Aha! Just as I figured: CAC goals redefined!

[EZ_E]

 

I knew that this silly game of grade and regrade would be abused somehow.

 

The April 22, 2008 Numismatic News has a half page ad by Gold Rarities Gallery on page 16.

 

The advertisement states:

 

[font:Comic Sans MS] Gold Rarities is now featuring coins verified by CAC as being PQ for the grade. [/font]

 

[font:Book Antiqua] There you have it! A CAC sticker no longer means that the coin is just solid for the grade but it now means that it is a high-end, premium quality coin worthy of a notable premium. [/font]

 

I tell ya, if there's a way to stick it to the consumer then it will be found.

 

 

[MBA101]

If these stoopid stickers become a true mechanism to force collectors to pay more for coins then I am going to sticker my coins sell them all and just give up!

[MarkFeld]

I don't think that qualifies as "redefined". Even though I support John Albanese in his efforts, I regret that there has not been a clear, consistent message put forth regarding what the stickers actually signify. Even CAC has mentioned "premium quality" previously.

[MunkyMan95]

I'm not completely opposed to the idea. but I would not pay a premium price for a coin with a CAC sticker unless I personally felt that the coin was deserving of such a premium.

[MarkFeld]

I'm not completely opposed to the idea. but I would not pay a premium price for a coin with a CAC sticker unless I personally felt that the coin was deserving of such a premium.

And that's the way it should be - up to the buyer.

[EZ_E]

I'm not completely opposed to the idea. but I would not pay a premium price for a coin with a CAC sticker unless I personally felt that the coin was deserving of such a premium.

And that's the way it should be - up to the buyer.

 

A premium coin is worthy of a premium price. A good for the grade coin is not. The CAC sticker could mean either of the two but sellers are hawking the idea that it only refers to a PQ coin. So, in effect, they are duping the customer into paying more for an average coin with the pretense that it is really PQ.

[MarkFeld]

I'm not completely opposed to the idea. but I would not pay a premium price for a coin with a CAC sticker unless I personally felt that the coin was deserving of such a premium.

And that's the way it should be - up to the buyer.

 

A premium coin is worthy of a premium price. A good for the grade coin is not. The CAC sticker could mean either of the two but sellers are hawking the idea that it only refers to a PQ coin. So, in effect, they are duping the customer into paying more for an average coin with the pretense that it is really PQ.

Victor, to you, what is the difference between a "premium coin" and a "good for the grade coin"? Though they might be used frequently, I think both expressions are somewhat ambiguous and could easily mean the same thing in a number of instances.

[EZ_E]

By "good for the grade" I meant just a decently graded coin, not low end but certainly not high-end PQ.

[cpm9ball]

Does anyone know if China has started making counterfeit footballs yet?

 

Chris

[gmarguli]

I don't think that qualifies as "redefined". Even though I support John Albanese in his efforts, I regret that there has not been a clear, consistent message put forth regarding what the stickers actually signify. Even CAC has mentioned "premium quality" previously.

 

Redefined is such a harsh term. Let's call it "modernized". That makes the whole idea sound much more palatable.

[MarkFeld]

By "good for the grade" I meant just a decently graded coin, not low end but certainly not high-end PQ.

That's part of the problem with language as it pertains to coins. To me, "good for the grade" is better than "just a decently graded coin". If you had said "OK for the grade", or "just a decently graded coin" instead of "good for the grade", I wouldn't be disagreeing with you.

[MikeKing]

I'm not completely opposed to the idea. but I would not pay a premium price for a coin with a CAC sticker unless I personally felt that the coin was deserving of such a premium.

And that's the way it should be - up to the buyer.

 

unfortunately, it's not as easy as that...for the collector. I've already seen coins with CAC stickers where the dealer supports his price by the CAC sticker, and I want the coin, not because of the CAC sticker, but that I want the coin...period. Unfortunately, the price has been slightly inflated and I'm stuck with either paying it, or not getting the coin. Simple to your statement, it's up to me, the collector, to pay or not pay. But it's not so simple, as exemplified by the pressure I posed above. It simply sucks. It's called "dealer abuse of the CAC sticker".

[EZ_E]

Mark, my bad. I phrased it wrong. I meant more along the lines of what you wrote.

 

Mike, GREAT COMMENT!

[MarkFeld]

I'm not completely opposed to the idea. but I would not pay a premium price for a coin with a CAC sticker unless I personally felt that the coin was deserving of such a premium.

And that's the way it should be - up to the buyer.

 

unfortunately, it's not as easy as that...for the collector. I've already seen coins with CAC stickers where the dealer supports his price by the CAC sticker, and I want the coin, not because of the CAC sticker, but that I want the coin...period. Unfortunately, the price has been slightly inflated and I'm stuck with either paying it, or not getting the coin. Simple to your statement, it's up to me, the collector, to pay or not pay. But it's not so simple, as exemplified by the pressure I posed above. It simply sucks. It's called "dealer abuse of the CAC sticker".

