@Morgan White said:
I never liked CAC. No one knows whether or not I like a coin better than me. Paying someone else to tell me whether or not I like a coin is a humiliation ritual.
That said, in theory, it should have been something that helped collectors identify quality coins within the grade and weed out "messed with" coins that the TPG's started slabbing as "market acceptable". In reality, you get a set of biases like toning over white, or "dirty" gold over bright etc. that are about aesthetics not quality.
And unfortunately, rather than CAC being a net positive for the average collector, it became a net positive for dealers and elite collectors who use a sticker as a measure of worth, rather than the coin itself, as this thread is attempting to point out.
No one cared when the average Joe had to pay an extra $50 for a Morgan, but 20k starts to matter to the elites so we can actually have a serious discussion about it now instead of getting dog piled as an unsophisticated rube for not understanding how CAC works.
If you never liked CAC for the reasons you stated above, it would seem that you wouldn’t like professional grading companies, either. As if CAC is guilty of telling you whether you like a coin and of causing the “average Joe” to have to pay extra money for coins, so do the grading companies, often to a much larger extent.
TPG's served a useful purpose in that I've been around long enough to remember mail order BU's were often dipped AU's and TPG grading cleaned that up. TPG's went off the rails when they decided to start slabbing coins as "market acceptable", which is exactly what created the demand for CAC. Now, CAC has evolved into something where people are starting to see the gap again, as this thread indicates.
You're right in this sense, in my area of collecting, which has always been high end circulated coins, VF-XF bust, seated, barbar etc., I don't need TPG's or CAC for any reason whatsoever. I had my complete F-XF seated quarter set in a Dansco including some crack outs. I started certifying them (and then upgrading some as already slabbed) to make them easier to sell because that's the reality of the market. It doesn't mean I like it.
Bottom line here is that TPG's, CAC, and just about any system you can think of "drifts", "inflates", whatever you want to call it because people are always trying to profit from the gaps and margins. What you're seeing in this thread are the first signs of the "gaps" in the CAC system actually being acknowledged by someone that people will listen to without dismissing as an unsophisticated rube who "doesn't understand how the market works".
Thank you for that thoughtful reply.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Wooooha! Did someone just say it's officially "TACO™" Tuesday????
Retiring at 55, what day is today?
Why buy a coin that has flunked at CAC? Perhpas you don't to pay the CAC price.
Here's an example.
The "1861" Confederate restrike half dollar is a quirky coin. The Scott Stamp and Coin Company made them circa 1875 which the die for the Confederate Half Dollar surfaced. The Confederate die was a bit rusty and crudely made from the get-go. The Scott Company obtained 500, 1861-O half dollars, planed off the reverse an stuck the Confederate reverse over the blank spot. The obverse is always crushed because there was nothing maintain it when the reverse was restruck.
I knew this coin was a CAC failure because the dealer has a mark on his label as to whether or not the coin had been to CAC. It said that it had been to CAC, and there was no sticker. One with a sticker would have cost me probably $5,000 more. This one suited me just fine because it was a nice piece of history, and I had an ugly example of this piece that the dealer accepted in trade.
I got a nice upgrade for less money. AND NONE of these coins are ever going to win a beauty contest. PCGS graded this one MS-62.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I like about 95% of CAC and CACG coins. At my first coin show in 30 years (FUN 2019), I wanted to look at some CAC stickered coins in-hand. I purchased an 1849-O SLH that was crusty and undoubtedly original. While not particularly attractive, I bought it for its screaming originality, and I still enjoy the coin.
(photo by GFRC)
.
Over time, I bought more CAC coins and noticed some patterns to the coins that successfully sticker. One thing I noticed is they' will give crusty coins some leeway if they have a bit of corrosion on them. When looking through my collection recently for coins to grade, I came across an eBay coin I don't like because of a heavy crust including "white spots with black dots" that to me represents localized corrosion. I would have passed the coin over, but I thought of CAC and that quirk to their grading, chuckled to myself and sent it in to CACG. For me it was the perfect coin to test them on this corrosion issue that I obsess about. I laughed heartily when it straight-graded.
.
CACG VF20 - net graded IMO but still straight-graded.
.
