@epc said:
While many do prefer PCGS/CAC, I'm also fine with NGC/CAC. The reason I'd stay with either of those is that CACG >will slab many coins that would not get a sticker. They're slabbing details coins (so noted). They're slabbing "C" coins >that would not sticker at grade. So, there's no guarantee that a coin in a CACG MS64 (for example) holder would get >a sticker in an MS64 holder from PCGS or NGC. Or are they downgrading the "C" coins?
Is this true ? My understanding from the CAC Forums and from folks commenting here was that "interchangeability" of TPG+CAC being equal to CACG was pretty much the norm.
Details coins may or may not be a change of policy from the CAC sticker days, since the coins were already graded/holdered....but giving "C" coins the numerical grade that "B" and "A" coins merit ? That's a big change, I hadn't seen that posted here or over at CAC or from JA.
Hope some vets/experts can clarify CACG vs. TPG+CAC Bean standards.
Based on posts on the CAC forum, the intent of CACG is not to have C-quality coins in their straight-grade holders. Instead, their aim is to grade such coins a point lower with a plus in most cases.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@winesteven said:
I’ll bite - what’s the name, and if “originality” is required, does that mean that SLQ’s, Walker’s, Franklin’s, Morgan and Peace Dollars that have been quickly and gently dipped will not receive their sticker?
Steve
Of course not. I have seen plenty of white coins that were obviously dipped with CAC stickers. As long as they have good eye appeal, they will still receive the sticker. That T2 1917 SLQ that you recently posted is a perfect example.
I don’t think the post to which Steve replied pertained to CAC stickers.
What is he talking about then?
I don’t know, but the description didn’t sound like it was CAC:
“ I really like the new “watchdog” company stickers and I’m told they will sticker all 4 brands if deemed worthy. CACG, PCGS, NGC, and ANACS. They sticker based on a system based on both originality and eye appeal.”
Okay👌 Thanks for the clarification. 😉
You’re welcome and I think it was probably a failed joke.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ScarsdaleCoin said:
I really like the new “watchdog” company stickers and I’m told they will sticker all 4 brands if deemed worthy. CACG, PCGS, NGC, and ANACS. They sticker based on a system based on both originality and eye appeal. Their name says it all and it’s nice to have an independent group out there!
Help me understand. What are these "new" watchdog stickers that can be applied to all four brands? Who issues these stickers?
@ScarsdaleCoin said:
I really like the new “watchdog” company stickers and I’m told they will sticker all 4 brands if deemed worthy. CACG, PCGS, NGC, and ANACS. They sticker based on a system based on both originality and eye appeal. Their name says it all and it’s nice to have an independent group out there!
Help me understand. What are these "new" watchdog stickers that can be applied to all four brands? Who issues these stickers?
As I wrote in my previous post, it was probably a failed joke. Perhaps @ScarsdaleCoin will clarify.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ScarsdaleCoin said:
I really like the new “watchdog” company stickers and I’m told they will sticker all 4 brands if deemed worthy. CACG, PCGS, NGC, and ANACS. They sticker based on a system based on both originality and eye appeal. Their name says it all and it’s nice to have an independent group out there!
Help me understand. What are these "new" watchdog stickers that can be applied to all four brands? Who issues these stickers?
As I wrote in my previous post, it was probably a failed joke. Perhaps @ScarsdaleCoin will clarify.
@winesteven said: For me, the PCGS Registry is very important, so I would have to still go with the PCGS 65+ w/CAC. But I know for a fact, that if the PCGS Registry was not so important to me, I would absolutely go with the CACG 65+, since in my opinion, CACG in general grades more conservatively than PCGS, and CACG is telling me that coin is solid as a 65+. With the PCGS coin, we don’t know if CAC feels it’s solid as a 65+ or not. Hands down, I’d go with the CACG plus coin if the PCGS Registry was not so important.
Steve
.
Why not instead participate in the CACG registry where you can choose the coin you want and put it in (P, N, or C) and not be limited by the holder?. I just don’t get the concept of restricted registries. For example my best 1832 CBQ is in an N/CAC fatty holder. It cannot go into the PCGS registry and I don’t think I will find a better one in a P holder. So…………….
@winesteven said:
I agree fully with you, @bammbamm. Your logic is perfect. However, “the market” does not always follow logic. For whatever reason or reasons, apparently in many cases, as a generalization, “classic” coins graded by PCGS with CAC stickers seem to get more bidders and/or bidders willing to pay more, than similar (or even nicer) coins graded by NGC with the same CAC stickers.