Mike, while I feel your pain, the same thing happens every day with non CAC stickered coins, with certified coins graded by companies other than PCGS and NGC and with uncertified coins, and so on.

 

My experience has been that different sellers tend to ask different prices ranging from reasonable to absurd. And most of them are quite consistent in that respect, regardless of market conditions and/or whether the coins are uncertified, certified, CAC'd, etc. I just stay away from the sellers I think or know price their coins too high.

[MikeInFL]

I think you guys are splitting hairs with respect to the term PQ, athough like Mark and others I think the CAC could have been much clearer in their message.

 

Remember boys and girls, it is about two things -- the coin and the price -- and how you react to them -- pass or play. The rest is marketing, IMHO.

 

Don't let the slab or the sticker lull you into a false sense of security...Mike

[MikeInFL]

My experience has been that different sellers tend to ask different prices ranging from reasonable to absurd. And most of them are quite consistent in that respect, regardless of market conditions and/or whether the coins are uncertified, certified, CAC'd, etc. I just stay away from the sellers I think or know price their coins too high.

 

Quoted for truth.

 

However, I don't always stay away from dealers that I "know price their coins too high" -- but I am much, much more selective in the coins I consider buying from them.

[Tradedollarnut]

I know exactly how JA determines which coins to sticker and I can see how he's defining the PQ aspect.

 

I do wish that he'd done a better job of picking a market friendly definition. But when only about 30% of coins in a grade are stickering, it's hard to argue with the assertion that the stickered cons are actually PQ compared to what's typically on the market.

[lehigh96]

I think you guys are splitting hairs with respect to the term PQ, athough like Mark and others I think the CAC could have been much clearer in their message.

 

Remember boys and girls, it is about two things -- the coin and the price -- and how you react to them -- pass or play. The rest is marketing, IMHO...Mike

 

I agree. I really don't see the difference. There are dealers that proclaim a coin to be PQ for the grade and charge a premium. If there are dealers that proclaim a coin to be PQ because of a CAC sticker and charge a premium, wouldn't they most likely have proclaimed that same coin to be PQ without the CAC sticker?

 

As a consumer, it is hard to proclaim that you don't want to pay a premium for a coin that you really, really want. After all, if it is just a "good for the grade" coin, you simply wait for another one to hit the market. The fact that the buyer really, really wants the coin, implies that the coin is PQ in some way, whether it be high end for the technical grade or extraordinary eye appeal. Under these circumstances, the premium is warranted

[MarkFeld]

I know exactly how JA determines which coins to sticker and I can see how he's defining the PQ aspect.

 

I do wish that he'd done a better job of picking a market friendly definition. But when only about 30% of coins in a grade are stickering, it's hard to argue with the assertion that the stickered cons are actually PQ compared to what's typically on the market.

Bruce, I think I know how the determinations are made, too. But the problem is that many collectors do not know and the "PQ" language is confusing and leading to over-hying of CAC coins in many instances.

[Just Bob]

But when only about 30% of coins in a grade are stickering...

 

 

Do you mean 30% of all coins in that grade, or 30% of the coins that are submitted to CAC for review?

[Tradedollarnut]

I know exactly how JA determines which coins to sticker and I can see how he's defining the PQ aspect.

 

I do wish that he'd done a better job of picking a market friendly definition. But when only about 30% of coins in a grade are stickering, it's hard to argue with the assertion that the stickered cons are actually PQ compared to what's typically on the market.

Bruce, I think I know how the determinations are made, too. But the problem is that many collectors do not know and the "PQ" language is confusing and leading to over-hying of CAC coins in many instances.

 

I agree. JA assures me that the new website, which should be up in an hour or so, will address the issue better.

[EZ_E]

But the problem is that many collectors do not know and the "PQ" language is confusing and leading to over-hyping of CAC coins in many instances.

 

Page 25 of the same issue of Numismatic News has a CAC full page ad. It states:

 

[font:Book Antiqua] Coins bearing the CAC sticker are bringing notable premiums at auction. Not surprising,

 

since CAC coins are considered, at minimum, 'solid' for the grade. [/font]

 

 

[EZ_E]

 

[font:Book Antiqua] Coins bearing the CAC sticker are bringing notable premiums at auction. Not surprising,

 

since CAC coins are considered, at minimum, 'solid' for the grade. [/font]

 

 

This tells me that their coins range from average (e.g. MS64.5) to PQ (MS64.9). The question is: Is a MS64.5 coin really deserving of a premium price for the grade? I think not, or if so then it should be at an absolute minimum.

 

Is a MS64.9 coin worth a premium? Certainly! That's a no brainer, IMO. The issue I have with the whole bruhaha is what or who is to distinquish between the two definitions. (Since 99.9% of my purchases are mail order, I can't make the determination until after I have received the coin which usually means that it is already bought and paid for to have it in hand.) Dealers imply that all coins with a CAC sticker are PQ for the grade. Why would they admit to the coin just being average? That would destroy their whole marketing ploy. Needless to say, I'm not impressed with the system and loop holes for abuse.

