@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 JWP BruceS bigjpst
JWP PROMETHIUS88
@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 JWP BruceS bigjpst
JWP PROMETHIUS88
@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.
@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.
Sometimes, CACG grades them 5 grade steps lower before they become "B" coins. It has to do with their somewhat strange focus on LIBERTY with Seated Liberty halves and not overall wear on the rest of the coin.
@coinbuf said:
Interesting that this has never been discussed before. @cinque1543 this is the PCGS forum, dominated by kool-aid gulpers and PCGS authorized dealers, do you think those factors might skew the answers? You might get a totally different set of answers if you asked a non partisan group.
Find a non-partisan (not other-partisan) group see what their data says.
Since I don’t participate in any registry, I’m agnostic as far as holders and stickers, up to a point. I have to think about selling someday (me or the kids), so I have to pay some attention to holders and stickers. Further, when buying based on photos, holders and stickers are a valuable filter. I believe that TODAY the PCGS/CAC combination will retain value best. However, I also believe that CACG is the best grading service in terms of CS and conservative grading, and may well retain value best in the future for those reasons. So, I lean towards CACG if available since I have “miles to go before I sleep”. But the rub is that PCGS still shows up more often. The coin prevails in the end, so I have a mixture of holders and stickers. When I see a coin I like I move on it, regardless. Buying coins is more of a visceral thing for me.
(PS talking only US coins here.)
@skier07 said:
The most desirable combination today is PCGS/CAC. Whether it’s the PCGS registry set, people’s perceptions, or other factors people prefer that combination.
One of the main reasons that presently, a PCGS/CAC coin will tend to be preferred over a CACG one is the fact that the former represents opinions from two different companies, rather than one.
For the same reasoning an NGC/CAC coin would hold the same weight.
Has anything shifted in the past 6+ months in regards to the slab/sticker value hierarchy (all other things being equal)? I am considering crossing a few coins to CACG at FUN, but want to be mindful of the potential effect on value & salability.
Is this still the dominant pecking order (again, all other things being equal)? What kind of price differentials are being seen in the marketplace?
PCGS + CAC
NGC + CAC
CACG
Edit to add: and does anyone pay attention to the "legacy" designation on CACG holders? If so, is it considered a positive or negative?
In my unscientific opinion, while the order MAY be right (I think the "spread" between them is tiny):
It's way too tough to make a generalization on this. Too many factors.
I believe a reason #1 is higher than #3 is not so much two opinions vs. one opinion (as per "the old wives tale, lol), but due to the greater popularity of the PCGS Registry vs. the CAC/CACG Registry.
However, when it comes to plus graded coins, a VERY strong argument is made that with a CACG graded coin with a plus on the label, that means that in the "conservative" opinion of CACG, that coin is indeed solid as a plus. But with a PCGS (or NGC) coin with a plus on the label, only PCGS or NGC says it's a plus - the CAC sticker on THAT plus graded coin only says that in the opinion of CAC the coin is solid as the whole grade! That sticker on a plus graded coin does NOT say CAC believes it's solid at the plus. We don't know. Maybe CAC does feel it's solid at the plus, but maybe not. We just don't know! For THAT reason, if the PCGS Registry was not important to me, a plus graded coin in a CACG holder would absolutely be more valuable to ME! That's because, as a generalization, I put more weight on the the opinion of CACG than PCGS or NGC!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Not a dealer, but I would place CACG above NGC + CAC. I crossed my stickered NGC coins to CACG, including a gold. More of an experiment than a money play, but long term I’m betting on CACG. Sample of one.
I usually look for PCGS/CAC for my older sets and type coins.
But I will likely submit some modern (2026) coins from mint sets to CACG if they look substantially better than what I have seen graded from the business strikes so far primarily because I expect that they will get back to me a lot sooner and they are not really worth stickering in most cases.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
Has anything shifted in the past 6+ months in regards to the slab/sticker value hierarchy (all other things being equal)? I am considering crossing a few coins to CACG at FUN, but want to be mindful of the potential effect on value & salability.
Is this still the dominant pecking order (again, all other things being equal)? What kind of price differentials are being seen in the marketplace?
PCGS + CAC
NGC + CAC
CACG
Edit to add: and does anyone pay attention to the "legacy" designation on CACG holders? If so, is it considered a positive or negative?
The market is always a good indication of what collectors consider most valuable -- and thus, salable. In yesterday's GC auction, I was tracking and bidding on a number of common date 1938-D Buffalo nickels, older holder PCGS and NGC, some with CAC stickers, some without. The results were eye-popping.
-- There were a pair of MS65 PCGS OGH twins. Consecutive serial numbers, but one had a Gold CAC sticker and one had a Green CAC sticker. The one with a Gold CAC sold for $548. The one with a Green CAC went for $102.
-- There were two MS65 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): each went for $100.
-- There were three MS66 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): they went for $137, $198, and $258.
