The advantages of a second independent opinion include improving decision-making, uncovering missed information, increasing confidence, and offering a fresh perspective. While most commonly associated with medical care, this practice is beneficial in financial, legal, and other professional contexts as well. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Benefits in healthcare
• Corrects misdiagnoses: A new expert's review can catch a diagnostic error that the first physician might have missed due to cognitive bias, time constraints, or human error. In some specialties, such as oncology and orthopedics, studies show that second opinions lead to significant changes in diagnosis or treatment in a substantial percentage of cases.
• Confirms a challenging diagnosis: For complex, rare, or life-threatening conditions, a second opinion can confirm the original diagnosis. This provides peace of mind and reassurance that you are on the right path.
• Reveals new treatment options: Different physicians have varied experience, judgment, and access to the latest research and clinical trials. A second opinion can introduce you to alternative or less invasive treatment options that your initial doctor may not have mentioned.
• Empowers informed decisions: By exploring a broader range of expertise, you become a more knowledgeable and active participant in your healthcare decisions. This ensures that your chosen treatment plan aligns with your personal goals and priorities.
• Builds trust: A physician who welcomes or even suggests a second opinion demonstrates confidence and a commitment to your best interests. This fosters a healthy doctor-patient relationship built on trust. [1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
Benefits in financial planning
• Identifies gaps in strategy: Financial planning can be complex, and a second set of eyes can uncover blind spots, such as missed investment opportunities, tax inefficiencies, or insurance gaps.
• Provides a fresh perspective: A new advisor can offer different insights, products, and strategies that your original advisor may not have considered, helping you optimize your portfolio and potentially lower expenses.
• Assesses risk tolerance: A second opinion can help you reassess your risk profile to ensure your investments are appropriately allocated, especially as your financial goals and life circumstances change.
• Uncovers conflicts of interest: Many financial advisors work for firms with specific agendas or earn commissions on certain products. An independent review ensures the advice is free of bias and focused purely on your best interests.
• Increases confidence: For major financial decisions, such as retirement planning or large investments, a second opinion can provide the clarity and confidence needed to move forward without anxiety. [3, 4, 11, 12, 13]
Potential drawbacks
While beneficial, seeking a second opinion does have some potential disadvantages to consider:
• Conflicting recommendations: If a second opinion contradicts the first, it can create tension and confusion, potentially necessitating a third opinion.
• Cost and time: Second opinions often require more time for appointments, travel, and retesting, which can lead to increased costs and emotional strain.
• Treatment delay: In cases of aggressive diseases like cancer, time spent getting a second opinion could delay treatment and allow the condition to worsen.
• Confirmation bias: A patient may "doctor shop," seeking multiple opinions until they find one that aligns with their desired outcome, even if it is not the most appropriate course of action. [14, 15, 16, 17, 18]
@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.
You also posted the following to this thread : “CACG bashing is what this thread is all about……………..”
Even as a fan of CAC and CACG, I strongly disagree with that. And based on your posts to this thread (including the one above in reply to @jmlanzaf) it could just as easily be argued that your posts are all about praising CACG or defending it from bashing that’s not even occurring.
One additional observation - I don’t have a data base to provide and even if I did, it wouldn’t be a large one. But as I do each week, in checking hundreds of auction results, it appears to me that in general, PCGS/CAC coins tend to bring more than NGC/CAC coins or CACG coins. It doesn’t matter whether we think they should. And when it occurs, it’s not necessarily for the same reason in each instance. It might be about the coin, the registry, market conditions, the presence or absence of particular bidders or some other reason. Things might change in the future, but for now, I believe this to be the case.
I like and respect you and the way you do business. And I can understand your position on CACG. Still, it appears to me that you’re overly sensitive to comments and opinions about grading companies that differ from yours. Please know that I’d probably say the same about myself and many other people, as well.
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.
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?
We'd have to do the math, but more opinions is always better. [I'm not sure why I'm getting push back on that very basic notion. ] According to Desert Moon, PCGS is wrong 80% of the time. So they would turn only be wrong 60% of the time?
