follows:
1. They may be "C" coins, at the lower end of the grade.
2. They may have surface issues of one type or another.
3. It's possible they may not have been submitted to CAC.
On this third point though, If I'm looking at a coin that's above a certain value (I'll leave that amount out to try to minimize going off topic), and if there's clearly a pricing differential in that grade between those with a CAC and those without, I ask myself, "Why would the owner selling that coin not pay just $15 to try to get a CAC? We can each reach our own conclusions, but my conclusion for coins above a certain value without a CAC is that they were submitted and failed to merit one. Just my opinion for my own conclusion.
What about us thousands of collectors that don't send any coins to CAC and don't plan to?
What about you? When you (or your estate) sell the coins, you can either CAC them to try to maximize value or sell them without CAC. If you sell without CAC, you will get the PCGS assumed-to-have-failed-to-CAC price realized. Or, if the coin is so frigging beautiful that everyone recognizes it as a clear A specimen, you'll get a premium that may or may not be equivalent to the CAC price. It could be more. A lot of people still buy the coin not the holder.
But, your personal due diligence SHOULD require you to consider the market reality not your personal opinion.
You are free to crack them all out and sell them all raw on the internet with grainy cell phone pictures shot from 12 feet away. They are your coins, do what you want. But the would-be buyer(s) will also do what they want which could include refusing to buy raw or refusing to buy CAC'ed or whatever...
I was referring to your conclusion that if a coin doesn't have a CAC sticker......it must have been sent in and failed. Which is far from the truth.
I never said that. That was someone who replied to me who said that he assumed it. The fact is that a LOT of people do assume that and bid accordingly. So, you can try and sell it with the tag "never been to CAC" but most people probably won't believe you. You might as well say "just discovered in a 200-year-old safe".
@jmlanzaf said:
So, you can try and sell it with the tag "never been to CAC" but most people probably won't believe you. You might as well say "just discovered in a 200-year-old safe".
I couldn't disagree with this more. It's only the kool-aid drinkers that think that. I'm sure even most CAC enthusiasts don't believe that most non-CAC coins were submitted at one time.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@jmlanzaf said:
So, you can try and sell it with the tag "never been to CAC" but most people probably won't believe you. You might as well say "just discovered in a 200-year-old safe".
I couldn't disagree with this more. It's only the kool-aid drinkers that think that. I'm sure even most CAC enthusiasts don't believe that.
You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Just peruse the CAC threads on this forum. A LOT of people think it - which is all I said. I never said it was correct. The Market assumption is that coins of a certain value that are not CAC'ed failed to CAC. It comes up all the time on this forum.
A LOT of people also wrongly think that most collections are slabbed when most collections are still raw.
@jmlanzaf said:
So, you can try and sell it with the tag "never been to CAC" but most people probably won't believe you. You might as well say "just discovered in a 200-year-old safe".
I couldn't disagree with this more. It's only the kool-aid drinkers that think that. I'm sure even most CAC enthusiasts don't believe that.
You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Just peruse the CAC threads on this forum. A LOT of people think it - which is all I said. I never said it was correct. The Market assumption is that coins of a certain value that are not CAC'ed failed to CAC. It comes up all the time on this forum.
A LOT of people also wrongly think that most collections are slabbed when most collections are still raw.
Out of literally millions and millions of PCGS/NGC coins, MOST of the non-CAC ones have been submitted at one time? That's far-fetched. I mean that politely BTW.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@jmlanzaf said:
So, you can try and sell it with the tag "never been to CAC" but most people probably won't believe you. You might as well say "just discovered in a 200-year-old safe".
I couldn't disagree with this more. It's only the kool-aid drinkers that think that. I'm sure even most CAC enthusiasts don't believe that.
You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Just peruse the CAC threads on this forum. A LOT of people think it - which is all I said. I never said it was correct. The Market assumption is that coins of a certain value that are not CAC'ed failed to CAC. It comes up all the time on this forum.
A LOT of people also wrongly think that most collections are slabbed when most collections are still raw.
Out of literally millions and millions of PCGS/NGC coins, MOST of the non-CAC ones have been submitted at one time? That's far-fetched. I mean that politely BTW.
It doesn't matter that it's far fetched. The reality is that (largely in order to play it safe) a great many market participants operate under the assumption that the coins have already been to CAC. Likewise, it's widely assumed that if the value would make it worthwhile, ungraded coins have already been to PCGS or NGC and that coins in NGC holders have already been tried for crossover to PCGS holders. Of course, those assumptions will be incorrect in many instances, but that's largely beside the point.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jmlanzaf said:
So, you can try and sell it with the tag "never been to CAC" but most people probably won't believe you. You might as well say "just discovered in a 200-year-old safe".
I couldn't disagree with this more. It's only the kool-aid drinkers that think that. I'm sure even most CAC enthusiasts don't believe that.
You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Just peruse the CAC threads on this forum. A LOT of people think it - which is all I said. I never said it was correct. The Market assumption is that coins of a certain value that are not CAC'ed failed to CAC. It comes up all the time on this forum.
A LOT of people also wrongly think that most collections are slabbed when most collections are still raw.
Out of literally millions and millions of PCGS/NGC coins, MOST of the non-CAC ones have been submitted at one time? That's far-fetched. I mean that politely BTW.
Again, that's what people believe because it is the safer assumption. I'm not saying it is true. But it would be a mistake to assume that people don't think it. You see it here all the time.
And, again, the assumption is usually applied to coins of a certain threshold value not all the "millions and millions" of coins.
@jmlanzaf said:
So, you can try and sell it with the tag "never been to CAC" but most people probably won't believe you. You might as well say "just discovered in a 200-year-old safe".
I couldn't disagree with this more. It's only the kool-aid drinkers that think that. I'm sure even most CAC enthusiasts don't believe that.
You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Just peruse the CAC threads on this forum. A LOT of people think it - which is all I said. I never said it was correct. The Market assumption is that coins of a certain value that are not CAC'ed failed to CAC. It comes up all the time on this forum.
A LOT of people also wrongly think that most collections are slabbed when most collections are still raw.