Steve
In my experience as a dealer, although limited, my CACed coins sell for the value they should, my CACG coins sell for the value they should. My CACG coins sell at the same rate as the CACed ones (just looked at this on my spreadsheet this morning MOF) and there is no value preference for one over the other in my limited sales. In my experience, although limited, the CACed coins go for the value they should in auctions, the CACG coins for the value they should in auctions. Sure for an 1883-CC Morgan in MS64 as an example, or other common coins where the registry can play a factor, maybe there is a preference for the CACed coins such that the CACG coins might go for slightly less. But when I looked at this via GC auction archives, there was no clear answer. Maybe, maybe not.
Sure one can bring up single or a few examples that don’t fit with CAC=CACG in price/value (and that goes both ways), but reality is that the coin inside the holder counts. Values are solely dependent on the coin as it should be IMO.
As more of the best coins migrate to CACG holders with time, the hypothesis that P/CAC trumps CACG will be outdated. Sure, the P registry plays a role in this issue for some/many, but many astute numismatists are primarily focused on quality first and the holder is only secondary. For those folks, it likely does not matter which holder they are buying since it is the coin they buy………………………...
@Desert Moon said:
Why not instead participate in the CACG registry where you can choose the coin you want and put it in (P, N, or C) and not be limited by the holder?
He does, as well as the mycollect registry. But maybe he values the PCGS registry more
@winesteven said: For me, the PCGS Registry is very important, so I would have to still go with the PCGS 65+ w/CAC. But I know for a fact, that if the PCGS Registry was not so important to me, I would absolutely go with the CACG 65+, since in my opinion, CACG in general grades more conservatively than PCGS, and CACG is telling me that coin is solid as a 65+. With the PCGS coin, we don’t know if CAC feels it’s solid as a 65+ or not. Hands down, I’d go with the CACG plus coin if the PCGS Registry was not so important.
Steve
.
Why not instead participate in the CACG registry where you can choose the coin you want and put it in (P, N, or C) and not be limited by the holder?. I just don’t get the concept of restricted registries. For example my best 1832 CBQ is in an N/CAC fatty holder. It cannot go into the PCGS registry and I don’t think I will find a better one in a P holder. So…………….
I do partake in the CACG Registry (as well as the MyCollect and NGC Registry’s). But that doesn’t take away the fact that the PCGS Registry is still very important to me!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
I agree fully with you, @bammbamm. Your logic is perfect. However, “the market” does not always follow logic. For whatever reason or reasons, apparently in many cases, as a generalization, “classic” coins graded by PCGS with CAC stickers seem to get more bidders and/or bidders willing to pay more, than similar (or even nicer) coins graded by NGC with the same CAC stickers.
Steve
In my experience as a dealer, although limited, my CACed coins sell for the value they should, my CACG coins sell for the value they should. My CACG coins sell at the same rate as the CACed ones (just looked at this on my spreadsheet this morning MOF) and there is no value preference for one over the other in my limited sales. In my experience, although limited, the CACed coins go for the value they should in auctions, the CACG coins for the value they should in auctions. Sure for an 1883-CC Morgan in MS64 as an example, or other common coins where the registry can play a factor, maybe there is a preference for the CACed coins such that the CACG coins might go for slightly less. But when I looked at this via GC auction archives, there was no clear answer. Maybe, maybe not.
Sure one can bring up single or a few examples that don’t fit with CAC=CACG in price/value (and that goes both ways), but reality is that the coin inside the holder counts. Values are solely dependent on the coin as it should be IMO.
As more of the best coins migrate to CACG holders with time, the hypothesis that P/CAC trumps CACG will be outdated. Sure, the P registry plays a role in this issue for some/many, but many astute numismatists are primarily focused on quality first and the holder is only secondary. For those folks, it likely does not matter which holder they are buying since it is the coin they buy………………………...
The point @bammbamm and I were each making is that it appears that in general, PCGS “Classic” graded coins with CAC stickers sell for more than similar NGC graded coins with CAC stickers. Do you disagree, where you successfully and easily regularly sell the latter at the same prices as similar coins graded by PCGS?
If so, I think that’s great, as that is how it should be!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
I know CAC or JA knows what they are doing. I've often wondered why they dont have a label for C coins. It would increase their revenue and let collectors know the coin has already been through CAC.
Nothing would prevent a dealer or collector from peeling off the sticker. Most seasoned collectors can tell a C coin in most cases.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
@Morgan13 said:
I know CAC or JA knows what they are doing. I've often wondered why they dont have a label for C coins. It would increase their revenue and let collectors know the coin has already been through CAC.
Nothing would prevent a dealer or collector from peeling off the sticker. Most seasoned collectors can tell a C coin in most cases.
Because it would be extremely detrimental to the values of coins that are identified as C coins. JA has been very clear on why he doesn't publish data on the coins that fail.
@Morgan13 said:
I know CAC or JA knows what they are doing. I've often wondered why they dont have a label for C coins. It would increase their revenue and let collectors know the coin has already been through CAC.
Nothing would prevent a dealer or collector from peeling off the sticker. Most seasoned collectors can tell a C coin in most cases.
