What worries me about having my Bust Halves sent to CAC

[WinstonWare]

In my experience, bust half collectors are a well-read, well-researched group. I don’t think they’ll care about CAC stickers…

[MarkFeld]

James, of course there is some level (for the value of the coins being submitted) at which a $10 or $20 fee is "excessive". But that wasn't what was being discussed when you jumped in. The discussion concerned a comparison between CAC fees and cross-over fees. And regardless of what you think of them, on a relative basis, the CAC fees are considerably less.

My apologies if I've diverted the discussion. Here's where I thought the discussion went into the direction of "excessive fees":

 

Looking for CAC endorsement involves a large outlay of money

Do you guys know what the fee is for CAC to review coins? I do, and unless you have an especially large number of coins reviewed, I wouldn't exactly call it a "large outlay"

I was speaking of when you introduced coins of $100 or less in value into the equation and mentioned postage, risk of loss, etc. in support of your apples to oranges position. Those arguments don't hold water when comparing CAC fees to higher crossover fees, elsewhere. Heck, you could have said that many coins sell for less than $10 each, and submitting them to CAC would be "beyond excessive". And you would be correct, but that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

[MBA101]

My dealer told me that he thinks that Albanese has stopped issuing CAC stickers to "B" graded coins, so coins must be "A"'s to sticker. I think initially stickers went to the "A"'s and "B"'s.

 

So now if a coin is solid for the grade, and would not downgrade or upgrade, then it will not sticker.

 

Therefore, unless you think your coin is borderline undergraded, it is not worth even sending. Also, I have not heard much about dealers paying enough extra for CAC bust halves for it to be worth the trouble unless the coins are at least 3K in value.

 

 

[MikeInFL]

My dealer told me that he thinks that Albanese has stopped issuing CAC stickers to "B" graded coins, so coins must be "A"'s to sticker. I think initially stickers went to the "A"'s and "B"'s.

 

So now if a coin is solid for the grade, and would not downgrade or upgrade, then it will not sticker.

 

Therefore, unless you think your coin is borderline undergraded, it is not worth even sending.

 

I'm not sure, based on my own direct personal experience, that the premise or the conclusion of the above is accurate.

 

Specifically, I don't think that "only A" coins are being stickered. Also, there are plenty of reasons other than a coin being borderline undergraded to send a coin to CAC.

 

That said, you (and your dealer) are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, my own experience is contrary to that.

 

Respectfully...Mike

[BillJones]

In the end I don't think it will make a difference.

 

I've seen some CAC stickered coins that did nothing for me. I've seen others that really nice, and plenty of non-stickered coins that were OK.

[BillJones]

In my experience, bust half collectors are a well-read, well-researched group. I don’t think they’ll care about CAC stickers…

 

AND if many of them are like EAC collectors, they don't care for slabs in the first place ... So in the end there is no place to put the CAC sticker.

[TomB]

Keeping simply to Mike's original question; I think that there is value to the CAC process, but that the amount of the value must be determined by each collector. Additionally, if a substantial percentage of the coins receive a CAC sticker, I believe there will be a fair number of possible buyers who will wonder about the coins that do not have a CAC sticker. If sold as a group the overall quality and relative scarcity of the collection will take the day, but if sold individually you may have some coins that might be a little less liquid than anticipated. Of course, if you get to that point you might first peel off the sticker on all the coins and then you will not have to worry about the possibility that coins without a sticker will look inferior. A positive note on that strategy is that CAC keeps a web-based list for cert verification similar to PCGS so that one might show that even though a particular coin does not currently have a sticker that it has already been awarded a sticker.

[MBA101]

BTW: I have been told that the number one purchaser of CAC stickered coins is John Albanese himself. I don't know if any of you has heard this, but my dealer, when he gets some of his stickered (being a wholesaler and all) ends up selling many of those stickered coins to Albanese, especially Bust Dollars.

[MarkFeld]

My dealer told me that he thinks that Albanese has stopped issuing CAC stickers to "B" graded coins, so coins must be "A"'s to sticker

Your dealer is incorrect.

[Conder101]

So now if a coin is solid for the grade, and would not downgrade or upgrade, then it will not sticker.

If that is true, and apparently Mark does not believe it is, then CAC has already changed their standards. That would not be good for a company that is supposed to be second guessing the TPG to make sure THEIR standards haven't slipped. If it is true do we need a 5PG to verify CAC?

[MikeInFL]

I would have expected that leap in logic from some around here, but from you, Conder, it is a bit disappointing.

[Conder101]

Why? CAC said shortly after they started up that a coin solid for the grade, because of all overgrading or maxing out of the coins in the slabs, was actually a premium coin and worthy of a green sticker. If it was true that they were now not giving the green sticker unless the coin is high end for the grade, then that would be a change in standards. Any time you have a firm that is supposed to be applying a standard, and they change that standard without making it publicly known, and when the change was made so that items they have judged before and after that time can be identified and not accepted as equals, that is a bad thing.

