People say that CAC-approved coins cost more but...

[DirtyGoldMan]

is it because the coins are stickered or because they happen to be nicer coins?

 

Here is an example from a January, 2012, Goldberg Sale. There are two 1860-C $5's, from the same consignment, both graded PCGS XF-45, one with CAC approval and the other without. Presumably, both coins were photographed by the same photographer with similar technique. One coin sold for $3360 and the other for $2530. For those unfamiliar with this series, $2500-2750 is probably about the market value for an average example in XF-45 and $3500 is roughly the market value for an average AU-50/53.

 

$3360

 

$2530

 

To my eye, the $3360 example is possibly undergraded, but has rich natural color and a relative absence of detracting marks. It is the kind of coin I would like to have in my collection. The $2530 example has average to washed-out color, a deep, old scratch between stars 12 and 13, and is the kind of coin that I would expect to see floundering on the bourse.

 

So am I looking at this through green bean-colored glasses, or is one coin clearly superior to the other?

 

 

[BillJones]

The $3,360 piece is nicer. It is more sharply struck, has fewer marks and has more originality. I don't see it getting an up grade to AU-50, however, unless it's by "grade-flation." EF-45 is the proper grade.

 

The $2,530 piece has more marks and was possibly cleaned. It might deserve a down grade to EF-40, but given the nature of Charlotte mint products, the grade could be fair. One really has to see these coins in person.

 

Unless both coins were sold without CAC stickers or sold with both of them bearing one, it's impossible to say what affect CAC had on the price. The first coin is nicer and worth a little more. The CAC question is hard to answer.

[DirtyGoldMan]

The first coin is nicer and worth a little more.

 

If the photos are representative of the coins, and the coins were raw, I would expect that the $3360 coin would sell for significantly more than the $2530 coin.

[AnkurJ]

The one that sold for more looks to have more original surfaces.

 

Also as a side note, Goldberg's images make the coins look a little nicer.

[mkman123]

Does anyone think the coin of Ankurs that JA offered to buy back would sell for more than a non stickered one especially if it was disclosed that it doesn't deserve the bean?

[Coinbuf]

Not an area that I collect or follow but from the responses it would seem that the one which sold for a premium would have done so with or without the bean. Perhaps a better way to determine this is to compaire two coins that are more closely matched in terrms of eye-appeal than these yet still differentiated by the bean.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

This just confirms to myself what I think of my skills-I can not determine from pictures the "worthiness" of a coin.

 

I can not conclude any real difference, even when I use the little microscope thingy and move it over the coin.

 

I suck...

 

It also does not help when I do not know anything helpful to anybody about gold coins.

 

But (blah, blah), I will comment that when I opened the pictures, I did not read the descriptions, and concentrated on the pictures. Wonder of wonders, it turns out that I liked the one that turned out to be a CAC coin.

 

Maybe there is something intrinsic in the coins that have a CAC pedigree.

 

I know, pretty unscientific, and would not impress an MIT'er.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[Kurtdog]

So am I looking at this through green bean-colored glasses, or is one coin clearly superior to the other?

Intrinsically, the top coin has the better surface, while the bottom coin's surface is washed-out.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

So am I looking at this through green bean-colored glasses, or is one coin clearly superior to the other?

Intrinsically, the top coin has the better surface, while the bottom coin's surface is washed-out.

 

I already used the word "intrinsic" in my Post.

 

I even admitted I do not know anything about gold. So, did you have to use the word "intrinsically" in your Post, even after I admitted my thoughts would not impress an MIT'er?

 

Go ahead, rub it in. I can take it....

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[Kurtdog]

So am I looking at this through green bean-colored glasses, or is one coin clearly superior to the other?

Intrinsically, the top coin has the better surface, while the bottom coin's surface is washed-out.

 

I already used the word "intrinsic" in my Post.

 

I even admitted I do not know anything about gold. So, did you have to use the word "intrinsically" in your Post, even after I admitted my thoughts would not impress an MIT'er?

