GoldFinger1969

On 12/31/2023 at 9:42 PM, World Colonial said:

I don't think either service consistently sells at a premium over the other.  Too few grading events to compare 99%+ of the time too.

The Big Game Hunters put their trophy coins largely in PCGS for domestic, foreign/world in NGC.

On 12/31/2023 at 9:24 PM, VKurtB said:

Yes, that there are gazillions of fresh to the market raw coins out there! Why? They SEE THEM nearly weekly. Only the relatively meager budgets of the auction attendees keep the prices down. Why don’t the owners of the coins sell them online? They don’t TRUST online anything. Many have no useable Internet service in the hills of Pennsylvania, and CERTAINLY no wireless service. There is one auction house in York County, about 8 miles north of the Maryland line that has no wireless, no cable, no dialup, nothing. Not even GPS works there. The hills are smallish but the valleys are deeeeeep. You are victims of the circles in which you travel, and not everywhere is like anywhere else. You have to go where the coins are, and the demand is not.

Can you give us an idea of the specifics of the coin TYPES and the coin NUMBERS ?  

Just because you are seeing hundreds or even thousands of raw coins for a series type doesn't mean it will make a dent in a population census that are millions or tens of millions (Saints and Morgans, to use 2 examples).

I don't doubt that you have found a nice niche that suits your needs.  But as much as I would WANT TO BELIEVE that there lots of quality raw Mint State-quality or high AU-quality coins that can add to the TPG certifieds....I doubt it.

If I'm wrong, and there are tens of thousands of hoards out there hitting the market, I think we would have heard about it. 

On 12/31/2023 at 5:59 PM, World Colonial said:

The dividend absolutely means something (a lot) but in and of itself doesn't change the definition of speculation and investment.  Before the current mania, it represented the majority of the return for the US stock market.  That's what should be expected in any "normal" market environment.

No, it shouldn't.  And no it didn't. 

Stocks going back to 1926 have had dividends account for about 40% of the total return when one reinvests the dividend.  But that encompasses DECADES of high-yields for the DJIA and S&P 500 (the DJIA yielded 10% in 1932).  Not until 1956 did the yield on stocks fall below that of bonds -- beause most investors had long memories and remembered stocks going down 85-90% from 1929-32.

Stocks have been de-risked because information is more easily accessible on corporate fundamentals.  In the 1880's, information on railroad stocks sometimes took hours or days to reach investors.  In the 1920's, information still took a few minutes, sometimes an hour or so.  Today, information takes seconds or less.

Yields are less important to total return compared to growth.  And I say that as a dividend and value investor.

On 12/31/2023 at 5:59 PM, World Colonial said:

A higher dividend means it's relatively less speculative and by this metric, the US stock market is close to the most speculative ever.  The dividend yield on the DJIA (2%) and S&P 500 (1.5%) is a razor's edge above the all-time early 2000 low.  The ability of a company to pay dividends is a function of the actual fundamentals.  Corporate management's decision to establish the dividend payout rate is substantially psychological (from numerous factors) and the price of the stock essentially entirely so because the company and the stock certificate aren't equivalent.

But you are eliminating a huge change from 1982:  the ability to buy back stock.  Before then, companies either hoarded cash or paid dividends.  Today, they can buy back stock and many companies prefer to do this. You have to compare shareholder yield (dividend yield + stock buyback yield) to have a valid number.

In the old days, the DJIA would be a buy at a 6% dividend yield and a sell at a 3% dividend yield.  But that encompassed a RISING rate environment from 1946-81.  We've had a FALLING rate environment for decades and even with the latest rise we are still historically low in yields.

Net-Net:  yields are not going back to the old levels on stocks because today's stocks are less-risky, more transparent, and in many respects CHEAPER with more defensive MOATS than their predecessors.

Compare today's Tech Titans to the 1970's "Nifty Fifty" stocks.  No comparision in terms of market dominance and ability to adapt.