-- An MS66 PCGS Rattler with Green CAC went for $169.
-- An MS66 NGC Gen 4 with Green CAC went for $141.
I can't imagine a CACG 1938-D Buffalo selling for these premiums. The value for CAC stickers, especially when combined with an old holder, continues to increase and amaze. I wouldn't cross a CAC stickered coin, even if it were on a recent holder. And I definitely wouldn't cross a coin that has a Gold CAC sticker.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
Has anything shifted in the past 6+ months in regards to the slab/sticker value hierarchy (all other things being equal)? I am considering crossing a few coins to CACG at FUN, but want to be mindful of the potential effect on value & salability.
Is this still the dominant pecking order (again, all other things being equal)? What kind of price differentials are being seen in the marketplace?
PCGS + CAC
NGC + CAC
CACG
Edit to add: and does anyone pay attention to the "legacy" designation on CACG holders? If so, is it considered a positive or negative?
The market is always a good indication of what collectors consider most valuable -- and thus, salable. In yesterday's GC auction, I was tracking and bidding on a number of common date 1938-D Buffalo nickels, older holder PCGS and NGC, some with CAC stickers, some without. The results were eye-popping.
-- There were a pair of MS65 PCGS OGH twins. Consecutive serial numbers, but one had a Gold CAC sticker and one had a Green CAC sticker. The one with a Gold CAC sold for $548. The one with a Green CAC went for $102.
-- There were two MS65 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): each went for $100.
-- There were three MS66 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): they went for $137, $198, and $258.
-- An MS66 PCGS Rattler with Green CAC went for $169.
-- An MS66 NGC Gen 4 with Green CAC went for $141.
I can't imagine a CACG 1938-D Buffalo selling for these premiums. The value for CAC stickers, especially when combined with an old holder, continues to increase and amaze. I wouldn't cross a CAC stickered coin, even if it were on a recent holder. And I definitely wouldn't cross a coin that has a Gold CAC sticker.
I don't believe old PCGS holders and gold CAC stickers were part of what @P0CKETCHANGE was asking.
Is this still the dominant pecking order (again, all other things being equal)?
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
Nothing has changed from what I have seen the past 6 months. CACG still pulls premium to non CAC coins, despite history of the coin (upgraded from details holder, etc). I would strongly argue sales are slightly less than PCGS CAC. Haven't seen a stronger desire for CACG, the fans are still fans and the skeptics are still skeptics.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
Has anything shifted in the past 6+ months in regards to the slab/sticker value hierarchy (all other things being equal)? I am considering crossing a few coins to CACG at FUN, but want to be mindful of the potential effect on value & salability.
Is this still the dominant pecking order (again, all other things being equal)? What kind of price differentials are being seen in the marketplace?
PCGS + CAC
NGC + CAC
CACG
Edit to add: and does anyone pay attention to the "legacy" designation on CACG holders? If so, is it considered a positive or negative?
The market is always a good indication of what collectors consider most valuable -- and thus, salable. In yesterday's GC auction, I was tracking and bidding on a number of common date 1938-D Buffalo nickels, older holder PCGS and NGC, some with CAC stickers, some without. The results were eye-popping.
-- There were a pair of MS65 PCGS OGH twins. Consecutive serial numbers, but one had a Gold CAC sticker and one had a Green CAC sticker. The one with a Gold CAC sold for $548. The one with a Green CAC went for $102.
-- There were two MS65 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): each went for $100.
-- There were three MS66 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): they went for $137, $198, and $258.
-- An MS66 PCGS Rattler with Green CAC went for $169.
-- An MS66 NGC Gen 4 with Green CAC went for $141.
I can't imagine a CACG 1938-D Buffalo selling for these premiums. The value for CAC stickers, especially when combined with an old holder, continues to increase and amaze. I wouldn't cross a CAC stickered coin, even if it were on a recent holder. And I definitely wouldn't cross a coin that has a Gold CAC sticker.
I agree with you but I would add that having a very attractive eye appealing coin in addition to the Old holder or Old holder plus CAC helps bring up the price. Some 38D’s are just very nice but others have more of a wow factor. In general attractive coin + Older holder+ CAC is best for a bigger price
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
Has anything shifted in the past 6+ months in regards to the slab/sticker value hierarchy (all other things being equal)? I am considering crossing a few coins to CACG at FUN, but want to be mindful of the potential effect on value & salability.
Is this still the dominant pecking order (again, all other things being equal)? What kind of price differentials are being seen in the marketplace?
PCGS + CAC
NGC + CAC
CACG
Edit to add: and does anyone pay attention to the "legacy" designation on CACG holders? If so, is it considered a positive or negative?
The market is always a good indication of what collectors consider most valuable -- and thus, salable. In yesterday's GC auction, I was tracking and bidding on a number of common date 1938-D Buffalo nickels, older holder PCGS and NGC, some with CAC stickers, some without. The results were eye-popping.