 

Go ahead, rub it in. I can take it....

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

. But do you want to know the truth? I didn't even read your post...

[Mozin]

I doubt CAC would sticker the cheaper coin. To me, the coins should differ in price by about what is the difference between XF 40 and XF 45. I would not want the cheaper coin in my collection.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

So am I looking at this through green bean-colored glasses, or is one coin clearly superior to the other?

Intrinsically, the top coin has the better surface, while the bottom coin's surface is washed-out.

 

I already used the word "intrinsic" in my Post.

 

I even admitted I do not know anything about gold. So, did you have to use the word "intrinsically" in your Post, even after I admitted my thoughts would not impress an MIT'er?

 

Go ahead, rub it in. I can take it....

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

. But do you want to know the truth? I didn't even read your post...

 

And obviously you have an overwhelming obligation to the citizens of this Board to share your answer, further dismissing any attempts by me to be accepted.

 

I seem to recall a fellow named Pharmer in the past, with a similar duty of dispensing the truth.

 

Please like me... I promise to never use the word 'intrinsic" or any of its forms ever again, on any Post involving your responses.

 

 

Respectfully, of course

John Curlis

[crypto79-migration]

Most people distrust my series and nice coins are even rarer than the already rare base collectible. When an "all there" comes up at auction people take notice and bid accordingly. The current environment deeply values such things as plastic and stickers as a large part of the holistic pricing philosophy. A perfect storm would be what a PQ under graded keydate in an NGC black holder with a gold sticker in what ever current it series at the time.

 

IMO your question while it makes sense twists the point a little by starting with 2 not similar coins. To truly get to the answer one would need to have the same coin with and without and I truly believe that 9 times out of ten in a blind comparison the CAC coin would bring more.

 

I have found I need to bid higher for CAC coins in open auctions.

[DirtyGoldMan]

IMO your question while it makes sense twists the point a little by starting with 2 not similar coins. To truly get to the answer one would need to have the same coin with and without and I truly believe that 9 times out of ten in a blind comparison the CAC coin would bring more.

 

It is impossible to design the perfect experiment. Yes, the coins are different, yes, the apparently nicer coin sold for more money, and yes, the nicer coin had a sticker.

 

Some variables were extraordinarily well-controlled: same date coin, same auction, same consignment (!), same slab, and same grade. It would have been a better experiment to test my theory if the coins were both purchased in slabs without stickers and then sent to the CAC for evaluation.

 

Again, anecdotally, I would say that I was paying higher prices for coins that eventually received stickers and grossly overpaying for coins that later had gold stickers, before there were stickers! The gold sticker for me, in most cases, was not like winning a lottery. It was simply a recognition that the coin was of higher grade than the holder indicated.

[mumu]

I think the coins are very intrinsic.

[Kurtdog]

So am I looking at this through green bean-colored glasses, or is one coin clearly superior to the other?

Intrinsically, the top coin has the better surface, while the bottom coin's surface is washed-out.

I already used the word "intrinsic" in my Post.

 

I even admitted I do not know anything about gold. So, did you have to use the word "intrinsically" in your Post, even after I admitted my thoughts would not impress an MIT'er?

 

Go ahead, rub it in. I can take it....

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

. But do you want to know the truth? I didn't even read your post...

And obviously you have an overwhelming obligation to the citizens of this Board to share your answer, further dismissing any attempts by me to be accepted.

 

I seem to recall a fellow named Pharmer in the past, with a similar duty of dispensing the truth.

 

Please like me... I promise to never use the word 'intrinsic" or any of its forms ever again, on any Post involving your responses.

 

Respectfully, of course

John Curlis

I'm sure I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. If this is a joke, John, why don't you let the rest of us in on it? If it's just your imagination gone wild, you're in luck, they've got drugs for that.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I think the coins are very intrinsic.

 

Smart A...