I think it is sad that a lot of collectors out here depend on and have to have the CAC sticker. PCGS was a good thing for the hobby and if you can't trust PCGS plus your own judgement.........maybe you should be in another hobby.
@jmlanzaf said:
So, you can try and sell it with the tag "never been to CAC" but most people probably won't believe you. You might as well say "just discovered in a 200-year-old safe".
I couldn't disagree with this more. It's only the kool-aid drinkers that think that. I'm sure even most CAC enthusiasts don't believe that.
You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Just peruse the CAC threads on this forum. A LOT of people think it - which is all I said. I never said it was correct. The Market assumption is that coins of a certain value that are not CAC'ed failed to CAC. It comes up all the time on this forum.
A LOT of people also wrongly think that most collections are slabbed when most collections are still raw.
I think it is sad that a lot of collectors out here depend on and have to have the CAC sticker. PCGS was a good thing for the hobby and if you can't trust PCGS plus your own judgement.........maybe you should be in another hobby.
Actually, I DO trust PCGS. However, I like to know that my coins are not "C" coins, and don't have the kinds of surface issues that PCGS accepts, but CAC does not. I'm willing to pay $15 to have that other unbiased professional opinion confirm what my eyes see. That's a small price to pay for peace of mind. Just as important, when my heirs sell my collection, I don't have to be quite as concerned that others that will buy those coins from them won't try to trick/fool my unknowing heirs into thinking these coins are all "C" coins, and have surface issues as well. As such, it's not a matter that I should be told that I should not participate in this hobby, but instead maybe ALL of us should recognize what the current market is all about, with two tiers, even if you don't like that!
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
I wonder how many of those that have replied to this thread realize that none of this matters. Its just a matter of time, days or weeks at best, before Hanson will dominate these sets just as he dominates the rest of the registry.
@coinbuf said:
I wonder how many of those that have replied to this thread realize that none of this matters. Its just a matter of time, days or weeks at best, before Hanson will dominate these sets just as he dominates the rest of the registry.
So what? D. L. Hansen is good for our hobby! I wish him success. But now we're really getting off topic!
I don't feel the need to compete with Mr. Hansen or anyone else. I have no interest in owning the top pop of anything. I have no interest in completing any traditional set. I have no need for my collection to either be publicly known or recognized for being "better" (whatever that means) than yours.
99.9% of collectors are not "competitive" with their collection. Many of them would like to be, but very few people can afford to be and so they don't really try.
There is a bright line difference between competition and just sharing images of coins to let others now what exists and what can be accomplished. I have sets and share not to be competitive but to let others know what is possible.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@coinbuf said:
I wonder how many of those that have replied to this thread realize that none of this matters. Its just a matter of time, days or weeks at best, before Hanson will dominate these sets just as he dominates the rest of the registry.
So what? D. L. Hansen is good for our hobby! I wish him success. But now we're really getting off topic!
One man dominating the registry is not good for the hobby, if his collection is somehow motivating you that's fine but I'm willing to bet that more people have been turned off to having a registry set than have added competitive sets knowing there is zero chance of competing.
I don't feel the need to compete with Mr. Hansen or anyone else. I have no interest in owning the top pop of anything. I have no interest in completing any traditional set. I have no need for my collection to either be publicly known or recognized for being "better" (whatever that means) than yours.
99.9% of collectors are not "competitive" with their collection. Many of them would like to be, but very few people can afford to be and so they don't really try.
Never said you did or do, point is that PCGS could add 1000 new sets to the registry as its all pointless when one man dominates the registry.
My original opinion which still stands is that it's bad for the hobby (if it can still be called a "hobby") but has now become a necessary thing in many cases.
@giorgio11 said:
They clearly have access to the CAC database. I have a Toned Lincoln Wheat cent Registry Set and quite a few coins (more than I realized, in fact) had CAC stickers. Some I sent in, some I bought with green beans, but in every case when I started the new set, the PCGS software knew in advance which cents had CAC approval and which ones didn't. This must have involved some major coding ... At any rate, although our Toned Lincolns set is ranked #25, the Wheat Cents set-CAC (regardless of color) is currently top 2 of 3 sets, behind Dr. Duckor's #1 1909-1933 set, of which he writes that all are minimum MS65RD and CAC. Of course I will go down as other sets are created ... But I found the process to start the set pretty painless. Very interesting ... and definitely gonna change more than a few market dynamics in a lot of series.
Kind regards,
George
actually, i suspect the coding was super easy. it's standard stuff to query external databases....
@coinbuf said:
I wonder how many of those that have replied to this thread realize that none of this matters. Its just a matter of time, days or weeks at best, before Hanson will dominate these sets just as he dominates the rest of the registry.
So what? D. L. Hansen is good for our hobby! I wish him success. But now we're really getting off topic!
One man dominating the registry is not good for the hobby, if his collection is somehow motivating you that's fine but I'm willing to bet that more people have been turned off to having a registry set than have added competitive sets knowing there is zero chance of competing.
I don't feel the need to compete with Mr. Hansen or anyone else. I have no interest in owning the top pop of anything. I have no interest in completing any traditional set. I have no need for my collection to either be publicly known or recognized for being "better" (whatever that means) than yours.
99.9% of collectors are not "competitive" with their collection. Many of them would like to be, but very few people can afford to be and so they don't really try.
Never said you did or do, point is that PCGS could add 1000 new sets to the registry as its all pointless when one man dominates the registry.
What do I care? If I'm number 1234 and the set makes me happy, what do I care who is number one or number 1233, for that matter. Hanson is only a problem if I feel the need to climb the rankings.
@shish said:
Interesting, if I count correctly four members account for 42 posts in this thread. Let's just say they are not CAC lovers. Joining CAC and speaking with JA has made me a better grader, and for that I am very grateful.
I guess if someone sends in their coins and they don’t sticker and they don’t like the results they can look at it two ways. 1) Blame JA/CAC. 2) maybe take a step back and look at their own skills. Most take the easier road and play the blame game and get bitter coin face.