One mistake I've made is I've purchased two CAC coins with which I wasn't exactly delighted. I trusted CAC over my own tastes and found out it is best to stick with my own preferences. CAC also didn't sticker some of my favorite coins for unknown reasons. They did sticker my best, IMO most-sticker able, midgrade SLH, which was a relief because I would have been turned off to CAC for good if they didn't. I realized a sticker rejection is not going to change how I feel about these coins. It had a greater effect on how I view CAC grading. Now I see the price premiums some dealers are putting on these coins and realize that some dealers are now gouging people wanting CAC coins.
.
PCGS AU53 - not CAC - still one of my favorites
.
1843 WB-35 PCGS XF45 - CAC (whew!)
@gtstang said:
You know, even though your opinion of cac has changed, the fact is nobody cares.
I've posted about a coin several times that was originally sold by legend some years ago in pcgs , cac that end for thousands over price guide.
The coin in question is very toned and has very deep scratches on both sides.
The coin is currently in a new pcgs holder with a new cert number and new cac sticker and sold for thousands again over price guide.
Again nobody cares that cac blessed it with such deep scratches.
There are many great coins with cac, but look at the coin if you're laying out that much over guide.
When someone says something such as “nobody cares…”, “everybody…”, “always…” or “never…” far more often than not, they’re wrong. And this is yet another example of that. If the coin is actually as you described, a lot of people would care.
If the coin was as described, I'm surprised it would slab twice and sticker twice.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@coinbuf said:
The thrust of this entire post is ridiculous, collectors have been willing to overpay for the holder brand, for the color, for the plus, for the provenance, and on and on. That collectors are willing to pay more for the sticker is just another one to add on that list. In truth collectors are not that smart, they are easily convinced to follow the herd if told to by the "right " influencer. This post cannot make that more clear, people have announced that they would buy any coin if Laura told them to buy, that is crazy.
How can it be “overpaying” in a free market with widespread auction price discovery? Your personal willingness not to pay more has no bearing on the market value of CAC, toning, stars, color, provenance…
There are two dealers I’d buy sight unseen from - because they consistently and only sell high quality material that aligns with my desired aesthetic. Neither is CAC exclusive and both sell coins at a premium because of their reputation for quality.
You have it all wrong, it has nothing to do with what I will or will not pay. Everything can be manipulated or influenced, you remember the Hunt bros right? How many times have you seen a thread on a coin that set a record high only to sell for a significant haircut only a few months or a year later. According to your statement that cannot happen because of the widespread auction price discovery available that would include the record price auction data, yet it happens all the time. People allow their emotions and egos to control behaviors, especially true in auctions. Assume that I use a shill to sell five of the same coin for more than any recent auction history, that now becomes part of the widespread auction history that you use to determine your price. So you look at the history and see my inflated prices and assume you need to adjust your bids higher, you were just influenced to overpay due to inaccurate data.
Even your comment that you would buy anything from two individuals is telling. You are not buying the coin you are buying the reputation; I'm not criticizing your actions just pointing out the facts. If that is working for you great no worries from my end, just not how I do things.
@tradedollarnut said:
“You know, even though your opinion of cac has changed, the fact is nobody cares.”
Absolutely incorrect. My opinion OF cac has not changed -they still do what they do on as consistent a basis as is reasonably achievable. My opinion ON cac has changed due to the effects that the market is assigning to what they do. It’s ridiculous that a B- coin is half the price of a B+ coin.
It used to be a very nice continuum of value - at any given grade valuation was progressive:
Ngc, PCGS, ngc with sticker, PCGS+, PCGS with sticker, PCGS + with sticker. Modify as you see fit but you could break the values down pretty smoothly. Sure, coins would double in price between grades in the same category, but you simply didn’t see a coin doubling in price between the top and bottom of just the B designation within the grade. Simply crazy IMO
Sometimes crazy, sometimes not. Anyway, always good to keep an open mind and an eye for value.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Excerpts from a Lauramail just now. I’ve cut out the parts that always got her banned.
When I first saw the coin at ANA I passed. It was a knee jerk reaction. I went back and looked at 2X that day (and put it on hold). The coin haunted me so badly; the next AM I bought it. I rarely ever do that with a non cac coin. In hand it looks really nice and is very flashy.
This 1883 TD was a rare coin that in my opinion was a near miss for CAC. I am considering listing coins like that, however they would be one in a million.