However, you did "get it".

MIT Grad?

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

So am I looking at this through green bean-colored glasses, or is one coin clearly superior to the other?

Intrinsically, the top coin has the better surface, while the bottom coin's surface is washed-out.

I already used the word "intrinsic" in my Post.

 

I even admitted I do not know anything about gold. So, did you have to use the word "intrinsically" in your Post, even after I admitted my thoughts would not impress an MIT'er?

 

Go ahead, rub it in. I can take it....

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

. But do you want to know the truth? I didn't even read your post...

And obviously you have an overwhelming obligation to the citizens of this Board to share your answer, further dismissing any attempts by me to be accepted.

 

I seem to recall a fellow named Pharmer in the past, with a similar duty of dispensing the truth.

 

Please like me... I promise to never use the word 'intrinsic" or any of its forms ever again, on any Post involving your responses.

 

Respectfully, of course

John Curlis

I'm sure I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. If this is a joke, John, why don't you let the rest of us in on it? If it's just your imagination gone wild, you're in luck, they've got drugs for that.

 

As usual, I missed the mark, and confused the reader. For this I apologize.

I am a frustrated humorist. No animosity was intended at all. Mea Culpa.

 

With Respect,

John Curlis

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

IMO your question while it makes sense twists the point a little by starting with 2 not similar coins. To truly get to the answer one would need to have the same coin with and without and I truly believe that 9 times out of ten in a blind comparison the CAC coin would bring more.

 

It is impossible to design the perfect experiment. Yes, the coins are different, yes, the apparently nicer coin sold for more money, and yes, the nicer coin had a sticker.

 

Some variables were extraordinarily well-controlled: same date coin, same auction, same consignment (!), same slab, and same grade. It would have been a better experiment to test my theory if the coins were both purchased in slabs without stickers and then sent to the CAC for evaluation.

 

Again, anecdotally, I would say that I was paying higher prices for coins that eventually received stickers and grossly overpaying for coins that later had gold stickers, before there were stickers! The gold sticker for me, in most cases, was not like winning a lottery. It was simply a recognition that the coin was of higher grade than the holder indicated.

 

Your last paragraph is an excellent position statement, and contains a lot of logical information. Certainly better than me, and brevity, no less.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[crypto79-migration]

IMO your question while it makes sense twists the point a little by starting with 2 not similar coins. To truly get to the answer one would need to have the same coin with and without and I truly believe that 9 times out of ten in a blind comparison the CAC coin would bring more.

 

It is impossible to design the perfect experiment. Yes, the coins are different, yes, the apparently nicer coin sold for more money, and yes, the nicer coin had a sticker.

 

Some variables were extraordinarily well-controlled: same date coin, same auction, same consignment (!), same slab, and same grade. It would have been a better experiment to test my theory if the coins were both purchased in slabs without stickers and then sent to the CAC for evaluation.

 

Again, anecdotally, I would say that I was paying higher prices for coins that eventually received stickers and grossly overpaying for coins that later had gold stickers, before there were stickers! The gold sticker for me, in most cases, was not like winning a lottery. It was simply a recognition that the coin was of higher grade than the holder indicated.

 

I agree but would add along the same lines of thinking that while nice coins bring nice money ( undeniable) the pool of people who used to be able to identity true quality was limited to experts, specialists and dealers. Now days products like cac take some of the guess work out of selecting which to pay strong for and you end up with more people chasing the same coin which will raise prices. There are people out there who have no idea what they are doing and after being burned many many times have gotten to the point where they only buy cac even if they still have no clue what is really going on.

 

Even if cac only increases liquidity that has a quantifiable value that will be reflected at the retail and auction point.

[FishyOne]

The first coin looks more original and has the eye appeal that I like.

 

The second coin does look washed out from cleaning (or something) and does not possess "the look" that most collectors would prefer.

 

The price difference paid was minimal considering the quality depicted in these images. That said, I would love to own first one but would not kick the second one to the curb by any means.

