Recently, TDN accused me of "going out of my way" to slam CAC, so kindly indulge

[James_OldeTowne]

... me while I go out of my way to NON-slam CAC. I hope that will assuage TDN (and Mark Feld, for that matter) for at least a little while !

 

Scott Reiter, Auction Consignment Director for Bowers & Merena (he was previously with Heritage), stopped by my table at MNS. He had looked through my case earlier in the show and was interested in having me consign two coins to their next sale. He mentioned that one of them, which is presently in an ANACS holder, should be crossed to PCGS or NGC and should then be "CACed" (his word). (The other coin was not certified.)

 

I asked him if the CAC stickers were really that important, and what a CAC approval is worth, and his reply was that the sticker is worth "an eight to twenty-five percent premium in an auction" (direct quote).

 

So there you have it, a NON-slam, derived from a source who should know a thing or two about CAC's impact on the marketability of a coin. (As a footnote, I chose not to consign the two coins at this time, but my decision had nothing at all to do with CAC or auction venue considerations.)

[BillJones]

It seems odd that he would advise you to send an ANACS graded coin to PCGS or NGC and then tell you to send to CAC. What happens if PCGS or NGC over grade or just meet the proper grade? In that case CAC would probably reject it. It seems like he has the cart before the horse to use a cliché.

[physics-fan3.14]

I'm hating the CAC more and more for the sole reason that it stirs up a lot of anger and bitterness and nasty arguments every time someone mentions the bloody thing.

[gmarguli]

I asked him if the CAC stickers were really that important, and what a CAC approval is worth, and his reply was that the sticker is worth "an eight to twenty-five percent premium in an auction" (direct quote).

 

8%-25% premium for the sticker. I'm surprised he'd say that because he never struck me as clueless.

 

 

[WoodenJefferson]

And were off to the races.

[Tradedollarnut]

thank you for passing on an independent assessment.

[leeg]

I think CAC is a good thing but still believe that there are nice coins out there that sell on their own merits. Thanks for sharing James.

[coinman1794]

CAC is a second opinion. It's no better, and no worse, than PCGS or NGC. It is also just as inconsistent; thats the nature of grading. And so, a second opnion never hurts, as long as a nice coin isn't penalized just because CAC didn't sticker it.

[123cents]

I guess the CAC has a purpose and a lot of people like it but to me it is like this...

 

Cross a ANACS over to NGC at the same grade..It brings more money.

 

Take the NGC coin and cross it over to PCGS at the same grade..It brings more money.

 

Take the PCGS coin and send it to CAC and get a sticker..It brings more money.

 

 

To me it all about perception and money.

[gmarguli]

And so, a second opnion never hurts, as long as a nice coin isn't penalized just because CAC didn't sticker it.

 

But they are penalized. For example, Heritage appears to run their auction coins thru CAC. A coin they are auctioning without the sticker I assume failed to get it and is a low end coin. I adjust my bid accordingly. This is a reason Heritage will not get my US consignments. I won't let a stupid management decision by Heritage potentially affect the value of my coins.

[jesbroken]

Just as PCGS and NGC are not viable avenues for slabbing coins below the $100 value(due to the cost factor--$16 to $18 fee plus S/H/I both ways). Neither is CAC an avenue that should be taken for low value coins. I personally feel(and have many reservations as to why) that high end NGC coins bring a smaller price than the same graded PCGS coins and both suffer when sold beside the same grade CAC coins or PS(Eagle Eye Photo Seal) for Indian Head Cents at an even greater price. I no longer have any negative thing to say about CAC as it is merely an avenue for sellers to increase the value of their coins and what is wrong with that. I agree with Greg in regards to management's decision to utilize this service in their auction thereby negatively impacting coins that are not so certified, whether planning this end result or not. This is merely my opinion and feel that by watching Heritage, Teletrade and Ebay auctions for the last several years it is well founded, but again it is only my opinion. Stop and think if you are a seller and can increase your inventory's value by simply paying a small fee to another certification company it should be a no brainer. Now if you are a collector only it is not so cool as your price for upper end coins has risen considerably due to these agencies.

Jim

[lehigh96]

And so, a second opnion never hurts, as long as a nice coin isn't penalized just because CAC didn't sticker it.

 

But they are penalized. For example, Heritage appears to run their auction coins thru CAC. A coin they are auctioning without the sticker I assume failed to get it and is a low end coin. I adjust my bid accordingly. This is a reason Heritage will not get my US consignments. I won't let a stupid management decision by Heritage potentially affect the value of my coins.

 

Greg,

 

I would seem impossible to have every coin that Heritage auctions reviewed by the CAC. Is there a price level at which they submit to the CAC? If we don't know the answer to that question, how can we know which coins were submitted to the CAC and which were not?