-- There were a pair of MS65 PCGS OGH twins. Consecutive serial numbers, but one had a Gold CAC sticker and one had a Green CAC sticker. The one with a Gold CAC sold for $548. The one with a Green CAC went for $102.
-- There were two MS65 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): each went for $100.
-- There were three MS66 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): they went for $137, $198, and $258.
-- An MS66 PCGS Rattler with Green CAC went for $169.
-- An MS66 NGC Gen 4 with Green CAC went for $141.
I can't imagine a CACG 1938-D Buffalo selling for these premiums. The value for CAC stickers, especially when combined with an old holder, continues to increase and amaze. I wouldn't cross a CAC stickered coin, even if it were on a recent holder. And I definitely wouldn't cross a coin that has a Gold CAC sticker.
Do you believe the older PCGS blue holders also add value over the newer PCGS holders? In terms of price and or saleability
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
Has anything shifted in the past 6+ months in regards to the slab/sticker value hierarchy (all other things being equal)? I am considering crossing a few coins to CACG at FUN, but want to be mindful of the potential effect on value & salability.
Is this still the dominant pecking order (again, all other things being equal)? What kind of price differentials are being seen in the marketplace?
PCGS + CAC
NGC + CAC
CACG
Edit to add: and does anyone pay attention to the "legacy" designation on CACG holders? If so, is it considered a positive or negative?
The market is always a good indication of what collectors consider most valuable -- and thus, salable. In yesterday's GC auction, I was tracking and bidding on a number of common date 1938-D Buffalo nickels, older holder PCGS and NGC, some with CAC stickers, some without. The results were eye-popping.
-- There were a pair of MS65 PCGS OGH twins. Consecutive serial numbers, but one had a Gold CAC sticker and one had a Green CAC sticker. The one with a Gold CAC sold for $548. The one with a Green CAC went for $102.
-- There were two MS65 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): each went for $100.
-- There were three MS66 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): they went for $137, $198, and $258.
-- An MS66 PCGS Rattler with Green CAC went for $169.
-- An MS66 NGC Gen 4 with Green CAC went for $141.
I can't imagine a CACG 1938-D Buffalo selling for these premiums. The value for CAC stickers, especially when combined with an old holder, continues to increase and amaze. I wouldn't cross a CAC stickered coin, even if it were on a recent holder. And I definitely wouldn't cross a coin that has a Gold CAC sticker.
Do you believe the older PCGS blue holders also add value over the newer PCGS holders? In terms of price and or saleability
.
Yes, I do. Especially if they have a CAC sticker. The OP was asking for recommendations about crossing coins to CACG. It wasn't clear if these were coins in old or new holders, or if they had CAC stickers or not. If these are coins without CAC stickers, sure, go for it. CACG coins do seem to carry a premium over PCGS and NGC coins without a CAC sticker, although not everywhere. But if a PCGS or NGC coin has a CAC sticker, regardless of the age of the holder, I would not cross it. In particular, if the coin has a Gold sticker -- a Gold sticker adds value that exceeds any crossing.
.
I am a collector, so my opinions are from that standpoint. I prefer coins in old holders -- with or without CAC stickers -- and coins in any age holders with CAC stickers. I am not yet smitten with CACG coins. I own only one, and that's because it's a first generation CACG holder.
I've decided to cross just a single coin, which is in a pre-prong NGC holder (with line, not an old holder) that has the hologram on the reverse completely scratched out. It does have a CAC sticker, but it's pre-CACG, so it will sport the "legacy" indicator on the new holder.
I was considering crossing a beaned PCGS coin as well, but I decided to hold off on that as I'm planning to upgrade the coin as soon as I locate a better example, and it'll be more attractive as a PCGS+CAC combo at auction.
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!
Has anything shifted in the past 6+ months in regards to the slab/sticker value hierarchy (all other things being equal)? I am considering crossing a few coins to CACG at FUN, but want to be mindful of the potential effect on value & salability.
Is this still the dominant pecking order (again, all other things being equal)? What kind of price differentials are being seen in the marketplace?
PCGS + CAC
NGC + CAC
CACG
Edit to add: and does anyone pay attention to the "legacy" designation on CACG holders? If so, is it considered a positive or negative?
For anything CACed or CACGed (with a grade), it really is the quality and the rarity of the coin that counts in determining its value, not its holder. For pedestrian and relatively common issues like an 1883-CC Morgan where there are 100s to 1000s in say, MS65, there might be a pecking order amongst these 3 in terms of price. But what about an 1806 half in N or P AU58/CAC or CACG for example? Depends on the quality of each example, which can vary greatly, even within these specifics in grade and CAC, and thus in price as well.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
Has anything shifted in the past 6+ months in regards to the slab/sticker value hierarchy (all other things being equal)? I am considering crossing a few coins to CACG at FUN, but want to be mindful of the potential effect on value & salability.