@coinbuf said:
The thrust of this entire post is ridiculous, collectors have been willing to overpay for the holder brand, for the color, for the plus, for the provenance, and on and on. That collectors are willing to pay more for the sticker is just another one to add on that list. In truth collectors are not that smart, they are easily convinced to follow the herd if told to by the "right " influencer. This post cannot make that more clear, people have announced that they would buy any coin if Laura told them to buy, that is crazy.
How can it be “overpaying” in a free market with widespread auction price discovery? Your personal willingness not to pay more has no bearing on the market value of CAC, toning, stars, color, provenance…
There are two dealers I’d buy sight unseen from - because they consistently and only sell high quality material that aligns with my desired aesthetic. Neither is CAC exclusive and both sell coins at a premium because of their reputation for quality.
You have it all wrong, it has nothing to do with what I will or will not pay. Everything can be manipulated or influenced, you remember the Hunt bros right? How many times have you seen a thread on a coin that set a record high only to sell for a significant haircut only a few months or a year later. According to your statement that cannot happen because of the widespread auction price discovery available that would include the record price auction data, yet it happens all the time. People allow their emotions and egos to control behaviors, especially true in auctions. Assume that I use a shill to sell five of the same coin for more than any recent auction history, that now becomes part of the widespread auction history that you use to determine your price. So you look at the history and see my inflated prices and assume you need to adjust your bids higher, you were just influenced to overpay due to inaccurate data.
Even your comment that you would buy anything from two individuals is telling. You are not buying the coin you are buying the reputation; I'm not criticizing your actions just pointing out the facts. If that is working for you great no worries from my end, just not how I do things.
You’re right, the whole market is just overpaying for eye appeal, CAC, toners. Guess we should all just stop buying nice coins and wait for prices to go down
@coinbuf said:
The thrust of this entire post is ridiculous, collectors have been willing to overpay for the holder brand, for the color, for the plus, for the provenance, and on and on. That collectors are willing to pay more for the sticker is just another one to add on that list. In truth collectors are not that smart, they are easily convinced to follow the herd if told to by the "right " influencer. This post cannot make that more clear, people have announced that they would buy any coin if Laura told them to buy, that is crazy.
How can it be “overpaying” in a free market with widespread auction price discovery? Your personal willingness not to pay more has no bearing on the market value of CAC, toning, stars, color, provenance…
There are two dealers I’d buy sight unseen from - because they consistently and only sell high quality material that aligns with my desired aesthetic. Neither is CAC exclusive and both sell coins at a premium because of their reputation for quality.
You have it all wrong, it has nothing to do with what I will or will not pay. Everything can be manipulated or influenced, you remember the Hunt bros right? How many times have you seen a thread on a coin that set a record high only to sell for a significant haircut only a few months or a year later. According to your statement that cannot happen because of the widespread auction price discovery available that would include the record price auction data, yet it happens all the time. People allow their emotions and egos to control behaviors, especially true in auctions. Assume that I use a shill to sell five of the same coin for more than any recent auction history, that now becomes part of the widespread auction history that you use to determine your price. So you look at the history and see my inflated prices and assume you need to adjust your bids higher, you were just influenced to overpay due to inaccurate data.
Even your comment that you would buy anything from two individuals is telling. You are not buying the coin you are buying the reputation; I'm not criticizing your actions just pointing out the facts. If that is working for you great no worries from my end, just not how I do things.
.
I think, in many cases, when a rare coin apparently sells for a high price and then appears at auction a year or so later at a lower price, the reason is that the owner bought it back the first time and let it go the second.
When I first glanced at your post, I did a double-take. No way is that coin a "VF".
I checked the certification number to make sure I wasn't way off that it was actually graded XF45.
PS:
That is probably about the best XF45 Seated Liberty Half Dollar you could ever hope to find.
When I first glanced at your post, I did a double-take. No way is that coin a "VF".
I checked the certification number to make sure I wasn't way off that it was actually graded XF45.
PS:
That is probably about the best XF45 Seated Liberty Half Dollar you could ever hope to find.
The best XF45 or the best VVF35?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Which should be worth more (assuming both have the same amount of detail showing):
A. An original "crusty" coin that has a significant number of small bag-marks all over it.
B. A mark-free coin that was "loved" a little too much and has a light cleaning or "dipping".
Obviously, the market has spoken that the higher price goes to (A).