 

Paul

[MarkFeld]

And so, a second opnion never hurts, as long as a nice coin isn't penalized just because CAC didn't sticker it.

 

But they are penalized. For example, Heritage appears to run their auction coins thru CAC. A coin they are auctioning without the sticker I assume failed to get it and is a low end coin. I adjust my bid accordingly. This is a reason Heritage will not get my US consignments. I won't let a stupid management decision by Heritage potentially affect the value of my coins.

 

Greg,

 

I would seem impossible to have every coin that Heritage auctions reviewed by the CAC. Is there a price level at which they submit to the CAC? If we don't know the answer to that question, how can we know which coins were submitted to the CAC and which were not?

 

Paul

Paul, you are of course, correct. CAC doesn't review all of the coins, and probably not anywhere close to all of them. I think Greg's point is that for purposes of bidding, he assumes that they have already been submitted and that such bidder behavior affects the prices realized. I have bought non-CAC coins of of Heritage sales and later submitted them. It turned out that some of them hadn't been submitted previously (and were awarded stickers) and others already had been submitted (and didn't receive stickers).

[TomB]

And so, a second opnion never hurts, as long as a nice coin isn't penalized just because CAC didn't sticker it.

 

But they are penalized. For example, Heritage appears to run their auction coins thru CAC. A coin they are auctioning without the sticker I assume failed to get it and is a low end coin. I adjust my bid accordingly. This is a reason Heritage will not get my US consignments. I won't let a stupid management decision by Heritage potentially affect the value of my coins.

I believe that Greg bings up a fair point in that even if only a small percentage of the inventory at Heritage goes through CAC that many of us might think non-stickered coins have been rejected.

[physics-fan3.14]

It turned out that some of them hadn't been submitted previously (and were awarded stickers) and others already had been submitted (and didn't receive stickers).

 

Gee. Wouldn't it be nice if CAC kept track of which ones didn't get stickers and made that information available? Then you would know which ones were deserving of a lower bid, and which ones not to waste your money resubmitting. Huh, what a crazy idea.

[Tradedollarnut]

I believe that Greg bings up a fair point in that even if only a small percentage of the inventory at Heritage goes through CAC that many of us might think non-stickered coins have been rejected.

 

That is indeed a good point but of course since those having no need of stickers know how to grade and catch everything that possibly could be done to a coin, then they also can tell which coins have been rejected or not submitted yet as well. Right?

 

[MarkFeld]

It turned out that some of them hadn't been submitted previously (and were awarded stickers) and others already had been submitted (and didn't receive stickers).

 

Gee. Wouldn't it be nice if CAC kept track of which ones didn't get stickers and made that information available? Then you would know which ones were deserving of a lower bid, and which ones not to waste your money resubmitting. Huh, what a crazy idea.

CAC does keep track of the information, they don't disclose. Initially, I was strongly in favor of such disclosure, but understand and respect the other side of the argument. Many/most owners of rejected coins wouldn't want the information made public and probably should have that right.

[TomB]

I believe that Greg bings up a fair point in that even if only a small percentage of the inventory at Heritage goes through CAC that many of us might think non-stickered coins have been rejected.

 

That is indeed a good point but of course since those having no need of stickers know how to grade and catch everything that possibly could be done to a coin, then they also can tell which coins have been rejected or not submitted yet as well. Right?

That was good, TDN! (thumbs u

[MarkFeld]

I believe that Greg bings up a fair point in that even if only a small percentage of the inventory at Heritage goes through CAC that many of us might think non-stickered coins have been rejected.

 

That is indeed a good point but of course since those having no need of stickers know how to grade and catch everything that possibly could be done to a coin, then they also can tell which coins have been rejected or not submitted yet as well. Right?

That was good, TDN! (thumbs u

I liked that one too. And it was an excellent, on-point retort to those who say CAC certification doesn't add value to coins, but at the same time, say that a lack of a sticker negatively affects the value of a coin. And I'm not by any means, picking (just) on Greg here.

[James_OldeTowne]

I must agree that Greg has a point as well. This seems to be an instance where a red frowny-face sticker (indicating non-approval) would be helpful. Alternatively, if the CAC website indicated rejects, that would cover the issue as well.

[gmarguli]

I believe that Greg bings up a fair point in that even if only a small percentage of the inventory at Heritage goes through CAC that many of us might think non-stickered coins have been rejected.

 

That is indeed a good point but of course since those having no need of stickers know how to grade and catch everything that possibly could be done to a coin, then they also can tell which coins have been rejected or not submitted yet as well. Right?