JA has looked at and evaluated more US coins then anybody. Gold especially is his jam. If you want the opinion of the “guy” that’s what you have with CAC. Nothing more. Nothing less. Some value that a lot more then others. The market certainly has sorted it out
mark
Disagree. I dont think the market realizes that a CAC sticker is graded by JA. I think the only people that realize what it actually is are .. few people (predominantly on this forum heh)
@coinbuf said:
I wonder how many of those that have replied to this thread realize that none of this matters. Its just a matter of time, days or weeks at best, before Hanson will dominate these sets just as he dominates the rest of the registry.
So what? D. L. Hansen is good for our hobby! I wish him success. But now we're really getting off topic!
One man dominating the registry is not good for the hobby, if his collection is somehow motivating you that's fine but I'm willing to bet that more people have been turned off to having a registry set than have added competitive sets knowing there is zero chance of competing.
I don't feel the need to compete with Mr. Hansen or anyone else. I have no interest in owning the top pop of anything. I have no interest in completing any traditional set. I have no need for my collection to either be publicly known or recognized for being "better" (whatever that means) than yours.
99.9% of collectors are not "competitive" with their collection. Many of them would like to be, but very few people can afford to be and so they don't really try.
Never said you did or do, point is that PCGS could add 1000 new sets to the registry as its all pointless when one man dominates the registry.
What do I care? If I'm number 1234 and the set makes me happy, what do I care who is number one or number 1233, for that matter. Hanson is only a problem if I feel the need to climb the rankings.
Lol you really don't get the point and I don't feel the need to explain it to you, later.
@coinbuf said:
I wonder how many of those that have replied to this thread realize that none of this matters. Its just a matter of time, days or weeks at best, before Hanson will dominate these sets just as he dominates the rest of the registry.
So what? D. L. Hansen is good for our hobby! I wish him success. But now we're really getting off topic!
One man dominating the registry is not good for the hobby, if his collection is somehow motivating you that's fine but I'm willing to bet that more people have been turned off to having a registry set than have added competitive sets knowing there is zero chance of competing.
I don't feel the need to compete with Mr. Hansen or anyone else. I have no interest in owning the top pop of anything. I have no interest in completing any traditional set. I have no need for my collection to either be publicly known or recognized for being "better" (whatever that means) than yours.
99.9% of collectors are not "competitive" with their collection. Many of them would like to be, but very few people can afford to be and so they don't really try.
Never said you did or do, point is that PCGS could add 1000 new sets to the registry as its all pointless when one man dominates the registry.
What do I care? If I'm number 1234 and the set makes me happy, what do I care who is number one or number 1233, for that matter. Hanson is only a problem if I feel the need to climb the rankings.
Lol you really don't get the point and I don't feel the need to explain it to you, later.
I get the point. You fail to understand my counterpoint. I have zero interest in what Hansen is doing. I have zero interest in rankings on any registry set. I'm not the only one. The only reason Hansen is a problem is if you buy into collecting as competition. Let Hansen be number one in every registry set, it doesn't matter unless you are trying to be number one.
@tradedollarnut said:
Trade dollar set - all CAC
Seated dollar set - all CAC
Early dollar set - not all CAC
18th century type set no gold - all CAC
18th century type set with gold - all CAC
If we exclude the 1804 dollar and any other coins where there are no CACed exemplars, is your early dollar set still not all CAC?
JA doesn’t like friction on unc coins whereas I find it perfectly ok if the balance of luster is there ... so we agree to disagree on a couple:
@Catbert said:
Why the market disparity? Higher market demand for pcgs plastic.
But that's the point. Supposedly, as stated in my above example stickered coins in the same grade are equal regardless of the plastic. So they're not? Why? Or is it a collection of stickered plastic and not coins? That's what I want to find out.
Nobody is answering that.
What @Catbert is saying is that in theory you are correct, but in the real world many collectors and dealers will value the PCGS plastic with a sticker slightly higher than NGC with a sticker, even though in theory they shouldn't. There's a name for that, and it's Behavioral Economics. The bottom line is the "market" will pay what the market will pay, even if in theory there should be a difference from that "market" value..
It is really quite simple IMO, all of the plastic holders get dinged up so to capture the image of the coin, one has to polish them. The plastic on the PCGS holder polishes up easier than the NGC plastic where it typically gets hairlines when trying to polish out the nicks. Hence PCGS plastic is worth more........
@jmlanzaf said:
So, you can try and sell it with the tag "never been to CAC" but most people probably won't believe you. You might as well say "just discovered in a 200-year-old safe".
I couldn't disagree with this more. It's only the kool-aid drinkers that think that. I'm sure even most CAC enthusiasts don't believe that.
You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Just peruse the CAC threads on this forum. A LOT of people think it - which is all I said. I never said it was correct. The Market assumption is that coins of a certain value that are not CAC'ed failed to CAC. It comes up all the time on this forum.
A LOT of people also wrongly think that most collections are slabbed when most collections are still raw.
I think it is sad that a lot of collectors out here depend on and have to have the CAC sticker. PCGS was a good thing for the hobby and if you can't trust PCGS plus your own judgement.........maybe you should be in another hobby.
Why do you post such insulting nonsense? Perhaps YOU should be in another hobby. Yeah, that's the solution....
@jmlanzaf said:
So, you can try and sell it with the tag "never been to CAC" but most people probably won't believe you. You might as well say "just discovered in a 200-year-old safe".
I couldn't disagree with this more. It's only the kool-aid drinkers that think that. I'm sure even most CAC enthusiasts don't believe that.
You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Just peruse the CAC threads on this forum. A LOT of people think it - which is all I said. I never said it was correct. The Market assumption is that coins of a certain value that are not CAC'ed failed to CAC. It comes up all the time on this forum.
A LOT of people also wrongly think that most collections are slabbed when most collections are still raw.
I think it is sad that a lot of collectors out here depend on and have to have the CAC sticker. PCGS was a good thing for the hobby and if you can't trust PCGS plus your own judgement.........maybe you should be in another hobby.
Why do you post such insulting nonsense? Perhaps YOU should be in another hobby. Yeah, that's the solution....
