GoldFinger1969

On 12/29/2023 at 7:26 PM, Henri Charriere said:

JA is no different. I have reviewed most of the threads, sites and YouTube videos of same. Mark Feld, as a long-time friend stuck up for him unflinchingly. People change. Everyone is entitled to change his opinions or views. (Even Quintus ditched the Rooster and became Henri.)  CAC and CACG do not appeal to me, per se, but I believe JA has been on the level during his long numismatic career.  The point you've brought up is key.  A change of mind does not necessarily indicate contradiction. Rather, when viewed through a multiplicity of lenses, it indicates flexibility and growth.  

I have no problem with anybody changing grading standards.  But I believe JA should explain WHAT HAS CHANGED that lower-rated but CORRECTLY GRADED coins are going into lower CACG holders.

On 12/29/2023 at 4:02 PM, Coinbuf said:

No I'm not off, you need to listen again, JA has been very consistent in his approach overall.   That does not mean that companies do not evolve or that a person may not change his mind or direction over time in response to new information or changes to the market, that interview was 16 years ago. You are applying what was said for CAC 16 years ago to CACG today, that is incorrect.    I agree that CACG buyers do expect a CACG holdered coin to be at the level of a stickered A or B coin.   That is because; and this has been thoroughly hashed out on the CAC forum in recent months; JA and John Buttler have made it clear that there are no "C" coins at CACG.  Again the whole A, B, C thing was an easy way for the market to digest how JA approached the sticker business, the grading side of the business doesn't use that analogy when grading coins.   However, because the market is used to the A, B, C line of reasoning, when a coin is graded as MS65 at CACG it is easier right now for the market to equate that to an A or B coin as the market understands the sticker side of the business with the standout A coins possibly getting a + grade.   If a coin fails to meet the standard that CACG has set for the MS65 grade it will be graded lower, that does not make it a C coin just an A or B coin at a lower grade. For example, if you have a coin that has a CAC green bean it is almost guaranteed to cross into a CACG holder at the same grade.   I say almost because it could upgrade, or in the case that the coin has changed or deteriorated in the TPG holder it may get declined as a cross at same grade.   An easy to understand example of this could be where a previously red graded copper coin has mellowed and now looks more red brown.   But if you have a coin that failed at CAC (stickering) in the past because it was thought to be in the C coin bucket, it can still be crossed but would be given a lower grade than the MS65 the previous TPG graded it, as a result there are no C coins.

The concept is to end up with stellar and solid for the grade coins only for that grade in a CACG holder, period.   Of course, over time because people are not perfect, and often opinions differ, there will be coins that some will consider as low end (or C coins if you like) for the grade in a CACG MS65 holder, it is inevitable.

I agree that you are right and yes, JA (who has forgotten more about coins than I will ever know) can grade anyway he wants:  conservative, liberal, technical, market, whatever.

But he said that "C" coins graded MS-65 were STILL MS-65 back then.  I don't see how you can say they are going to go into an MS-64 CACG holder today.  SOMETHING has changed and I'm not sure he has said why. 

It seems to me almost like JA/CACG are trying to shift the entire grading quotient to technical from market grading overnight.  At least with "C" coins.

On 12/29/2023 at 8:10 PM, Coinbuf said:

JA and Grader John Buttler have been very clear that there are no C coins in CACG holders.   If you read my reply on the thread in the US coin section I think I did a good job of explaining this.

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.

On 12/29/2023 at 8:10 PM, Coinbuf said:

JA was originally planning to use the same bean sticker on the label, but decided that there could be some concern about outgassing of the adhesive for the sticker and the decision was made to print the bean and treat it as a logo.

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.

On 12/29/2023 at 4:33 PM, rons said:

Now that CAC is holdering coins do they still accept submissions? Also are all the coins they grade getting the green bean? And does that mean, for example, their grading lowers a C grade 64 to an A grade 63 so they can bean it?  I have not been paying attention until i saw CACG coins on great collections and they all had the green bean. Thus my guess as to how they grade. Since they now have their own slabs has their original business model of grading ngc and pcgs coins come to an end? Just trying to catch up with the latest twist. Is there any hint of whether our hosts will accept their coins in the registry?  Thanks for any information you can provide  

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 !! 

On 12/29/2023 at 1:49 PM, USAuPzlBxBob said:

Looks like today, last day of the year for trading, is everyone's tax loss harvesting day.  Then, January of every new year everyone has cold feet — literally and figuratively. Most every January there comes a point where I wish I had sold off to some extent the month before. I never do, though, and I just ride things out, enjoying the Div & Int streams until things come back. However, I will admit…  2024 does pique a certain amount of angst.  More than usual.

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.

On 12/29/2023 at 8:17 AM, HAL9000Jupiter said:

There are quite a few very good recommendations.  I have not quoted responses due to the length.  The advice to learn more about the coins themselves is something that I will certainly entertain.  @powermad5000, I assume that "raw" are loose coins and not in jewel cases.  Yes, I am referring to "raw".  Also, thank you for the warnings.  Most probably are not aware of easy counterfeiters.  I am somewhat hesitant to purchase at shops, as some people are not up front or honest.  Most certainly, there are those that will be honest   However, learning more about the coins, especially true market value, would be extremely helpful.  I would assume that there would be opportunies to purchase coins a bit less then those values.  

