Since there's no way to know how much holder preferences influence prices, you'll have to be left wondering.
The only preference that influences prices should be the coin. So the open question, besides playing the registry game, why would any holder influence a purchase? After all, there is a coin inside.
@Cougar1978 said:
I own slightly over 2 dozen CACG slabs. They are a fun, good investment.
How do you know that they're a good investment?
CACG material has performed well for me in the retail arena. Especially low pop ones able to pick off here and there. Others able to buy right (dealer contacts). However it can be slow going - rabid (rich) auc bidder competition. However I may bid them up to low - mid retail b4 giving up.
My point is that you can’t know if your accumulation of CACG coins are a good investment until you’ve sold them.
That statement can go for ANY accumulation of coins. Why single out CACG?
This is the thing about this thread, it promotes a false narrative against one TPG in favor of another, I thought that was against the rules on these chat boards?……….
While the statement would apply to ANY accumulation of coins, it was in response to a post which only mentioned CACG coins. There was no promotion of a false narrative involved.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Cougar1978 said:
I own slightly over 2 dozen CACG slabs. They are a fun, good investment.
How do you know that they're a good investment?
CACG material has performed well for me in the retail arena. Especially low pop ones able to pick off here and there. Others able to buy right (dealer contacts). However it can be slow going - rabid (rich) auc bidder competition. However I may bid them up to low - mid retail b4 giving up.
My point is that you can’t know if your accumulation of CACG coins are a good investment until you’ve sold them.
That statement can go for ANY accumulation of coins. Why single out CACG?
This is the thing about this thread, it promotes a false narrative against one TPG in favor of another, I thought that was against the rules on these chat boards?……….
While the statement would apply to ANY accumulation of coins, it was in response to a post which only mentioned CACG coins. There was no promotion of a false narrative involved.
@TrickleCharge said:
If the holder doesn't matter, why doesn't CAC sticker or consider a cross of any ANACS or ICG coins to CACG?
I've read somewhere its because there is no deal/agreement in place with those two if "mistakes" are made. I find it interesting that the TPG's make deals. I wonder what else they talk about....
@TrickleCharge said:
If the holder doesn't matter, why doesn't CAC sticker or consider a cross of any ANACS or ICG coins to CACG?
I've read somewhere its because there is no deal/agreement in place with those two if "mistakes" are made. I find it interesting that the TPG's make deals. I wonder what else they talk about....
What type of agreement might there be other than honoring an authenticity and grade guarantee?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Not all coin collectors are numismatists, far from it. Sticker/plastic collecting is more rampant than you may think. When a service such as CAC is offered that labels an item as premium over others, people instantly pay more for the premium option. Same thing goes with luxury items. A designer bag could be had for $3,000 or one can buy the same bag elsewhere for $500 (these numbers are for illustration). The human mind is pulled to the idea of "perceived value" despite whether or not value is actually there. That is why CACG doesn't automatically make PCGS/CAC money despite whatever advertising is said by JA. PCGS/CAC is the luxury item, while CACG has yet to provide realistic "perceived value" in the eyes of buyers and sellers. It takes a while to build a brand.
Coin grading and stickering companies provide a service that was originally designed to streamline sight-unseen trading. People don't buy coins.... instead are able to set a value on a coin without even seeing it. The coin market is in a place where the coins themselves often times don't matter, as the market operates on labels and stickers. In the end, assuming everyone will look at the coins over the labels is unrealistic.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
Not all coin collectors are numismatists, far from it. Sticker/plastic collecting is more rampant than you may think. When a service such as CAC is offered that labels an item as premium over others, people instantly pay more for the premium option. Same thing goes with luxury items. A designer bag could be had for $3,000 or one can buy the same bag elsewhere for $500 (these numbers are for illustration). The human mind is pulled to the idea of "perceived value" despite whether or not value is actually there. That is why CACG doesn't automatically make PCGS/CAC money despite whatever advertising is said by JA. PCGS/CAC is the luxury item, while CACG has yet to provide realistic "perceived value" in the eyes of buyers and sellers. It takes a while to build a brand.
Coin grading and stickering companies provide a service that was originally designed to streamline sight-unseen trading. People don't buy coins.... instead are able to set a value on a coin without even seeing it. The coin market is in a place where the coins themselves often times don't matter, as the market operates on labels and stickers. In the end, assuming everyone will look at the coins over the labels is unrealistic.
I wish I thought you were mistaken.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Not all coin collectors are numismatists, far from it. Sticker/plastic collecting is more rampant than you may think. When a service such as CAC is offered that labels an item as premium over others, people instantly pay more for the premium option. Same thing goes with luxury items. A designer bag could be had for $3,000 or one can buy the same bag elsewhere for $500 (these numbers are for illustration). The human mind is pulled to the idea of "perceived value" despite whether or not value is actually there. That is why CACG doesn't automatically make PCGS/CAC money despite whatever advertising is said by JA. PCGS/CAC is the luxury item, while CACG has yet to provide realistic "perceived value" in the eyes of buyers and sellers. It takes a while to build a brand.
Coin grading and stickering companies provide a service that was originally designed to streamline sight-unseen trading. People don't buy coins.... instead are able to set a value on a coin without even seeing it. The coin market is in a place where the coins themselves often times don't matter, as the market operates on labels and stickers. In the end, assuming everyone will look at the coins over the labels is unrealistic.
I wish I thought you were mistaken.
There really isn't much wrong with the idea of plastic and sticker collecting. It certainly does streamline the marketplace to allow trustworthy transactions at a quick pace. I am not old enough to be around when a coin show consisted of entirely raw coins, but I know it was problematic for some reasons. Old catalogs show miscataloged proofs, BU coins that are technically AU, cleanings that are not described at all, etc. TPGs and relying on labels to a degree has certainly helped numismatics as a whole. We are not in the Wild West anymore.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
@jmlanzaf said:
Definitely. I don't play the registry game so I don't view PCGS as superior to CACG. I do, however, have a slight preference for NGC/CAC or PCGS/CAC over CACG just because I have 2 independent opinions.
>
Sure, but the point is, you only need one opinion IF the grading standards for CAC and CACG are identical, which JA has stated over and over. So the only preference for your choices should be the quality of the coin, not the holder if CAC or CACG.
No, you still need 2 opinions because humans are fallible. If I could, I would want CACG/CAC as well.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
All kidding aside, I do find the notion that NGC/CAC is suspect or inferior to PCGS/CAC odd. That bias definitely exists (see this thread) but if someone believes that then it's really CAC they have a problem with not NGC since they are rejecting the CAC approval.
Then why would you find the notion of PCGS/CAC over CACG not odd? Same grading standards same thing.
IT IS THE COIN NOT THE HOLDER FOLKS………...
2 opinions vs 1.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Not all coin collectors are numismatists, far from it. Sticker/plastic collecting is more rampant than you may think. When a service such as CAC is offered that labels an item as premium over others, people instantly pay more for the premium option. Same thing goes with luxury items. A designer bag could be had for $3,000 or one can buy the same bag elsewhere for $500 (these numbers are for illustration). The human mind is pulled to the idea of "perceived value" despite whether or not value is actually there. That is why CACG doesn't automatically make PCGS/CAC money despite whatever advertising is said by JA. PCGS/CAC is the luxury item, while CACG has yet to provide realistic "perceived value" in the eyes of buyers and sellers. It takes a while to build a brand.