On 12/31/2023 at 6:23 PM, VKurtB said:

But as written by someone other than me upthread, my Truist stock pays an 8% dividend, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Not anymore.  Stock is up 30% in 2 months and the yield is down to 5.6%. 

On 1/1/2024 at 10:01 AM, World Colonial said:

If anyone wants to buy the most historically overpriced US market in history (currently within a few percent), then go ahead and do it.  But that’s what anyone is actually buying, not what Wall Stret consensus or anyone here claims.

It's not anywhere NEAR the most historically overpriced market in history.  Not by a longshot. 

And the market had a great 2023 despite rates rising a ton in 2022 and 2023.  Things are normalizing and while the junkycrap stocks are not likely to thrive in an environment of 3-5% Fed Funds and 2% real rate of returns, they won't do too shabby.

Take out the Magnificent Seven and the market is tilted more to the cheap side than overvalued.  The S&P 490 is at 17x EPS with the S&P 500 at 19.5x and the Top 10 at 27x EP

On 12/27/2023 at 10:05 AM, USAuPzlBxBob said:

"Gather those rosebuds."  Larry Wachtel

Boy, that's a name I haven't heard in years.  Used to hear him ALL THE TIME when my dad listened to WINS-1010 radio...."You give us 22 minutes....we'll give you the world."

I listened for 22 minutes, but they never gave me the world, alot of money, or even a single MCMVII High Relief coin.  Should have sued them for fraud and misrepresentation. 

I believe he was on CNBC and the old FNN, too.  Had that rosebud phrase inscribed on his tombstone if I recall.

Miss the guys I grew up with in the 1980's and 1990's. 

On 12/31/2023 at 1:13 PM, Coinbuf said:

You can doubt me all you want

Typo, CB....I added the word "NO" just now which I must have accidentally deleted while typing and cutting-pasting the long post.   My point was.... you were right and I was wrong.   Instead I typed it as:  I was right and you were wrong (or I didn't believe you)...which wasn't the case. 

Sorry for the confusion. 

On 12/30/2023 at 2:18 PM, J P M said:

It is going to end up being a lot of BS. I can see the replies from dealers all ready. You want to sell your MS65 but it is in an NGC or a PCGS holder so it is really a MS64 so you get half of that. If it was in a  CAC  holder it is a real MS65 You still get half from the dealer, but it is real. I still say it is all just an opinion and I am sure JA is not doing the grading by himself. It will be a new experience for all Numismatics everywhere. .  

Mega-thread on this ATS with some very good commentary no matter what side of the fence you sit on.  I highly recommend it. 

We have some good comments on this on the US WORLD COINS section but they have some ex-graders weighing in there which adds to the debate. 

On 12/31/2023 at 8:22 PM, VKurtB said:

What moves a man to create something, abandon it, create something else, then abandon it also, create yet a third thing, describe what it will never be, then make it precisely that? Sounds a little like a deadbeat dad or a megalomaniac to me. 

Or former basketball coach Larry "Out Of Town" Brown !! 

I do believe that JA said that once CAC had gotten most of the classic coins reviewed/stickered, market-making would be their prime focus since they wouldn't be CAC-ing moderns or foreign coins.  By now, most of the low-hanging CAC fruit from NGC or PCGS has probably been plucked.

On 12/31/2023 at 6:46 PM, Coinbuf said:

My guess would be for registry reasons, PCGS registry only accepts PCGS graded coins.   If world registry sets become the new hot thing to do for PCGS registry collectors, then you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg on world coin crossovers.

Even if, unlike with U.S. coins, NGC has dominant market share in foreign/world coins and theirs sell at a premium ?

On 12/31/2023 at 12:45 PM, Coinbuf said:

Laura at Legend is a prime example of this, she has been a PCGS or nothing dealer for as long as I can remember, but now she is pushing that everyone should cross all those coins into CACG holders.

That's unreal.

On 12/31/2023 at 12:45 PM, Coinbuf said:

It is important to remember that she is one of the investors at CACG.

That's unethical, IMO, even if disclosed.  

I assumed JA and maybe CAC employees owned 100% of CACG.  Didn't know outside investors were solicited and accepted.