@GoldFinger1969 This is what I am looking for.  A reference to an alternative source. On a side note, there is already a username of HAL9000.  While 2001ASO is most certainly a classic movie, the knowledge would generally show someones age.  I saw it in the theatres when it was released.  Again, thank you very much for your time and effort to respond.

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. 

On 12/29/2023 at 10:45 AM, DeplorableDan said:

Read the transcription of the interview again. He says that "A" and "B" get stickered, "C" does not. That is always how its been explained by CAC.

Yes, missed that, thanks DD.  No way you could get 85% sticker rate if only "A" coins got stickered.

On 12/29/2023 at 10:45 AM, DeplorableDan said:

Regardless, I think people always get too hung up on this. "ABC" is a clever euphemism to try to put things in laymens terms to explain how the other companies standards are inferior to his. The graders at CACG dont look at a coin to decide if its an "A" "B" or "C" coin, they are simply grading the coins as they normally would. Theyre not identifying a 65 "C" and intentionally piutting it into a 64+ holder, if they think the coin is a 65 its going to be holdered as a 65. John Butler has made this very clear on the CAC forum. 

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. 

On 12/28/2023 at 1:29 PM, Coinbuf said:

the answer is yes JA did indeed buy CAC coins as they came to market.   Often through auction venues, but I do know a few collectors that have sold directly to JA.   Something to keep in mind, JA has himself said that he is/was not the highest paying buyer, which makes sense as his goal was to buy then resell to dealers via the wholesale side of the business.   So as CAC matured and the prices for beaned coins began to rise I would expect that fewer and fewer sold directly as it would have be smarter to sell your CAC beaned coins through an auction venue to realize the best selling price.

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.

On 12/28/2023 at 1:29 PM, Coinbuf said:

Very quickly as more and more dealers and collectors started to submit to CAC the market adopted the A, B, C concept which was an easy concept for people to understand and accept.   A coins being the cream of the crop and those he felt were undergraded are a mix of gold and green beans.   The B coins are (in theory all green beaned) considered by JA as solid for the grade.   The C coins being a mixture of coins that are correctly graded but more lower end of the grade, overgraded (in his opinion), and those straight graded coins with surface issues or that have been doctored.

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.

On 12/27/2023 at 1:29 PM, Coinbuf said:

That would be correct under technical grading, however, it is less true under the current market grading that the TPG's use.    Under market grading the TPG's will grade on a curve (so to speak) and will/have given coins from years or mints that are known for weak strike issues grades that are higher than they should have received under technical grading.    

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.

On 12/27/2023 at 4:14 PM, BillJones said:

I am scheduled to give a counterfeit detection seminar at the 2024 FUN show. It will be at 11:45 AM on Thursday, January 4.The emphasis will be on how to spot counterfeit coins in counterfeit slabs on-line. There will be handout so that you can use my tips on your computer, cell phone and iPad at home and at the shows.  I hope to meet you there!  

Should be fantastic, wish I was going. 

Any chance it will be recorded and available for viewing at a later date ?

On 12/27/2023 at 4:09 PM, mlovmo said:

The seller then pulls the listing and sells the coin according to the agreed terms.  

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. 

On 12/27/2023 at 4:09 PM, mlovmo said:

This also happens with "higher value, LEGIT coins," too. For example, a seller will list at eBay a coin that normally sells for, say, $2,500~$3,000 in the North American market/eBay for $7,000 BIN.

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.  

On 12/27/2023 at 4:09 PM, mlovmo said:

The seller does NOT expect anyone to buy it via eBay, of course.  EBay in this sense is only an ADVERTISING PLATFORM for this coin. How?  Well, many dealers' eBay handles are exactly the same as the name of their coin business or online name they use elsewhere.

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. 

On 12/26/2023 at 4:45 PM, VKurtB said:

I also have one fund that has gained every day that I’ve owned it. I bought 100 shares last week. Swiss Helvetia CF Fund. 

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. 

On 12/27/2023 at 12:15 AM, powermad5000 said:

The polished die field would only last a few thousand coins before it became dulled by die wear. On p.56, Morgan Dollar dies struck anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 coins.

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.

On 12/27/2023 at 12:15 AM, powermad5000 said:

Each mint basined the individual dies and apparently the basin radii varied slightly from mint to mint over the years.

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).

On 12/27/2023 at 12:15 AM, powermad5000 said:

I can only figure the graders use overriding factors to determine if a lack of detail on an MS specimen is due to a weak strike and not something else.

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 ?

On 12/27/2023 at 12:15 AM, powermad5000 said:

So to @GoldFinger1969, I think the answer to your question is due to many factors : the making of the dies, the polishing of the dies, the overuse of the dies, the pressure of the presses, the wearing of master hubs, and the differences at each individual mint.

Thanks Power  ....and to everyone else, too.  I really learned alot in this thread.  This is the NGC Forums at their finest. 

On 12/23/2023 at 11:55 AM, Henri Charriere said:

If true, i.e., the use of subpar materials, that doesn't bode well for an upstart.  At the very least, I would expect a state-of-the-art  museum-quality mausoleum with chip technology to insure the integrity of the product in repose has not been compromised.

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 ?

On 12/19/2023 at 9:57 AM, zadok said:

 in some instances i have purchased certified coins in grades ms64 n ms65 non-stickered n broken the coins out n resubmitted to the other tpg in hopes of getting the coins graded one grade lower n then submitted to CAC if i thought the coin warranted a sticker, the monetary advantage outweighs the costs involved.

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 ?