Coin grading and stickering companies provide a service that was originally designed to streamline sight-unseen trading. People don't buy coins.... instead are able to set a value on a coin without even seeing it. The coin market is in a place where the coins themselves often times don't matter, as the market operates on labels and stickers. In the end, assuming everyone will look at the coins over the labels is unrealistic.
I wish I thought you were mistaken.
Would you buy a Rembrandt without authentication?
This is not aimed at you, but this whole "learn to grade" or "it's the coin not the holder" crap is based on the idea that all collectors are expert. They aren't, especially in ALL areas that they may collect.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
The advice to “buy the coin not the holder” isn’t the same as the “learn to grade” advice, at least in my view. I
believe a collector of anything should develop a sense of personal taste and not simply make purchases based solely on the advice of others. This doesn’t require one to develop the skills of a professional authenticator or grader, but it should require one to understand their subject well enough to exercise their brain to a reasonable extent, if for no other reason than it enhances one’s enjoyment of the subject.
Not all coin collectors are numismatists, far from it. Sticker/plastic collecting is more rampant than you may think. When a service such as CAC is offered that labels an item as premium over others, people instantly pay more for the premium option. Same thing goes with luxury items. A designer bag could be had for $3,000 or one can buy the same bag elsewhere for $500 (these numbers are for illustration). The human mind is pulled to the idea of "perceived value" despite whether or not value is actually there. That is why CACG doesn't automatically make PCGS/CAC money despite whatever advertising is said by JA. PCGS/CAC is the luxury item, while CACG has yet to provide realistic "perceived value" in the eyes of buyers and sellers. It takes a while to build a brand.
Coin grading and stickering companies provide a service that was originally designed to streamline sight-unseen trading. People don't buy coins.... instead are able to set a value on a coin without even seeing it. The coin market is in a place where the coins themselves often times don't matter, as the market operates on labels and stickers. In the end, assuming everyone will look at the coins over the labels is unrealistic.
I wish I thought you were mistaken.
Would you buy a Rembrandt without authentication?
This is not aimed at you, but this whole "learn to grade" or "it's the coin not the holder" crap is based on the idea that all collectors are expert. They aren't, especially in ALL areas that they may collect.
No, of course I wouldn’t buy a Rembrandt without authentication. But it wasn’t authentication that I was referring to.
While I firmly believe that collectors should buy whatever they like and not be told what that should be, my wish is that they’re at least well informed about what they choose to buy. I don’t expect everyone to be a highly proficient grader. But hopefully, they understand the potential pitfalls of blindly focusing on the holder and/or the sticker and/or the seller and are aware of market conditions for whatever they choose to pursue.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Not all coin collectors are numismatists, far from it. Sticker/plastic collecting is more rampant than you may think. When a service such as CAC is offered that labels an item as premium over others, people instantly pay more for the premium option. Same thing goes with luxury items. A designer bag could be had for $3,000 or one can buy the same bag elsewhere for $500 (these numbers are for illustration). The human mind is pulled to the idea of "perceived value" despite whether or not value is actually there. That is why CACG doesn't automatically make PCGS/CAC money despite whatever advertising is said by JA. PCGS/CAC is the luxury item, while CACG has yet to provide realistic "perceived value" in the eyes of buyers and sellers. It takes a while to build a brand.
Coin grading and stickering companies provide a service that was originally designed to streamline sight-unseen trading. People don't buy coins.... instead are able to set a value on a coin without even seeing it. The coin market is in a place where the coins themselves often times don't matter, as the market operates on labels and stickers. In the end, assuming everyone will look at the coins over the labels is unrealistic.
I wish I thought you were mistaken.
Would you buy a Rembrandt without authentication?
This is not aimed at you, but this whole "learn to grade" or "it's the coin not the holder" crap is based on the idea that all collectors are expert. They aren't, especially in ALL areas that they may collect.
No, of course I wouldn’t buy a Rembrandt without authentication. But it wasn’t authentication that I was referring to.
While I firmly believe that collectors should buy whatever they like and not be told what that should be, my wish is that they’re at least well informed about what they choose to buy. I don’t expect everyone to be a highly proficient grader. But hopefully, they understand the potential pitfalls of blindly focusing on the holder and/or the sticker and/or the seller and are aware of market conditions for whatever they choose to pursue.
As I said, it wasn't aimed at you. People can both overvalue and undervalue the holders/stickers. But I do find the people who undervalue them to be a bit...er...harder to take?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@jmlanzaf said:
People can both overvalue and undervalue the holders/stickers. But I do find the people who undervalue them to be a bit...er...harder to take?
Tough call. The “learn to grade” camp comes off as officious and unrealistic while the “holder” crowd comes off as lazy and naive.
We bought 15 Double eagles in 2025. Two thirds NGC. One third PCGS. None have CAC stickers. Shrug.
CAC hasn't meant much for us. Perhaps somewhat rare piece with limited availability is their niche? High grades seem to matter. At our price level, it's marginal.
Average buy price in 2025 = $3850/coin. gold content today $3300.
When we have time, we'll put the coins in our E-Bay store. This year we have been closed about 4 of the 8 months. We were forced to put the store on holiday much of the year as my partner would rather babysit out of state than to sell and then pack coins.
In any event, we are stuck with an $8000+ premium to gold on the coins we bought this year, so if we messed up on the purchases, the loss is greatly contained.
I am that proverbial plastic buyer so I do my best.
@MFeld said:
While the statement would apply to ANY accumulation of coins, it was in response to a post which only mentioned CACG coins. There was no promotion of a false narrative involved.
Says me who drinks fresh squeezed lemonade. This whole CACG bashing thread is a false narrative bc:
Fact, CAC and CACG use the exact same grading criteria. Hence PCGS/CAC, NGC/CAC, and CACG coins should have the same value if only the type and grade mattered (see below). Besides Facts 2-4 below, the only reasons they may not, which is unproven in any case, is because people in one restricted registry need to have coins in that slab in order to add to that registry. Hence many feel that liquidity for this type of slab is better and that might influence sell prices..
Fact 2, it is completely unproven that CACG coins sell for less than PCGS/CAC coins. @jacrispies for example, cites some isolated examples to bolster such a claim. But anyone here knows better than that. Anyone who makes the effort to do so can likely find just the opposite for CACG coins of a given grade and type selling for more than a PCGS/CAC coin because:
Fact 3, I repeat, the only thing that matters is the coin in the slab, not the slab. Each coin is unique and carries a unique value based on its attributes and problems, even within a grade and type. No one would agree otherwise, even in this thread. For example, I sold one PCGS no CAC (and will never CAC bc of its problems) coin for 1.5x PCGS price guide at ANA bc that was its value, that coin. This is one example of near infinite that indicate that value, and liquidity, is primarily about the specific qualities of unique coins, not the slab it self. Each coin carries its own value.