Do we have any idea of how many graders are at CACG and what volume they can do in a year (or now) compared to PCGS/NGC ?  Has JA said he wants to be as big as them, or is he happy with a niche service catering to classic coins (not moderns) and the total volume much lower ?

On 12/31/2023 at 11:55 AM, zadok said:

...im going to start looking for all the "D" coins, vastly overgraded coins in tpg holders....

From what I read in the Maurice Rosen and similar interviews, they weren't that plentiful...it was the preponderance of "C" coins in dealer inventories while the "A" and "B" coins in investors/collectors hands that caused the pricing anomaly.

The dealers were able to charge "A" and "B" prices for "C" coins -- for a while at least -- and buyers got burned when the market turned despite what the grade on the holder said.

On 12/30/2023 at 7:59 PM, VKurtB said:

Each phase; his NGC, his PCGS, his sticker business, and the CACG service phase, all have something in common, the financial enrichment of JA. Think!

Nothing wrong with making money, so long as legal and not besmirching one's past dealings.

At his age, with plenty of $$$ made over the decades, I don't think JA or CACG are doing whatever they hope to do just to make MORE money than they could have just by opening up JA Numismatics or something like that.  That would have been much easier to do....less CAPX....less headaches over time....probably better profit margins.

On 12/31/2023 at 11:55 AM, Henri Charriere said:

Absolutely correct.  Correctamundo.

But do not quote me for attribution on this!  

OK, I'll quote Arthur Fonzarelli instead....

On 12/30/2023 at 7:59 PM, VKurtB said:

This is undeniable truth: over time, JA has said things which seem to be incompatible. That means one of three things are true. 1) the early things he said were incorrectly understood, 2) the more recent things he said are incorrectly misunderstood, or 3) JA moves male bovines by common carrier, i.e. he is a bull shipper. Maybe all three are true. Given what I see in the numismatic hobby writ large, the 3rd choice becomes the “leader in the clubhouse”. What do all FOUR phases have in common? C’mon everybody, you know. Each phase; his NGC, his PCGS, his sticker business, and the CACG service phase, all have something in common, the financial enrichment of JA. Think!

Reminds me of something that Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, once said: "If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said."  

On 12/30/2023 at 7:01 PM, Henri Charriere said:

Feld, the consummate gentleman, put his name and reputation on the line, repeatedly, to defend a dear old friend, JA, whose very integrity was being questioned and it is hardly surprising to learn, faced with a "scandal" which would impugn the reputation of an innovative company, and all who were affiliated with it, J.A., presented with the choice of explaining a conflict of interest, i.e. engaging in questionable conduct which had apparently gone on for some time -- worshipping both God and mammon with a bit of body English, fancy footwork and sleight of hand --  exercised his right instead to remain silent, excused himself, and abandoned the baby he had a hand in creating, with class, neither explaining or implicating anyone else directly.

Are you talking about the creation of CAC in 2008 ?

On 12/30/2023 at 5:42 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

I'm of the mind that CACG will have to adjust to grow, if they want to. 

Yup, at some point when coin prices rise big the pressue to market grade will increase on CACG.  Then we'll see if they have diamond hands. 

On 12/30/2023 at 4:05 PM, VKurtB said:

Gawd, I hope so, but I doubt it. Only the USA and China have so many dilettante collectors so that TPGS firms are perceived to be necessary in order to have a vibrant marketplace. Me? I choose to participate, obviously, in a non-vibrant marketplace or several. I still overwhelming buy raw, and I plan to continue to do so. I sell ALMOST nothing, so being “unable to sell a coin that isn’t third party graded” is a nonsensical complaint in the world in which I live. My son can worry about resale, if he cares to, which I doubt. Sure, he might lighten up on some areas, but he’ll want to keep the majority. He has more time to wait for sanity to re-prevail and third party grading to again become the tiniest sliver of the market that it was always intended to be. Of course, the newbies will resist that trend. 