And that is the direction that buyers and influencers (such as dealers, grading services, and CAC) have steered it.
But if (B) was not polished and has decent luster remaining, AND the price is significantly lower, I would go with (B).
@dcarr said:
Which should be worth more (assuming both have the same amount of detail showing):
A. An original "crusty" coin that has a significant number of small bag-marks all over it.
B. A mark-free coin that was "loved" a little too much and has a light cleaning or "dipping".
Obviously, the market has spoken that the higher price goes to (A).
And that is the direction that buyers and influencers (such as dealers, grading services, and CAC) have steered it.
But if (B) was not polished and has decent luster remaining, AND the price is significantly lower, I would go with (B).
Your descriptions are general enough such that the answer would have to be determined on a coin by coin basis. In many instances, your (dipped) coin B description could apply to a coin that stickers at CAC and sells at a premium, rather than a discount.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@coinbuf said:
The thrust of this entire post is ridiculous, collectors have been willing to overpay for the holder brand, for the color, for the plus, for the provenance, and on and on. That collectors are willing to pay more for the sticker is just another one to add on that list. In truth collectors are not that smart, they are easily convinced to follow the herd if told to by the "right " influencer. This post cannot make that more clear, people have announced that they would buy any coin if Laura told them to buy, that is crazy.
How can it be “overpaying” in a free market with widespread auction price discovery? Your personal willingness not to pay more has no bearing on the market value of CAC, toning, stars, color, provenance…
There are two dealers I’d buy sight unseen from - because they consistently and only sell high quality material that aligns with my desired aesthetic. Neither is CAC exclusive and both sell coins at a premium because of their reputation for quality.
You have it all wrong, it has nothing to do with what I will or will not pay. Everything can be manipulated or influenced, you remember the Hunt bros right? How many times have you seen a thread on a coin that set a record high only to sell for a significant haircut only a few months or a year later. According to your statement that cannot happen because of the widespread auction price discovery available that would include the record price auction data, yet it happens all the time. People allow their emotions and egos to control behaviors, especially true in auctions. Assume that I use a shill to sell five of the same coin for more than any recent auction history, that now becomes part of the widespread auction history that you use to determine your price. So you look at the history and see my inflated prices and assume you need to adjust your bids higher, you were just influenced to overpay due to inaccurate data.
Even your comment that you would buy anything from two individuals is telling. You are not buying the coin you are buying the reputation; I'm not criticizing your actions just pointing out the facts. If that is working for you great no worries from my end, just not how I do things.
You’re right, the whole market is just overpaying for eye appeal, CAC, toners. Guess we should all just stop buying nice coins and wait for prices to go down
I guess when you cannot comprehend or make a reasonable argument this is the gibberish I should expect from you.
@dcarr said:
I think, in many cases, when a rare coin apparently sells for a high price and then appears at auction a year or so later at a lower price, the reason is that the owner bought it back the first time and let it go the second.
.
Do you have any facts/data to support this claim, or just a feeling.
@coinbuf said:
The thrust of this entire post is ridiculous, collectors have been willing to overpay for the holder brand, for the color, for the plus, for the provenance, and on and on. That collectors are willing to pay more for the sticker is just another one to add on that list. In truth collectors are not that smart, they are easily convinced to follow the herd if told to by the "right " influencer. This post cannot make that more clear, people have announced that they would buy any coin if Laura told them to buy, that is crazy.
How can it be “overpaying” in a free market with widespread auction price discovery? Your personal willingness not to pay more has no bearing on the market value of CAC, toning, stars, color, provenance…
There are two dealers I’d buy sight unseen from - because they consistently and only sell high quality material that aligns with my desired aesthetic. Neither is CAC exclusive and both sell coins at a premium because of their reputation for quality.
You have it all wrong, it has nothing to do with what I will or will not pay. Everything can be manipulated or influenced, you remember the Hunt bros right? How many times have you seen a thread on a coin that set a record high only to sell for a significant haircut only a few months or a year later. According to your statement that cannot happen because of the widespread auction price discovery available that would include the record price auction data, yet it happens all the time. People allow their emotions and egos to control behaviors, especially true in auctions. Assume that I use a shill to sell five of the same coin for more than any recent auction history, that now becomes part of the widespread auction history that you use to determine your price. So you look at the history and see my inflated prices and assume you need to adjust your bids higher, you were just influenced to overpay due to inaccurate data.