Is this still the dominant pecking order (again, all other things being equal)? What kind of price differentials are being seen in the marketplace?
PCGS + CAC
NGC + CAC
CACG
Edit to add: and does anyone pay attention to the "legacy" designation on CACG holders? If so, is it considered a positive or negative?
The market is always a good indication of what collectors consider most valuable -- and thus, salable. In yesterday's GC auction, I was tracking and bidding on a number of common date 1938-D Buffalo nickels, older holder PCGS and NGC, some with CAC stickers, some without. The results were eye-popping.
-- There were a pair of MS65 PCGS OGH twins. Consecutive serial numbers, but one had a Gold CAC sticker and one had a Green CAC sticker. The one with a Gold CAC sold for $548. The one with a Green CAC went for $102.
-- There were two MS65 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): each went for $100.
-- There were three MS66 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): they went for $137, $198, and $258.
-- An MS66 PCGS Rattler with Green CAC went for $169.
-- An MS66 NGC Gen 4 with Green CAC went for $141.
I can't imagine a CACG 1938-D Buffalo selling for these premiums. The value for CAC stickers, especially when combined with an old holder, continues to increase and amaze. I wouldn't cross a CAC stickered coin, even if it were on a recent holder. And I definitely wouldn't cross a coin that has a Gold CAC sticker.
Do you believe the older PCGS blue holders also add value over the newer PCGS holders? In terms of price and or saleability
I think folks are getting abit carried away here. The plastic holder does not add value, but the coin inside determines the value based on its attributes. Are old holders cool? Of course, but I’ve seen dog breath coins in old holders that are markedly diminished in value and one should not buy even if the holder is older. So does the holder add value? Depends on the coin.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
Has anything shifted in the past 6+ months in regards to the slab/sticker value hierarchy (all other things being equal)? I am considering crossing a few coins to CACG at FUN, but want to be mindful of the potential effect on value & salability.
Is this still the dominant pecking order (again, all other things being equal)? What kind of price differentials are being seen in the marketplace?
PCGS + CAC
NGC + CAC
CACG
Edit to add: and does anyone pay attention to the "legacy" designation on CACG holders? If so, is it considered a positive or negative?
The market is always a good indication of what collectors consider most valuable -- and thus, salable. In yesterday's GC auction, I was tracking and bidding on a number of common date 1938-D Buffalo nickels, older holder PCGS and NGC, some with CAC stickers, some without. The results were eye-popping.
-- There were a pair of MS65 PCGS OGH twins. Consecutive serial numbers, but one had a Gold CAC sticker and one had a Green CAC sticker. The one with a Gold CAC sold for $548. The one with a Green CAC went for $102.
-- There were two MS65 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): each went for $100.
-- There were three MS66 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): they went for $137, $198, and $258.
-- An MS66 PCGS Rattler with Green CAC went for $169.
-- An MS66 NGC Gen 4 with Green CAC went for $141.
I can't imagine a CACG 1938-D Buffalo selling for these premiums. The value for CAC stickers, especially when combined with an old holder, continues to increase and amaze. I wouldn't cross a CAC stickered coin, even if it were on a recent holder. And I definitely wouldn't cross a coin that has a Gold CAC sticker.
Do you believe the older PCGS blue holders also add value over the newer PCGS holders? In terms of price and or saleability
I think folks are getting abit carried away here. The plastic holder does not add value, but the coin inside determines the value based on its attributes. Are old holders cool? Of course, but I’ve seen dog breath coins in old holders that are markedly diminished in value and one should not buy even if the holder is older. So does the holder add value? Depends on the coin.
The price for 1st Gen holders would argue otherwise. See the thread on 10800014. It's not the coin driving the price of that holder. Sometimes, not always, the coin is less important than the holder. [Doubt it ever applies to older blue holders, btw.]
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@jacrispies said:
Nothing has changed from what I have seen the past 6 months. CACG still pulls premium to non CAC coins, despite history of the coin (upgraded from details holder, etc). I would strongly argue sales are slightly less than PCGS CAC. Haven't seen a stronger desire for CACG, the fans are still fans and the skeptics are still skeptics.
That has not been my experience. It depends on the coin. Experienced numismatists don’t seem to care about the holder, just the coin, at least in my experience. I’ve sold CACG coins for just as much as PCGS/CAC coins and price each according to the quality of the coin not some heirarchy of plastic.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
Has anything shifted in the past 6+ months in regards to the slab/sticker value hierarchy (all other things being equal)? I am considering crossing a few coins to CACG at FUN, but want to be mindful of the potential effect on value & salability.
Is this still the dominant pecking order (again, all other things being equal)? What kind of price differentials are being seen in the marketplace?
PCGS + CAC
NGC + CAC
CACG
Edit to add: and does anyone pay attention to the "legacy" designation on CACG holders? If so, is it considered a positive or negative?
