CAC Dealers...

[gmarguli]

Now that I've got your attention... I found the following things amusing. Two well known (to forum members) CAC dealers have made the following comments on their web sites:

 

Some examples from Dealer #1

1) 1C 1881 PCGS MS67RD: Technically, this jaw dropping beauty is a borderline MS69!

Yet, this coin only received the "average for the grade" green sticker. Where is the coveted gold sticker?

 

2) 1C 1881 PCGS PR-66 RB: A borderline monster PR67RB.

Again, only a green sticker, not a gold one.

 

3) 1C 1884 PCGS PR68RB: This older green tag holder coin really does make a strong case for a PR69 designation! We assume PCGS did not do it because they are fearful of designating ANY coin that high.

I guess CAC is fearful of designating any coin graded PF68 as "PQ / gold sticker"???

 

4) $20 1926S PCGS MS64: Very high end quality.

Again, only a green sticker, not a gold one.

 

Is the dealer hyping their coins well beyond the truth or is CAC unable to tell real PQ coins from average?

 

Some examples from Dealer #2

1) 1932-D Washington Quarter PCGS MS64: It would be difficult to find a noticeably better MS64 example of this seemingly always-popular key date. CAC declined to award a sticker to this coin.

What? It would be difficult to find a noticeably better MS64 example, but CAC didn't even give the lousy green sticker to this coin?

 

2) 1889 Legend Obverse Seated Liberty Dime NGC MS66: Pristine looking and most pleasing to the eye. CAC declined to award a sticker to this coin.

Pristine? Most pleasing to the eye? Dog?

 

3) 1888 Liberty Nickel NGC PR65: But this glittering, medium depth toned example is quite appealing, especially when viewed in person. CAC declined to award a sticker to this coin.

Appealing, but still an overgraded pig?

 

Does dealer #2 need glasses (or a dictionary to learn what 'pristine' and 'appealing' mean) or is CAC unable to tell average coins from below average?

 

I'm not picking on either of these dealers - I like them both, or CAC, but I find it funny how the savior of our hobby/industry that is promoted by these two dealers is either exposing their hype/weaknesses or exposing the CAC's inability to do its job. Either the statements from these dealers is wrong or the CAC is wrong.

[kryptonitecomics]

[mommam17]

I predicted that there would be alot of coins that people thought would sticker that didn`t. My opinion is CAC is very tight and should be. The gold sticker is VERY rare with less than 1% of the coins at 2007 Coinfest getting them.

[Revenant]

I'm wondering, did you cherry-pick examples that make them look bad or are these the only CAC coins they had noted?

[MarkFeld]

How that I've got your attention... I found the following things amusing. Two well known (to forum members) CAC dealers have made the following comments on their web sites:

 

Some examples from Dealer #1

1) 1C 1881 PCGS MS67RD: Technically, this jaw dropping beauty is a borderline MS69!

Yet, this coin only received the "average for the grade" green sticker. Where is the coveted gold sticker?

 

2) 1C 1881 PCGS PR-66 RB: A borderline monster PR67RB.

Again, only a green sticker, not a gold one.

 

3) 1C 1884 PCGS PR68RB: This older green tag holder coin really does make a strong case for a PR69 designation! We assume PCGS did not do it because they are fearful of designating ANY coin that high.

I guess CAC is fearful of designating any coin graded PF68 as "PQ / gold sticker"???

 

4) $20 1926S PCGS MS64: Very high end quality.

Again, only a green sticker, not a gold one.

 

Is the dealer hyping their coins well beyond the truth or is CAC unable to tell real PQ coins from average?

 

Some examples from Dealer #2

1) 1932-D Washington Quarter PCGS MS64: It would be difficult to find a noticeably better MS64 example of this seemingly always-popular key date. CAC declined to award a sticker to this coin.

What? It would be difficult to find a noticeably better MS64 example, but CAC didn't even give the lousy green sticker to this coin?