Even your comment that you would buy anything from two individuals is telling. You are not buying the coin you are buying the reputation; I'm not criticizing your actions just pointing out the facts. If that is working for you great no worries from my end, just not how I do things.
You’re right, the whole market is just overpaying for eye appeal, CAC, toners. Guess we should all just stop buying nice coins and wait for prices to go down
I guess when you cannot comprehend or make a reasonable argument this is the gibberish I should expect from you.
You didn’t make a cogent argument.
You pointed to the early 80s silver bubble as if it’s relevant to CAC and toners consistently pricing higher. Metals markets are a completely different topic - maybe head over to the PM forum.
Then you attacked my willingness to buy from 2 dealers - who have return and buyback policies and among the most respected in the industry. I never said I’d pay $1000 for a $500 coin, only that I’d buy a $500 coin for $500 sigh unseen.
So yes, you got sarcasm because you didn’t present an articulate reasonable argument and dabbled in the personal attack.
@dcarr said:
I think, in many cases, when a rare coin apparently sells for a high price and then appears at auction a year or so later at a lower price, the reason is that the owner bought it back the first time and let it go the second.
.
Do you have any facts/data to support this claim, or just a feeling.
.
It seems to be the simplest and most logical explanation. But I have nothing else to base it on.
@dcarr said:
I think, in many cases, when a rare coin apparently sells for a high price and then appears at auction a year or so later at a lower price, the reason is that the owner bought it back the first time and let it go the second.
.
Do you have any facts/data to support this claim, or just a feeling.
.
It seems to be the simplest and most logical explanation. But I have nothing else to base it on.
A great case is the recent 1808 quarter eagle that was listed on the CRO website for $495k in a CACG MS61 holder. I believe it was sold just last month as an NCG 63 for just over $390k. CRO or someone who works with them was savvy enough to understand that there was value there. They had a good idea that the coin was simply over-graded but was still nice and most importantly selling a very good price. I believe that the CRO listing is on hold or has already sold. I have seen this happening more and more. It's just a very good example of a non-CAC coins selling at too great a discount.
It seems to be the simplest and most logical explanation. But I have nothing else to base it on.
.
It seems odd to me that a seller would set a record price as a buyback rather than sell it for that record (or very near record) price only to sell for less shortly down the road. Not impossible but seems like a strange strategy to me.
It seems to be the simplest and most logical explanation. But I have nothing else to base it on.
.
It seems odd to me that a seller would set a record price as a buyback rather than sell it for that record (or very near record) price only to sell for less shortly down the road. Not impossible but seems like a strange strategy to me.
That would seem odd to me, as well. Other possible reasons that a coin might sell for a high price and then again at a lower price a year later could include:
The buyer having tried and failed at an upgrade, crossover or sticker
or
subsequently upgrading the coin and wanting to sell the duplicate
or
having buyer’s remorse
or
needing to raise funds
or
changing his collecting pursuits
or
having been the consignor and the coin not actually selling due to an undisclosed reserve.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It seems to be the simplest and most logical explanation. But I have nothing else to base it on.
.
It seems odd to me that a seller would set a record price as a buyback rather than sell it for that record (or very near record) price only to sell for less shortly down the road. Not impossible but seems like a strange strategy to me.
That would seem odd to me, as well. Other possible reasons that a coin might sell for a high price and then again at a lower price a year later could include:
The buyer having tried and failed at an upgrade, crossover or sticker
or
subsequently upgrading the coin and wanting to sell the duplicate
or
having buyer’s remorse
or
needing to raise funds
or
changing his collecting pursuits
or
having been the consignor and the coin not actually selling due to an undisclosed reserve.
All of which tend to happen all the time.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
It seems to be the simplest and most logical explanation. But I have nothing else to base it on.
.
It seems odd to me that a seller would set a record price as a buyback rather than sell it for that record (or very near record) price only to sell for less shortly down the road. Not impossible but seems like a strange strategy to me.