I am sympathetic to what you are saying, Kurt, but if this hobby is not going to be dominated by dealers and savvy, knowledgeable collectors (like yourself and many of the posters here)....then it's going to be the Sharks vs. The Guppies as it was pre-TPG. 

I'd personally rather debate an occasisionally misgraded slider by the TPGs....or a coin over or undergraded by 1-2 grades...or a questionable Details grade.....then have novices buying coins at prices 5-15 grades too high as was done in the 1960's and 1970's and early-1980's. 

On 12/30/2023 at 10:05 AM, Henri Charriere said:

I enjoy coin collecting as a hobby. If you are in this field to make a killing in a short period of time as an investor, you are bound to be disappointed.

I am not into the coins to make a killing in the short or long-term.  I don't care if I lose $$$.  But for sure, yeah, I don't want to pay full-price for an MS-66 and then find out it'll be priced a few years later as an MS-64 and worth 40% less because the new standard is that the Old 66's are the New 64's. 

On 12/30/2023 at 10:05 AM, Henri Charriere said:

RWB has the firmest grasp and understanding of the intricacies of grading and the importance of establishing formal written standards. 

 But we DO have formal, in-writing standards from the ANA's 7th Edition, right ?

On 12/30/2023 at 10:05 AM, Henri Charriere said:

My rude awakening to the realities of grading came when one TPGS declined to cross-grade another's MS67 -- and the coin I had purchased sight-unseen was re-listed and my money, minus expenses, was duly refunded. How can you argue with a seller who had no part in grading the coin? You cannot. To me it is morally repugnant and ethically reprehensible that such shenanigans are allowed to occur in the Hobby of Kings.

 I'm a bit confused as to what happened here.  It seems you are saying you got treated OK -- that an overgraded coin's cost was refunded to you -- but then you segue into shenanigans ?  Can you or someone explain this for a novice as I was never good with the re-submission thing.  Thanks ! 

On 12/30/2023 at 9:56 AM, Fenntucky Mike said:

The video aside, the overall tone I get from reading various chat boards is that more coins are being down graded, some are crossing at the same grade and very, very, few are upgrading. I believe most of the CACG coins that were crossed from other TPG's were not beaned by CAC and for non CAC coins I believe that's how most expected it to go, I did. I image that most of the coins in the video will be sent back to PCGS for grading and it would be interesting to see those results.

Apparently, many coins are coming back as Details-like coins with no grade after getting pretty good grades with additional scoring like "RD" or "RB". 

Or at least that's the early results from the videos being posted.

On 12/30/2023 at 10:05 AM, Henri Charriere said:

IMNSHO...  How do you determine the "correct" grade in the absence of a clearly delineated continuum which apparently had to be established, in the beginning, at the infancy of TPGS, some decades ago?  We are still in the experimental stage and what we are witnessing are birth pangs.  I have said all along (and been ignored all along) when I mused how can anyone grade a coin in a vacuum when the highest grades have yet to be found and certified? Example: what would you do if a coin is assigned a high grade, but higher grades are [inevitably] submitted over time? A decision must be made to recalibrate the grades.  My MS67 cannot be permitted to remain one if a plethora of intermediate grades are certified suggesting the MS67 should be an MS66 if a more suitable MS67 is found, leaving room for three more increments. The video posted by Fenntucky Mike is instructive in this regard: an MS-70 which had been adjudged flawless is downgraded upon re-examination by CACG as an MS-69 due to a barely perceptible mark. That's painful, but just.  I enjoy coin collecting as a hobby. If you are in this field to make a killing in a short period of time as an investor, you are bound to be disappointed. I believe RWB has the firmest grasp and understanding of the intricacies of grading and the importance of establishing formal written standards. My rude awakening to the realities of grading came when one TPGS declined to cross-grade another's MS67 -- and the coin I had purchased sight-unseen was re-listed and my money, minus expenses, was duly refunded. How can you argue with a seller who had no part in grading the coin? You cannot. To me it is morally repugnant and ethically reprehensible that such shenanigans are allowed to occur in the Hobby of Kings.

