@islemangu said:
From the present perceived level of trust with coin grading, having two separate entities agreeing on a coin's grade would seemingly always bring greater grade confidence than just one company's opinion. Therefore, if CAC stickering is in the future discontinued then something else would likely form replacing it.
It is called CACG, and it is already here, identical grading standards to CAC according to the founder of both, John Albanese. So all you need is one grading opinion, either the CAC sticker agreeing is a grade on a TPG slab, or the CACG slab, to get an opinion on their grading standards.
It is called CACG, and it is already here, identical grading standards to CAC according to the founder of both, John Albanese. So all you need is one grading opinion, either the CAC sticker agreeing is a grade on a TPG slab, or the CACG slab, to get an opinion on their grading standards.
Agree with all of this……do you think that will eventually mean a premium for CACG graded coins similar to what PCGS/CAC coins enjoy in the current market? (After the “beaning” service eventually stops.)
I’m not intending to ask this question for “investment” advice as much as I’m curious about how many collectors/dealers in the market will be willing to attach a premium to JAs singular opinion the way CACs 3rd party opinion (sticker) currently commands.
I agree with the idea that something else is likely to emerge once CAC decides to stop stickering. It just won’t be MAC, and hopefully it won’t look like anything in the Trader Bea realm.
It is called CACG, and it is already here, identical grading standards to CAC according to the founder of both, John Albanese. So all you need is one grading opinion, either the CAC sticker agreeing is a grade on a TPG slab, or the CACG slab, to get an opinion on their grading standards.
Agree with all of this……do you think that will eventually mean a premium for CACG graded coins similar to what PCGS/CAC coins enjoy in the current market? (After the “beaning” service eventually stops.)
I’m not intending to ask this question for “investment” advice as much as I’m curious about how many collectors/dealers in the market will be willing to attach a premium to JAs singular opinion the way CACs 3rd party opinion (sticker) currently commands.
I agree with the idea that something else is likely to emerge once CAC decides to stop stickering. It just won’t be MAC, and hopefully it won’t look like anything in the Trader Bea realm.
If CACG coins are not selling at a premium, it’s because of the registry bias.
@islemangu said:
From the present perceived level of trust with coin grading, having two separate entities agreeing on a coin's grade would seemingly always bring greater grade confidence than just one company's opinion. Therefore, if CAC stickering is in the future discontinued then something else would likely form replacing it.
It is called CACG, and it is already here, identical grading standards to CAC according to the founder of both, John Albanese. So all you need is one grading opinion, either the CAC sticker agreeing is a grade on a TPG slab, or the CACG slab, to get an opinion on their grading standards.
Whenever CAC ceases doing business, a CACG grading opinion will represent a single entity’s opinion, not two separate ones. And while you might be fully satisfied with a single grading opinion, many others won’t.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There are players still sending PCGS or NGC coins of theirs to be stickered. So I can see that going on for awhile.
It’s a function of how long CAC is willing to operate the sticker mill.
One guy in the club is teaching a seminar called The good, the bad, and the ugly. This is about coins that over time have gone bad in the holder (coin preservation issue). Perhaps he will launch a service that says if your coin is still ok or gone bad in the holder.
I buy CACG coins but all my stickered material sold out. Believe eventually the sticker thing will be discontinued. Learn how to grade and price coins that are PQ.
There are players still sending PCGS or NGC coins of theirs to be stickered. So I can see that going on for awhile.
It’s a function of how long CAC is willing to operate the sticker mill.
One guy in the club is teaching a seminar called The good, the bad, and the ugly. This is about coins that over time have gone bad in the holder (coin preservation issue). Perhaps he will launch a service that says if your coin is still ok or gone bad in the holder.
I buy CACG coins but all my stickered material sold out. Believe eventually the sticker thing will be discontinued. Learn how to grade and price coins that are PQ.
I believe the PCGS/CAC combination will always be the most popular and bring the highest prices over CACG graded coins. Collectors will always value 2 opinions over 1and you get to keep your older holders.
The only thing I tend to disagree with most people are the gold stickers. I would rather own a PCGS 67/CAC than a PCGS CAC Gold 66. Same reason 2 opinions of the grade being solid as a 67
It is called CACG, and it is already here, identical grading standards to CAC according to the founder of both, John Albanese. So all you need is one grading opinion, either the CAC sticker agreeing is a grade on a TPG slab, or the CACG slab, to get an opinion on their grading standards.
Agree with all of this……do you think that will eventually mean a premium for CACG graded coins similar to what PCGS/CAC coins enjoy in the current market? (After the “beaning” service eventually stops.)