I was just stating a fact, And I enjoy the hobby a lot. What's your problem......did I hit a nerve?
The price disparity between PCGS and NGC like CAC coins can be readily explained:
1) A more robust PCGS registry
2) there are a fair number of PCGS only classic coin collectors and dealers
3) PCGC holders are nicer
4) PCGS marketing has been superior over the years. Better branding.
5) I’m a 99.9% PCGS only guy. However, I do buy NGC coins but then I have to go through the expense of crossing. Therefore I want to pay less.
Feel free to add to the list.......
All my eligible coins have coins have now been to CAC. A majority of my coins were bought pre CAC or when they were in their infancy.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Justacommeman said:
The price disparity between PCGS and NGC like stickered coins can be readily explained:
1) A more robust PCGS registry
2) there are a fair number of PCGS only classic coin collectors and dealers
3) PCGC holders are nicer
4) PCGS marketing has been superior over the years. Better branding.
5) I’m a 99.9% PCGS only guy. However, I do buy NGC coins but then I have to go through the expense of crossing. Therefore I want to pay less.
Feel free to add to the list.......
All my eligible coins have coins have now been to CAC. A majority of my coins were bought pre CAC or when they were in their infancy.
mark
Not all NGC/CAC coins will cross at the same grade and hence the lower prices.
I have two NGC coins I bought many years ago that were sent to PCGS within the last 2 years. Neither would cross at the same grade. Sent the coins to CAC and they both stickered in their NGC slabs.
This debate seems to be hot amongst old collectors and old school dealers. Anyone interested in maximizing the profit potential of their coins sends their coins to CAC. As a collector, I appreciate the guidance that CAC and John Albanese provides. Without CAC my tuition would have been exponentially greater.
@Justacommeman said:
The price disparity between PCGS and NGC like stickered coins can be readily explained:
1) A more robust PCGS registry
2) there are a fair number of PCGS only classic coin collectors and dealers
3) PCGC holders are nicer
4) PCGS marketing has been superior over the years. Better branding.
5) I’m a 99.9% PCGS only guy. However, I do buy NGC coins but then I have to go through the expense of crossing. Therefore I want to pay less.
Feel free to add to the list.......
All my eligible coins have coins have now been to CAC. A majority of my coins were bought pre CAC or when they were in their infancy.
mark
Not all NGC/CAC coins will cross at the same grade and hence the lower prices.
I have two NGC coins I bought many years ago that were sent to PCGS within the last 2 years. Neither crossed at the same grade. Sent the coins to CAC and they both stickered.
Correct and that was part of my expense of crossing comment. You clarified it very nicely
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
So far Del Loy Hansen has only
One #1 PCGS/CAC Set
Half Cents circulation strikes
Chances are very good he will be
sending thousands of coins to CAC
Perhaps JB can chime in about their
plans ?
I don't want to limit the discussion here, this is just a friendly reminder this thread is about new separate PCGS CAC Set Registry Sets.
Te get back on topic, I have added my CAC Capped Bust Quarters registry set in my signature. I have the #2 ranked CAC set, it will improve over time as I find higher graded CBQ's. I think this is a great idea and over time will allow me to display completely different sets in the different BQ categories.
@RedCopper said:
So far Del Loy Hansen has only
One #1 PCGS/CAC Set
Half Cents circulation strikes
Chances are very good he will be
sending thousands of coins to CAC
Perhaps JB can chime in about their
plans ?
I would think they’d bring the mountain (JA) to his vault with a first class ticket and whatever other incentive he wants!
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@RedCopper said:
So far Del Loy Hansen has only
One #1 PCGS/CAC Set
Half Cents circulation strikes
Chances are very good he will be
sending thousands of coins to CAC
Perhaps JB can chime in about their
plans ?
I would think they’d bring the mountain (JA) to his vault with a first class ticket and whatever other incentive he wants!
I’m guessing the vast majority of his coins have already been to the Garden State. A good many of his dupes for sale on JB’s site aren’t stickered.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I can't believe it took a moderator to make people realize what this thread turned into........ a group of self-patronizing collectors that should see the same thing I saw years ago: Too many collectors could care less about the coin and pay for the plastic instead. Every person who thinks the PCGS coin is worth more than the exact same coin in an NGC holder has been duped by dealers so many times that they are used to it by now. C'mon man just look at yourselves. Sure I own both NGC and PCGS graded coins most of which have CAC stickers and were submitted by me. I don't see the plastic when viewing the coin. I also wonder what JA would say when he buys sight unseen. Does he pay more for PCGS coins when all coins he buys are A or B regardless NGC or PCGS ?
@fiftysevener said:
I can't believe it took a moderator to make people realize what this thread turned into........ a group of self-patronizing collectors that should see the same thing I saw years ago: Too many collectors could care less about the coin and pay for the plastic instead. Every person who thinks the PCGS coin is worth more than the exact same coin in an NGC holder has been duped by dealers so many times that they are used to it by now. C'mon man just look at yourselves. Sure I own both NGC and PCGS graded coins most of which have CAC stickers and were submitted by me. I don't see the plastic when viewing the coin. I also wonder what JA would say when he buys sight unseen. Does he pay more for PCGS coins when all coins he buys are A or B regardless NGC or PCGS ?
Depends on the series. CAC bids are sometimes uniform N or P. Sometimes the CAC bids are different. When I submit CAC bids in the series I've placed bids, I bid differently for N relative to P because that is the market reality.
@fiftysevener said:
I can't believe it took a moderator to make people realize what this thread turned into........ a group of self-patronizing collectors that should see the same thing I saw years ago: Too many collectors could care less about the coin and pay for the plastic instead. Every person who thinks the PCGS coin is worth more than the exact same coin in an NGC holder has been duped by dealers so many times that they are used to it by now. C'mon man just look at yourselves. Sure I own both NGC and PCGS graded coins most of which have CAC stickers and were submitted by me. I don't see the plastic when viewing the coin. I also wonder what JA would say when he buys sight unseen. Does he pay more for PCGS coins when all coins he buys are A or B regardless NGC or PCGS ?