That would seem odd to me, as well. Other possible reasons that a coin might sell for a high price and then again at a lower price a year later could include:
The buyer having tried and failed at an upgrade, crossover or sticker
or
subsequently upgrading the coin and wanting to sell the duplicate
or
having buyer’s remorse
or
needing to raise funds
or
changing his collecting pursuits
or
having been the consignor and the coin not actually selling due to an undisclosed reserve.
All of those (except one) seem like excellent reasons why a second sale can be less than the first. Can you explain how an auction that fails to sell due to a reserve would be recorded as a sale? Would not the auction house record it as reserve not met vs as a sale and reported hammer price?
In the middle of covid I sold my early dollar set. Somehow a buyback on the 1799 MS66 got recorded as a sale. Thus forever ruining its value despite the extraordinary quality of the coin. Probably worth less than I paid for it almost 25 years ago
In the middle of covid I sold my early dollar set. Somehow a buyback on the 1799 MS66 got recorded as a sale. Thus forever ruining its value despite the extraordinary quality of the coin. Probably worth less than I paid for it almost 25 years ago
So it happens
Thank you for that real world example, a simple record keeping error does make sense.
Comments
Thank you for that thoughtful reply.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No dreck for me. RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Wooooha! Did someone just say it's officially "TACO™" Tuesday????
Retiring at 55, what day is today?
All that "gutter" you have is dreck.
End Systemic Elitism - It Takes All of Us
ANA LM, LSCC, EAC, FUN
Why buy a coin that has flunked at CAC? Perhpas you don't to pay the CAC price.
Here's an example.
The "1861" Confederate restrike half dollar is a quirky coin. The Scott Stamp and Coin Company made them circa 1875 which the die for the Confederate Half Dollar surfaced. The Confederate die was a bit rusty and crudely made from the get-go. The Scott Company obtained 500, 1861-O half dollars, planed off the reverse an stuck the Confederate reverse over the blank spot. The obverse is always crushed because there was nothing maintain it when the reverse was restruck.
I knew this coin was a CAC failure because the dealer has a mark on his label as to whether or not the coin had been to CAC. It said that it had been to CAC, and there was no sticker. One with a sticker would have cost me probably $5,000 more. This one suited me just fine because it was a nice piece of history, and I had an ugly example of this piece that the dealer accepted in trade.
I got a nice upgrade for less money. AND NONE of these coins are ever going to win a beauty contest. PCGS graded this one MS-62.
I like about 95% of CAC and CACG coins. At my first coin show in 30 years (FUN 2019), I wanted to look at some CAC stickered coins in-hand. I purchased an 1849-O SLH that was crusty and undoubtedly original. While not particularly attractive, I bought it for its screaming originality, and I still enjoy the coin.
(photo by GFRC)
.
Over time, I bought more CAC coins and noticed some patterns to the coins that successfully sticker. One thing I noticed is they' will give crusty coins some leeway if they have a bit of corrosion on them. When looking through my collection recently for coins to grade, I came across an eBay coin I don't like because of a heavy crust including "white spots with black dots" that to me represents localized corrosion. I would have passed the coin over, but I thought of CAC and that quirk to their grading, chuckled to myself and sent it in to CACG. For me it was the perfect coin to test them on this corrosion issue that I obsess about. I laughed heartily when it straight-graded.
.
CACG VF20 - net graded IMO but still straight-graded.
.
One mistake I've made is I've purchased two CAC coins with which I wasn't exactly delighted. I trusted CAC over my own tastes and found out it is best to stick with my own preferences. CAC also didn't sticker some of my favorite coins for unknown reasons. They did sticker my best, IMO most-sticker able, midgrade SLH, which was a relief because I would have been turned off to CAC for good if they didn't. I realized a sticker rejection is not going to change how I feel about these coins. It had a greater effect on how I view CAC grading. Now I see the price premiums some dealers are putting on these coins and realize that some dealers are now gouging people wanting CAC coins.
.
PCGS AU53 - not CAC - still one of my favorites
.
1843 WB-35 PCGS XF45 - CAC (whew!)
If the coin was as described, I'm surprised it would slab twice and sticker twice.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Even your comment that you would buy anything from two individuals is telling. You are not buying the coin you are buying the reputation; I'm not criticizing your actions just pointing out the facts. If that is working for you great no worries from my end, just not how I do things.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Sometimes crazy, sometimes not. Anyway, always good to keep an open mind and an eye for value.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Excerpts from a Lauramail just now. I’ve cut out the parts that always got her banned.