I’m not intending to ask this question for “investment” advice as much as I’m curious about how many collectors/dealers in the market will be willing to attach a premium to JAs singular opinion the way CACs 3rd party opinion (sticker) currently commands.
I agree with the idea that something else is likely to emerge once CAC decides to stop stickering. It just won’t be MAC, and hopefully it won’t look like anything in the Trader Bea realm.
If CACG coins are not selling at a premium, it’s because of the registry bias.
Personally don’t like their holders astheically
In my opinion nothing beats an attractive PCGS/CAC coin in an older blue or green holder.
The increased attention to older generation holders and TPG registry participation will continue stickering demand. Crossing superior coins for assigned grades to CACG is definitely not for everyone. If the sticker is abandoned, there isn't a market alternative to reflect that for those folks.
It is called CACG, and it is already here, identical grading standards to CAC according to the founder of both, John Albanese. So all you need is one grading opinion, either the CAC sticker agreeing is a grade on a TPG slab, or the CACG slab, to get an opinion on their grading standards.
Agree with all of this……do you think that will eventually mean a premium for CACG graded coins similar to what PCGS/CAC coins enjoy in the current market? (After the “beaning” service eventually stops.)
Interesting question. They already do. I've have no problem buying and selling CAC/CACG as if they were the same, because they are, and have been successful selling both with equal pricing for the same quality of coin of the same type and grade. Some folks don’t wanna buy CACG bc they play in the limited PCGS registry which is their choice, but there are enough numismatically experienced people that focus on the coin, not the holder and understand that CAC/CACG is mostly identical, in terms of grading, and as John Albanese has stated. For those that only want PCGS, well there are mostly enough CACed ones to meet their expectations. But many just focus on the quality of the coin for their collection, and understand the stated grading standards are the same and make their own evaluation, and don’t care about the PCGS registry. Some of them are likely to participate in the less restricted CACG registry if they want to have their collection in a registry. Thems folks are happy to buy a strong for the grade coin in CACG holders and they are priced the same as if they are in the PCGS/CAC holder in my experience. If anything CACG might be abit tougher in grading standards, or, at least even more cautious in putting coins in graded CACG holders, than CAC stickering another TPGs slab………………. I’ve had PCGS holdered coins that did not make the stated grade when I sent them to CACG for crossing only to wind up with CAC stickers after someone bought them from me…………………………………..
@MFeld said:
Whenever CAC ceases doing business, a CACG grading opinion will represent a single entity’s opinion, not two separate ones. And while you might be fully satisfied with a single grading opinion, many others won’t.
Nah, this is where I disagree with the general idea of two opinions on a TPG holder with or without a CAC sticker. If a coin has an ‘opinion’ of say, MS65 on its holder from the TPG, the first question I and many will ask is whether it has been to CAC to see if they agree with that opinion in terms of strong for the grade. If said coin has the green sticker that indicates they think it is strong for the grade the other TPG gave it, then it is priced at X. If it does not, it is priced at X-W (lower) no matter what almost every time. Even for strong for the grade coins w/o the sticker, you get the sticker on it, and the price goes up. Happens every single time in my experience. That means, the only opinion that counts, is the single one of what CAC thinks. Period. That places the value in the coin. That is a reality we all see every day, and that CAC themselves document on their website:
So the opinion of the other TPG of MS65 only matters because if it is CACed or not. So once CAC had rendered its opinion, that is all that matters to place value on the coin…………….. Beanless coins, lower for that coin, every time. Beaned/CACg coins, higher for that coin every time. So one can argue about single entity versus two separate ones rendering an opinion, but really, the separate TPG one does not count compared to the CAC/CACG one. If that was not true, then CAC/CACG coins would not bring premiums compared to non-CAC/CACG coins.
My dimes worth of opinion and the credo I live by when buying and selling. It seems to work.
It was a great business plan back in the early 2000s when they started, I'm almost surprised that NGC and PCGS permitted it. Now they have at least two grading services, both have advantages. I'm leery of sending raw coins to cacg, quite strict on a lot of coins.
@Walkerlover said:
The only thing I tend to disagree with most people are the gold stickers. I would rather own a PCGS 67/CAC than a PCGS CAC Gold 66. Same reason 2 opinions of the grade being solid as a 67
That is a whole ’nother discussion. One caveat is that many gold stickered coins are more than one grade undergraded byt current standards, so a 66/gold might be a 68 by today’s grading standards. I’ve had/have for example, XF45’s that were AU55’s by today grading standards using PCGS Photograde and in hand inspection, with a gold sticker, so placing value on them is abit of speculation and grading expertise. And generally to get a gold sticker, it seems that the coin really does have to be strongly undergraded and John Albanese himself says they won’t put a gold sticker on a coin unless they see it as at least 1.5 times higher than the grade on the slab. So does that mean that a 66/gold is a 68 C coin minimum? Maybe? Maybe not? Like I said, a whole ’nother interesting discussion…………...