Depends on the series. CAC bids are sometimes uniform N or P. Sometimes the CAC bids are different. When I submit CAC bids in the series I've placed bids, I bid differently for N relative to P because that is the market reality.
Can you see my point ? Your bids may be higher for PCGS coins because likely your circle of clients prefer PCGS plastic rather than NGC. Should your clients be made aware that they may be missing half of the available pieces to look at ? Please understand that my comments are not meant to disturb PCGS coin owners; I am one. Also I do own exactly one superb ANACS coin that I will never sell, as it is simply the finest proof coin of its type I've come across. I just think price differences for widgets that are packaged differently were so imaginary that large groups have accepted this. Isn't that the real purpose of the sticker ?
@joebb21 said: @BryceM who is a former cac grader? All the graders there are the same ones that have been there since the beginning???
Mark Feld did some grading for them short term. I'm sure there are others who have filled in over the years. The core team hasn't changed to the best of my knowledge though.
I just sat in with them at one show, many years ago. But I sure enjoyed it.
@MFeld would you therefor consider yourself a CAC former grader? Just to clarify Bryce's point that he purchased coins from "a former cac grader". I have no idea if he was referring to you or not, but sitting in with them at one show I would not label you as a "former cac grader"- unless I am mistaken?
@joebb21 said: @BryceM who is a former cac grader? All the graders there are the same ones that have been there since the beginning???
Mark Feld did some grading for them short term. I'm sure there are others who have filled in over the years. The core team hasn't changed to the best of my knowledge though.
I just sat in with them at one show, many years ago. But I sure enjoyed it.
@MFeld would you therefor consider yourself a CAC former grader? Just to clarify Bryce's point that he purchased coins from "a former cac grader". I have no idea if he was referring to you or not, but sitting in with them at one show I would not label you as a "former cac grader"- unless I am mistaken?
Well he did grade for CAC even if only very briefly. He no longer does. Not to be sarcastic, but under the plain meaning of those terms he is a "former CAC grader."
@fiftysevener said:
I can't believe it took a moderator to make people realize what this thread turned into........ a group of self-patronizing collectors that should see the same thing I saw years ago: Too many collectors could care less about the coin and pay for the plastic instead. Every person who thinks the PCGS coin is worth more than the exact same coin in an NGC holder has been duped by dealers so many times that they are used to it by now. C'mon man just look at yourselves. Sure I own both NGC and PCGS graded coins most of which have CAC stickers and were submitted by me. I don't see the plastic when viewing the coin. I also wonder what JA would say when he buys sight unseen. Does he pay more for PCGS coins when all coins he buys are A or B regardless NGC or PCGS ?
Depends on the series. CAC bids are sometimes uniform N or P. Sometimes the CAC bids are different. When I submit CAC bids in the series I've placed bids, I bid differently for N relative to P because that is the market reality.
Can you see my point ? Your bids may be higher for PCGS coins because likely your circle of clients prefer PCGS plastic rather than NGC. Should your clients be made aware that they may be missing half of the available pieces to look at ? Please understand that my comments are not meant to disturb PCGS coin owners; I am one. Also I do own exactly one superb ANACS coin that I will never sell, as it is simply the finest proof coin of its type I've come across. I just think price differences for widgets that are packaged differently were so imaginary that large groups have accepted this. Isn't that the real purpose of the sticker ?
It is silly to argue with the Market or individual collector preference. Everyone thinks they know what's best. In the end, none of us do, including you. The Market is the Collective Wisdom of the masses. Whether all individuals accept all elements of the market is irrelevant.
I think 1913 Liberty Nickels are overhyped fake rarities. The Market says it's a 7 figure coin. Guess what? It's a 7 figure coin.
1856 flying eagle cents should be inexpensive pattern coins, arguably the most common pattern coin the U.S. ever issued. It should not be part of the FE series and should sell for 1/10th the price, in my humble opinion. Guess what, the Market thinks differently.
Buy what you like. Period. But we should never pretend that we know "better" than the next guy. We just know "different" than the next guy.
You could just as easily argue that an 1881-S Morgan in a 66+ holder should not be worth more than one in a 66 holder, which should not be worth more than the same coin raw. Mr. Market says you're wrong. In the end, he's always right.
PCGS is worth more than NGC. PCGS CAC is generally worth more than NGC CAC. It is not an illusion, it is not a mistake, it is not incorrect. It is the wisdom of the Market. And, quite frankly, when it comes to putting monetary value on a coin rather than just labeling it "pretty", Mr. Market is 100x smarter than you or me or anyone else. Take Mr. Market out of the equation and your Morgan dollar from any year, any mint and in any condition is just worth the price of its silver.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@fiftysevener said:
I can't believe it took a moderator to make people realize what this thread turned into........ a group of self-patronizing collectors that should see the same thing I saw years ago: Too many collectors could care less about the coin and pay for the plastic instead. Every person who thinks the PCGS coin is worth more than the exact same coin in an NGC holder has been duped by dealers so many times that they are used to it by now. C'mon man just look at yourselves. Sure I own both NGC and PCGS graded coins most of which have CAC stickers and were submitted by me. I don't see the plastic when viewing the coin. I also wonder what JA would say when he buys sight unseen. Does he pay more for PCGS coins when all coins he buys are A or B regardless NGC or PCGS ?
Depends on the series. CAC bids are sometimes uniform N or P. Sometimes the CAC bids are different. When I submit CAC bids in the series I've placed bids, I bid differently for N relative to P because that is the market reality.
Can you see my point ? Your bids may be higher for PCGS coins because likely your circle of clients prefer PCGS plastic rather than NGC. Should your clients be made aware that they may be missing half of the available pieces to look at ? Please understand that my comments are not meant to disturb PCGS coin owners; I am one. Also I do own exactly one superb ANACS coin that I will never sell, as it is simply the finest proof coin of its type I've come across. I just think price differences for widgets that are packaged differently were so imaginary that large groups have accepted this. Isn't that the real purpose of the sticker ?