That was good, TDN! (thumbs u

I liked that one too. And it was an excellent, on-point retort to those who say CAC certification doesn't add value to coins, but at the same time, say that a lack of a sticker negatively affects the value of a coin. And I'm not by any means, picking (just) on Greg here.

 

Sorry, but wrong. If none of the coins have stickers, it is a reasonable thing to assume that quality over the entire lot is evenly distributed for a typical auction. Nicer coins have a higher probability of getting purchased for higher prices by floor bidders and lower quality purchased by sight-unseen bidders.

 

Now take that same auction and give stickers to 80% of the coins. It is now reasonable to assume that the 20% are low end coins. The 80% coins likely bring the same money they would have before the sticker (no-CAC bump). These 20% non-stickered coins get viewed as dogs by the mail bidders resulting in lower prices.

 

Too bad for the consignors who had the non-stickered coins for a reason other than rejection by CAC.

[MarkFeld]

I believe that Greg bings up a fair point in that even if only a small percentage of the inventory at Heritage goes through CAC that many of us might think non-stickered coins have been rejected.

 

That is indeed a good point but of course since those having no need of stickers know how to grade and catch everything that possibly could be done to a coin, then they also can tell which coins have been rejected or not submitted yet as well. Right?

That was good, TDN! (thumbs u

I liked that one too. And it was an excellent, on-point retort to those who say CAC certification doesn't add value to coins, but at the same time, say that a lack of a sticker negatively affects the value of a coin. And I'm not by any means, picking (just) on Greg here.

 

Sorry, but wrong. If none of the coins have stickers, it is a reasonable thing to assume that quality over the entire lot is evenly distributed for a typical auction. Nicer coins have a higher probability of getting purchased for higher prices by floor bidders and lower quality purchased by sight-unseen bidders.

 

Now take that same auction and give stickers to 80% of the coins. It is now reasonable to assume that the 20% are low end coins. The 80% coins likely bring the same money they would have before the sticker (no-CAC bump). These 20% non-stickered coins get viewed as dogs by the mail bidders resulting in lower prices.

 

Too bad for the consignors who had the non-stickered coins for a reason other than rejection by CAC.

Greg, that sounds as if you and others are giving CAC "credit" which many people claim not to be giving to CAC. I'm (still) confused.

[gmarguli]

I believe that Greg bings up a fair point in that even if only a small percentage of the inventory at Heritage goes through CAC that many of us might think non-stickered coins have been rejected.

 

That is indeed a good point but of course since those having no need of stickers know how to grade and catch everything that possibly could be done to a coin, then they also can tell which coins have been rejected or not submitted yet as well. Right?

That was good, TDN! (thumbs u

I liked that one too. And it was an excellent, on-point retort to those who say CAC certification doesn't add value to coins, but at the same time, say that a lack of a sticker negatively affects the value of a coin. And I'm not by any means, picking (just) on Greg here.

 

Sorry, but wrong. If none of the coins have stickers, it is a reasonable thing to assume that quality over the entire lot is evenly distributed for a typical auction. Nicer coins have a higher probability of getting purchased for higher prices by floor bidders and lower quality purchased by sight-unseen bidders.

 

Now take that same auction and give stickers to 80% of the coins. It is now reasonable to assume that the 20% are low end coins. The 80% coins likely bring the same money they would have before the sticker (no-CAC bump). These 20% non-stickered coins get viewed as dogs by the mail bidders resulting in lower prices.

 

Too bad for the consignors who had the non-stickered coins for a reason other than rejection by CAC.

Greg, that sounds as if you and others are giving CAC "credit" which many people claim not to be giving to CAC. I'm (still) confused.

 

Many people easily get confused as they get older. It's natural.

 

I give CAC credit for picking out the nicer coins of the same grade and slapping a sticker on them. I don't give them credit as being able to move the market price for these coins any real amount.

[DC Dawg]

It turned out that some of them hadn't been submitted previously (and were awarded stickers) and others already had been submitted (and didn't receive stickers).

 

Gee. Wouldn't it be nice if CAC kept track of which ones didn't get stickers and made that information available? Then you would know which ones were deserving of a lower bid, and which ones not to waste your money resubmitting. Huh, what a crazy idea.

CAC does keep track of the information, they don't disclose. Initially, I was strongly in favor of such disclosure, but understand and respect the other side of the argument. Many/most owners of rejected coins wouldn't want the information made public and probably should have that right.

I still want to see the statistics--even in the aggregate that does not show which coins were rejected. I want to see the effectiveness of this service before I will believe it is nothing more than a money making venture that is not good for the industry.