@alefzero said:
The increased attention to older generation holders and TPG registry participation will continue stickering demand. Crossing superior coins for assigned grades to CACG is definitely not for everyone. 'If the sticker is abandoned, there isn't a market alternative to reflect that for those folks.’
'If the sticker is abandoned, there isn't a market alternative to reflect that for those folks.’
Not sure what you are saying for that sentence. Care to elaborate?
@MFeld said:
Whenever CAC ceases doing business, a CACG grading opinion will represent a single entity’s opinion, not two separate ones. And while you might be fully satisfied with a single grading opinion, many others won’t.
Nah, this is where I disagree with the general idea of two opinions on a TPG holder with or without a CAC sticker. If a coin has an ‘opinion’ of say, MS65 on its holder from the TPG, the first question I and many will ask is whether it has been to CAC to see if they agree with that opinion in terms of strong for the grade. If said coin has the green sticker that indicates they think it is strong for the grade the other TPG gave it, then it is priced at X. If it does not, it is priced at X-W (lower) no matter what almost every time. Even for strong for the grade coins w/o the sticker, you get the sticker on it, and the price goes up. Happens every single time in my experience. That means, the only opinion that counts, is the single one of what CAC thinks. Period. That places the value in the coin. That is a reality we all see every day, and that CAC themselves document on their website:
So the opinion of the other TPG of MS65 only matters because if it is CACed or not. So once CAC had rendered its opinion, that is all that matters to place value on the coin…………….. Beanless coins, lower for that coin, every time. Beaned/CACg coins, higher for that coin every time. So one can argue about single entity versus two separate ones rendering an opinion, but really, the separate TPG one does not count compared to the CAC/CACG one. If that was not true, then CAC/CACG coins would not bring premiums compared to non-CAC/CACG coins.
My dimes worth of opinion and the credo I live by when buying and selling. It seems to work.
There are many non-CAC coins that bring as much as or more than CAC examples. Some of them have already failed to sticker, while others haven’t yet been submitted. I think CAC is great, but you’re viewing their opinions and coins through rose-colored glasses and making sweeping generalizations
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Regarding the above comments about another “service” filling the gap when the day does come that CAC will no longer sticker new coins - does anyone really think that StacksBowers CMQ stickers can fill those shoes? (I don’t)
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@MFeld said:
Whenever CAC ceases doing business, a CACG grading opinion will represent a single entity’s opinion, not two separate ones. And while you might be fully satisfied with a single grading opinion, many others won’t.
Nah, this is where I disagree with the general idea of two opinions on a TPG holder with or without a CAC sticker. If a coin has an ‘opinion’ of say, MS65 on its holder from the TPG, the first question I and many will ask is whether it has been to CAC to see if they agree with that opinion in terms of strong for the grade. If said coin has the green sticker that indicates they think it is strong for the grade the other TPG gave it, then it is priced at X. If it does not, it is priced at X-W (lower) no matter what almost every time. Even for strong for the grade coins w/o the sticker, you get the sticker on it, and the price goes up. Happens every single time in my experience. That means, the only opinion that counts, is the single one of what CAC thinks. Period. That places the value in the coin. That is a reality we all see every day, and that CAC themselves document on their website:
So the opinion of the other TPG of MS65 only matters because if it is CACed or not. So once CAC had rendered its opinion, that is all that matters to place value on the coin…………….. Beanless coins, lower for that coin, every time. Beaned/CACg coins, higher for that coin every time. So one can argue about single entity versus two separate ones rendering an opinion, but really, the separate TPG one does not count compared to the CAC/CACG one. If that was not true, then CAC/CACG coins would not bring premiums compared to non-CAC/CACG coins.
My dimes worth of opinion and the credo I live by when buying and selling. It seems to work.
There are many non-CAC coins that bring as much as or more than CAC examples. Some of them have already failed to sticker, while others haven’t yet been submitted. I think CAC is great, but you’re viewing their opinions and coins through rose-colored glasses and making sweeping generalizations
Sure, there are similar coins priced the same with or without a sticker for many reasons. But put a sticker on one of those without tho', because it is then backed as strong for the grade by CAC, and the price would very likely go up.