It is silly to argue with the Market or individual collector preference. Everyone thinks they know what's best. In the end, none of us do, including you. The Market is the Collective Wisdom of the masses. Whether all individuals accept all elements of the market is irrelevant.
I think 1913 Liberty Nickels are overhyped fake rarities. The Market says it's a 7 figure coin. Guess what? It's a 7 figure coin.
1856 flying eagle cents should be inexpensive pattern coins, arguably the most common pattern coin the U.S. ever issued. It should not be part of the FE series and should sell for 1/10th the price, in my humble opinion. Guess what, the Market thinks differently.
Buy what you like. Period. But we should never pretend that we know "better" than the next guy. We just know "different" than the next guy.
You could just as easily argue that an 1881-S Morgan in a 66+ holder should not be worth more than one in a 66 holder, which should not be worth more than the same coin raw. Mr. Market says you're wrong. In the end, he's always right.
PCGS is worth more than NGC. PCGS CAC is generally worth more than NGC CAC. It is not an illusion, it is not a mistake, it is not incorrect. It is the wisdom of the Market. And, quite frankly, when it comes to putting monetary value on a coin rather than just labeling it "pretty", Mr. Market is 100x smarter than you or me or anyone else. Take Mr. Market out of the equation and your Morgan dollar from any year, any mint and in any condition is just worth the price of its silver.
Markets are not always efficient or correct. This is why we have crashes, recessions, depressions, etc. Calling this "market wisdom" is nonsense. (Tulip mania anyone?) On the other hand, if what you meant to say is that when it comes time to sell you should consider market preferences then I wholeheartedly agree.
@fiftysevener said:
I can't believe it took a moderator to make people realize what this thread turned into........ a group of self-patronizing collectors that should see the same thing I saw years ago: Too many collectors could care less about the coin and pay for the plastic instead. Every person who thinks the PCGS coin is worth more than the exact same coin in an NGC holder has been duped by dealers so many times that they are used to it by now. C'mon man just look at yourselves. Sure I own both NGC and PCGS graded coins most of which have CAC stickers and were submitted by me. I don't see the plastic when viewing the coin. I also wonder what JA would say when he buys sight unseen. Does he pay more for PCGS coins when all coins he buys are A or B regardless NGC or PCGS ?
Depends on the series. CAC bids are sometimes uniform N or P. Sometimes the CAC bids are different. When I submit CAC bids in the series I've placed bids, I bid differently for N relative to P because that is the market reality.
Can you see my point ? Your bids may be higher for PCGS coins because likely your circle of clients prefer PCGS plastic rather than NGC. Should your clients be made aware that they may be missing half of the available pieces to look at ? Please understand that my comments are not meant to disturb PCGS coin owners; I am one. Also I do own exactly one superb ANACS coin that I will never sell, as it is simply the finest proof coin of its type I've come across. I just think price differences for widgets that are packaged differently were so imaginary that large groups have accepted this. Isn't that the real purpose of the sticker ?
It is silly to argue with the Market or individual collector preference. Everyone thinks they know what's best. In the end, none of us do, including you. The Market is the Collective Wisdom of the masses. Whether all individuals accept all elements of the market is irrelevant.
I think 1913 Liberty Nickels are overhyped fake rarities. The Market says it's a 7 figure coin. Guess what? It's a 7 figure coin.
1856 flying eagle cents should be inexpensive pattern coins, arguably the most common pattern coin the U.S. ever issued. It should not be part of the FE series and should sell for 1/10th the price, in my humble opinion. Guess what, the Market thinks differently.
Buy what you like. Period. But we should never pretend that we know "better" than the next guy. We just know "different" than the next guy.
You could just as easily argue that an 1881-S Morgan in a 66+ holder should not be worth more than one in a 66 holder, which should not be worth more than the same coin raw. Mr. Market says you're wrong. In the end, he's always right.
PCGS is worth more than NGC. PCGS CAC is generally worth more than NGC CAC. It is not an illusion, it is not a mistake, it is not incorrect. It is the wisdom of the Market. And, quite frankly, when it comes to putting monetary value on a coin rather than just labeling it "pretty", Mr. Market is 100x smarter than you or me or anyone else. Take Mr. Market out of the equation and your Morgan dollar from any year, any mint and in any condition is just worth the price of its silver.
Markets are not always efficient or correct. This is why we have crashes, recessions, depressions, etc. Calling this "market wisdom" is nonsense. (Tulip mania anyone?) On the other hand, if what you meant to say is that when it comes time to sell you should consider market preferences then I wholeheartedly agree.
Markets are not always efficient, but when it comes to monetary value they are the sole arbiter. You can't separate price from the Market. There is no "right price". You can speculate on the future direction of the Market, certainly, and you may turn out to be correct. But it is still the Collective Wisdom of the Market that determines value not some self-assured self-righteous numismatist who thinks he or she knows better than the Market.
You can consider the Market to be inefficient or irrational if you like. But there's an old stock market saying: the Market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
@cameonut2011 said:
Markets are not always efficient or correct. This is why we have crashes, recessions, depressions, etc. Calling this "market wisdom" is nonsense. (Tulip mania anyone?) On the other hand, if what you meant to say is that when it comes time to sell you should consider market preferences then I wholeheartedly agree.
Markets are not always efficient, but when it comes to monetary value they are the sole arbiter. You can't separate price from the Market. There is no "right price". You can speculate on the future direction of the Market, certainly, and you may turn out to be correct. But it is still the Collective Wisdom of the Market that determines value not some self-assured self-righteous numismatist who thinks he or she knows better than the Market.
You can consider the Market to be inefficient or irrational if you like. But there's an old stock market saying: the Market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
Argue with Mr. Market at your own peril.
To be sure the market sets the current price. No one argues with that. The problem is with your use of the term "market wisdom" or "collective wisdom of the market." Markets are not always wise, but they are what they are. Often they are based on speculation or are founded on false premises and subject to systemic risk, sharp corrections, and collapse. This is not specific to any one market industry but is a general comment.
Comments
They'll probably still be there when you do.