 

2) 1889 Legend Obverse Seated Liberty Dime NGC MS66: Pristine looking and most pleasing to the eye. CAC declined to award a sticker to this coin.

Pristine? Most pleasing to the eye? Dog?

 

3) 1888 Liberty Nickel NGC PR65: But this glittering, medium depth toned example is quite appealing, especially when viewed in person. CAC declined to award a sticker to this coin.

Appealing, but still an overgraded pig?

 

Does dealer #2 need glasses (or a dictionary to learn what 'pristing' and 'appealing' mean) or is CAC unable to tell average coins from below average?

 

I'm not picking on either of these dealers - I like them both, or CAC, but I find it funny how the savior of our hobby/industry that is promoted by these two dealers is either exposing their hype/weaknesses or exposing the CAC's inability to do its job. Either the statements from these dealers is wrong or the CAC is wrong.

For those who don't know, I'm dealer #2. I'm not going to defend my coins or my descriptions and opinions of them and I'm not going to criticize CAC for having a different opinion of them than I do.

 

However, Greg, in the case of dealer #1, only your first example has any merit. That is because the gold CAC sticker is supposed to represent a "lock upgrade" opinion. That is not the same as "borderline", "strong case" or "very high end quality". So, while I like your catchy thread title, I believe that you were unfair to dealer #1.

 

PS - hopefully you weren't quoting me when you misspelled "pristine" as "pristing"

[gmarguli]

I'm wondering, did you cherry-pick examples that make them look bad or are these the only CAC coins they had noted?

 

Nope.

 

Dealer #1 was filled with inventory with the same "super PQ / high end / wow, wow, wow" comments.

 

Dealer #2 has a limited inventory and at quick glance it appeared about the same number of coins that had stickers as those that were noted to have been rejected. I just picked a couple of rejects that had positive comments by the dealer.

[gmarguli]

For those who don't know, I'm dealer #2. I'm not going to defend my coins or my descriptions and opinions of them and I'm not going to criticize CAC for having a different opinion of them than I do.

I just wonder which opinion is correct. I trust your opinion, but if the watchdog of the industry has a different opinion......

 

However, Greg, in the case of dealer #1, only your first example has any merit. That is because the gold CAC sticker is supposed to represent a "lock upgrade" opinion. That is not the same as "borderline", "strong case" or "very high end quality". So, while I like your catchy thread title, I believe that you were unfair to dealer #1.

According to CAC, the gold sticker means "exceeds the standards". It doesn't mean lock upgrade.

 

[MarkFeld]

For those who don't know, I'm dealer #2. I'm not going to defend my coins or my descriptions and opinions of them and I'm not going to criticize CAC for having a different opinion of them than I do.

I just wonder which opinion is correct. I trust your opinion, but if the watchdog of the industry has a different opinion......

 

However, Greg, in the case of dealer #1, only your first example has any merit. That is because the gold CAC sticker is supposed to represent a "lock upgrade" opinion. That is not the same as "borderline", "strong case" or "very high end quality". So, while I like your catchy thread title, I believe that you were unfair to dealer #1.

According to CAC, the gold sticker means "exceeds the standards". It doesn't mean lock upgrade.

 

It means that CAC is of the opinion that the coin is under graded, not borderline a borderline upgrade, not almost there, etc. Call it what you wish, but you were still unfair to dealer #1.

[cpm9ball]

The War of the Roses, Part II..................coming soon to your nearest forum.

 

Chris

[James_OldeTowne]

Not to jump into the fray, but have I not seen stated by a CAC principle that a gold sticker means it's a lock for upgrade?

 

I interpret this as having a different meaning from "undergraded". Many undergraded coins are definitely not a lock for upgrade (due to ridiculous "political" grading).

[gmarguli]

It means that CAC is of the opinion that the coin is under graded, not borderline a borderline upgrade, not almost there, etc. Call it what you wish, but you were still unfair to dealer #1.