Regarding the above comments about another “service” filling the gap when the day does come that CAC will no longer sticker new coins - does anyone really think that StacksBowers CMQ stickers can fill those shoes? (I don’t)
If someone had enough funding they could institute a "Q$" sticker: The sticker would offer a cash guarantee to buy it at a "Coinplex" pricing online that goes up or down based on a reasonable market. The sticker review process would apply to any certified coin that qualifies, they could permit Anacs and other holders at a greater sticker charge based on a greater potential risk and the holder bias. Piggybacking on the existing cac system would be possible if you had enough funding and a strong enough network.
...the separate TPG one does not count compared to the CAC/CACG one. If that was not true, then CAC/CACG coins would not bring premiums compared to non-CAC/CACG coins."<
Is the current market considering "CAC/CACG" as one higher value? "CAC" refers to the sticker with two companies agreeing on a grade while "CACG" refers to one, thus likely separate values.
It would be interesting to post a poll to see the percentage of members here that interpret the grey sheet's higher CAC valuation as a sticker (two companies' opinion) or both the sticker and a coin in a CACG slab.
The declaration argued that governments exist by and for the people with citizens obligated to overthrow a tyrannical government.
CAC price guide on CAC website provides separate counts of those stickered and those that are graded by CACG. Their valuation assigned makes no distinction between the two, providing a single value.
Seated Half Society member #38
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress, running like a water color in the rain...."
@alefzero said:
The increased attention to older generation holders and TPG registry participation will continue stickering demand. Crossing superior coins for assigned grades to CACG is definitely not for everyone. 'If the sticker is abandoned, there isn't a market alternative to reflect that for those folks.’
'If the sticker is abandoned, there isn't a market alternative to reflect that for those folks.’
Not sure what you are saying for that sentence. Care to elaborate?
PCGS and NGC have not been consistent in grading quality. That would have bern a tall order over a span of 40 years. So, identifying and qualifying well graded and undergraded superior examples is in demand by the market.
Yes, they could go through regarding at the original service or crossover to CACG (or PCGS in the case of NGC). But thatbpresents issues in the current market. There are people increasingly paying premiums for 1st generation PCGS rattlers and NGC no-line fatty holders. That is lost if sent for either. Getting stickers on those coveted holders is the solution. PCGS Registry participants drives a lot of it too.
The auction companies also send consignments in for potential stickering. That alone represents a market thar CAC probably would not ignore or want to lose.
@winesteven said:
Regarding the above comments about another “service” filling the gap when the day does come that CAC will no longer sticker new coins - does anyone really think that StacksBowers CMQ stickers can fill those shoes? (I don’t)
Steve
How do you know that another reputable coin company couldn’t form and hire top notch top graders to take the place of CAC stickering?
@winesteven said:
Regarding the above comments about another “service” filling the gap when the day does come that CAC will no longer sticker new coins - does anyone really think that StacksBowers CMQ stickers can fill those shoes? (I don’t)
Steve
How do you know that another reputable coin company couldn’t form and hire top notch top graders to take the place of CAC stickering?
I didn’t say that. Reread what I said, which should be easy, since you quoted me. I said that I don’t believe that StacksBowers CMQ can fill the shoes of CAC!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
Regarding the above comments about another “service” filling the gap when the day does come that CAC will no longer sticker new coins - does anyone really think that StacksBowers CMQ stickers can fill those shoes? (I don’t)
Steve
How do you know that another reputable coin company couldn’t form and hire top notch top graders to take the place of CAC stickering?
I didn’t say that. Reread what I said, which should be easy, since you quoted me. I said that I don’t believe that StacksBowers CMQ can fill the shoes of CAC!
@islemangu said:
From the present perceived level of trust with coin grading, having two separate entities agreeing on a coin's grade would seemingly always bring greater grade confidence than just one company's opinion. Therefore, if CAC stickering is in the future discontinued then something else would likely form replacing it.
It is called CACG, and it is already here, identical grading standards to CAC according to the founder of both, John Albanese. So all you need is one grading opinion, either the CAC sticker agreeing is a grade on a TPG slab, or the CACG slab, to get an opinion on their grading standards.
I don't know about that. Technically the CAC sticker on another TPG's slab agrees that the coin is that grade or better. I'm not talking about gold stickers. JA doesn't gold sticker every undergraded coin. People seem to be mostly concerned about grades that are too high but they should also be concerned about grades that are too low too.
Further, so far this year I have had 2 CACG coins that have failed to cross to PCGS and one CACG crackout that graded 1 grade lower at PCGS.