Fact 4, There is not an evaluation of on extensive datebase that has been published on NGC/CAC vs. PCGS/CAC vs. CACG slabbed coins in terms of sale values. Even if there were, it would likely not include private treaty sales but just auction sales. Auction sales are not always the best coins so their values reported on to derive price guides are likely very biased. For example, a 1844-D quarter eagle that sells by private treaty that has never seen an auction, may sell for substantially more than averaged of 1844-Ds that price guides are based on because it is far better for its grade. Rick Snow pointed this out long ago for Indian Cent values, bad coins potentially depress better coins values. So how does one include quality vs. value fora given type and grade into a evaluation of prices for coins in different slabs to reach a conclusion that something like CACG coins sell for less than PCGS/CAC coins. Very hard to make that conclusion.
And on and on.
Hence this whole thread to me is a false narrative trying to make a claim that CACG coins sell for less than PCGS/CAC coins. So many myths in numismatics. It never crossed me mind that CACG coins should be valued for less than PCGS/CAC coins. HST, sure, liquidity might be an issue simply bc so many participate in one registry that limits its coins to a single slab brand. But each coin has its own value irrespective of the coin and that is the sum of all facts above.
@MFeld said:
While the statement would apply to ANY accumulation of coins, it was in response to a post which only mentioned CACG coins. There was no promotion of a false narrative involved.
Says me who drinks fresh squeezed lemonade. This whole CACG bashing thread is a false narrative bc:
Fact, CAC and CACG use the exact same grading criteria. Hence PCGS/CAC, NGC/CAC, and CACG coins should have the same value if only the type and grade mattered (see below). Besides Facts 2-4 below, the only reasons they may not, which is unproven in any case, is because people in one restricted registry need to have coins in that slab in order to add to that registry. Hence many feel that liquidity for this type of slab is better and that might influence sell prices..
Fact 2, it is completely unproven that CACG coins sell for less than PCGS/CAC coins. @jacrispies for example, cites some isolated examples to bolster such a claim. But anyone here knows better than that. Anyone who makes the effort to do so can likely find just the opposite for CACG coins of a given grade and type selling for more than a PCGS/CAC coin because:
Fact 3, I repeat, the only thing that matters is the coin in the slab, not the slab. Each coin is unique and carries a unique value based on its attributes and problems, even within a grade and type. No one would agree otherwise, even in this thread. For example, I sold one PCGS no CAC (and will never CAC bc of its problems) coin for 1.5x PCGS price guide at ANA bc that was its value, that coin. This is one example of near infinite that indicate that value, and liquidity, is primarily about the specific qualities of unique coins, not the slab it self. Each coin carries its own value.
Fact 4, There is not an evaluation of on extensive datebase that has been published on NGC/CAC vs. PCGS/CAC vs. CACG slabbed coins in terms of sale values. Even if there were, it would likely not include private treaty sales but just auction sales. Auction sales are not always the best coins so their values reported on to derive price guides are likely very biased. For example, a 1844-D quarter eagle that sells by private treaty that has never seen an auction, may sell for substantially more than averaged of 1844-Ds that price guides are based on because it is far better for its grade. Rick Snow pointed this out long ago for Indian Cent values, bad coins potentially depress better coins values. So how does one include quality vs. value fora given type and grade into a evaluation of prices for coins in different slabs to reach a conclusion that something like CACG coins sell for less than PCGS/CAC coins. Very hard to make that conclusion.
And on and on.
Hence this whole thread to me is a false narrative trying to make a claim that CACG coins sell for less than PCGS/CAC coins. So many myths in numismatics. It never crossed me mind that CACG coins should be valued for less than PCGS/CAC coins. HST, sure, liquidity might be an issue simply bc so many participate in one registry that limits its coins to a single slab brand. But each coin has its own value irrespective of the coin and that is the sum of all facts above.
“ Fact 3, I repeat, the only thing that matters is the coin in the slab, not the slab.”
That might be the only thing which matters to you and some other numismatists. But as much as you might not like it, it’s clearly not the only thing that matters to many others.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
But 2 opinions vs. 1 for NGC/CAC as well then. Yet many folks will say that NGC/CAC doesn’t have the same merit as PCGS/CAC. So isn’t that abit hypocritical? So it promotes a false narrative. CAC finds both meeting its standards for its grading criteria, no difference. Period.
So the only opinion at least to me that matter if it has a sticker on it, is that of CAC. So really only one opinion.
“ Fact 3, I repeat, the only thing that matters is the coin in the slab, not the slab.”
That might be the only thing which matters to you and some other numismatists. But as much as you might not like it, it’s clearly not the only thing that matters to many others.
Agree fully and I noted the caveat of the registry and potentially liquidity that supports your comment. But at this point, we are all now arguing in circles. So not really much more to say except I would love to see hard data on the notion that PCGS/CAC sells for more than CACG. But as noted, I think that would be very hard to prove and just as likely to be untrue.
One can argue that CACG's /CAC grades are the "most accurate" but how does the market perceive their error rate?
If a CAC was 100% spot on then yes no other grading service opinion is necessary. Therefore CAC/NGC or CAC PCGS coins should sell for the same price.
If the majority believes that CAC may be a bit more conservative/accurate but is still error prone then a second opinion would influence the selling price.
@jkrk said:
One can argue that CACG's /CAC grades are the "most accurate" but how does the market perceive their error rate?
Most accurate to what standard?
accurate isn't my point. The collective buyers will make a judgement as to how they perceive the cac grade. Is the CAC grade the "grail" or perhaps simply "best opinion" around? All I am saying is that if one believes CAC is perfect then a CAC/PCGS and a CAC /NGC should sell for the same price.
I had a long conversation with AI discussing the strategic positioning of coin grading companies. Here's the analysis:
The Long-Term Viability Problem
CACG faces the same structural market forces that caused grade inflation at PCGS and NGC - collectors want higher grades, dealers prefer generous services, and volume pressures mount over time. With John Albanese now 66, the real test comes in 10-15 years during leadership transition, when maintaining founder-level commitment to strict standards becomes extremely difficult regardless of good intentions.
The Strategic Blunder
By phasing out their profitable sticker business, CAC is abandoning their unique competitive advantage to enter direct competition with PCGS and NGC. The sticker service gave them a defensible market position as quality arbiters rather than just another grading company. Now they're forcing collectors to choose between PCGS/CAC stickers (which many prefer) or CACG slabs, creating unnecessary friction in their own market.
The Historical Pattern
CAC's pivot resembles failed business transformations rather than successful ones. Like New Coke or JCPenney's pricing strategy, they're abandoning what made them successful (profitable differentiation) to compete in a saturated commodity market. Successful pivots typically flee dying businesses or leverage unique strengths - but CAC's sticker service was growing and profitable, and grading is a commodity business they must build from scratch.
Bottom Line
CACG appears to be solving a problem that didn't exist while creating new vulnerabilities. They had a profitable, differentiated business model that the market clearly valued, but chose to abandon it for direct competition with entrenched players who have massive structural advantages. This looks less like strategic evolution and more like fixing something that wasn't broken.
Upward Pressure on PCGS/CAC Values:
These coins will become increasingly scarce as no new stickers are created while existing ones disappear through crossovers and losses. Registry collectors with significant PCGS investments will likely pay premiums to keep both certifications rather than switching systems. PCGS/CAC combinations may also develop collector appeal as artifacts from the Albanese era - representing a unique moment when the market demanded his dual stamp of approval.