When I first saw the coin at ANA I passed. It was a knee jerk reaction. I went back and looked at 2X that day (and put it on hold). The coin haunted me so badly; the next AM I bought it. I rarely ever do that with a non cac coin. In hand it looks really nice and is very flashy.
This 1883 TD was a rare coin that in my opinion was a near miss for CAC. I am considering listing coins like that, however they would be one in a million.
Where's the fun in that?😂
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
You’re right, the whole market is just overpaying for eye appeal, CAC, toners. Guess we should all just stop buying nice coins and wait for prices to go down
.
I think, in many cases, when a rare coin apparently sells for a high price and then appears at auction a year or so later at a lower price, the reason is that the owner bought it back the first time and let it go the second.
.
When I first glanced at your post, I did a double-take. No way is that coin a "VF".
I checked the certification number to make sure I wasn't way off that it was actually graded XF45.
PS:
That is probably about the best XF45 Seated Liberty Half Dollar you could ever hope to find.
The best XF45 or the best VVF35?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Which should be worth more (assuming both have the same amount of detail showing):
A. An original "crusty" coin that has a significant number of small bag-marks all over it.
B. A mark-free coin that was "loved" a little too much and has a light cleaning or "dipping".
Obviously, the market has spoken that the higher price goes to (A).
And that is the direction that buyers and influencers (such as dealers, grading services, and CAC) have steered it.
But if (B) was not polished and has decent luster remaining, AND the price is significantly lower, I would go with (B).
Your descriptions are general enough such that the answer would have to be determined on a coin by coin basis. In many instances, your (dipped) coin B description could apply to a coin that stickers at CAC and sells at a premium, rather than a discount.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Do you have any facts/data to support this claim, or just a feeling.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
You didn’t make a cogent argument.
You pointed to the early 80s silver bubble as if it’s relevant to CAC and toners consistently pricing higher. Metals markets are a completely different topic - maybe head over to the PM forum.
Then you attacked my willingness to buy from 2 dealers - who have return and buyback policies and among the most respected in the industry. I never said I’d pay $1000 for a $500 coin, only that I’d buy a $500 coin for $500 sigh unseen.
So yes, you got sarcasm because you didn’t present an articulate reasonable argument and dabbled in the personal attack.
.
It seems to be the simplest and most logical explanation. But I have nothing else to base it on.
.
Auctions razor.
Yes because your first reply was so nice and friendly, stop with the victim card its pathetic.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
A great case is the recent 1808 quarter eagle that was listed on the CRO website for $495k in a CACG MS61 holder. I believe it was sold just last month as an NCG 63 for just over $390k. CRO or someone who works with them was savvy enough to understand that there was value there. They had a good idea that the coin was simply over-graded but was still nice and most importantly selling a very good price. I believe that the CRO listing is on hold or has already sold. I have seen this happening more and more. It's just a very good example of a non-CAC coins selling at too great a discount.
It seems odd to me that a seller would set a record price as a buyback rather than sell it for that record (or very near record) price only to sell for less shortly down the road. Not impossible but seems like a strange strategy to me.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
That would seem odd to me, as well. Other possible reasons that a coin might sell for a high price and then again at a lower price a year later could include:
The buyer having tried and failed at an upgrade, crossover or sticker
or
subsequently upgrading the coin and wanting to sell the duplicate
or
having buyer’s remorse
or
needing to raise funds
or
changing his collecting pursuits
or
having been the consignor and the coin not actually selling due to an undisclosed reserve.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
All of which tend to happen all the time.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
All of those (except one) seem like excellent reasons why a second sale can be less than the first. Can you explain how an auction that fails to sell due to a reserve would be recorded as a sale? Would not the auction house record it as reserve not met vs as a sale and reported hammer price?
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Well, since you ask:
In the middle of covid I sold my early dollar set. Somehow a buyback on the 1799 MS66 got recorded as a sale. Thus forever ruining its value despite the extraordinary quality of the coin. Probably worth less than I paid for it almost 25 years ago
So it happens
Thank you for that real world example, a simple record keeping error does make sense.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.