@islemangu said:
From the present perceived level of trust with coin grading, having two separate entities agreeing on a coin's grade would seemingly always bring greater grade confidence than just one company's opinion. Therefore, if CAC stickering is in the future discontinued then something else would likely form replacing it.
It is called CACG, and it is already here, identical grading standards to CAC according to the founder of both, John Albanese. So all you need is one grading opinion, either the CAC sticker agreeing is a grade on a TPG slab, or the CACG slab, to get an opinion on their grading standards.
I don't know about that. Technically the CAC sticker on another TPG's slab agrees that the coin is that grade or better. I'm not talking about gold stickers. JA doesn't gold sticker every undergraded coin. People seem to be mostly concerned about grades that are too high but they should also be concerned about grades that are too low too.
Further, so far this year I have had 2 CACG coins that have failed to cross to PCGS and one CACG crackout that graded 1 grade lower at PCGS.
Do you think that means that CACG overgraded the coins you sent to PCGS? Or do you have a different opinion on why they failed to cross, and the other one came back a lower grade?
@islemangu said:
From the present perceived level of trust with coin grading, having two separate entities agreeing on a coin's grade would seemingly always bring greater grade confidence than just one company's opinion. Therefore, if CAC stickering is in the future discontinued then something else would likely form replacing it.
It is called CACG, and it is already here, identical grading standards to CAC according to the founder of both, John Albanese. So all you need is one grading opinion, either the CAC sticker agreeing is a grade on a TPG slab, or the CACG slab, to get an opinion on their grading standards.
I don't know about that. Technically the CAC sticker on another TPG's slab agrees that the coin is that grade or better. I'm not talking about gold stickers. JA doesn't gold sticker every undergraded coin. People seem to be mostly concerned about grades that are too high but they should also be concerned about grades that are too low too.
Further, so far this year I have had 2 CACG coins that have failed to cross to PCGS and one CACG crackout that graded 1 grade lower at PCGS.
Do you think that means that CACG overgraded the coins you sent to PCGS? Or do you have a different opinion on why they failed to cross, and the other one came back a lower grade?
I know it sounds flippant and some people just don't get it, but I feel that PCGS and CACG have different standards and in some ways PCGS standards are harder/stricter. I don't know how else to explain it. I don't think the CACG grade was incorrect and I don't know why PCGS didn't feel the coin met their standard for the grade. As for the one that came back a grade lower, it was a Wheat Cent where the reverse kind of had what I would call a planchet anomaly and I assume was the reason for PCGS treating it differently than CACG due to presumably having different standards for how to treat those anomalies. I guess if you're asking if the coins were "liners" I don't think they were.
@islemangu said:
From the present perceived level of trust with coin grading, having two separate entities agreeing on a coin's grade would seemingly always bring greater grade confidence than just one company's opinion. Therefore, if CAC stickering is in the future discontinued then something else would likely form replacing it.
It is called CACG, and it is already here, identical grading standards to CAC according to the founder of both, John Albanese. So all you need is one grading opinion, either the CAC sticker agreeing is a grade on a TPG slab, or the CACG slab, to get an opinion on their grading standards.
I don't know about that. Technically the CAC sticker on another TPG's slab agrees that the coin is that grade or better. I'm not talking about gold stickers. JA doesn't gold sticker every undergraded coin. People seem to be mostly concerned about grades that are too high but they should also be concerned about grades that are too low too.
Further, so far this year I have had 2 CACG coins that have failed to cross to PCGS and one CACG crackout that graded 1 grade lower at PCGS.
Do you think that means that CACG overgraded the coins you sent to PCGS? Or do you have a different opinion on why they failed to cross, and the other one came back a lower grade?
I know it sounds flippant and some people just don't get it, but I feel that PCGS and CACG have different standards and in some ways PCGS standards are harder/stricter. I don't know how else to explain it. I don't think the CACG grade was incorrect and I don't know why PCGS didn't feel the coin met their standard for the grade. As for the one that came back a grade lower, it was a Wheat Cent where the reverse kind of had what I would call a planchet anomaly and I assume was the reason for PCGS treating it differently than CACG due to presumably having different standards for how to treat those anomalies. I guess if you're asking if the coins were "liners" I don't think they were.
Okay. Was just wondering if you know or surmise in which ways PCGS is stricter than CACG? Is it luster or eye appeal or something else?
Just a generic opinion on slabs,stickers etc. I think most new collectors favor the slab route for a sense of security. At least until they are familiar with the lay of the land and how the game is played.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
I wonder if CACG doesn’t catch on the way they want if they will decide to continue stickering. If John retires will people value the sticker as much? How many top coins will be left to sticker?