The market is always a good indication of what collectors consider most valuable -- and thus, salable. In yesterday's GC auction, I was tracking and bidding on a number of common date 1938-D Buffalo nickels, older holder PCGS and NGC, some with CAC stickers, some without. The results were eye-popping.
-- There were a pair of MS65 PCGS OGH twins. Consecutive serial numbers, but one had a Gold CAC sticker and one had a Green CAC sticker. The one with a Gold CAC sold for $548. The one with a Green CAC went for $102.
-- There were two MS65 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): each went for $100.
-- There were three MS66 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): they went for $137, $198, and $258.
-- An MS66 PCGS Rattler with Green CAC went for $169.
-- An MS66 NGC Gen 4 with Green CAC went for $141.
I can't imagine a CACG 1938-D Buffalo selling for these premiums. The value for CAC stickers, especially when combined with an old holder, continues to increase and amaze. I wouldn't cross a CAC stickered coin, even if it were on a recent holder. And I definitely wouldn't cross a coin that has a Gold CAC sticker.
Do you believe the older PCGS blue holders also add value over the newer PCGS holders? In terms of price and or saleability
I think folks are getting abit carried away here. The plastic holder does not add value, but the coin inside determines the value based on its attributes. Are old holders cool? Of course, but I’ve seen dog breath coins in old holders that are markedly diminished in value and one should not buy even if the holder is older. So does the holder add value? Depends on the coin.
I think the plastic holder does add value. A dog-of-a-coin in a popular (older) holder has a very good chance of bringing more than a dog-of-a-coin in a new one. Likewise, a superb coin in a popular (older) holder has a very good chance of bringing more than a superb coin in a new one.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The price for 1st Gen holders would argue otherwise. See the thread on 10800014. It's not the coin driving the price of that holder. Sometimes, but always, the coin is less important than the holder. [Doubt it ever applies to older blue holders, btw.]
Of course there is an exception to everything. There is a group of people that love the earliest holders and are collecting the holder more than the coin. Like this one below that sold for over 50x it’s stated retail prices (and thank you to the auction winner!). But that is different, than the generic idea being discussed here about does a holder increase the value of the coin inside? Probably not with the exception of some of the ‘earliest’ holders that some are specifically collecting.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
Has anything shifted in the past 6+ months in regards to the slab/sticker value hierarchy (all other things being equal)? I am considering crossing a few coins to CACG at FUN, but want to be mindful of the potential effect on value & salability.
Is this still the dominant pecking order (again, all other things being equal)? What kind of price differentials are being seen in the marketplace?
PCGS + CAC
NGC + CAC
CACG
Edit to add: and does anyone pay attention to the "legacy" designation on CACG holders? If so, is it considered a positive or negative?
The market is always a good indication of what collectors consider most valuable -- and thus, salable. In yesterday's GC auction, I was tracking and bidding on a number of common date 1938-D Buffalo nickels, older holder PCGS and NGC, some with CAC stickers, some without. The results were eye-popping.
-- There were a pair of MS65 PCGS OGH twins. Consecutive serial numbers, but one had a Gold CAC sticker and one had a Green CAC sticker. The one with a Gold CAC sold for $548. The one with a Green CAC went for $102.
-- There were two MS65 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): each went for $100.
-- There were three MS66 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): they went for $137, $198, and $258.
-- An MS66 PCGS Rattler with Green CAC went for $169.
-- An MS66 NGC Gen 4 with Green CAC went for $141.
I can't imagine a CACG 1938-D Buffalo selling for these premiums. The value for CAC stickers, especially when combined with an old holder, continues to increase and amaze. I wouldn't cross a CAC stickered coin, even if it were on a recent holder. And I definitely wouldn't cross a coin that has a Gold CAC sticker.
Do you believe the older PCGS blue holders also add value over the newer PCGS holders? In terms of price and or saleability
I think folks are getting abit carried away here. The plastic holder does not add value, but the coin inside determines the value based on its attributes. Are old holders cool? Of course, but I’ve seen dog breath coins in old holders that are markedly diminished in value and one should not buy even if the holder is older. So does the holder add value? Depends on the coin.
I think the plastic holder does add value. A dog-of-a-coin in a popular (older) holder has a very good chance of bringing more than a dog-of-a-coin in a new one. Likewise, a superb coin in a popular (older) holder has a very good chance of bringing more than a superb coin in a new one.
Again there are exceptions to everything. But a spectacular coin of the same grade and issue in a new holder will be higher priced than the dog breath coin of the same grade and issue in say, a Rattler. So?
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
Has anything shifted in the past 6+ months in regards to the slab/sticker value hierarchy (all other things being equal)? I am considering crossing a few coins to CACG at FUN, but want to be mindful of the potential effect on value & salability.
Is this still the dominant pecking order (again, all other things being equal)? What kind of price differentials are being seen in the marketplace?
PCGS + CAC
NGC + CAC
CACG
Edit to add: and does anyone pay attention to the "legacy" designation on CACG holders? If so, is it considered a positive or negative?