 

OTOH: I recently tried to negotiate for a coin that happened to be in a holder with a sticker. The dealer jacked up the price by 20-percent over greysheet and 15-percent over the highest paid at a Heritage Auction. I didn't give a damn about the plastic or the sticker, the coin was nice. I was even considering cracking it out of its tomb since the vast majority of my coins are raw and it was only a semi-key coin. I didn't buy the coin because I didn't want to pay the MS-64 price for a coin in an MS-63 holder. I'm funny that way... I want what I buy to reflect the value of the item and not because someone stuck a sticker on a piece of plastic.

 

Now let me get my asbestos suit on... I feel the coming from TDN and Mark Feld!

 

Scott

[Tradedollarnut]

I don't blame you for not wanting to pay MS64 price for an MS63. But....what coin has only a spread of 20% over greysheet for MS63 to reach MS64 value?

 

[Tradedollarnut]

ps - I'd pay a 20% premium over greysheet all day long for a PQ coin ... sticker or no sticker.

[MarkFeld]

....I give CAC credit for picking out the nicer coins of the same grade and slapping a sticker on them. I don't give them credit as being able to move the market price for these coins any real amount.

Greg, if you feel that way, then why do you bid less for non-CAC Heritage auction coins (while assuming they have been rejected), and feel that others do too, and put part of the blame on CAC? If, in your words CAC doesn't "move the market price for these coins any real amount", then your, bidding strategy and comments about sellers of non CAC certified coins being negatively affected by CAC don't make sense.

[Tradedollarnut]

....I give CAC credit for picking out the nicer coins of the same grade and slapping a sticker on them. I don't give them credit as being able to move the market price for these coins any real amount.

Greg, if you feel that way, then why do you bid less for non-CAC Heritage auction coins (while assuming they have been rejected), and feel that others do too, and put part of the blame on CAC? If, in your words CAC doesn't "move the market price for these coins any real amount", then your, bidding strategy and comments about sellers of non CAC certified coins being negatively affected by CAC don't make sense.

 

Oopsy.

[gmarguli]

....I give CAC credit for picking out the nicer coins of the same grade and slapping a sticker on them. I don't give them credit as being able to move the market price for these coins any real amount.

Greg, if you feel that way, then why do you bid less for non-CAC Heritage auction coins (while assuming they have been rejected), and feel that others do too, and put part of the blame on CAC? If, in your words CAC doesn't "move the market price for these coins any real amount", then your, bidding strategy and comments about sellers of non CAC certified coins being negatively affected by CAC don't make sense.

 

I could restate it again, but better to copy/paste my previous post: If none of the coins have stickers, it is a reasonable thing to assume that quality over the entire lot is evenly distributed for a typical auction. Nicer coins have a higher probability of getting purchased for higher prices by floor bidders and lower quality purchased by sight-unseen bidders.

 

Now take that same auction and give stickers to 80% of the coins. It is now reasonable to assume that the 20% are low end coins. The 80% coins likely bring the same money they would have before the sticker (no-CAC bump). These 20% non-stickered coins get viewed as dogs by the mail bidders resulting in lower prices.

 

Mark, see where I stated the nicer coins (what you may want to call the CAC stickered coins) sell for the same amount. It is only the non-stickered coin that may be moved due to perception. Guilt by association.

[MarkFeld]

....I give CAC credit for picking out the nicer coins of the same grade and slapping a sticker on them. I don't give them credit as being able to move the market price for these coins any real amount.

Greg, if you feel that way, then why do you bid less for non-CAC Heritage auction coins (while assuming they have been rejected), and feel that others do too, and put part of the blame on CAC? If, in your words CAC doesn't "move the market price for these coins any real amount", then your, bidding strategy and comments about sellers of non CAC certified coins being negatively affected by CAC don't make sense.

 

I could restate it again, but better to copy/paste my previous post: If none of the coins have stickers, it is a reasonable thing to assume that quality over the entire lot is evenly distributed for a typical auction. Nicer coins have a higher probability of getting purchased for higher prices by floor bidders and lower quality purchased by sight-unseen bidders.

 

Now take that same auction and give stickers to 80% of the coins. It is now reasonable to assume that the 20% are low end coins. The 80% coins likely bring the same money they would have before the sticker (no-CAC bump). These 20% non-stickered coins get viewed as dogs by the mail bidders resulting in lower prices.

 

Mark, see where I stated the nicer coins (what you may want to call the CAC stickered coins) sell for the same amount. It is only the non-stickered coin that may be moved due to perception. Guilt by association.

Greg, thanks for the reply. But thus far, I haven't seen an auction where anywhere near 80% of the coins had CAC stickers on them. Have you? Also, if you believe that lower quality coins are more likely to be purchased by sight-unseen bidders, then they probably tend to realize lower prices than better quality coins, regardless of whether CAC has stickered other coins in the same sale or not.