AI Grading Revolution
Machine learning could eventually grade coins more consistently than humans, eliminating the subjective differences that created CAC's market niche. If AI can reliably assess surface quality, strike characteristics, and eye appeal, the premium for human expert opinion diminishes significantly.
Enhanced Digital Documentation
High-resolution photography, 3D scanning, and digital archives could make quality differences more apparent to average collectors, reducing reliance on expert certification. Blockchain provenance tracking might also transform how authenticity and history are verified.
I believe the CACG market is strong. But I don’t see CDN bids really advancing across the board (CAC and non CAC). Obviously there is going to be low end and high end material whoever the TPG is - so this is where the skills of the individual player come into play. If you know how to grade, price, and look at coins your in the drivers seat. Otherwise - possibly road kill.
Think its unwise to judge historical pricing data and say a PCGS/CAC coin is better & will sell for more then NGC/CAC when each coin should stand alone. No one should expect all 'A' coins to be priced the same. I evaluate toning, strike, luster, eye appeal different from you.
What folks may believe, and maybe its a fact, is in the past, a higher majority of the dealer/high end collectors 'better' coins went to PCGS since perceived they will sell for more or quicker. But doesn't mean an NGC slabbed coin can't be better then a PCGS graded coin with the same grade. For me, I'd send coin for slabbing to whoever had the better pricing and quicker turnaround.
If CAC says 2 coins are both 'A' coins the marketplace should evaluate its merit & pricing on its own. However sight unseen, or internet buying with photos, folks believe in general the better coins in the past probably went to PCGS and bid higher. Shouldn't mean NGC/CAC is inferior.
@seatedlib3991 said:
Pretty impressive for a robot. I didn't know CAC was ending the stickering program. That would certainly make a significant difference.
I expect that to change as the timeline draws near. If the business is profitable and if they can get someone of JA's caliber to take it over, there's a strong case to continue it.
@seatedlib3991 said:
Pretty impressive for a robot. I didn't know CAC was ending the stickering program. That would certainly make a significant difference.
I expect that to change as the timeline draws near. If the business is profitable and if they can get someone of JA's caliber to take it over, there's a strong case to continue it.
That would surprise me, as I believe that the current time line is a courtesy. If anything, I think they’d prefer to shorten it because CAC cannibalizes CACG submissions to some extent.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Desert Moon said:
Fact 2, it is completely unproven that CACG coins sell for less than PCGS/CAC coins. @jacrispies for example, cites some isolated examples to bolster such a claim. But anyone here knows better than that.
Lol I can't debate someone who does not consider clear evidence.
I would be happy to admit that I am wrong. Just need some non-anecdotal evidence to show on your side. Share with us some auctions of the same criteria (unreserved, similar sales, short time frame, identical or same coin crossed) as I found, with CACG realizing higher prices than PCGS/CAC, to prove otherwise.
No CACG bashing here, just laying out the facts. Note again, I am an outsider and collect raw coins.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
“ Fact 3, I repeat, the only thing that matters is the coin in the slab, not the slab.”
That might be the only thing which matters to you and some other numismatists. But as much as you might not like it, it’s clearly not the only thing that matters to many others.
That’s my conundrum or quandary now.
Probably half of my Walker and Large Cent collections consist of NGC coins, most of them purchased more than 15-20 years ago, and never sent to CAC.
I’m getting the impression from more than a few people these are now being viewed as third world TPG holders, and valued as such in the marketplace.
Of course that’s why we have cross overs and stickering options (for now), but what a pain…. I guess I’ll let that be Ian’s team’s job when the time comes. It’s just disappointing that once upon a time I thought that it was enough to choose decent coins that one thought met the grade and had a major TPG behind it. But the market has clearly evolved.
I’m not a fan of the CACG slab. Big and clunky. It does not match their premium image and it needs a redesign.
If I have a PCGS CAC coin, I can always turn it into a CACG coin of the same grade with no risk whenever I want. The same does not work in reverse.
Err same size as PCGS slabs, do the proof experiment. I did. 32 PCGS slabs fit in my intecept shield boxes lined up but don’t fit together and make a mess. 32 CACG slabs fit in my intercept shield boxes lined up, and fit together perfectly. Go figure………
Why does the same not work in reverse? Well that is a separate thread in itself. CACG bashing is what this thread is all about……………..
@Desert Moon said:
Fact 2, it is completely unproven that CACG coins sell for less than PCGS/CAC coins. @jacrispies for example, cites some isolated examples to bolster such a claim. But anyone here knows better than that.
Lol I can't debate someone who does not consider clear evidence.
I would be happy to admit that I am wrong. Just need some non-anecdotal evidence to show on your side. Share with us some auctions of the same criteria (unreserved, similar sales, short time frame, identical or same coin crossed) as I found, with CACG realizing higher prices than PCGS/CAC, to prove otherwise.
.
Dude. Dude. Dude. Show proof from extensive data b4 saying things like that. Give it a decade and then we can discuss it. My experience so far is that CACG coins sell for the SAME price as PCGS/CAC and NGC/CAC as they should. So yes. It is unproven what you say. Dude. And you chose a few examples. Anyone can do that. This is not a systematic approach to the question in the OP. Data. Lots. Of Data. To. Answer. This. Question.
But 2 opinions vs. 1 for NGC/CAC as well then. Yet many folks will say that NGC/CAC doesn’t have the same merit as PCGS/CAC. So isn’t that abit hypocritical? So it promotes a false narrative. CAC finds both meeting its standards for its grading criteria, no difference. Period.
So the only opinion at least to me that matter if it has a sticker on it, is that of CAC. So really only one opinion.
Except 1 professional opinion is more likely to be wrong, no matter whose it is, than 2. So, at least to me, two opinions matter.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@jmlanzaf said:
Except 1 professional opinion is more likely to be wrong, no matter whose it is, than 2. So, at least to me, two opinions matter.
Ah no. Not when it is the best opinion and consistent across CAC and CACG then all that matters.
Ah no. Humans make mistakes. It is the nature of humans. Arguing for CAC infallibility may provide balance to the thread but it makes your position seem less rational.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
And some TPGs may get it wrong probably 80% of the time, which is why JA founded CAC and CACG. As Ronald Reagan used to say - ‘Here we go again’. LOL
Further, who says CAC and CACG are infallible? Not me. I evaluate each coin as its own irrespective of the plastic around it. I would appreciate not putting words into my mouth. But this is a separate issue from the OP question on whether PCGS/CAC coins sell for more than CACG coins. That was the point of the thread. Show me proof by an extensive database to support this idea. There is none at the moment.
@jacrispies said:
I would be happy to admit that I am wrong. Just need some non-anecdotal evidence to show on your side. Share with us some auctions of the same criteria (unreserved, similar sales, short time frame, identical or same coin crossed) as I found, with CACG realizing higher prices than PCGS/CAC, to prove otherwise.
No CACG bashing here, just laying out the facts. Note again, I am an outsider and collect raw coins.
The issue with your examples and your conclusion is that auction results are far more nuanced than just the plastic. Could that be a factor, sure, but so is the timing of the auction, the bidders bidding in each auction, auction platform, amount of promotion, and a host of other factors that determine the end result. Unless you have debriefed and have statements from the bidders (or lack of bidders) in each of those auctions to prove that the plastic brand was the single factor each bidder used to determine their bids, you cannot assume that the plastic was the cause of the different hammer prices.
