GoldFinger1969

If this is true and I have NO reason to doubt you, it's a HUGE REVERSAL of what he said when he formed CAC. Of course, he also said at the time that he would have no interest in a CAC TPG. I don't see how you can not allow an MS-65 "C" coin into a CACG holder as MS-65.

You mean the adhesive "gas" can leak INTO the holder ? We talking a few atoms here or what ? Isn't he afraid the adhesive on existing CAC stickers can leak into PCGS and NGC holders ? Unless the CACG holder is thinner and/or of less molecular density or something.

You should read the interview with Maurice Rosen with John Alabanes on a dated thread I bumped. Long story short: the CAC stickers went to coins that JA thought were "A" and "B" quality or 75-85% of the coins for a particular type. The "C" coins did NOT get the sticker but were still considered solid for the grade given. These were the problem coins for the most part back when CAC was conceived because the "A" and "B" coins were being held by collectors and investors and the "C" coins populated dealer inventories and were overpriced compared to the A & B coins. So no..."C" coins for an MS-65 Saint should not have been given an MS-64 grade with or without a CAC sticker...they ARE solid for MS-65 just not "A" or "B" quality. Now, so-called "D" and "F" coins are misgraded and definitely deserved to be downgraded but that's another story. Here's where it gets interesting: "C" coins for an MS-65 Saint (or any other coin) should get an MS-65 grade from CACG. So....the CACG holder can ave either an "A" or "B" or "C" coin and you can't tell. Right now, the CACG holder is fetching a premium but unless you have an "A" coin (definitely) or a "B" coin (probably/maybe)....it really shouldn't sell at a premium. And if it's a "C" coin -- definitely not. Are buyers of CACG holders discerning the underlying coin quality instead of just buying willy-nilly the holder to justify paying a premium ? Beats me... But a few years from now...in a REVERSAL of what we saw in 2008-10 (when CAC stickers only fetched modest premiums)...the premium on CACG may well fade once it become apparent that many coins are "C" quality and/or folks can't accurately sort out the "A" and "B" coins and pay a premium for them while somehow convincing a dealer/seller to accept LESS for a "C" coin that only one of them thinks is a "C" coin !!

Only folks with losses this year are bond holders and/or folks who owned many of the R2000 and S&P 493 (ex-Magnificent 7 ). But even those groups got a nice tail wind the last 2 months as yields fell sharply and stocks other than the Magnificent Seven lifted off.

Hal, if you are a beginner as seems to be the case then (1) make sure you know the basics of grading in general and for the coin type you are going to focus on (Barbers) before purchasing......OR.....(2) only buy certified coins that are graded by a TPG. We all have different financial means here....you could blow thousands and it not matter to you at all, or you could be out a few hundred dollars and feel burned and say you are never going to buy another coin again. Make sure you know what you are doing ...don't rush into anything ...and use a forum like NGC here as a sounding board when not sure. We also have many useful threads already out there, but feel free to add to this one or create a new one in the NEWBIE or US WORLD COINS sections as you see fit.

Yes, missed that, thanks DD. No way you could get 85% sticker rate if only "A" coins got stickered. I think lots of CACG holder buyers are buying the holder and thinking that the coin is STRONG for the grade (A or B) even though back in 2008 and today CAC says that "C" coins will go into the grade they merit even if "weak" for the grade. Clearly, CACG pricing -- which is on par or higher than for CAC stickered coins of the same grade -- shows that folks are paying a premium for what might be "C" coins (unless they are discerning the differnece within the CACG holders and only paying up for "A" or "B" coins). Interesting to see what JA said about becoming a TPG in 2008 vs. what is happening now.

Yeah, he mentioned in that 2009 interview that the CAC premiums were pretty modest. They took off years later, particularly when it became possible to ID coins that would upgrade and be worth a multiple of the price paid.

I think you're not OFF here...but JA specifically addressed this in that interview. He says the "A" coins would get the sticker...NOT the "B" coins....and the "C" coins are NOT necessarily overgraded. They ARE right for the grade -- just WEAKER than the "A" and "B" coins. He comes up with the "D" and "F" coin thing to distinguish totally misgraded coins. Note what he says about a potential TPG by CAC: He says they would have to grade "C" coins as MS-65 (for example) and NOT as MS-64's that are "A" coins with a sticker. So either CACG has changed their grading style and/or the emphasis on technical vs. market grading in 2023 from what JA said in 2009 -- because he said a "C" coin in MS-65 (for example) is a 65 coin and should not become an MS-64 with a CAC bean ("A" coin). If you read that entire interview which leads off this thread he is pretty clear that the problem was accentuated by all the "A" and "B" coins being hoarded by collectors and the "C" coins gravitating towards the dealers and affecting/skewing the pricing matrix for that grade. He has some great price and grade information from a while back that I still think we are seeing the effects on. The big difference today is that we are NOT seeing the huge increase in populations (percentage-wise or in absolute numbers) for most coins in most grades except the highest grades they exist in. When he cited the $12,000 MS-66 Saint (I presume a common year)....clearly that was because the supply of 66's back in 1989-90 was very very low compared to today (and not because grading standards are easier today).