What about you? When you (or your estate) sell the coins, you can either CAC them to try to maximize value or sell them without CAC. If you sell without CAC, you will get the PCGS assumed-to-have-failed-to-CAC price realized. Or, if the coin is so frigging beautiful that everyone recognizes it as a clear A specimen, you'll get a premium that may or may not be equivalent to the CAC price. It could be more. A lot of people still buy the coin not the holder.
But, your personal due diligence SHOULD require you to consider the market reality not your personal opinion.
You are free to crack them all out and sell them all raw on the internet with grainy cell phone pictures shot from 12 feet away. They are your coins, do what you want. But the would-be buyer(s) will also do what they want which could include refusing to buy raw or refusing to buy CAC'ed or whatever...
I was referring to your conclusion that if a coin doesn't have a CAC sticker......it must have been sent in and failed. Which is far from the truth.
I never said that. That was someone who replied to me who said that he assumed it. The fact is that a LOT of people do assume that and bid accordingly. So, you can try and sell it with the tag "never been to CAC" but most people probably won't believe you. You might as well say "just discovered in a 200-year-old safe".
I couldn't disagree with this more. It's only the kool-aid drinkers that think that. I'm sure even most CAC enthusiasts don't believe that most non-CAC coins were submitted at one time.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Just peruse the CAC threads on this forum. A LOT of people think it - which is all I said. I never said it was correct. The Market assumption is that coins of a certain value that are not CAC'ed failed to CAC. It comes up all the time on this forum.
A LOT of people also wrongly think that most collections are slabbed when most collections are still raw.
Out of literally millions and millions of PCGS/NGC coins, MOST of the non-CAC ones have been submitted at one time? That's far-fetched. I mean that politely BTW.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
It doesn't matter that it's far fetched. The reality is that (largely in order to play it safe) a great many market participants operate under the assumption that the coins have already been to CAC. Likewise, it's widely assumed that if the value would make it worthwhile, ungraded coins have already been to PCGS or NGC and that coins in NGC holders have already been tried for crossover to PCGS holders. Of course, those assumptions will be incorrect in many instances, but that's largely beside the point.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Again, that's what people believe because it is the safer assumption. I'm not saying it is true. But it would be a mistake to assume that people don't think it. You see it here all the time.
And, again, the assumption is usually applied to coins of a certain threshold value not all the "millions and millions" of coins.
I think it is sad that a lot of collectors out here depend on and have to have the CAC sticker. PCGS was a good thing for the hobby and if you can't trust PCGS plus your own judgement.........maybe you should be in another hobby.
Actually, I DO trust PCGS. However, I like to know that my coins are not "C" coins, and don't have the kinds of surface issues that PCGS accepts, but CAC does not. I'm willing to pay $15 to have that other unbiased professional opinion confirm what my eyes see. That's a small price to pay for peace of mind. Just as important, when my heirs sell my collection, I don't have to be quite as concerned that others that will buy those coins from them won't try to trick/fool my unknowing heirs into thinking these coins are all "C" coins, and have surface issues as well. As such, it's not a matter that I should be told that I should not participate in this hobby, but instead maybe ALL of us should recognize what the current market is all about, with two tiers, even if you don't like that!
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
I wonder how many of those that have replied to this thread realize that none of this matters. Its just a matter of time, days or weeks at best, before Hanson will dominate these sets just as he dominates the rest of the registry.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
.
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
I don't feel the need to compete with Mr. Hansen or anyone else. I have no interest in owning the top pop of anything. I have no interest in completing any traditional set. I have no need for my collection to either be publicly known or recognized for being "better" (whatever that means) than yours.
99.9% of collectors are not "competitive" with their collection. Many of them would like to be, but very few people can afford to be and so they don't really try.
There is a bright line difference between competition and just sharing images of coins to let others now what exists and what can be accomplished. I have sets and share not to be competitive but to let others know what is possible.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
One man dominating the registry is not good for the hobby, if his collection is somehow motivating you that's fine but I'm willing to bet that more people have been turned off to having a registry set than have added competitive sets knowing there is zero chance of competing.
Never said you did or do, point is that PCGS could add 1000 new sets to the registry as its all pointless when one man dominates the registry.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
My original opinion which still stands is that it's bad for the hobby (if it can still be called a "hobby") but has now become a necessary thing in many cases.
annnddddd.... I don't ask if "it's been."
actually, i suspect the coding was super easy. it's standard stuff to query external databases....
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
What do I care? If I'm number 1234 and the set makes me happy, what do I care who is number one or number 1233, for that matter. Hanson is only a problem if I feel the need to climb the rankings.
Disagree. I dont think the market realizes that a CAC sticker is graded by JA. I think the only people that realize what it actually is are .. few people (predominantly on this forum heh)
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
Lol you really don't get the point and I don't feel the need to explain it to you, later.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I get the point. You fail to understand my counterpoint. I have zero interest in what Hansen is doing. I have zero interest in rankings on any registry set. I'm not the only one. The only reason Hansen is a problem is if you buy into collecting as competition. Let Hansen be number one in every registry set, it doesn't matter unless you are trying to be number one.
JA doesn’t like friction on unc coins whereas I find it perfectly ok if the balance of luster is there ... so we agree to disagree on a couple:
And to top this there will be registry sets for coins with a “MAC” or Modern Approved Coin sticker / stickie!!
Should be fun to watch this evolve!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I don't want to limit the discussion here, this is just a friendly reminder this thread is about new separate PCGS CAC Set Registry Sets.
Heather Boyd
PCGS Senior Director of Marketing
It is really quite simple IMO, all of the plastic holders get dinged up so to capture the image of the coin, one has to polish them. The plastic on the PCGS holder polishes up easier than the NGC plastic where it typically gets hairlines when trying to polish out the nicks. Hence PCGS plastic is worth more........
Best, SH
Why do you post such insulting nonsense? Perhaps YOU should be in another hobby. Yeah, that's the solution....
I was just stating a fact, And I enjoy the hobby a lot. What's your problem......did I hit a nerve?
Heather Boyd
PCGS Senior Director of Marketing
Studies show that 90% of bans occur as a direct result of CAC related threads....
My, what big ears you have, Heather!