The market is always a good indication of what collectors consider most valuable -- and thus, salable. In yesterday's GC auction, I was tracking and bidding on a number of common date 1938-D Buffalo nickels, older holder PCGS and NGC, some with CAC stickers, some without. The results were eye-popping.
-- There were a pair of MS65 PCGS OGH twins. Consecutive serial numbers, but one had a Gold CAC sticker and one had a Green CAC sticker. The one with a Gold CAC sold for $548. The one with a Green CAC went for $102.
-- There were two MS65 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): each went for $100.
-- There were three MS66 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): they went for $137, $198, and $258.
-- An MS66 PCGS Rattler with Green CAC went for $169.
-- An MS66 NGC Gen 4 with Green CAC went for $141.
I can't imagine a CACG 1938-D Buffalo selling for these premiums. The value for CAC stickers, especially when combined with an old holder, continues to increase and amaze. I wouldn't cross a CAC stickered coin, even if it were on a recent holder. And I definitely wouldn't cross a coin that has a Gold CAC sticker.
Do you believe the older PCGS blue holders also add value over the newer PCGS holders? In terms of price and or saleability
I think folks are getting abit carried away here. The plastic holder does not add value, but the coin inside determines the value based on its attributes. Are old holders cool? Of course, but I’ve seen dog breath coins in old holders that are markedly diminished in value and one should not buy even if the holder is older. So does the holder add value? Depends on the coin.
I think the plastic holder does add value. A dog-of-a-coin in a popular (older) holder has a very good chance of bringing more than a dog-of-a-coin in a new one. Likewise, a superb coin in a popular (older) holder has a very good chance of bringing more than a superb coin in a new one.
Again there are exceptions to everything. But a spectacular coin of the same grade and issue in a new holder will be higher priced than the dog breath coin of the same grade and issue in say, a Rattler. So?
As phrased, my examples weren’t exceptions. All other things being equal, the type of holder often matters.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
Has anything shifted in the past 6+ months in regards to the slab/sticker value hierarchy (all other things being equal)? I am considering crossing a few coins to CACG at FUN, but want to be mindful of the potential effect on value & salability.
Is this still the dominant pecking order (again, all other things being equal)? What kind of price differentials are being seen in the marketplace?
PCGS + CAC
NGC + CAC
CACG
Edit to add: and does anyone pay attention to the "legacy" designation on CACG holders? If so, is it considered a positive or negative?
The market is always a good indication of what collectors consider most valuable -- and thus, salable. In yesterday's GC auction, I was tracking and bidding on a number of common date 1938-D Buffalo nickels, older holder PCGS and NGC, some with CAC stickers, some without. The results were eye-popping.
-- There were a pair of MS65 PCGS OGH twins. Consecutive serial numbers, but one had a Gold CAC sticker and one had a Green CAC sticker. The one with a Gold CAC sold for $548. The one with a Green CAC went for $102.
-- There were two MS65 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): each went for $100.
-- There were three MS66 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): they went for $137, $198, and $258.
-- An MS66 PCGS Rattler with Green CAC went for $169.
-- An MS66 NGC Gen 4 with Green CAC went for $141.
I can't imagine a CACG 1938-D Buffalo selling for these premiums. The value for CAC stickers, especially when combined with an old holder, continues to increase and amaze. I wouldn't cross a CAC stickered coin, even if it were on a recent holder. And I definitely wouldn't cross a coin that has a Gold CAC sticker.
Do you believe the older PCGS blue holders also add value over the newer PCGS holders? In terms of price and or saleability
There is one aspect is that I believe that plus grades started around this time, but if you have a coin in one of these holders it's likely that it has never been evaluated for a plus grade. That's not nothing.
@jacrispies said:
Nothing has changed from what I have seen the past 6 months. CACG still pulls premium to non CAC coins, despite history of the coin (upgraded from details holder, etc). I would strongly argue sales are slightly less than PCGS CAC. Haven't seen a stronger desire for CACG, the fans are still fans and the skeptics are still skeptics.
Experienced numismatists don’t seem to care about the holder
You'd be surprised...
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
Honestly, although I only have a small collection, I have about 25 or so CACG coins in my type set and peace dollar registry. To a coin, they’re all extremely nice for the grade compared to many of my PCGS coins.
In my little niche I’m just n the process of changing over my peace dollar set from a mix of PCGS and NGC graded coins to CACG and PCGS/CAC. It’s a slider set so they’re all AU58 (except for my 34S graded AU55 PCGS/CAC). It’s really interesting looking at the whole collection with all the duplicates. The CACG coins are just so much nicer than their PCGS siblings in the same grade.
I’m perfectly fine paying a premium for them similar to PCGS/CAC. They’re consistent enough, at least in the narrow focus of my experience, that I have confidence buying a CACG coin with a crappy photo. I won’t buy PCGS or NGC without being able to see very HQ images. I’ve purchased too many dogs in the past that are hard to move on from.