@Coinobsessed said:
I wonder if CACG doesn’t catch on the way they want if they will decide to continue stickering. If John retires will people value the sticker as much? How many top coins will be left to sticker?
I don't see why not. I think most people would agree that JA has successfully trained his CACG grading team to his standards. There is no reason why CAC can't continue without him, IMO.
Unless JA has recently said otherwise, my sense from his past comments is that with CACG running so well (remember, their goal is NOT to be tops in volume, but noted for consistency to their standard”once JA retires (presumably at the end of his 10 year contract), there’s a likely chance they’ll stop stickering new submissions. JA and other top CAC/CACG management strongly want collectors and dealers to submit coins to CACG, and not CAC stickering. That’s the reason the stickering prices had a giant price increase around the time that CACG started. Those CAC stickering pricing became almost the same as the CACG grading fees! This created a disincentive for submissions for stickering. Prior to that, the stickering prices for evaluation were roughly 1/3 or so of the new CACG grading prices.
With that said, I seem to recall that if indeed they stop stickering new coins, they would retain a skeleton staff to “re-sticker” CAC stickered coins that became reholdered (but retained the same cert number), as well as those in new holders with a new “plus” added on to the whole grade (again, the cert number remains the same, like with Reconsideration, but not Regrade). As a reminder, CAC stickering does not recognize plus grades, but CACG does!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
Unless JA has recently said otherwise, my sense from his past comments is that with CACG running so well (remember, their goal is NOT to be tops in volume, but noted for consistency to their standard”once JA retires (presumably at the end of his 10 year contract), there’s a likely chance they’ll stop stickering new submissions. JA and other top CAC/CACG management strongly want collectors and dealers to submit coins to CACG, and not CAC stickering. That’s the reason the stickering prices had a giant price increase around the time that CACG started. Those CAC stickering pricing became almost the same as the CACG grading fees! This created a disincentive for submissions for stickering. Prior to that, the stickering prices for evaluation were roughly 1/3 or so of the new CACG grading prices.
With that said, I seem to recall that if indeed they stop stickering new coins, they would retain a skeleton staff to “re-sticker” CAC stickered coins that became reholdered (but retained the same cert number), as well as those in new holders with a new “plus” added on to the whole grade (again, the cert number remains the same, like with Reconsideration, but not Regrade). As a reminder, CAC stickering does not recognize plus grades, but CACG does!
Steve
I'm well aware of what's been said, but when you have (at least in my opinion) a team at CACG that is capable of stickering to JA's standards, and as I would tend to believe, it remains a highly profitable venture (probably more profitable that slabbing), the bean counters are likely to recommend that the stickering operation continue post-JA, especially if the demand for stickering does not decline. The only change I would expect is to consolidate operations to one location.
Comments
It is called CACG, and it is already here, identical grading standards to CAC according to the founder of both, John Albanese. So all you need is one grading opinion, either the CAC sticker agreeing is a grade on a TPG slab, or the CACG slab, to get an opinion on their grading standards.
Agree with all of this……do you think that will eventually mean a premium for CACG graded coins similar to what PCGS/CAC coins enjoy in the current market? (After the “beaning” service eventually stops.)
I’m not intending to ask this question for “investment” advice as much as I’m curious about how many collectors/dealers in the market will be willing to attach a premium to JAs singular opinion the way CACs 3rd party opinion (sticker) currently commands.
I agree with the idea that something else is likely to emerge once CAC decides to stop stickering. It just won’t be MAC, and hopefully it won’t look like anything in the Trader Bea realm.
If CACG coins are not selling at a premium, it’s because of the registry bias.
Whenever CAC ceases doing business, a CACG grading opinion will represent a single entity’s opinion, not two separate ones. And while you might be fully satisfied with a single grading opinion, many others won’t.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The only thing I tend to disagree with most people are the gold stickers. I would rather own a PCGS 67/CAC than a PCGS CAC Gold 66. Same reason 2 opinions of the grade being solid as a 67
Personally don’t like their holders astheically
In my opinion nothing beats an attractive PCGS/CAC coin in an older blue or green holder.
The increased attention to older generation holders and TPG registry participation will continue stickering demand. Crossing superior coins for assigned grades to CACG is definitely not for everyone. If the sticker is abandoned, there isn't a market alternative to reflect that for those folks.