Ignoring his numbers, let's assume that a single grader misses something 20% of the time. Let's also assume that if 2 of 3 (or 3 of 5) miss something, it results in an error. [The actual workflow with a finalizer would be different. The possibility of different errors would also be different. Error includes difference of opinion ]
So, with 3 graders and a20% error rate, the final opinion would be wrong 4% of the time. (20% of 20%)
With 5 graders, requiring 3 errors for a final error, you would expect errors only 0.8% of the time (20% of 4%).
With two 3 person grading teams, each team would have a 4% failure rate making the overall error rate only 0.16%. (4% of 4%)
So two 3 person teams is better than one 5 person team with the constraints of my simplifying assumption. A 7 person team would be equivalent to two 3 person teams, FWIW.
Math aside, I prefer two INDEPENDENT opinions to one opinion. [Indpendence is also a variable that favors two teams over one large team. ]
Whatever your coin preference, if the doctor gives you really bad news, wouldn't you sell a second opinion?
In the FAQ and video from about 30 years ago PCGS seems to identify a minimum of 2 graders will look at each coin, only more if those two graders disagree and a finalizer is needed. I may have missed it, but I couldn't find anything at CACG detailing the number of graders involved.
The more graders looking at a coin, the more it costs that TPG. There is a financial incentive for any grading company to evaluate a coin quickly and with as few graders involved as possible.
As stated, multiple independent opinions from different sources are better.
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)?
I was always suspicious when they would announce that an entire DL Hansen collection would be crossed to CACG. I would have to imagine that it would involve some "gentleman's crossovers" as you put it. There's just no way that any current non-CAC-only registry sets contain 100% coins that would straight cross to CACG.
And as an extra data point, I've now had more than a few CAC stickered coins that JA would not re-sticker after crossing so even JA's decisions consistency isn't perfect.
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)?
I was always suspicious when they would announce that an entire DL Hansen collection would be crossed to CACG. I would have to imagine that it would involve some "gentleman's crossovers" as you put it. There's just no way that any current non-CAC-only registry sets contain 100% coins that would straight cross to CACG.
And as an extra data point, I've now had more than a few CAC stickered coins that JA would not re-sticker after crossing so even JA's decisions consistency isn't perfect.
JA’s “decisions consistency” isn’t perfect?
🫢
😮
I sure hope no one thought it was perfect.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
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)?
I was always suspicious when they would announce that an entire DL Hansen collection would be crossed to CACG. I would have to imagine that it would involve some "gentleman's crossovers" as you put it. There's just no way that any current non-CAC-only registry sets contain 100% coins that would straight cross to CACG.
And as an extra data point, I've now had more than a few CAC stickered coins that JA would not re-sticker after crossing so even JA's decisions consistency isn't perfect.
JA’s “decisions consistency” isn’t perfect?
🫢
😮
I sure hope no one thought it was perfect.
Some cannot resist the urge to genuflect when JA is the topic of conversation.
Member - ANA Exhibiting Committee, Membership and Outreach Committee, George Heath Society, PAN, FUN, ANA Qualified Exhibit Judge, Joe Boling Award winner, Glenn Smedley Award winner.
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……………..
Oh, I know, there is only a minor difference between them. It's just personal preference, the feel in my hand, plus the fact that I use binder displays for my coins and the CACG slabs don't really fit. But I may grow to appreciate them more in the future.
As far as optionality goes, a PCGS CAC coin counts as "both" TPGs, since you are guaranteed an "L" CACG holder, as far as I understand it (is this not correct anymore?). So people may prefer them for this reason.
@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.
Thank you! I do appreciate the analysis and opinion of my statement. I respect that. Below is my response.
Just because there are variables in auction, doesn't mean we scrap the entire sample. Especially if the coins are identical, the timing is similar, and the auctions are the same format. Additionally, we can look at patterns over a greater sample size. This is not cherrypicking auctions to prove a point. I took a small handful of examples from a pattern that is developing in the auction side with CACG comps. I would genuinely like someone to search auctions of similar reasonable criteria and prove otherwise. I didn't find any notable trends on the other side of the debate, even with the most recent ANA auctions, but maybe you can find something! Please see the evidence for yourself!
The main reason why buy-it-now sales of major dealers is a worse sample of the market than auctions of tight criteria is because many of the major dealers are financially invested in CACG. Conflict of interest from the perspective of market analysis. Of course it makes sense to artificially push the prices of CACG coins if it benefits your business financially.