I think if they’re able to keep this quality up, they’ll continue to gain market share quickly.
my photos vs their’s
Just for grins, here is the coin that the above replaced in my collection. This is mainly an example of my inexperience, as this is one of the first peace dollars that I purchased when I started collecting.
Newbie collector of type and circulated Peace dollars, photographer of places and animals, player of instruments and builder of amplifiers, espresso industry professional, and a person distracted by shiny objects.
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 JWP BruceS bigjpst
JWP PROMETHIUS88
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 JWP BruceS bigjpst
JWP PROMETHIUS88
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
Sometimes, CACG grades them 5 grade steps lower before they become "B" coins. It has to do with their somewhat strange focus on LIBERTY with Seated Liberty halves and not overall wear on the rest of the coin.
A CACG VG10 with VF30 wear
I am all about maxing value, but the dysfunction involved in this process is mind numbing.
@Desert Moon summed it up nicely.
If there is a buck to be made then the market will eventually shift from PCGS to CACG. Wasn't NGC the market fav 20 years ago?
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
@winesteven point well taken.
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 JWP BruceS bigjpst
JWP PROMETHIUS88
Find a non-partisan (not other-partisan) group see what their data says.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Since I don’t participate in any registry, I’m agnostic as far as holders and stickers, up to a point. I have to think about selling someday (me or the kids), so I have to pay some attention to holders and stickers. Further, when buying based on photos, holders and stickers are a valuable filter. I believe that TODAY the PCGS/CAC combination will retain value best. However, I also believe that CACG is the best grading service in terms of CS and conservative grading, and may well retain value best in the future for those reasons. So, I lean towards CACG if available since I have “miles to go before I sleep”. But the rub is that PCGS still shows up more often. The coin prevails in the end, so I have a mixture of holders and stickers. When I see a coin I like I move on it, regardless. Buying coins is more of a visceral thing for me.
(PS talking only US coins here.)
For the same reasoning an NGC/CAC coin would hold the same weight.
Do you find the stickered coins more expensive?
Has anything shifted in the past 6+ months in regards to the slab/sticker value hierarchy (all other things being equal)? I am considering crossing a few coins to CACG at FUN, but want to be mindful of the potential effect on value & salability.
Is this still the dominant pecking order (again, all other things being equal)? What kind of price differentials are being seen in the marketplace?
Edit to add: and does anyone pay attention to the "legacy" designation on CACG holders? If so, is it considered a positive or negative?
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
For me CACG and PCGS material.
In my unscientific opinion, while the order MAY be right (I think the "spread" between them is tiny):
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
Not a dealer, but I would place CACG above NGC + CAC. I crossed my stickered NGC coins to CACG, including a gold. More of an experiment than a money play, but long term I’m betting on CACG. Sample of one.
I usually look for PCGS/CAC for my older sets and type coins.
But I will likely submit some modern (2026) coins from mint sets to CACG if they look substantially better than what I have seen graded from the business strikes so far primarily because I expect that they will get back to me a lot sooner and they are not really worth stickering in most cases.
The market is always a good indication of what collectors consider most valuable -- and thus, salable. In yesterday's GC auction, I was tracking and bidding on a number of common date 1938-D Buffalo nickels, older holder PCGS and NGC, some with CAC stickers, some without. The results were eye-popping.
-- There were a pair of MS65 PCGS OGH twins. Consecutive serial numbers, but one had a Gold CAC sticker and one had a Green CAC sticker. The one with a Gold CAC sold for $548. The one with a Green CAC went for $102.
-- There were two MS65 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): each went for $100.
-- There were three MS66 PCGS Rattlers (no CAC): they went for $137, $198, and $258.
-- An MS66 PCGS Rattler with Green CAC went for $169.
-- An MS66 NGC Gen 4 with Green CAC went for $141.
I can't imagine a CACG 1938-D Buffalo selling for these premiums. The value for CAC stickers, especially when combined with an old holder, continues to increase and amaze. I wouldn't cross a CAC stickered coin, even if it were on a recent holder. And I definitely wouldn't cross a coin that has a Gold CAC sticker.
I don't believe old PCGS holders and gold CAC stickers were part of what @P0CKETCHANGE was asking.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
Wow they did well.
Nothing has changed from what I have seen the past 6 months. CACG still pulls premium to non CAC coins, despite history of the coin (upgraded from details holder, etc). I would strongly argue sales are slightly less than PCGS CAC. Haven't seen a stronger desire for CACG, the fans are still fans and the skeptics are still skeptics.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
I agree with you but I would add that having a very attractive eye appealing coin in addition to the Old holder or Old holder plus CAC helps bring up the price. Some 38D’s are just very nice but others have more of a wow factor. In general attractive coin + Older holder+ CAC is best for a bigger price
Do you believe the older PCGS blue holders also add value over the newer PCGS holders? In terms of price and or saleability
.