 

I'm not making any kind of judgement as to whether or not they have changed their standards, just that if they have, it is not a good thing. Because you would then have some green stickered coins where the sticker means they are solid for the grade an others where the sticker means they are high end for the grade and no way to tell one from the other. This opens the door for abuse with average coins being sold as high end with the "blessing" of a company with no real accountability. (To some extent this has been happening all along with dealers representing green stickers as meaning high end for the grade coins.)

 

If I've missed your point please explain.

[MikeInFL]

First, there is absolutely no evidence (other than a second-hand account of a conversation with an anonymous dealer) that any change has occurred.

 

Second, CAC is accountable because it is my understanding that they buy back coins.

 

Your post just struck me as odd, as it seems as if you went out of your way to infer that a standards change was/is the case, even if you did use the word "if" and acknowledge that the one person around here who actually does know what they are talking about (Mark) dismissed it.

 

Take care...Mike

[braddick]

Only the Services have the ability to upgrade a crossover or a coin sent back for a second opinion.

 

CAC is unable to do so.

Therein lies the difference between the "apple" and the "orange".

[MarkFeld]

Only the Services have the ability to upgrade a crossover or a coin sent back for a second opinion.

 

CAC is unable to do so.

Therein lies the difference between the "apple" and the "orange".

Pat, seriously, how often do you hear of coins up-grading when sent for crossover? That apples to oranges comparison applies to such a small % of cases that it's essentially irrelevant.

 

Edited to add: And the ability to up-grade a coin sent back for a second opinion in a re-grade/non-crossover situation doesn't have anything to do with an apples to apples (or oranges) comparison between a submission to CAC vs. a crossover at NGC or PCGS. That was the comparison I initially made, which was subsequently debated.

[Tradedollarnut]

Only the Services have the ability to upgrade a crossover or a coin sent back for a second opinion.

 

CAC is unable to do so.

Therein lies the difference between the "apple" and the "orange".

 

CAC can do [in effect] the exact same thing by placing a gold sticker instead of a green on the slab.

[MarkFeld]

Only the Services have the ability to upgrade a crossover or a coin sent back for a second opinion.

 

CAC is unable to do so.

Therein lies the difference between the "apple" and the "orange".

 

CAC can do [in effect] the exact same thing by placing a gold sticker instead of a green on the slab.

I had considered mentioning that, but decided not to. After all, both a CAC gold sticker and a crossover-upgrade at NGC or PCGS are so rare that it's a non issue when comparing apples to apples (or oranges).

[RI AL]

CAC green AND gold stickers? When did THAT happen?

 

RI AL

[MarkFeld]

CAC green AND gold stickers? When did THAT happen?

 

RI AL

It's not new. It's just that the gold stickers (which denote an under-graded coin, in the opinion of CAC) are extremely uncommon, so many people are unaware of them.

[coinman1794]

The difference is that a grading service has the ability to remove the coin and examine it properly on all three sides. CAC graders don't know if a hidden rim bump or edge imparement is the reason the coin isn't a higher grade, and they also have to deal with any scratches and scuffs on the slab that are blocking a proper view. A CAC opinion is necessarily less thorough, for those reason.

[MarkFeld]

The difference is that a grading service has the ability to remove the coin and examine it properly on all three sides. CAC graders don't know if a hidden rim bump or edge imparement is the reason the coin isn't a higher grade, and they also have to deal with any scratches and scuffs on the slab that are blocking a proper view. A CAC opinion is necessarily less thorough, for those reason.

That, I agree with. However, I was comparing the (lower) cost of CAC's service to that of the NGC and PCGS cross-over service, and a couple of folks said that was "apples to oranges". I don't think it was, and crossover services have the same limitations of having to examine coins in the holder, as well.

[coinman1794]

...except that, once the coin is removed from the other company's slab, it can still be no-graded or downgraded for damage that was previously unseen.

 

Also, CAC doesnt assign a grade, it merely confirms or rejects the assigned grade. This is similar to the grading services crossover examination except that, in the event CAC feels the coin is undergraded, it can't actually tell you what grade it should be, only that its PQ. Thus, the value of the CAC opinion is limited there, too.

 

That said, if some one would like to seek their aproval, I certainly have no problem with it. It might not be worth the cost in some instances, however.

[CHABSENTIA]

The difference is that a grading service has the ability to remove the coin and examine it properly on all three sides. CAC graders don't know if a hidden rim bump or edge imparement is the reason the coin isn't a higher grade, and they also have to deal with any scratches and scuffs on the slab that are blocking a proper view. A CAC opinion is necessarily less thorough, for those reason.

That, I agree with. However, I was comparing the (lower) cost of CAC's service to that of the NGC and PCGS cross-over service, and a couple of folks said that was "apples to oranges". I don't think it was, and crossover services have the same limitations of having to examine coins in the holder, as well.

 

It would seem to me that it would be more accurate and thus more important if the Grading service was removing the coin from the holder and/or grading it from all three sides then paying a little less money to "grade it as solid" while still in the holder.

[MarkFeld]

...except that, once the coin is removed from the other company's slab, it can still be no-graded or downgraded for damage that was previously unseen.