 

[Tradedollarnut]

 

[font:Book Antiqua] Coins bearing the CAC sticker are bringing notable premiums at auction. Not surprising,

 

since CAC coins are considered, at minimum, 'solid' for the grade. [/font]

 

 

This tells me that their coins range from average (e.g. MS64.5) to PQ (MS64.9). The question is: Is a MS64.5 coin really deserving of a premium price for the grade? I think not, or if so then it should be at an absolute minimum.

 

Is a MS64.9 coin worth a premium? Certainly! That's a no brainer, IMO. The issue I have with the whole bruhaha is what or who is to distinquish between the two definitions. (Since 99.9% of my purchases are mail order, I can't make the determination until after I have received the coin which usually means that it is already bought and paid for to have it in hand.) Dealers imply that all coins with a CAC sticker are PQ for the grade. Why would they admit to the coin just being average? That would destroy their whole marketing ploy. Needless to say, I'm not impressed with the system and loop holes for abuse.

 

Of course an MS64.5 is worth a premium. In most cases, the sheet prices are held down by dreck. A specific example that I know very well:

 

I'll pay $50k for any With Motto seated dollar in gem that meets my standards. In general, my standards are about MS65.5 or so. Now you can go out and buy an MS65 seated dollar certified by the major TPG's at auction for about $25-30k. But it doesn't meet my standards. So is the coin that is 'solid for the grade' at 65.5 PQ? Does it bring a premium in the market place over other accurately graded material? Yes, in both instances.

[BankNote1]

If you can't sell the coin for more with the sticker then why get the sticker? I thought the sticker was to assure you of an accurately graded coin. Wasn't that the idea in the first place?

I know PCGS grades all over the place. I have sent back a ton of PCGS coins because they were overgraded imo. I have bought a lot of PCGS coins that were undergraded imo.

Isn't the green sticker for a correctly graded coin and the gold sticker for an undergraded coin? Then maybe I have no idea!

[MikeKing]

I don't want to give the impression I am against the CAC. I actually like the idea, even if it can be just another thing subjecting the collector to potential abuse. And, damn! this is one of the BEST posts on CAC I've seen yet, with real info, real ideas, and not just b.s.

 

Gee...I forgot what I was going to say...

 

(senior moment or my celexa dose needs to be adjusted)

 

Yes.. this is my understanding through first hand experience

 

* :::: PCGS will not necessarily cross an NGC coin into PCGS at the same grade level when the NGC coin is CAC stickered.

 

The insanity battle PCGS wages is still the same!!! and yes...borders on irrationality!!!!

 

AND, I've had at least one grossly UNDER-graded PCGS coin, CAC stickered and after sending it in to PCGS for regrade, lost the CAC sticker, and the coin came back with the SAME GRADE> ..... BUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

Not too long ago, I came to an interesting possible conclusion. It's possible that there is no such thing as a coin being "nice for the grade". Rather, it may be that a grade is "nice for the coin".

 

If you think about it, it's weird to say the coin is "nice" relative to a changing measurement (grades), since the coin doesn't change on it's own. It really makes more sense to describe how the grade fits the coin, not how the coin fits the grade.

 

But speaking of GoldRarities, I do seem to recall that they are one of the more obvious supporters of CAC from their ads (and I don't read ads very closely at all). But to tell you how confusing the whole purpose of the sticker or was, at one point, I thought it was supposed to mean simply that the coin wasn't doctored, and later, I understood it to mean the coin was worth approximately 40% more than competitors due to sight-unseen support for CAC coins.

 

 

So, I finally decided to generally avoid CAC coins and/or CAC-only dealers altogether. After all, I figure there's going to be some kind of pricing premium built in, and I just don't care to have someone else deciding for me what to pay up for.

 

Just my thoughts.

[IGWT]

I'm disappointed that dealers are hawking stickered coins like carnival barkers. I'm doubly disappointed that the sales pitches come from dealers who have a stake in CAC without any public disclosure of their interests in the company. The advertisements play into the chief criticism voiced by CAC's detractors. That is, they make CAC look like just another marketing ploy

 

CAC itself tauted the stickers as signifying PQ coins. It would be far better so simply say "properly graded." But then, of course, there would be less chance of an upward movement in prices.

[EZ_E]

CAC itself tauted the stickers as signifying PQ coins. It would be far better so simply say "properly graded." But then, of course, there would be less chance of an upward movement in prices.

 

This sums up my point perfectly!

[MarkFeld]

CAC itself tauted the stickers as signifying PQ coins. It would be far better so simply say "properly graded." But then, of course, there would be less chance of an upward movement in prices.

Maybe and maybe not (edited: in reference to the movement in prices, part above). I think that in many cases the price movement, if applicable, will ultimately be largely affected by whatever bids are posted for CAC coins, and not what the stickers are said to signify.