 

I don't have my CAC to English dictionary with me right now. This is the same dictionary where PQ is defined as average for the grade. According to CAC, the gold sticker means "exceeds the standards". If that is their way of saying upgrade, then they should be more clear about it.

 

As for dealer #1, a few more examples:

 

25C 1873 W/A PCGS MS64: Technically, this coin is a MS65.

 

$1 1889 PCGS PR66 CAMEO WOW,WOW,WOW!: Why isn't it a PR67?

 

50C MONROE COMMEM PCGS MS-66: Yes indeed we are hyping it-we see absolutely NO reason as why this coin is not an MS67's.

 

G$1 1854 TYII PCGS MS-66: WOW! This is one of the nicest examples for this date we have EVER seen! In fact, we did compare it to the NGC MS68-and this coin sure was close. Why isn't it an MS67?

 

$5 1914-S PCGS MS-64: In fact, we think this coin should be graded an MS65

 

 

[EZ_E]

I don't know who dealer #1 is but anyone who apparently hypes every, single one of his coins as such makes me wholey distrusting of the descriptions as a whole.

 

We all know that dealer #2 is shady anyway so we won't go there.

 

NOT!

[Revenant]

I think it's funny that you'd rag on Mark for indicating that CAC wouldn't sticker the coins. Since CAC does nothing to a coin that DOESN'T meet standard, he could have just said nothing about it. There's no such thing as a red CAC sticker (though there should be).

[CHABSENTIA]

Not to jump into the fray, but have I not seen stated by a CAC principle that a gold sticker means it's a lock for upgrade?

 

I interpret this as having a different meaning from "undergraded". Many undergraded coins are definitely not a lock for upgrade (due to ridiculous "political" grading).

 

This is what I predicted earlier. It is all about the Money. CAC merely created another level for the gradings There are probably some TPGs that went overboard and adopted "extreme" grading so as not to be questioned by CAC and which resulted in undergrading.

 

Now there are some dealers and others who now feel that CAC is not the savior that was expected.. There are probaby some dealers who now have a lot of excess inventory that did not meet the criteria that they wanted and/or expected so now they have to either fudge the different stickers and/or give their own explanations.

 

What we now have are same possible questions that were already there for the previous top TPGS except we now have an extra layer to contend with for the same possibilites and perhaps too strict grading.

[gmarguli]

I think it's funny that you'd rag on Mark for indicating that CAC wouldn't sticker the coins. Since CAC does nothing to a coin that DOESN'T meet standard, he could have just said nothing about it. There's no such thing as a red CAC sticker (though there should be).

 

I'm not ragging on Mark. In fact, I never mentioned one of the dealers was Mark. I specifically didn't mention the name of either dealer in order not to cloud opinion about them. However, I'll admit some people would know who these two dealers are.

 

The point of this thread was that some dealers talked up the CAC like it is the savior of the industry that will beat down these awful TPG who have been spewing out garbage for far too long. BTW, buy from me as I know what is garbage and what is good for the grade. Hey, look at this coin graded MS65. It should be in an MS67 slab. It's super PQ GEM WOW WOW WOW. TPG was just too scared to grade this wonder coin as it should have been. And it's got the generic green CAC sticker.

 

Hey dealer, what's that smell... It's coming from you... I think you're full of it... (not necessarily directed at dealer #1 or dealer #2)

[CarlWohlforth]

"That is because the gold CAC sticker is supposed to represent a "lock upgrade" opinion."

 

If that is what it is supposed to mean gold stickers are a waste.

 

If the coin really was a lock upgrade it should be sent to the original service for the upgrade. The coin should be worth more in a higher grade holder than in a lower grade one with sticker.

[MarkFeld]

"That is because the gold CAC sticker is supposed to represent a "lock upgrade" opinion."

 

If that is what it is supposed to mean gold stickers are a waste.

 

If the coin really was a lock upgrade it should be sent to the original service for the upgrade. The coin should be worth more in a higher grade holder than in a lower grade one with sticker.