 

Also, CAC doesnt assign a grade, it merely confirms or rejects the assigned grade. This is similar to the grading services crossover examination except that, in the event CAC feels the coin is undergraded, it can't actually tell you what grade it should be, only that its PQ. Thus, the value of the CAC opinion is limited there, too.

 

That said, if some one would like to seek their aproval, I certainly have no problem with it. It might not be worth the cost in some instances, however.

When NGC and PCGS consider coins for crossover, they are in essence confirming or rejecting the assigned grade, just as you said CAC does. And if CAC feels a coin is under-graded they can assign a gold sticker, indicating such. Now if you want to tell me that NGC or PCGS can upgrade a crossover coin by two or more points and CAC can't do that, I'll concede.

[TomB]

...except that, once the coin is removed from the other company's slab, it can still be no-graded or downgraded for damage that was previously unseen.

That's not necessarily true. In the case of a "cross at any grade" example then the coin may be downgraded. However, a coin cannot be bagged once it is removed from the holder that it was submitted. In other words, when and if PCGS or NGC removes a coin from a competitor's holder, they are commited to encapsulating the coin in their own brand holder.

[coinman1794]

In rare instances, I think it is possible for a coin to be determined ungradable after it has been cracked from the other service's holder. I'm not sure how the grading service handles such matters (they might do a buy back), but I have read about such circumstances, either in a book or a grading guarrantee, though I don't see any mention of it in NGCs guarrantee right now.

[coinman1794]

...except that, once the coin is removed from the other company's slab, it can still be no-graded or downgraded for damage that was previously unseen.

 

Also, CAC doesnt assign a grade, it merely confirms or rejects the assigned grade. This is similar to the grading services crossover examination except that, in the event CAC feels the coin is undergraded, it can't actually tell you what grade it should be, only that its PQ. Thus, the value of the CAC opinion is limited there, too.

 

That said, if some one would like to seek their aproval, I certainly have no problem with it. It might not be worth the cost in some instances, however.

When NGC and PCGS consider coins for crossover, they are in essence confirming or rejecting the assigned grade, just as you said CAC does. And if CAC feels a coin is under-graded they can assign a gold sticker, indicating such. Now if you want to tell me that NGC or PCGS can upgrade a crossover coin by two or more points and CAC can't do that, I'll concede.

 

Thats what I'm saying so I guess we agree! There was a Morgan dollar at Heritage this week that looks like it has a Gold sticker. However, the description makes it clear that the coin is not undergraded, rather, it appears to Heritage to be a DPL but not listed as such on the NGC holder. This tells me that CAC might give a gold sticker for a missing designation, as well as an undergraded coin. In that instance, it would be nice to have a regrade or designation review to clarify the matter.

[braddick]

Only the Services have the ability to upgrade a crossover or a coin sent back for a second opinion.

 

CAC is unable to do so.

Therein lies the difference between the "apple" and the "orange".

Pat, seriously, how often do you hear of coins up-grading when sent for crossover? That apples to oranges comparison applies to such a small % of cases that it's essentially irrelevant.

 

Edited to add: And the ability to up-grade a coin sent back for a second opinion in a re-grade/non-crossover situation doesn't have anything to do with an apples to apples (or oranges) comparison between a submission to CAC vs. a crossover at NGC or PCGS. That was the comparison I initially made, which was subsequently debated.

 

Not often Mark, admittingly. It has happened to me only once. There is the occasional brag thread ATS where a coin (such as one in an older PCI or SEGS or even older NGC holder) is crossed at a higher grade.

I have never heard of that happening with CAC.

[MarkFeld]

Only the Services have the ability to upgrade a crossover or a coin sent back for a second opinion.

 

CAC is unable to do so.

Therein lies the difference between the "apple" and the "orange".

Pat, seriously, how often do you hear of coins up-grading when sent for crossover? That apples to oranges comparison applies to such a small % of cases that it's essentially irrelevant.

 

Edited to add: And the ability to up-grade a coin sent back for a second opinion in a re-grade/non-crossover situation doesn't have anything to do with an apples to apples (or oranges) comparison between a submission to CAC vs. a crossover at NGC or PCGS. That was the comparison I initially made, which was subsequently debated.

 

Not often Mark, admittingly. It has happened to me only once. There is the occasional brag thread ATS where a coin (such as one in an older PCI or SEGS or even older NGC holder) is crossed at a higher grade.

I have never heard of that happening with CAC.

Pat, it HAS happened at CAC, albeit very rarely - hence their gold stickers. Below is a CAC gold sticker coin I viewed in the recent Bowers sale. It sure looked under-graded to me, and two or more bidders agreed, based on the price realized.

 

Gold sticker CAC coin

 

By the way, I have a feeling that sometimes people talk about having "crossed" a coin at the same or a higher grade, when they actually submitted it for grading (not "crossover") after cracking it out.

[Mark T]

Mike, you have an outstanding Bust Half Collection . I will buy some of your Bust Halves !! I think the majority of your coins would get a CAC sticker. Yours are the type of Busts that would get a premium based on Eye Appeal anyway.It seems that every CAC coin I see for sale always gets at least a 20 % premium .