My point is that when the **market **decides value at auction, coins scrutinized by many more specialized collectors, more times than not CACG is inferior to PCGS/CAC with consistency.
"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
Sales of CACG doing well for me especially Witterbrick. A number of my private investor clients prefer CACG. Small single digit pop pieces have very strong demand (many types of investors). Consequently I bid very aggressively on those. I believe many putting together sets of those. Like one client working on CACG Oregon date set. For me would like build a set of the Cali types.
@jacrispies said:
Thank you! I do appreciate the analysis and opinion of my statement. I respect that. Below is my response.
Just because there are variables in auction, doesn't mean we scrap the entire sample. Especially if the coins are identical, the timing is similar, and the auctions are the same format. Additionally, we can look at patterns over a greater sample size. This is not cherrypicking auctions to prove a point. I took a small handful of examples from a pattern that is developing in the auction side with CACG comps. I would genuinely like someone to search auctions of similar reasonable criteria and prove otherwise. I didn't find any notable trends on the other side of the debate, even with the most recent ANA auctions, but maybe you can find something! Please see the evidence for yourself!
The main reason why buy-it-now sales of major dealers is a worse sample of the market than auctions of tight criteria is because many of the major dealers are financially invested in CACG. Conflict of interest from the perspective of market analysis. Of course it makes sense to artificially push the prices of CACG coins if it benefits your business financially.
My point is that when the **market **decides value at auction, coins scrutinized by many more specialized collectors, more times than not CACG is inferior to PCGS/CAC with consistency.
But you are ignoring all the other facets that affect outcomes at auctions and only focused on one thing the plastic. Unless you have confirmed with the bidders, (and more importantly those who bid in the first auction but not the second) you are simply making assumptions. This is further exacerbated by using only a small handful of examples. To be meaningful you would need to have a much larger sample size and again the important data to explain the who and why of how the bids happened. As I said you may indeed be correct that the driving factor was the plastic in these examples.
I didn't find any notable trends on the other side of the debate, even with the most recent ANA auctions, but maybe you can find something! Please see the evidence for yourself!
Thanks but I'll refer you to my sig line, I'm not a koolaid drinker of any flavor. The plastic does not matter to me the coin is what is important. As such I would not waste my time on such an endeavor that yields no return on my time. Perhaps the evidence of the other side of the debate you seek can be found at CAC.
I have not really noticed any difference (in equal grades, assuming all else is equal in appearance and grade/color) in prices that hammer on a PCGS/CAC, NGC/CAC, or CACG slabbed coin.
My understanding is mostly from 65/66 MS wheat Lincolns all dates/mints/DDO and higher circulated grade (45-58) type coins that are not key dates.
I'm sure that many of you who deal in all of those may have further insights, but as a collector I equate them all.
I would value any insights from those who are more informed that are in conflict with my thoughts on this. Thanks!
Comments
The advantages of a second independent opinion include improving decision-making, uncovering missed information, increasing confidence, and offering a fresh perspective. While most commonly associated with medical care, this practice is beneficial in financial, legal, and other professional contexts as well. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Benefits in healthcare
• Corrects misdiagnoses: A new expert's review can catch a diagnostic error that the first physician might have missed due to cognitive bias, time constraints, or human error. In some specialties, such as oncology and orthopedics, studies show that second opinions lead to significant changes in diagnosis or treatment in a substantial percentage of cases.
• Confirms a challenging diagnosis: For complex, rare, or life-threatening conditions, a second opinion can confirm the original diagnosis. This provides peace of mind and reassurance that you are on the right path.
• Reveals new treatment options: Different physicians have varied experience, judgment, and access to the latest research and clinical trials. A second opinion can introduce you to alternative or less invasive treatment options that your initial doctor may not have mentioned.
• Empowers informed decisions: By exploring a broader range of expertise, you become a more knowledgeable and active participant in your healthcare decisions. This ensures that your chosen treatment plan aligns with your personal goals and priorities.
• Builds trust: A physician who welcomes or even suggests a second opinion demonstrates confidence and a commitment to your best interests. This fosters a healthy doctor-patient relationship built on trust. [1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
Benefits in financial planning
• Identifies gaps in strategy: Financial planning can be complex, and a second set of eyes can uncover blind spots, such as missed investment opportunities, tax inefficiencies, or insurance gaps.