While obviously there is no guarantee, whatsoever, that the original grading company would up-grade such coins, I'll still disagree with you there, Carl. There will be CAC bids for gold-stickered coins at the next grade up, and they won't need to be re-submitted and up-graded in order to be eligible for the next grade higher bids.

 

This is what I predicted earlier. It is all about the Money

And I'll strongly disagree with that. If it were really "all about the money" as you say, CAC would evaluate modern coinage as well, which, as you know (or should know) is a huge potential source of revenue. I challenge you to reconcile that FACT with your "all about the money" accusation.

[gmarguli]

This is what I predicted earlier. It is all about the Money

And I'll strongly disagree with that. If it were really "all about the money" as you say, CAC would evaluate modern coinage as well, which, as you know (or should know) is a huge potential source of revenue. I challenge you to reconcile that FACT with your "all about the money" accusation.

 

Do you really believe that there would be a lot of submissions for modern coins?

 

Also, from a marketing perspective it can make sense for them to exclude a section of the market that is viewed by many - including their main customers (dealers) - as being beneath them.

[EZ_E]

"Hell is paved with good intentions"

 

CAC, in my opinion, is detrimental to the average, knowledgeable collector.

 

1) It is causing a price run-up on coins with the sticker.

 

2) It is causing the grading services to undergrade most of their submissions so that they will meet with CAC's approval.

 

Sure, there's a winning side but that means that there must be a loser, too, to having a winner.

[MarkFeld]

Do you really believe that there would be a lot of submissions for modern coins?

Greg, years ago, I wouldn't have believed that a fraction of the modern coins which are submitted for grading these days would have been. So yes, I believe that there would be a large number of modern submissions, especially for coins other than PCGS coins. That's because non-PCGS moderns would have the most to gain by CAC approval.

[BillJones]

"Hell is paved with good intentions"

 

CAC, in my opinion, is detrimental to the average, knowledgeable collector.

 

1) It is causing a price run-up on coins with the sticker.

 

2) It is causing the grading services to undergrade most of their submissions so that they will meet with CAC's approval.

 

Sure, there's a winning side but that means that there must be a loser, too, to having a winner.

 

If CAC is so great and so much better than NGC and PCGS, why don’t they put their money where their bragging originates and become a full fledged grading service?

 

The answer is that one is simple. The market for third party encapsulation for “classic coins” is a very mature one. A large proportion of the gradable coins have already been graded, any new service would have to depend upon crossovers and crack-outs. I think that the CAC management knows that why their services center on kibitzing.

 

[MBA101]

"Hell is paved with good intentions"

 

CAC, in my opinion, is detrimental to the average, knowledgeable collector.

 

1) It is causing a price run-up on coins with the sticker.

 

2) It is causing the grading services to undergrade most of their submissions so that they will meet with CAC's approval.

 

Sure, there's a winning side but that means that there must be a loser, too, to having a winner.

 

If you hear that such and such dealer is paying x amount over the usual price (say greysheet) for a specific coin that you own and you are considering selling, I am certain that you will try and get a CAC sticker for that coin so that you can gain the extra $$ of value, especially if the coin is a nice example for the grade. Otherwise someone else will. You only lose if you don't try.

[MikeInFL]

Greg, Interesting post! At least for dealer #2, I believe you're confusing CAC's "good for the grade" with "pleasing, "appealing" and other adjectives. Can't a coin be appealing and low-end for the grade?...Mike

 

p.s. I agree with you on the hype thing, particularly where dealer #1 is concerned, but did anyone really expect it would put an end to that, and doesn't the presence of a sticker add another (and presumably more objective) opinion on the topic?

[DirtyGoldMan]

"Hell is paved with good intentions"

 

CAC, in my opinion, is detrimental to the average, knowledgeable collector.

 

1) It is causing a price run-up on coins with the sticker.

 

2) It is causing the grading services to undergrade most of their submissions so that they will meet with CAC's approval.