Oops, sorry for the typo - I tried to type “lovely”, not “big”.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Heather - You won't have any problem with me, but I can't be responsible for the others.
The price disparity between PCGS and NGC like CAC coins can be readily explained:
1) A more robust PCGS registry
2) there are a fair number of PCGS only classic coin collectors and dealers
3) PCGC holders are nicer
4) PCGS marketing has been superior over the years. Better branding.
5) I’m a 99.9% PCGS only guy. However, I do buy NGC coins but then I have to go through the expense of crossing. Therefore I want to pay less.
Feel free to add to the list.......
All my eligible coins have coins have now been to CAC. A majority of my coins were bought pre CAC or when they were in their infancy.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Not all NGC/CAC coins will cross at the same grade and hence the lower prices.
I have two NGC coins I bought many years ago that were sent to PCGS within the last 2 years. Neither would cross at the same grade. Sent the coins to CAC and they both stickered in their NGC slabs.
This debate seems to be hot amongst old collectors and old school dealers. Anyone interested in maximizing the profit potential of their coins sends their coins to CAC. As a collector, I appreciate the guidance that CAC and John Albanese provides. Without CAC my tuition would have been exponentially greater.
Latin American Collection
Correct and that was part of my expense of crossing comment. You clarified it very nicely
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
So far Del Loy Hansen has only
One #1 PCGS/CAC Set
Half Cents circulation strikes
Chances are very good he will be
sending thousands of coins to CAC
Perhaps JB can chime in about their
plans ?
Te get back on topic, I have added my CAC Capped Bust Quarters registry set in my signature. I have the #2 ranked CAC set, it will improve over time as I find higher graded CBQ's. I think this is a great idea and over time will allow me to display completely different sets in the different BQ categories.
Best, SH
I would think they’d bring the mountain (JA) to his vault with a first class ticket and whatever other incentive he wants!
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I’m guessing the vast majority of his coins have already been to the Garden State. A good many of his dupes for sale on JB’s site aren’t stickered.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I can't believe it took a moderator to make people realize what this thread turned into........ a group of self-patronizing collectors that should see the same thing I saw years ago: Too many collectors could care less about the coin and pay for the plastic instead. Every person who thinks the PCGS coin is worth more than the exact same coin in an NGC holder has been duped by dealers so many times that they are used to it by now. C'mon man just look at yourselves. Sure I own both NGC and PCGS graded coins most of which have CAC stickers and were submitted by me. I don't see the plastic when viewing the coin. I also wonder what JA would say when he buys sight unseen. Does he pay more for PCGS coins when all coins he buys are A or B regardless NGC or PCGS ?
Depends on the series. CAC bids are sometimes uniform N or P. Sometimes the CAC bids are different. When I submit CAC bids in the series I've placed bids, I bid differently for N relative to P because that is the market reality.
Can you see my point ? Your bids may be higher for PCGS coins because likely your circle of clients prefer PCGS plastic rather than NGC. Should your clients be made aware that they may be missing half of the available pieces to look at ? Please understand that my comments are not meant to disturb PCGS coin owners; I am one. Also I do own exactly one superb ANACS coin that I will never sell, as it is simply the finest proof coin of its type I've come across. I just think price differences for widgets that are packaged differently were so imaginary that large groups have accepted this. Isn't that the real purpose of the sticker ?
@MFeld would you therefor consider yourself a CAC former grader? Just to clarify Bryce's point that he purchased coins from "a former cac grader". I have no idea if he was referring to you or not, but sitting in with them at one show I would not label you as a "former cac grader"- unless I am mistaken?
Well he did grade for CAC even if only very briefly. He no longer does. Not to be sarcastic, but under the plain meaning of those terms he is a "former CAC grader."
It is silly to argue with the Market or individual collector preference. Everyone thinks they know what's best. In the end, none of us do, including you. The Market is the Collective Wisdom of the masses. Whether all individuals accept all elements of the market is irrelevant.
I think 1913 Liberty Nickels are overhyped fake rarities. The Market says it's a 7 figure coin. Guess what? It's a 7 figure coin.
1856 flying eagle cents should be inexpensive pattern coins, arguably the most common pattern coin the U.S. ever issued. It should not be part of the FE series and should sell for 1/10th the price, in my humble opinion. Guess what, the Market thinks differently.
Buy what you like. Period. But we should never pretend that we know "better" than the next guy. We just know "different" than the next guy.
You could just as easily argue that an 1881-S Morgan in a 66+ holder should not be worth more than one in a 66 holder, which should not be worth more than the same coin raw. Mr. Market says you're wrong. In the end, he's always right.
PCGS is worth more than NGC. PCGS CAC is generally worth more than NGC CAC. It is not an illusion, it is not a mistake, it is not incorrect. It is the wisdom of the Market. And, quite frankly, when it comes to putting monetary value on a coin rather than just labeling it "pretty", Mr. Market is 100x smarter than you or me or anyone else. Take Mr. Market out of the equation and your Morgan dollar from any year, any mint and in any condition is just worth the price of its silver.
@jmlanzaf that made me tear up. Well said
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Markets are not always efficient or correct. This is why we have crashes, recessions, depressions, etc. Calling this "market wisdom" is nonsense. (Tulip mania anyone?) On the other hand, if what you meant to say is that when it comes time to sell you should consider market preferences then I wholeheartedly agree.
Markets are not always efficient, but when it comes to monetary value they are the sole arbiter. You can't separate price from the Market. There is no "right price". You can speculate on the future direction of the Market, certainly, and you may turn out to be correct. But it is still the Collective Wisdom of the Market that determines value not some self-assured self-righteous numismatist who thinks he or she knows better than the Market.
You can consider the Market to be inefficient or irrational if you like. But there's an old stock market saying: the Market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
Argue with Mr. Market at your own peril.
To be sure the market sets the current price. No one argues with that. The problem is with your use of the term "market wisdom" or "collective wisdom of the market." Markets are not always wise, but they are what they are. Often they are based on speculation or are founded on false premises and subject to systemic risk, sharp corrections, and collapse. This is not specific to any one market industry but is a general comment.