• Provides a fresh perspective: A new advisor can offer different insights, products, and strategies that your original advisor may not have considered, helping you optimize your portfolio and potentially lower expenses.
• Assesses risk tolerance: A second opinion can help you reassess your risk profile to ensure your investments are appropriately allocated, especially as your financial goals and life circumstances change.
• Uncovers conflicts of interest: Many financial advisors work for firms with specific agendas or earn commissions on certain products. An independent review ensures the advice is free of bias and focused purely on your best interests.
• Increases confidence: For major financial decisions, such as retirement planning or large investments, a second opinion can provide the clarity and confidence needed to move forward without anxiety. [3, 4, 11, 12, 13]
Potential drawbacks
While beneficial, seeking a second opinion does have some potential disadvantages to consider:
• Conflicting recommendations: If a second opinion contradicts the first, it can create tension and confusion, potentially necessitating a third opinion.
• Cost and time: Second opinions often require more time for appointments, travel, and retesting, which can lead to increased costs and emotional strain.
• Treatment delay: In cases of aggressive diseases like cancer, time spent getting a second opinion could delay treatment and allow the condition to worsen.
• Confirmation bias: A patient may "doctor shop," seeking multiple opinions until they find one that aligns with their desired outcome, even if it is not the most appropriate course of action. [14, 15, 16, 17, 18]
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/prevention-wellness/second-opinions-are-good-idea-there-are-caveats[2] https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/docs/loewenstein/ConflictedAdvice2ndOpinions.pdf[3] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/5-benefits-financial-second-opinion-dr-farshad-behabadi-qwvte[4] https://www.alchemyfinancialgroup.com/blog/the-value-of-a-second-opinion[5] https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/prevention-wellness/second-opinions-are-good-idea-there-are-caveats[6] https://www.totaljointwisconsin.com/blog/5-benefits-of-a-second-medical-opinion[7] https://www.loyolamedicine.org/newsroom/blog-articles/getting-medical-second-opinion-doctor[8] https://www.clinicbyclevelandclinic.com/blog/the-psychological-benefits-of-seeking-a-medical-second-opinion/[9] https://www.multicare.org/vitals/when-should-you-get-a-second-opinion/[10] https://ncmedsoc.org/second-opinions-are-a-good-idea-but-there-are-caveats/[11] https://www.fisher-wealthmanagement.com/the-benefits-of-getting-a-second-financial-opinion/[12] https://savantwealth.com/savant-views-news/article/benefits-of-getting-a-financial-second-opinion/[13] https://www.goldenwealthsolutions.com/blog/5-important-reasons-you-need-a-second-opinion[14] https://www.northwell.edu/news/insights/caveats-to-second-opinions[15] https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/prevention-wellness/second-opinions-are-good-idea-there-are-caveats[16] https://www.curetoday.com/view/the-pros-and-cons-of-seeking-a-second-opinion-in-cancer-treatment[17] https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-getting-a-second-opinion-from-a-medical-professional[18] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0284186X.2020.1794036
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
You also posted the following to this thread : “CACG bashing is what this thread is all about……………..”
Even as a fan of CAC and CACG, I strongly disagree with that. And based on your posts to this thread (including the one above in reply to @jmlanzaf) it could just as easily be argued that your posts are all about praising CACG or defending it from bashing that’s not even occurring.
One additional observation - I don’t have a data base to provide and even if I did, it wouldn’t be a large one. But as I do each week, in checking hundreds of auction results, it appears to me that in general, PCGS/CAC coins tend to bring more than NGC/CAC coins or CACG coins. It doesn’t matter whether we think they should. And when it occurs, it’s not necessarily for the same reason in each instance. It might be about the coin, the registry, market conditions, the presence or absence of particular bidders or some other reason. Things might change in the future, but for now, I believe this to be the case.
I like and respect you and the way you do business. And I can understand your position on CACG. Still, it appears to me that you’re overly sensitive to comments and opinions about grading companies that differ from yours. Please know that I’d probably say the same about myself and many other people, as well.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This > @jmlanzaf said:
In the FAQ and video from about 30 years ago PCGS seems to identify a minimum of 2 graders will look at each coin, only more if those two graders disagree and a finalizer is needed. I may have missed it, but I couldn't find anything at CACG detailing the number of graders involved.