[Arizonadesertrat]

"So, did you have to use the word "intrinsically" in your Post, even after I admitted my thoughts would not impress an MIT'er?"

 

Not to worry, JC. MIT'ers aren't very intimidating. (I went to Caltech, and instinctively know this. My wife says this too--she's a Harvard alum.)

[mumu]

I think the coins are very intrinsic.

 

Smart A...

However, you did "get it".

MIT Grad?

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

No but I did watch Good Will Hunting and was convinced I could pull off a similar result at the Chubb Institute.

[brg5658]

Since when did every thread have to meet two criteria?

 

1) CAC must be mentioned

2) Responses are written like legal documents?

 

 

 

[Kurtdog]

As usual, I missed the mark, and confused the reader. For this I apologize. I am a frustrated humorist. No animosity was intended at all. Mea Culpa.

 

With Respect,

John Curlis

OK, that's what I initially thought, you got me confused with Einstein. Hey, it happens.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

"So, did you have to use the word "intrinsically" in your Post, even after I admitted my thoughts would not impress an MIT'er?"

 

Not to worry, JC. MIT'ers aren't very intimidating. (I went to Caltech, and instinctively know this. My wife says this too--she's a Harvard alum.)

 

Good One. You even deftly slipped the feminine perspective of MIT in there.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

As usual, I missed the mark, and confused the reader. For this I apologize. I am a frustrated humorist. No animosity was intended at all. Mea Culpa.

 

With Respect,

John Curlis

OK, that's what I initially thought, you got me confused with Einstein. Hey, it happens.

 

I assure you that confusion never entered my thoughts.

I do, however, appreciate the acceptance of my apology.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[DirtyGoldMan]

IMO your question while it makes sense twists the point a little by starting with 2 not similar coins. To truly get to the answer one would need to have the same coin with and without and I truly believe that 9 times out of ten in a blind comparison the CAC coin would bring more.

 

It is impossible to design the perfect experiment. Yes, the coins are different, yes, the apparently nicer coin sold for more money, and yes, the nicer coin had a sticker.

 

Some variables were extraordinarily well-controlled: same date coin, same auction, same consignment (!), same slab, and same grade. It would have been a better experiment to test my theory if the coins were both purchased in slabs without stickers and then sent to the CAC for evaluation.

 

Again, anecdotally, I would say that I was paying higher prices for coins that eventually received stickers and grossly overpaying for coins that later had gold stickers, before there were stickers! The gold sticker for me, in most cases, was not like winning a lottery. It was simply a recognition that the coin was of higher grade than the holder indicated.

 

I agree but would add along the same lines of thinking that while nice coins bring nice money ( undeniable) the pool of people who used to be able to identity true quality was limited to experts, specialists and dealers. Now days products like cac take some of the guess work out of selecting which to pay strong for and you end up with more people chasing the same coin which will raise prices. There are people out there who have no idea what they are doing and after being burned many many times have gotten to the point where they only buy cac even if they still have no clue what is really going on.

 

Even if cac only increases liquidity that has a quantifiable value that will be reflected at the retail and auction point.

That is an excellent point and one that I failed to consider. However, in many cases, in the past, the coin went to the knowledgeable buyer, who was the one who knew that he had to pay up to get the coin. But I agree that the increased liquidity has the effect of elevating prices.

[MarkFeld]

I haven't read all of the posts.

 

But one factor that I haven't seen mentioned yet, is that in many cases, the prices for CAC coins are higher, in large part because market participants know that CAC will pay X for certain coins.

 

And in cases in which X represents a premium, the bidders/buyers will offer or bid more for the coin, knowing in advance what they can get for it from CAC.

 

On the other hand, for coins which CAC does not make markets in, in many instances the coins do not trade at much of a premium, if any.

 

 

[DirtyGoldMan]

I haven't read all of the posts.

 

Consider yourself fortunate.