Probably half of my Walker and Large Cent collections consist of NGC coins, most of them purchased more than 15-20 years ago, and never sent to CAC.
I’m getting the impression from more than a few people these are now being viewed as third world TPG holders, and valued as such in the marketplace.
Of course that’s why we have cross overs and stickering options (for now), but what a pain…. I guess I’ll let that be Ian’s team’s job when the time comes. It’s just disappointing that once upon a time I thought that it was enough to choose decent coins that one thought met the grade and had a major TPG behind it. But the market has clearly evolved.
For several years I was extremely skeptical of the value of CACs as I had carefully selected my coins with a help of extremely knowledgeable mentors. Just to prove I had better than average coins I sent a group in to CAC and was shocked to learn how few passed. After a few boxes of 20 had been submitted, I started asking why? The answers were not what I thought they would be.
It's really a great learning experience to submit cons to CAC. And it would be much better than asking an auction house to do it when you have decided to sell your coins and not know why they did not pass. I have even submitted several boxes of 20 on behalf of friends and they have really appreciated the learning experience.
@DisneyFan said:
It's really a great learning experience to submit cons to CAC. And it would be much better than asking an auction house to do it when you have decided to sell your coins and not know why they did not pass. I have even submitted several boxes of 20 on behalf of friends and they have really appreciated the learning experience.
I very much agree. In fact an example today... I bought a Peace dollar earlier this year, suspected it had PVC but I wasn't for sure so I sent it to PCGS for restoration. They declined to restore it. OK, great, no PVC! I sent it to CAC for a sticker. Result: No CAC due to PVC. So frustrating, but so happy that CAC provided that feedback for me. Now I will try to convince PCGS to restore it somehow and hopefully for no additional charge since they probably shouldn't have declined to remove the PVC.
I bought a Peace dollar earlier this year, suspected it had PVC but I wasn't for sure so I sent it to PCGS for restoration. They declined to restore it. OK, great, no PVC! I sent it to CAC for a sticker. Result: No CAC due to PVC. So frustrating, but so happy that CAC provided that feedback for me. Now I will try to convince PCGS to restore it somehow and hopefully for no additional charge since they probably shouldn't have declined to remove the PVC.
>
Another consideration is PCGS may have felt the PVC could not be removed without damaging the coin. It might be best to sell the coin and move on.
I bought a Peace dollar earlier this year, suspected it had PVC but I wasn't for sure so I sent it to PCGS for restoration. They declined to restore it. OK, great, no PVC! I sent it to CAC for a sticker. Result: No CAC due to PVC. So frustrating, but so happy that CAC provided that feedback for me. Now I will try to convince PCGS to restore it somehow and hopefully for no additional charge since they probably shouldn't have declined to remove the PVC.
>
Another consideration is PCGS may have felt the PVC could not be removed without damaging the coin. It might be best to sell the coin and move on.
Im aware of that possibility. In the pasr JA would provide additional notes and say thay if it was not fixable.
But 2 opinions vs. 1 for NGC/CAC as well then. Yet many folks will say that NGC/CAC doesn’t have the same merit as PCGS/CAC. So isn’t that abit hypocritical? So it promotes a false narrative. CAC finds both meeting its standards for its grading criteria, no difference. Period.
So the only opinion at least to me that matter if it has a sticker on it, is that of CAC. So really only one opinion.
Except 1 professional opinion is more likely to be wrong, no matter whose it is, than 2. So, at least to me, two opinions matter.
Suppose we create a TPG that uses 5 graders per coin (4 bases and a finalizer) rather than the usual 3.
Will that TPG automatically be better than a PCGS/CAC coin?
If you look at the DL Hansen collection, there is an 1881 PCGS MS67 Seated Half, PCGS cert #25619791. This coin appears to have failed to receive a CAC sticker.
Yet in the DL Hansen CAC registry, there is an identical coin 1881 CACG MS67 Seated Half, CACG cert #406799078
Did the coin cross at grade, despite failing CAC? How would we even know, given that CAC failures aren't published? I know the CACG groupies will say this is only one example...but that's because I don't have time to go through the entire registry.
If we go to Bust Halves, the DL Hansen universal set is ranked #1 and 99% complete. Yet the CAC-only set is ranked #6 and 25% complete. That is because 75% of the coins failed CAC.
Collectors who aren't billionaires want to know what is going to happen to the 75% of coins that failed CAC. Bodybag? Net Graded? Gentleman's Crossovers (the perk of being an investor)?
Until there is hard and public data on what happens to known CAC failures, and whether the person submitting makes a difference, collectors are right to be skeptical of CACG.
Rattlers became a super-premium vintage of PCGS holder, indicating they were graded before inflation, and often were part of old-timey collections.
Likewise, the PCGS/CAC combination is going to be a super-premium vintage of holder once stickering stops.
It's almost impossible to have the same standards for grading as for stickering, because the bias in stickering is to reject anything with questions, whereas the bias in grading is to throw a number on it rather than bodybag a coin from a valuable submitter.
EDIT: the 1866 and 1888 also appear to have crossed at grade, despite failing CAC
If you look at the DL Hansen collection, there is an 1881 PCGS MS67 Seated Half, PCGS cert #25619791. This coin appears to have failed to receive a CAC sticker.
Yet in the DL Hansen CAC registry, there is an identical coin 1881 CACG MS67 Seated Half, CACG cert #406799078
Did the coin cross at grade, despite failing CAC? How would we even know, given that CAC failures aren't published? I know the CACG groupies will say this is only one example...but that's because I don't have time to go through the entire registry.
If we go to Bust Halves, the DL Hansen universal set is ranked #1 and 99% complete. Yet the CAC-only set is ranked #6 and 25% complete. That is because 75% of the coins failed CAC.
Collectors who aren't billionaires want to know what is going to happen to the 75% of coins that failed CAC. Bodybag? Net Graded? Gentleman's Crossovers (the perk of being an investor)?
Until there is hard and public data on what happens to known CAC failures, and whether the person submitting makes a difference, collectors are right to be skeptical of CACG.
Rattlers became a super-premium vintage of PCGS holder, indicating they were graded before inflation, and often were part of old-timey collections.
Likewise, the PCGS/CAC combination is going to be a super-premium vintage of holder once stickering stops.
It's almost impossible to have the same standards for grading as for stickering, because the bias in stickering is to reject anything with questions, whereas the bias in grading is to throw a number on it rather than bodybag a coin from a valuable submitter.
EDIT: the 1866 and 1888 also appear to have crossed at grade, despite failing CAC
It's not unknown that coins receive a CAC after previous fails. By the same token, it's possible that a coin will receive a CACG after failing at CAC.
Bust half collectors acknowledge getting a CAC is very difficult because of the coins' age and treatment by collectors over the years.
The CACG website lists the coins CAC Grading DOES NOT Holder, one being coins with PVC. It also lists Detail Codes for coins CAC Grading DOES Holder.
It's not unknown that coins receive a CAC after previous fails. By the same token, it's possible that a coin will receive a CACG after failing at CAC.
The three coins I noticed: 1866, 1881, 1888 all have something in common: the toning is slightly off.