The more graders looking at a coin, the more it costs that TPG. There is a financial incentive for any grading company to evaluate a coin quickly and with as few graders involved as possible.
As stated, multiple independent opinions from different sources are better.
I was always suspicious when they would announce that an entire DL Hansen collection would be crossed to CACG. I would have to imagine that it would involve some "gentleman's crossovers" as you put it. There's just no way that any current non-CAC-only registry sets contain 100% coins that would straight cross to CACG.
And as an extra data point, I've now had more than a few CAC stickered coins that JA would not re-sticker after crossing so even JA's decisions consistency isn't perfect.
http://ProofCollection.Net
JA’s “decisions consistency” isn’t perfect?
🫢
😮
I sure hope no one thought it was perfect.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Some cannot resist the urge to genuflect when JA is the topic of conversation.
Member - ANA Exhibiting Committee, Membership and Outreach Committee, George Heath Society, PAN, FUN, ANA Qualified Exhibit Judge, Joe Boling Award winner, Glenn Smedley Award winner.
Oh, I know, there is only a minor difference between them. It's just personal preference, the feel in my hand, plus the fact that I use binder displays for my coins and the CACG slabs don't really fit. But I may grow to appreciate them more in the future.
As far as optionality goes, a PCGS CAC coin counts as "both" TPGs, since you are guaranteed an "L" CACG holder, as far as I understand it (is this not correct anymore?). So people may prefer them for this reason.
@scubafuel . When you say "binder". Do you mean a specific brand like Eagle? James
Thank you! I do appreciate the analysis and opinion of my statement. I respect that. Below is my response.
Just because there are variables in auction, doesn't mean we scrap the entire sample. Especially if the coins are identical, the timing is similar, and the auctions are the same format. Additionally, we can look at patterns over a greater sample size. This is not cherrypicking auctions to prove a point. I took a small handful of examples from a pattern that is developing in the auction side with CACG comps. I would genuinely like someone to search auctions of similar reasonable criteria and prove otherwise. I didn't find any notable trends on the other side of the debate, even with the most recent ANA auctions, but maybe you can find something! Please see the evidence for yourself!
The main reason why buy-it-now sales of major dealers is a worse sample of the market than auctions of tight criteria is because many of the major dealers are financially invested in CACG. Conflict of interest from the perspective of market analysis. Of course it makes sense to artificially push the prices of CACG coins if it benefits your business financially.
My point is that when the **market **decides value at auction, coins scrutinized by many more specialized collectors, more times than not CACG is inferior to PCGS/CAC with consistency.
"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
Sales of CACG doing well for me especially Witterbrick. A number of my private investor clients prefer CACG. Small single digit pop pieces have very strong demand (many types of investors). Consequently I bid very aggressively on those. I believe many putting together sets of those. Like one client working on CACG Oregon date set. For me would like build a set of the Cali types.
But you are ignoring all the other facets that affect outcomes at auctions and only focused on one thing the plastic. Unless you have confirmed with the bidders, (and more importantly those who bid in the first auction but not the second) you are simply making assumptions. This is further exacerbated by using only a small handful of examples. To be meaningful you would need to have a much larger sample size and again the important data to explain the who and why of how the bids happened. As I said you may indeed be correct that the driving factor was the plastic in these examples.
I didn't find any notable trends on the other side of the debate, even with the most recent ANA auctions, but maybe you can find something! Please see the evidence for yourself!
Thanks but I'll refer you to my sig line, I'm not a koolaid drinker of any flavor. The plastic does not matter to me the coin is what is important. As such I would not waste my time on such an endeavor that yields no return on my time. Perhaps the evidence of the other side of the debate you seek can be found at CAC.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I have not really noticed any difference (in equal grades, assuming all else is equal in appearance and grade/color) in prices that hammer on a PCGS/CAC, NGC/CAC, or CACG slabbed coin.
My understanding is mostly from 65/66 MS wheat Lincolns all dates/mints/DDO and higher circulated grade (45-58) type coins that are not key dates.
I'm sure that many of you who deal in all of those may have further insights, but as a collector I equate them all.
I would value any insights from those who are more informed that are in conflict with my thoughts on this. Thanks!
I have seen several inconsistencies between CAC and CACG standards. I'll always prefer the PCGS/CAC combination.
Doug