Because it would be extremely detrimental to the values of coins that are identified as C coins. JA has been very clear on why he doesn't publish data on the coins that fail.
I dont disagree with you at all. I think he is being generous by not doing it. Im just saying from a business standpoint it would increase his revenue. Don't submitter receive a credit or no charge for coins that dont sticker?
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
@Morgan13 said:
I know CAC or JA knows what they are doing. I've often wondered why they dont have a label for C coins. It would increase their revenue and let collectors know the coin has already been through CAC.
Nothing would prevent a dealer or collector from peeling off the sticker. Most seasoned collectors can tell a C coin in most cases.
Because it would be extremely detrimental to the values of coins that are identified as C coins. JA has been very clear on why he doesn't publish data on the coins that fail.
I dont disagree with you at all. I think he is being generous by not doing it. Im just saying from a business standpoint it would increase his revenue. Don't submitter receive a credit or no charge for coins that dont sticker?
It has changed over time, initially collectors were given a pass on coins that failed but dealers paid for every coin pass or fail. Last I knew collectors got 20 failures per year at no charge but then paid for any over that 20. I'm not sure if that is still the current version of this or not. I've already submitted every coin in my collection that I thought was worth submitting so I am not submitting much and have not kept up on that.
@Morgan13 said:
I know CAC or JA knows what they are doing. I've often wondered why they dont have a label for C coins. It would increase their revenue and let collectors know the coin has already been through CAC.
Nothing would prevent a dealer or collector from peeling off the sticker. Most seasoned collectors can tell a C coin in most cases.
Because it would be extremely detrimental to the values of coins that are identified as C coins. JA has been very clear on why he doesn't publish data on the coins that fail.
I don't disagree with you at all. I think he is being generous by not doing it. I'm just saying from a business standpoint it would increase his revenue. Don't submitter receive a credit or no charge for coins that don't sticker?
Separate from what @coinbuf said, you don't think that CAC derives significant extra revenue from coins previously submitted that failed, that now get submitted again, since the new owner really doesn't know one way or the other if the coin had previously been submitted? I think that happens a LOT! And since CAC will take the time to review EVERY submission, even those that failed, the submitter is still receiving value for the fee they paid. As we know, every once in a while coins that are on a borderline may fail, only to get stickered down the road. With all that said, if it was public knowledge which coins failed, chances are so much higher that those coins won't get submitted again.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Being a copper collector is tricky business. Back when the little green beans started appearing on slabs I was skeptical. It seemed to me (and others) that JA’s area of expertise was not copper and the haphazard application of beans on copper showed this. For at least a decade I continued to collect copper with a complete disregard for whatever bean might or might not be present, and to a large degree continue to do so. That said, these days it seems like it’s gotten better. The copper CAC approves seems, in most cases, to be more “market acceptable” than the ones they don’t, and in most cases I agree with them. There are still exceptions. Take EAC copper. The pool there is just so tainted. We all recognize now that JA seems to reward originality, and rightly so. Well there just isn’t a lot of original EAC, so certainly there are a lot of stickered EAC coins that shouldn’t be, so really you still have to be careful. Conversely, there are a lot of very nice “market acceptable” EAC coins that for whatever reason don’t please the maker, and will never be stickered, but still represent the issue well.
But to answer the question: as far as plastic goes, I’ll take the PCGS plus the bean over CACG any day. Certainly I will buy a CACG coin if it’s all there “for me” but first thing I’m gonna do is move it into PCGS and take my chances with a bean. And frankly to this date I have not seen any. Most if not all of the good pieces on the market are already in PCGS holders so it’s just a likelihood thing, and frankly it seems like any nice piece of copper that finds its way into a CACG grading room gets a bump just for showing up.
Almost forgot to say it. I think what’s happening right now with the stickering fees is being done to dissuade the service altogether. Gone are the $15 days, and the no-charge rejections. I get that the stickering service doesn’t help the CACG brand and that’s okay. But I think that in the end what we’re going to see is that stickered coins will become the rarity. Watch and see.
Comments
Based on posts on the CAC forum, the intent of CACG is not to have C-quality coins in their straight-grade holders. Instead, their aim is to grade such coins a point lower with a plus in most cases.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You’re welcome and I think it was probably a failed joke.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Help me understand. What are these "new" watchdog stickers that can be applied to all four brands? Who issues these stickers?
As I wrote in my previous post, it was probably a failed joke. Perhaps @ScarsdaleCoin will clarify.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
OK. I missed that.
Thanks, Mark, that's what I thought but I realize things can change over time, so glad to hear your expertise on this matter.
.
Why not instead participate in the CACG registry where you can choose the coin you want and put it in (P, N, or C) and not be limited by the holder?. I just don’t get the concept of restricted registries. For example my best 1832 CBQ is in an N/CAC fatty holder. It cannot go into the PCGS registry and I don’t think I will find a better one in a P holder. So…………….