Yes, I do. Especially if they have a CAC sticker. The OP was asking for recommendations about crossing coins to CACG. It wasn't clear if these were coins in old or new holders, or if they had CAC stickers or not. If these are coins without CAC stickers, sure, go for it. CACG coins do seem to carry a premium over PCGS and NGC coins without a CAC sticker, although not everywhere. But if a PCGS or NGC coin has a CAC sticker, regardless of the age of the holder, I would not cross it. In particular, if the coin has a Gold sticker -- a Gold sticker adds value that exceeds any crossing.
.
I am a collector, so my opinions are from that standpoint. I prefer coins in old holders -- with or without CAC stickers -- and coins in any age holders with CAC stickers. I am not yet smitten with CACG coins. I own only one, and that's because it's a first generation CACG holder.
I've decided to cross just a single coin, which is in a pre-prong NGC holder (with line, not an old holder) that has the hologram on the reverse completely scratched out. It does have a CAC sticker, but it's pre-CACG, so it will sport the "legacy" indicator on the new holder.
I was considering crossing a beaned PCGS coin as well, but I decided to hold off on that as I'm planning to upgrade the coin as soon as I locate a better example, and it'll be more attractive as a PCGS+CAC combo at auction.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
On average, I think that is the case………….
For anything CACed or CACGed (with a grade), it really is the quality and the rarity of the coin that counts in determining its value, not its holder. For pedestrian and relatively common issues like an 1883-CC Morgan where there are 100s to 1000s in say, MS65, there might be a pecking order amongst these 3 in terms of price. But what about an 1806 half in N or P AU58/CAC or CACG for example? Depends on the quality of each example, which can vary greatly, even within these specifics in grade and CAC, and thus in price as well.
I think folks are getting abit carried away here. The plastic holder does not add value, but the coin inside determines the value based on its attributes. Are old holders cool? Of course, but I’ve seen dog breath coins in old holders that are markedly diminished in value and one should not buy even if the holder is older. So does the holder add value? Depends on the coin.
The price for 1st Gen holders would argue otherwise. See the thread on 10800014. It's not the coin driving the price of that holder. Sometimes, not always, the coin is less important than the holder. [Doubt it ever applies to older blue holders, btw.]
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
That has not been my experience. It depends on the coin. Experienced numismatists don’t seem to care about the holder, just the coin, at least in my experience. I’ve sold CACG coins for just as much as PCGS/CAC coins and price each according to the quality of the coin not some heirarchy of plastic.
I think the plastic holder does add value. A dog-of-a-coin in a popular (older) holder has a very good chance of bringing more than a dog-of-a-coin in a new one. Likewise, a superb coin in a popular (older) holder has a very good chance of bringing more than a superb coin in a new one.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Of course there is an exception to everything. There is a group of people that love the earliest holders and are collecting the holder more than the coin. Like this one below that sold for over 50x it’s stated retail prices (and thank you to the auction winner!). But that is different, than the generic idea being discussed here about does a holder increase the value of the coin inside? Probably not with the exception of some of the ‘earliest’ holders that some are specifically collecting.
Again there are exceptions to everything. But a spectacular coin of the same grade and issue in a new holder will be higher priced than the dog breath coin of the same grade and issue in say, a Rattler. So?
As phrased, my examples weren’t exceptions. All other things being equal, the type of holder often matters.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There is one aspect is that I believe that plus grades started around this time, but if you have a coin in one of these holders it's likely that it has never been evaluated for a plus grade. That's not nothing.
You'd be surprised...
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
I think some very experienced numismatists that participate on this forum would strongly disagree.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Honestly, although I only have a small collection, I have about 25 or so CACG coins in my type set and peace dollar registry. To a coin, they’re all extremely nice for the grade compared to many of my PCGS coins.
In my little niche I’m just n the process of changing over my peace dollar set from a mix of PCGS and NGC graded coins to CACG and PCGS/CAC. It’s a slider set so they’re all AU58 (except for my 34S graded AU55 PCGS/CAC). It’s really interesting looking at the whole collection with all the duplicates. The CACG coins are just so much nicer than their PCGS siblings in the same grade.
I’m perfectly fine paying a premium for them similar to PCGS/CAC. They’re consistent enough, at least in the narrow focus of my experience, that I have confidence buying a CACG coin with a crappy photo. I won’t buy PCGS or NGC without being able to see very HQ images. I’ve purchased too many dogs in the past that are hard to move on from.
I think if they’re able to keep this quality up, they’ll continue to gain market share quickly.
my photos vs their’s
Just for grins, here is the coin that the above replaced in my collection. This is mainly an example of my inexperience, as this is one of the first peace dollars that I purchased when I started collecting.
Newbie collector of type and circulated Peace dollars, photographer of places and animals, player of instruments and builder of amplifiers, espresso industry professional, and a person distracted by shiny objects.
CACG Registry
MyCollect Registry