1866 is gray dirt. Looks solid for grade, but lacks color and probably lacks luster
1881 is mottled and dark. Some clear spots in the otherwise dark toning, of questionable origin
1888 has dramatic but narrow and tight rainbows along the rim, a hallmark of AT. Also has dings on liberty's chest
This is exactly what I would expect for a stickering company vs a grading company.
These coins show up for stickering, and the first reaction is "well, umm, I'm not really sure about the color or the luster or the eye appeal. REJECT"
Same coin shows up for grading, and the reaction is "well, it looks like a 67... I could net grade it down to 66, but it doesn't look like a 66. I could bodybag it, but the collector is real darn important to our business..."
The difference between a stickering company and a grading company is the difference between opt-in and opt-out. It will never be the same, no matter how much people protest otherwise.
The CACG defenders are going to have an absolutely colossal tantrum criticizing this post, but it doesn't change the fact that collectors don't want to see the value of their collections wiped out by a combination of superior-CACs getting diluted by population growth while their CAC-fails get bought cheap and crossed to CACG by the "right submitter"
Much smarter to sit in PCGS/CAC and watch as the slabs develop coveted vintage status.
Comments
The only preference that influences prices should be the coin. So the open question, besides playing the registry game, why would any holder influence a purchase? After all, there is a coin inside.
While the statement would apply to ANY accumulation of coins, it was in response to a post which only mentioned CACG coins. There was no promotion of a false narrative involved.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks, Mark. You beat me to it...
Smitten with DBLCs.
If the holder doesn't matter, why doesn't CAC sticker or consider a cross of any ANACS or ICG coins to CACG?
I've read somewhere its because there is no deal/agreement in place with those two if "mistakes" are made. I find it interesting that the TPG's make deals. I wonder what else they talk about....
USAF veteran 1984-2005
What type of agreement might there be other than honoring an authenticity and grade guarantee?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Is it the coin and not the sticker??
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
Not all coin collectors are numismatists, far from it. Sticker/plastic collecting is more rampant than you may think. When a service such as CAC is offered that labels an item as premium over others, people instantly pay more for the premium option. Same thing goes with luxury items. A designer bag could be had for $3,000 or one can buy the same bag elsewhere for $500 (these numbers are for illustration). The human mind is pulled to the idea of "perceived value" despite whether or not value is actually there. That is why CACG doesn't automatically make PCGS/CAC money despite whatever advertising is said by JA. PCGS/CAC is the luxury item, while CACG has yet to provide realistic "perceived value" in the eyes of buyers and sellers. It takes a while to build a brand.
Coin grading and stickering companies provide a service that was originally designed to streamline sight-unseen trading. People don't buy coins.... instead are able to set a value on a coin without even seeing it. The coin market is in a place where the coins themselves often times don't matter, as the market operates on labels and stickers. In the end, assuming everyone will look at the coins over the labels is unrealistic.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
I wish I thought you were mistaken.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There really isn't much wrong with the idea of plastic and sticker collecting. It certainly does streamline the marketplace to allow trustworthy transactions at a quick pace. I am not old enough to be around when a coin show consisted of entirely raw coins, but I know it was problematic for some reasons. Old catalogs show miscataloged proofs, BU coins that are technically AU, cleanings that are not described at all, etc. TPGs and relying on labels to a degree has certainly helped numismatics as a whole. We are not in the Wild West anymore.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
No, you still need 2 opinions because humans are fallible. If I could, I would want CACG/CAC as well.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
2 opinions vs 1.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Would you buy a Rembrandt without authentication?
This is not aimed at you, but this whole "learn to grade" or "it's the coin not the holder" crap is based on the idea that all collectors are expert. They aren't, especially in ALL areas that they may collect.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
The advice to “buy the coin not the holder” isn’t the same as the “learn to grade” advice, at least in my view. I
believe a collector of anything should develop a sense of personal taste and not simply make purchases based solely on the advice of others. This doesn’t require one to develop the skills of a professional authenticator or grader, but it should require one to understand their subject well enough to exercise their brain to a reasonable extent, if for no other reason than it enhances one’s enjoyment of the subject.
No, of course I wouldn’t buy a Rembrandt without authentication. But it wasn’t authentication that I was referring to.
While I firmly believe that collectors should buy whatever they like and not be told what that should be, my wish is that they’re at least well informed about what they choose to buy. I don’t expect everyone to be a highly proficient grader. But hopefully, they understand the potential pitfalls of blindly focusing on the holder and/or the sticker and/or the seller and are aware of market conditions for whatever they choose to pursue.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
As I said, it wasn't aimed at you. People can both overvalue and undervalue the holders/stickers. But I do find the people who undervalue them to be a bit...er...harder to take?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Tough call. The “learn to grade” camp comes off as officious and unrealistic while the “holder” crowd comes off as lazy and naive.
Everyone in the coin biz should learn to grade.
That's my public service announcement.
We bought 15 Double eagles in 2025. Two thirds NGC. One third PCGS. None have CAC stickers. Shrug.
CAC hasn't meant much for us. Perhaps somewhat rare piece with limited availability is their niche? High grades seem to matter. At our price level, it's marginal.
Average buy price in 2025 = $3850/coin. gold content today $3300.
When we have time, we'll put the coins in our E-Bay store. This year we have been closed about 4 of the 8 months. We were forced to put the store on holiday much of the year as my partner would rather babysit out of state than to sell and then pack coins.
In any event, we are stuck with an $8000+ premium to gold on the coins we bought this year, so if we messed up on the purchases, the loss is greatly contained.
I am that proverbial plastic buyer so I do my best.
Says me who drinks fresh squeezed lemonade. This whole CACG bashing thread is a false narrative bc:
Fact, CAC and CACG use the exact same grading criteria. Hence PCGS/CAC, NGC/CAC, and CACG coins should have the same value if only the type and grade mattered (see below). Besides Facts 2-4 below, the only reasons they may not, which is unproven in any case, is because people in one restricted registry need to have coins in that slab in order to add to that registry. Hence many feel that liquidity for this type of slab is better and that might influence sell prices..
Fact 2, it is completely unproven that CACG coins sell for less than PCGS/CAC coins. @jacrispies for example, cites some isolated examples to bolster such a claim. But anyone here knows better than that. Anyone who makes the effort to do so can likely find just the opposite for CACG coins of a given grade and type selling for more than a PCGS/CAC coin because:
Fact 3, I repeat, the only thing that matters is the coin in the slab, not the slab. Each coin is unique and carries a unique value based on its attributes and problems, even within a grade and type. No one would agree otherwise, even in this thread. For example, I sold one PCGS no CAC (and will never CAC bc of its problems) coin for 1.5x PCGS price guide at ANA bc that was its value, that coin. This is one example of near infinite that indicate that value, and liquidity, is primarily about the specific qualities of unique coins, not the slab it self. Each coin carries its own value.
Fact 4, There is not an evaluation of on extensive datebase that has been published on NGC/CAC vs. PCGS/CAC vs. CACG slabbed coins in terms of sale values. Even if there were, it would likely not include private treaty sales but just auction sales. Auction sales are not always the best coins so their values reported on to derive price guides are likely very biased. For example, a 1844-D quarter eagle that sells by private treaty that has never seen an auction, may sell for substantially more than averaged of 1844-Ds that price guides are based on because it is far better for its grade. Rick Snow pointed this out long ago for Indian Cent values, bad coins potentially depress better coins values. So how does one include quality vs. value fora given type and grade into a evaluation of prices for coins in different slabs to reach a conclusion that something like CACG coins sell for less than PCGS/CAC coins. Very hard to make that conclusion.