(1) We need CONSISTENCY more than whether coins are graded conservatively, liberally, market grading, or technical grading.  I think that is something we can all agree on.  Conisistency matters.

(2)  Even with the grading differentials of the last 4 decades, we're certainly better off than with the years before TPGs where it literally was The Wild, Wild West (apologies to Jim West and Artemus Gordon  ).

The problem I see now is that CACG is going to basically try and establish an NGO -- New Grading Order -- which is more technical than market with an admission that their standards are such that CACG holders encompass coins worthy of BOTH the grade AND a CAC sticker.  The kicking-out of the "C" coins is problematic alongside the (allegedly) stricter grading system.

On 12/31/2023 at 10:40 AM, samclemen3991 said:

VkurtB.  Just so I understand.  You are angered or something because someone is using their acumen and capital to profit in a capitalist society?  I think that is just called envy.  James

Nah, he's just a curmudgeon. 

On 12/30/2023 at 9:56 AM, Fenntucky Mike said:

The video aside, the overall tone I get from reading various chat boards is that more coins are being down graded, some are crossing at the same grade and very, very, few are upgrading. I believe most of the CACG coins that were crossed from other TPG's were not beaned by CAC and for non CAC coins I believe that's how most expected it to go, I did. I image that most of the coins in the video will be sent back to PCGS for grading and it would be interesting to see those results.

Haven't had time to see the video yet so I'm flying kind of blind here.

But as I have noted elsewhere in the NGC Forums, it appears that with the passage of time that all the top "A" coins and some of the "B"s that were able to cross and upgrade have done so.  The low-hanging fruit has been picked, especially in popular series like Saints and Morgans and probably other coin series that I don't follow that many of you do.

Which means that coins are NOT going to upgrade with the frequency we have seen in the past....unless CACG is seen as #1 and folks want to move a coin from CACG to the #2 or #3 TPG, PCGS or NGC, take your pick...which they don't do NOW.    Did folks with U.S. coins prefer a PCGS coin lower than a higher-grade @ NGC...and similarly, did foreign/world coin holders prefer NGC over a higher-grade PCGS holder ?  Yeah, apparently they did. 

But what is interesting is that both PCGS and NGC had periods of tight and loose grading.  If CACG is going to resist market grading coins when the next "hot" period or bubble hits -- and the pressure will be enormous -- then maybe their "brutal honesty" and "consistency" will be constant over many coin cycles as a testament to their staying power of grading coins by the book. 

Neither NGC nor PCGS made the dramatic statement that CACG has had that they are going to lean more to technical grading and reverse the multi-decade trend of market grading.  This is (potentially) seismic.  I'm not sure how it plays out.  Both PCGS and NGC had periods where they leaned one way or the other.  Longer term, it will depend on how the collecting and investment public views the TPGs...how all 3 TPGs market themselves (many thought PCGS got a premium over NGC because of marketing, NOT because of a perception of better/tighter grading)..and other factors.

That slight change on the "C" coins and the CACG holder, 15% of the coins submitted according to JA (at least in the early years) has really made a major shift in this industry, one which I am not sure we have seen in a long long time. 

On 12/30/2023 at 4:18 PM, VKurtB said:

That’s PRECISELY the way I see the future. 

If he truly only "kicks out" the "C" coins then I think some of our reactions could be a bit over the top.

But if you have lots of "C" coins selling for 1 grade lower -- and more importantly, lots of $$$ lower if there's a big dropoff -- you could have chaos.  You can't have a triopoly of TPGs....2 more-or-less market graders and the other doing technical grading.  It's a prescription for lots of conflict within the hobby; instead of all pulling together, we will be pulling apart.

On 12/30/2023 at 1:44 PM, VKurtB said:

OF COURSE IT’S A HUGE REVERSAL! Nobody has ever suggested otherwise. Gods (either capitalized or not) ALWAYS reserve the right to reverse themselves, otherwise known as being a bulls**t artist. 

I think I can live with technical or market grading....or "C" coins being good for the grade....but I/we need CONSISTENCY.