If you don't mind "paying up" -- and for quality, I might add (which is often worth it) -- try Heritage Auctions and Great Collections. You pay more, but you get quality....what you want.....and save lots of time and effort.

What's the difference ? Just the auction part ?

Current interview with JA implies they are grading more along technical than market grading. We'll see...

Anybody read the interview with JA and Maurice Rosen from 2009 ? I bumped up the thread so it's on the 1st Page of US COINS since I couldn't link to it for some reason (got a weird error message). I thought this exchange was interesting: MR: Do you have any desire to one day start your own coin grading service? JA: I really don’t, and even if I did, as I mentioned earlier, if a “C” coin came in it would have to be identified as being in its full numerical grade, not a point lower. I think the present services have established a nice baseline. Let’s remember also that most of the rare coins in existence have already been graded, so what would be the point? There would just be a lot of wasted plastic as people crack coins out of their holders. It would be very confusing. PCGS and NGC are already embedded in the market. Introducing CAC is confusing enough. Any interviews with JA are interesting, might want to Google his name and check them out. He has interesting comments on pricing, trends, etc. Even when dated, they fill in gaps in history. I don't see too many other people talking about popular coin prices.

BUMP: The OP interview on Page 1 is relevant for CACG discussion. I couldn't link to this thread for some reason, maybe because it was created so long ago.

That's interesting....I always thought the "grading on the curve" aspect had to do with OTHER FACTORS making up for the weak strike and adding points, if not getting you back to 70 or 69 or whatever. For instance....full/excellent luster....other notoriously "mushy" areas stronger...overall eye appeal...etc.

Should be fantastic, wish I was going. Any chance it will be recorded and available for viewing at a later date ?

Or....has multiple items in inventory and sells one of them while keeping the listing for YEARS at a high price....unless someone is dumb enough to buy it for 200% over FMV.

Yeah, see it all the time especially with a lower-priced "hot" item like the National Park Foundation Saint-Gaudens commemoratives which are nice and much cheaper than buying a 1 ounce Saint. Also see it on the 5-ounce silvers for the Moon landing, American National Parks, etc. I see stuff that is over the last sale on Ebay by 100-200% and it is still being advertised YEARS later. I mean, if the person has others for sale and people are finding him/her then maybe that item listed on Ebay is there just for show. But if that's the one he REALLY wants to sell, I don't get it -- unless they are waiting for The One Dumb Buyer. I suspected as much....a few years ago I spend a bit over $500 on a really nice currency bill. Seller had me send payment to his shop. They probably saved me or him $100 (~20% ?) in fees, huh ? I wonder how prevalent this is with eBay. I know they have rules against it but not sure how you can enforce it (remove the seller ?). Have to check an upcoming sell-side report and see if this "leakage" is a growing concern.

Sandon, good stuff....when I get home I will be taking out my same ANA edition and FMTM to go over all these fine details.

We call these coins "weakly struck" or "weak strikes"....but in reality....they appear to be poorly-basined dies, which is a longer phrase, more cumbersome, though it might be more accurate. Before these threads and reading FMTM, I thought weak strike literally meant that the die was poorly designed or the mechanical press was off. The actual strike isn't the problem -- it's the die.

I used to call on them when I was on the sell-side. Cheap SOBs...took our research, and never paid us. Or me, at least.

Wow, only a few thousand. Not sure how long other large silver coins saw their dies last or other large gold coins but that does seem very low. Interesting, didn't know that or forgot it from my 1st reading of FMTM. We didn't have fine measuring tools back then, I could see how this could be a wide discrepancy affecting strike. Philly made all the dies, but then if the basining was off, you either had a great die (SanFran) or crappy one (NO). Again...if the die is simply created wrongly and the strike stinks, the coin -- even if as good as it can be coming off the press -- would NOT get an MS-70 rating if otherwise perfect, because the defect (basining or whatever) prevented the finished coin from looking as good as others, right ? Thanks Power ....and to everyone else, too. I really learned alot in this thread. This is the NGC Forums at their finest.

Yeah, aren't security chips now standard on some of the pricier valuations of coins or tiered grading services ? I would have thought CACG would have had that from Day 1. Maybe nobody really wants it in their holders ?

Hey....you're not the guy who asked for and received a LOWER grade for a 1927-D Saint so it could get a CAC sticker, are you ?

In this case....with 5 grade points between them...and the curls and feathers so noticeable....it's a good illustration of the striking issue, regardless of whether or not we quibble with the grade each coin got from different TPGs. But I do see your point.

Can definitely see the difference in the curls above the ear and the breast feathers on the eagle. Two of the best/easiest "tells" on coins that I can recall.