And on and on.
Hence this whole thread to me is a false narrative trying to make a claim that CACG coins sell for less than PCGS/CAC coins. So many myths in numismatics. It never crossed me mind that CACG coins should be valued for less than PCGS/CAC coins. HST, sure, liquidity might be an issue simply bc so many participate in one registry that limits its coins to a single slab brand. But each coin has its own value irrespective of the coin and that is the sum of all facts above.
“ Fact 3, I repeat, the only thing that matters is the coin in the slab, not the slab.”
That might be the only thing which matters to you and some other numismatists. But as much as you might not like it, it’s clearly not the only thing that matters to many others.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
But 2 opinions vs. 1 for NGC/CAC as well then. Yet many folks will say that NGC/CAC doesn’t have the same merit as PCGS/CAC. So isn’t that abit hypocritical? So it promotes a false narrative. CAC finds both meeting its standards for its grading criteria, no difference. Period.
So the only opinion at least to me that matter if it has a sticker on it, is that of CAC. So really only one opinion.
Agree fully and I noted the caveat of the registry and potentially liquidity that supports your comment. But at this point, we are all now arguing in circles. So not really much more to say except I would love to see hard data on the notion that PCGS/CAC sells for more than CACG. But as noted, I think that would be very hard to prove and just as likely to be untrue.
Out for the count.
One can argue that CACG's /CAC grades are the "most accurate" but how does the market perceive their error rate?
If a CAC was 100% spot on then yes no other grading service opinion is necessary. Therefore CAC/NGC or CAC PCGS coins should sell for the same price.
If the majority believes that CAC may be a bit more conservative/accurate but is still error prone then a second opinion would influence the selling price.
Most accurate to what standard?
http://ProofCollection.Net
accurate isn't my point. The collective buyers will make a judgement as to how they perceive the cac grade. Is the CAC grade the "grail" or perhaps simply "best opinion" around? All I am saying is that if one believes CAC is perfect then a CAC/PCGS and a CAC /NGC should sell for the same price.
I had a long conversation with AI discussing the strategic positioning of coin grading companies. Here's the analysis:
The Long-Term Viability Problem
CACG faces the same structural market forces that caused grade inflation at PCGS and NGC - collectors want higher grades, dealers prefer generous services, and volume pressures mount over time. With John Albanese now 66, the real test comes in 10-15 years during leadership transition, when maintaining founder-level commitment to strict standards becomes extremely difficult regardless of good intentions.
The Strategic Blunder
By phasing out their profitable sticker business, CAC is abandoning their unique competitive advantage to enter direct competition with PCGS and NGC. The sticker service gave them a defensible market position as quality arbiters rather than just another grading company. Now they're forcing collectors to choose between PCGS/CAC stickers (which many prefer) or CACG slabs, creating unnecessary friction in their own market.
The Historical Pattern
CAC's pivot resembles failed business transformations rather than successful ones. Like New Coke or JCPenney's pricing strategy, they're abandoning what made them successful (profitable differentiation) to compete in a saturated commodity market. Successful pivots typically flee dying businesses or leverage unique strengths - but CAC's sticker service was growing and profitable, and grading is a commodity business they must build from scratch.
Bottom Line
CACG appears to be solving a problem that didn't exist while creating new vulnerabilities. They had a profitable, differentiated business model that the market clearly valued, but chose to abandon it for direct competition with entrenched players who have massive structural advantages. This looks less like strategic evolution and more like fixing something that wasn't broken.
Upward Pressure on PCGS/CAC Values:
These coins will become increasingly scarce as no new stickers are created while existing ones disappear through crossovers and losses. Registry collectors with significant PCGS investments will likely pay premiums to keep both certifications rather than switching systems. PCGS/CAC combinations may also develop collector appeal as artifacts from the Albanese era - representing a unique moment when the market demanded his dual stamp of approval.
AI Grading Revolution
Machine learning could eventually grade coins more consistently than humans, eliminating the subjective differences that created CAC's market niche. If AI can reliably assess surface quality, strike characteristics, and eye appeal, the premium for human expert opinion diminishes significantly.
Enhanced Digital Documentation
High-resolution photography, 3D scanning, and digital archives could make quality differences more apparent to average collectors, reducing reliance on expert certification. Blockchain provenance tracking might also transform how authenticity and history are verified.
Pretty impressive for a robot. I didn't know CAC was ending the stickering program. That would certainly make a significant difference.
I believe the CACG market is strong. But I don’t see CDN bids really advancing across the board (CAC and non CAC). Obviously there is going to be low end and high end material whoever the TPG is - so this is where the skills of the individual player come into play. If you know how to grade, price, and look at coins your in the drivers seat. Otherwise - possibly road kill.
Think its unwise to judge historical pricing data and say a PCGS/CAC coin is better & will sell for more then NGC/CAC when each coin should stand alone. No one should expect all 'A' coins to be priced the same. I evaluate toning, strike, luster, eye appeal different from you.
What folks may believe, and maybe its a fact, is in the past, a higher majority of the dealer/high end collectors 'better' coins went to PCGS since perceived they will sell for more or quicker. But doesn't mean an NGC slabbed coin can't be better then a PCGS graded coin with the same grade. For me, I'd send coin for slabbing to whoever had the better pricing and quicker turnaround.
If CAC says 2 coins are both 'A' coins the marketplace should evaluate its merit & pricing on its own. However sight unseen, or internet buying with photos, folks believe in general the better coins in the past probably went to PCGS and bid higher. Shouldn't mean NGC/CAC is inferior.
I’m not a fan of the CACG slab. Big and clunky. It does not match their premium image and it needs a redesign.
If I have a PCGS CAC coin, I can always turn it into a CACG coin of the same grade with no risk whenever I want. The same does not work in reverse.
I expect that to change as the timeline draws near. If the business is profitable and if they can get someone of JA's caliber to take it over, there's a strong case to continue it.
http://ProofCollection.Net
That would surprise me, as I believe that the current time line is a courtesy. If anything, I think they’d prefer to shorten it because CAC cannibalizes CACG submissions to some extent.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Lol I can't debate someone who does not consider clear evidence.
I would be happy to admit that I am wrong. Just need some non-anecdotal evidence to show on your side. Share with us some auctions of the same criteria (unreserved, similar sales, short time frame, identical or same coin crossed) as I found, with CACG realizing higher prices than PCGS/CAC, to prove otherwise.
No CACG bashing here, just laying out the facts. Note again, I am an outsider and collect raw coins.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
That’s my conundrum or quandary now.
Probably half of my Walker and Large Cent collections consist of NGC coins, most of them purchased more than 15-20 years ago, and never sent to CAC.
I’m getting the impression from more than a few people these are now being viewed as third world TPG holders, and valued as such in the marketplace.