 

Sure, there's a winning side but that means that there must be a loser, too, to having a winner.

 

Perhaps I am not as coin worldly as you, but I have not seen:

 

1) The price run-up or

 

2) Any evidence that the grading services are shifting their grading line to accomodate the CAC.

 

Please provide some real-life examples to better educate me on the issue.

 

Thanks!

[MarkFeld]

"Hell is paved with good intentions"

 

CAC, in my opinion, is detrimental to the average, knowledgeable collector.

 

1) It is causing a price run-up on coins with the sticker.

 

2) It is causing the grading services to undergrade most of their submissions so that they will meet with CAC's approval.

 

Sure, there's a winning side but that means that there must be a loser, too, to having a winner.

 

If CAC is so great and so much better than NGC and PCGS, why don’t they put their money where their bragging originates and become a full fledged grading service?

 

The answer is that one is simple. The market for third party encapsulation for “classic coins” is a very mature one. A large proportion of the gradable coins have already been graded, any new service would have to depend upon crossovers and crack-outs. I think that the CAC management knows that why their services center on kibitzing.

Bill, CAC doesn't claim to be "so great and so much better than NGC and PCGS", so please don't use a straw man argument to make your point. If they care to, which for various reasons they don't, NGC and PCGS are quite capable of reviewing coins and providing opinions/making determinations as CAC is doing. It's about getting a second expert opinion. Make use of it or not, as you please.

 

"Hell is paved with good intentions"

 

CAC, in my opinion, is detrimental to the average, knowledgeable collector.

 

1) It is causing a price run-up on coins with the sticker.

 

2) It is causing the grading services to under-grade most of their submissions so that they will meet with CAC's approval.

 

Sure, there's a winning side but that means that there must be a loser, too, to having a winner.

Victor, there are plenty of very nice CAC coins available which you need not pay a premium for. You just need to know where to look for them. And if you feel that the grading companies are grading more conservatively because of CAC's presence, use that to your advantage in buying better quality coins for the assigned grade.

[gmarguli]

Greg, Interesting post! At least for dealer #2, I believe you're confusing CAC's "good for the grade" with "pleasing, "appealing" and other adjectives. Can't a coin be appealing and low-end for the grade?...Mike

 

Maybe.

 

For me eye appeal and the "pleasing qualities" of a coin are factored into the grade and (heavily) into my decision to buy. I guess if you looked mainly at the technical aspects (marks, strike, planchet quality, etc) of the coin, you could easily find coins that are low end or even overgraded based on those factors alone, but the eye appeal carried them to the next grade. A good example of what I mean would be rainbow toned Morgans that frequently appear to get a grade bump. You see a lot of these in MS64 slabs where the lady appears to have been beaten on the face.

[Oldtrader3]

Actually, to paraphrase Victor, I have noticed that the CAC gold sticker is invariably an indication of a substantial price boost on a coin over other nice coins for grade..

[MarkFeld]

Actually, to paraphrase Victor, I have noticed that the CAC gold sticker is invariably an indication of a substantial price boost on a coin over other nice coins for grade..

If possible, please show us an example or two of gold sticker CAC coins and their prices? I haven't seen any yet and am curious. Thanks.

[lehigh96]

If a coin gets a gold sticker then the CAC is saying that the coin exceeds their standards for the assigned grade and in their opinion is undergraded. However, I don't think that means that it is a lock for upgrade since their standards are not exactly the same as PCGS and NGC and they don't run either company.

 

I would find it hard to explain how you can say that something exceeds standards for that grade but is still properly graded. That makes no sense at all.

[DirtyGoldMan]

Actually, to paraphrase Victor, I have noticed that the CAC gold sticker is invariably an indication of a substantial price boost on a coin over other nice coins for grade..

Please show us an example or two of gold sticker CAC coins and their prices? I haven't seen any yet and am curious. Thanks.

 

Me, too, I would like to see a handful of examples to back up the statement.