Interesting question. They already do. I've have no problem buying and selling CAC/CACG as if they were the same, because they are, and have been successful selling both with equal pricing for the same quality of coin of the same type and grade. Some folks don’t wanna buy CACG bc they play in the limited PCGS registry which is their choice, but there are enough numismatically experienced people that focus on the coin, not the holder and understand that CAC/CACG is mostly identical, in terms of grading, and as John Albanese has stated. For those that only want PCGS, well there are mostly enough CACed ones to meet their expectations. But many just focus on the quality of the coin for their collection, and understand the stated grading standards are the same and make their own evaluation, and don’t care about the PCGS registry. Some of them are likely to participate in the less restricted CACG registry if they want to have their collection in a registry. Thems folks are happy to buy a strong for the grade coin in CACG holders and they are priced the same as if they are in the PCGS/CAC holder in my experience. If anything CACG might be abit tougher in grading standards, or, at least even more cautious in putting coins in graded CACG holders, than CAC stickering another TPGs slab………………. I’ve had PCGS holdered coins that did not make the stated grade when I sent them to CACG for crossing only to wind up with CAC stickers after someone bought them from me…………………………………..
Nah, this is where I disagree with the general idea of two opinions on a TPG holder with or without a CAC sticker. If a coin has an ‘opinion’ of say, MS65 on its holder from the TPG, the first question I and many will ask is whether it has been to CAC to see if they agree with that opinion in terms of strong for the grade. If said coin has the green sticker that indicates they think it is strong for the grade the other TPG gave it, then it is priced at X. If it does not, it is priced at X-W (lower) no matter what almost every time. Even for strong for the grade coins w/o the sticker, you get the sticker on it, and the price goes up. Happens every single time in my experience. That means, the only opinion that counts, is the single one of what CAC thinks. Period. That places the value in the coin. That is a reality we all see every day, and that CAC themselves document on their website:
https://www.cacgrading.com/post/cac-coins-bring-premiums-in-may-2026
So the opinion of the other TPG of MS65 only matters because if it is CACed or not. So once CAC had rendered its opinion, that is all that matters to place value on the coin…………….. Beanless coins, lower for that coin, every time. Beaned/CACg coins, higher for that coin every time. So one can argue about single entity versus two separate ones rendering an opinion, but really, the separate TPG one does not count compared to the CAC/CACG one. If that was not true, then CAC/CACG coins would not bring premiums compared to non-CAC/CACG coins.
My dimes worth of opinion and the credo I live by when buying and selling. It seems to work.
It was a great business plan back in the early 2000s when they started, I'm almost surprised that NGC and PCGS permitted it. Now they have at least two grading services, both have advantages. I'm leery of sending raw coins to cacg, quite strict on a lot of coins.
That is a whole ’nother discussion. One caveat is that many gold stickered coins are more than one grade undergraded byt current standards, so a 66/gold might be a 68 by today’s grading standards. I’ve had/have for example, XF45’s that were AU55’s by today grading standards using PCGS Photograde and in hand inspection, with a gold sticker, so placing value on them is abit of speculation and grading expertise. And generally to get a gold sticker, it seems that the coin really does have to be strongly undergraded and John Albanese himself says they won’t put a gold sticker on a coin unless they see it as at least 1.5 times higher than the grade on the slab. So does that mean that a 66/gold is a 68 C coin minimum? Maybe? Maybe not? Like I said, a whole ’nother interesting discussion…………...
'If the sticker is abandoned, there isn't a market alternative to reflect that for those folks.’
Not sure what you are saying for that sentence. Care to elaborate?
There are many non-CAC coins that bring as much as or more than CAC examples. Some of them have already failed to sticker, while others haven’t yet been submitted. I think CAC is great, but you’re viewing their opinions and coins through rose-colored glasses and making sweeping generalizations
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Regarding the above comments about another “service” filling the gap when the day does come that CAC will no longer sticker new coins - does anyone really think that StacksBowers CMQ stickers can fill those shoes? (I don’t)
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
Sure, there are similar coins priced the same with or without a sticker for many reasons. But put a sticker on one of those without tho', because it is then backed as strong for the grade by CAC, and the price would very likely go up.
No.
If someone had enough funding they could institute a "Q$" sticker: The sticker would offer a cash guarantee to buy it at a "Coinplex" pricing online that goes up or down based on a reasonable market. The sticker review process would apply to any certified coin that qualifies, they could permit Anacs and other holders at a greater sticker charge based on a greater potential risk and the holder bias. Piggybacking on the existing cac system would be possible if you had enough funding and a strong enough network.
Is the current market considering "CAC/CACG" as one higher value? "CAC" refers to the sticker with two companies agreeing on a grade while "CACG" refers to one, thus likely separate values.