Of course that’s why we have cross overs and stickering options (for now), but what a pain…. I guess I’ll let that be Ian’s team’s job when the time comes. It’s just disappointing that once upon a time I thought that it was enough to choose decent coins that one thought met the grade and had a major TPG behind it. But the market has clearly evolved.
.> @scubafuel said:
Err same size as PCGS slabs, do the proof experiment. I did. 32 PCGS slabs fit in my intecept shield boxes lined up but don’t fit together and make a mess. 32 CACG slabs fit in my intercept shield boxes lined up, and fit together perfectly. Go figure………
Why does the same not work in reverse? Well that is a separate thread in itself. CACG bashing is what this thread is all about……………..
Dude. Dude. Dude. Show proof from extensive data b4 saying things like that. Give it a decade and then we can discuss it. My experience so far is that CACG coins sell for the SAME price as PCGS/CAC and NGC/CAC as they should. So yes. It is unproven what you say. Dude. And you chose a few examples. Anyone can do that. This is not a systematic approach to the question in the OP. Data. Lots. Of Data. To. Answer. This. Question.
Except 1 professional opinion is more likely to be wrong, no matter whose it is, than 2. So, at least to me, two opinions matter.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Ah no. Not when it is the best opinion and consistent across CAC and CACG then all that matters.
Ah no. Humans make mistakes. It is the nature of humans. Arguing for CAC infallibility may provide balance to the thread but it makes your position seem less rational.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
And some TPGs may get it wrong probably 80% of the time, which is why JA founded CAC and CACG. As Ronald Reagan used to say - ‘Here we go again’. LOL
Further, who says CAC and CACG are infallible? Not me. I evaluate each coin as its own irrespective of the plastic around it. I would appreciate not putting words into my mouth. But this is a separate issue from the OP question on whether PCGS/CAC coins sell for more than CACG coins. That was the point of the thread. Show me proof by an extensive database to support this idea. There is none at the moment.
The issue with your examples and your conclusion is that auction results are far more nuanced than just the plastic. Could that be a factor, sure, but so is the timing of the auction, the bidders bidding in each auction, auction platform, amount of promotion, and a host of other factors that determine the end result. Unless you have debriefed and have statements from the bidders (or lack of bidders) in each of those auctions to prove that the plastic brand was the single factor each bidder used to determine their bids, you cannot assume that the plastic was the cause of the different hammer prices.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
For several years I was extremely skeptical of the value of CACs as I had carefully selected my coins with a help of extremely knowledgeable mentors. Just to prove I had better than average coins I sent a group in to CAC and was shocked to learn how few passed. After a few boxes of 20 had been submitted, I started asking why? The answers were not what I thought they would be.
It's really a great learning experience to submit cons to CAC. And it would be much better than asking an auction house to do it when you have decided to sell your coins and not know why they did not pass. I have even submitted several boxes of 20 on behalf of friends and they have really appreciated the learning experience.
I very much agree. In fact an example today... I bought a Peace dollar earlier this year, suspected it had PVC but I wasn't for sure so I sent it to PCGS for restoration. They declined to restore it. OK, great, no PVC! I sent it to CAC for a sticker. Result: No CAC due to PVC. So frustrating, but so happy that CAC provided that feedback for me. Now I will try to convince PCGS to restore it somehow and hopefully for no additional charge since they probably shouldn't have declined to remove the PVC.
http://ProofCollection.Net
I bought a Peace dollar earlier this year, suspected it had PVC but I wasn't for sure so I sent it to PCGS for restoration. They declined to restore it. OK, great, no PVC! I sent it to CAC for a sticker. Result: No CAC due to PVC. So frustrating, but so happy that CAC provided that feedback for me. Now I will try to convince PCGS to restore it somehow and hopefully for no additional charge since they probably shouldn't have declined to remove the PVC.
>
Another consideration is PCGS may have felt the PVC could not be removed without damaging the coin. It might be best to sell the coin and move on.
Im aware of that possibility. In the pasr JA would provide additional notes and say thay if it was not fixable.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Suppose we create a TPG that uses 5 graders per coin (4 bases and a finalizer) rather than the usual 3.
Will that TPG automatically be better than a PCGS/CAC coin?
Okay, at the risk of getting myself in trouble:
If you look at the DL Hansen collection, there is an 1881 PCGS MS67 Seated Half, PCGS cert #25619791. This coin appears to have failed to receive a CAC sticker.
Yet in the DL Hansen CAC registry, there is an identical coin 1881 CACG MS67 Seated Half, CACG cert #406799078
Did the coin cross at grade, despite failing CAC? How would we even know, given that CAC failures aren't published? I know the CACG groupies will say this is only one example...but that's because I don't have time to go through the entire registry.
If we go to Bust Halves, the DL Hansen universal set is ranked #1 and 99% complete. Yet the CAC-only set is ranked #6 and 25% complete. That is because 75% of the coins failed CAC.
Collectors who aren't billionaires want to know what is going to happen to the 75% of coins that failed CAC. Bodybag? Net Graded? Gentleman's Crossovers (the perk of being an investor)?
Until there is hard and public data on what happens to known CAC failures, and whether the person submitting makes a difference, collectors are right to be skeptical of CACG.
Rattlers became a super-premium vintage of PCGS holder, indicating they were graded before inflation, and often were part of old-timey collections.
Likewise, the PCGS/CAC combination is going to be a super-premium vintage of holder once stickering stops.
It's almost impossible to have the same standards for grading as for stickering, because the bias in stickering is to reject anything with questions, whereas the bias in grading is to throw a number on it rather than bodybag a coin from a valuable submitter.
EDIT: the 1866 and 1888 also appear to have crossed at grade, despite failing CAC
It's not unknown that coins receive a CAC after previous fails. By the same token, it's possible that a coin will receive a CACG after failing at CAC.
Bust half collectors acknowledge getting a CAC is very difficult because of the coins' age and treatment by collectors over the years.
The CACG website lists the coins CAC Grading DOES NOT Holder, one being coins with PVC. It also lists Detail Codes for coins CAC Grading DOES Holder.
https://www.cacgrading.com/doc/cac-grading-details-code-breakdown/
The three coins I noticed: 1866, 1881, 1888 all have something in common: the toning is slightly off.
1866 is gray dirt. Looks solid for grade, but lacks color and probably lacks luster
1881 is mottled and dark. Some clear spots in the otherwise dark toning, of questionable origin
1888 has dramatic but narrow and tight rainbows along the rim, a hallmark of AT. Also has dings on liberty's chest
This is exactly what I would expect for a stickering company vs a grading company.
These coins show up for stickering, and the first reaction is "well, umm, I'm not really sure about the color or the luster or the eye appeal. REJECT"
Same coin shows up for grading, and the reaction is "well, it looks like a 67... I could net grade it down to 66, but it doesn't look like a 66. I could bodybag it, but the collector is real darn important to our business..."
The difference between a stickering company and a grading company is the difference between opt-in and opt-out. It will never be the same, no matter how much people protest otherwise.
The CACG defenders are going to have an absolutely colossal tantrum criticizing this post, but it doesn't change the fact that collectors don't want to see the value of their collections wiped out by a combination of superior-CACs getting diluted by population growth while their CAC-fails get bought cheap and crossed to CACG by the "right submitter"
Much smarter to sit in PCGS/CAC and watch as the slabs develop coveted vintage status.