In my experience as a dealer, although limited, my CACed coins sell for the value they should, my CACG coins sell for the value they should. My CACG coins sell at the same rate as the CACed ones (just looked at this on my spreadsheet this morning MOF) and there is no value preference for one over the other in my limited sales. In my experience, although limited, the CACed coins go for the value they should in auctions, the CACG coins for the value they should in auctions. Sure for an 1883-CC Morgan in MS64 as an example, or other common coins where the registry can play a factor, maybe there is a preference for the CACed coins such that the CACG coins might go for slightly less. But when I looked at this via GC auction archives, there was no clear answer. Maybe, maybe not.
Sure one can bring up single or a few examples that don’t fit with CAC=CACG in price/value (and that goes both ways), but reality is that the coin inside the holder counts. Values are solely dependent on the coin as it should be IMO.
As more of the best coins migrate to CACG holders with time, the hypothesis that P/CAC trumps CACG will be outdated. Sure, the P registry plays a role in this issue for some/many, but many astute numismatists are primarily focused on quality first and the holder is only secondary. For those folks, it likely does not matter which holder they are buying since it is the coin they buy………………………...
He does, as well as the mycollect registry. But maybe he values the PCGS registry more
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I do partake in the CACG Registry (as well as the MyCollect and NGC Registry’s). But that doesn’t take away the fact that the PCGS Registry is still very important to me!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
The point @bammbamm and I were each making is that it appears that in general, PCGS “Classic” graded coins with CAC stickers sell for more than similar NGC graded coins with CAC stickers. Do you disagree, where you successfully and easily regularly sell the latter at the same prices as similar coins graded by PCGS?
If so, I think that’s great, as that is how it should be!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
I know CAC or JA knows what they are doing. I've often wondered why they dont have a label for C coins. It would increase their revenue and let collectors know the coin has already been through CAC.
Nothing would prevent a dealer or collector from peeling off the sticker. Most seasoned collectors can tell a C coin in most cases.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
Because it would be extremely detrimental to the values of coins that are identified as C coins. JA has been very clear on why he doesn't publish data on the coins that fail.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I dont disagree with you at all. I think he is being generous by not doing it. Im just saying from a business standpoint it would increase his revenue. Don't submitter receive a credit or no charge for coins that dont sticker?
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
It has changed over time, initially collectors were given a pass on coins that failed but dealers paid for every coin pass or fail. Last I knew collectors got 20 failures per year at no charge but then paid for any over that 20. I'm not sure if that is still the current version of this or not. I've already submitted every coin in my collection that I thought was worth submitting so I am not submitting much and have not kept up on that.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Separate from what @coinbuf said, you don't think that CAC derives significant extra revenue from coins previously submitted that failed, that now get submitted again, since the new owner really doesn't know one way or the other if the coin had previously been submitted? I think that happens a LOT! And since CAC will take the time to review EVERY submission, even those that failed, the submitter is still receiving value for the fee they paid. As we know, every once in a while coins that are on a borderline may fail, only to get stickered down the road. With all that said, if it was public knowledge which coins failed, chances are so much higher that those coins won't get submitted again.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Being a copper collector is tricky business. Back when the little green beans started appearing on slabs I was skeptical. It seemed to me (and others) that JA’s area of expertise was not copper and the haphazard application of beans on copper showed this. For at least a decade I continued to collect copper with a complete disregard for whatever bean might or might not be present, and to a large degree continue to do so. That said, these days it seems like it’s gotten better. The copper CAC approves seems, in most cases, to be more “market acceptable” than the ones they don’t, and in most cases I agree with them. There are still exceptions. Take EAC copper. The pool there is just so tainted. We all recognize now that JA seems to reward originality, and rightly so. Well there just isn’t a lot of original EAC, so certainly there are a lot of stickered EAC coins that shouldn’t be, so really you still have to be careful. Conversely, there are a lot of very nice “market acceptable” EAC coins that for whatever reason don’t please the maker, and will never be stickered, but still represent the issue well.
But to answer the question: as far as plastic goes, I’ll take the PCGS plus the bean over CACG any day. Certainly I will buy a CACG coin if it’s all there “for me” but first thing I’m gonna do is move it into PCGS and take my chances with a bean. And frankly to this date I have not seen any. Most if not all of the good pieces on the market are already in PCGS holders so it’s just a likelihood thing, and frankly it seems like any nice piece of copper that finds its way into a CACG grading room gets a bump just for showing up.
Almost forgot to say it. I think what’s happening right now with the stickering fees is being done to dissuade the service altogether. Gone are the $15 days, and the no-charge rejections. I get that the stickering service doesn’t help the CACG brand and that’s okay. But I think that in the end what we’re going to see is that stickered coins will become the rarity. Watch and see.
Empty Nest Collection