It would be interesting to post a poll to see the percentage of members here that interpret the grey sheet's higher CAC valuation as a sticker (two companies' opinion) or both the sticker and a coin in a CACG slab.
The declaration argued that governments exist by and for the people with citizens obligated to overthrow a tyrannical government.
CAC price guide on CAC website provides separate counts of those stickered and those that are graded by CACG. Their valuation assigned makes no distinction between the two, providing a single value.
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress,
running like a water color in the rain...."
PCGS and NGC have not been consistent in grading quality. That would have bern a tall order over a span of 40 years. So, identifying and qualifying well graded and undergraded superior examples is in demand by the market.
Yes, they could go through regarding at the original service or crossover to CACG (or PCGS in the case of NGC). But thatbpresents issues in the current market. There are people increasingly paying premiums for 1st generation PCGS rattlers and NGC no-line fatty holders. That is lost if sent for either. Getting stickers on those coveted holders is the solution. PCGS Registry participants drives a lot of it too.
The auction companies also send consignments in for potential stickering. That alone represents a market thar CAC probably would not ignore or want to lose.
How do you know that another reputable coin company couldn’t form and hire top notch top graders to take the place of CAC stickering?
I didn’t say that. Reread what I said, which should be easy, since you quoted me. I said that I don’t believe that StacksBowers CMQ can fill the shoes of CAC!
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
Okay sorry my mistake
NO apologies necessary!!!! You're a nice guy, and a Positive asset to this forum!!!!
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 don't know about that. Technically the CAC sticker on another TPG's slab agrees that the coin is that grade or better. I'm not talking about gold stickers. JA doesn't gold sticker every undergraded coin. People seem to be mostly concerned about grades that are too high but they should also be concerned about grades that are too low too.
Further, so far this year I have had 2 CACG coins that have failed to cross to PCGS and one CACG crackout that graded 1 grade lower at PCGS.
Do you think that means that CACG overgraded the coins you sent to PCGS? Or do you have a different opinion on why they failed to cross, and the other one came back a lower grade?
I know it sounds flippant and some people just don't get it, but I feel that PCGS and CACG have different standards and in some ways PCGS standards are harder/stricter. I don't know how else to explain it. I don't think the CACG grade was incorrect and I don't know why PCGS didn't feel the coin met their standard for the grade. As for the one that came back a grade lower, it was a Wheat Cent where the reverse kind of had what I would call a planchet anomaly and I assume was the reason for PCGS treating it differently than CACG due to presumably having different standards for how to treat those anomalies. I guess if you're asking if the coins were "liners" I don't think they were.
Okay. Was just wondering if you know or surmise in which ways PCGS is stricter than CACG? Is it luster or eye appeal or something else?
I believe the stickering thing will be around quite awhile.
Just a generic opinion on slabs,stickers etc. I think most new collectors favor the slab route for a sense of security. At least until they are familiar with the lay of the land and how the game is played.
I wonder if CACG doesn’t catch on the way they want if they will decide to continue stickering. If John retires will people value the sticker as much? How many top coins will be left to sticker?
I don't see why not. I think most people would agree that JA has successfully trained his CACG grading team to his standards. There is no reason why CAC can't continue without him, IMO.
Unless JA has recently said otherwise, my sense from his past comments is that with CACG running so well (remember, their goal is NOT to be tops in volume, but noted for consistency to their standard”once JA retires (presumably at the end of his 10 year contract), there’s a likely chance they’ll stop stickering new submissions. JA and other top CAC/CACG management strongly want collectors and dealers to submit coins to CACG, and not CAC stickering. That’s the reason the stickering prices had a giant price increase around the time that CACG started. Those CAC stickering pricing became almost the same as the CACG grading fees! This created a disincentive for submissions for stickering. Prior to that, the stickering prices for evaluation were roughly 1/3 or so of the new CACG grading prices.
With that said, I seem to recall that if indeed they stop stickering new coins, they would retain a skeleton staff to “re-sticker” CAC stickered coins that became reholdered (but retained the same cert number), as well as those in new holders with a new “plus” added on to the whole grade (again, the cert number remains the same, like with Reconsideration, but not Regrade). As a reminder, CAC stickering does not recognize plus grades, but CACG does!
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'm well aware of what's been said, but when you have (at least in my opinion) a team at CACG that is capable of stickering to JA's standards, and as I would tend to believe, it remains a highly profitable venture (probably more profitable that slabbing), the bean counters are likely to recommend that the stickering operation continue post-JA, especially if the demand for stickering does not decline. The only change I would expect is to consolidate operations to one location.
Welcome ACA.... Another Coin Authentication
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc