CAC green beaned at 63, goes to 64 CAC beans green again

[dimefreak]

GS = Greysheet

[jom]

GS = Greysheet

 

What a dolt! I obviously should have known that one...I thought it was one of the newer dealer internet sites or something. Geez....

 

jom

[FishyOne]

I've thought about CAC and made my own judgements.. Point out all the inconsistencies you want but CAC is highly consistent and that's a fact. They make a market for nice coins, which is good if you have them.

 

I agree. Perfect, of course not. Highly consistent? Obviously they are highly consistent at applying a sticker to quality coins and not applying a sticker to lesser coins. From a market perspective they do that very well and the market has confirmed that countless times over the last 6 years.

[MarkFeld]

My experience has been that there are two primary groups which do most of the complaining about CAC (as well as NGC and/or PCGS, though perhaps to a lesser extent, since they have been in existence much longer):

 

1) Those who say that they don't need help grading coins and/or determining what nice coins look like.

and

2) Those who, for watever reason(s) had unrealistic expectations in the first place.

 

Those in the first group who are most vocal, often need far more help than they realize.

Those in the second group sometimes set up straw-man arguments, saying things like "CAC isn't perfect like claimed". And it turns out the claim was never made in the first place.

[mommam17]

When CAC first started there were a lot more people against them that became supporters over the years. They saw the good CAC was doing, for example, finding puttied and PVC contaminated coins. Also, I wonder how many collectors found out their coins were not nice enough for stickers and went against them.

[physics-fan3.14]

My experience has been that there are two primary groups which do most of the complaining about CAC (as well as NGC and/or PCGS, though perhaps to a lesser extent, since they have been in existence much longer):

 

1) Those who say that they don't need help grading coins and/or determining what nice coins look like.

and

2) Those who, for watever reason(s) had unrealistic expectations in the first place.

 

Those in the first group who are most vocal, often need far more help than they realize.

Those in the second group sometimes set up straw-man arguments, saying things like "CAC isn't perfect like claimed". And it turns out the claim was never made in the first place.

 

That is fair, Mark.

 

I would argue that there is a third group:

 

3) Those who resent the automatic and often large premium usually attached to CAC coins, whether it is warranted or not, simply due to the presence of the sticker.

 

I believe that I am a member of the 1st and 3rd groups (and will freely admit that I don't know everything, am not as good as the experts at grading - but I am better than a lot and can usually judge a good coin for myself).

[MarkFeld]

My experience has been that there are two primary groups which do most of the complaining about CAC (as well as NGC and/or PCGS, though perhaps to a lesser extent, since they have been in existence much longer):

 

1) Those who say that they don't need help grading coins and/or determining what nice coins look like.

and

2) Those who, for watever reason(s) had unrealistic expectations in the first place.

 

Those in the first group who are most vocal, often need far more help than they realize.

Those in the second group sometimes set up straw-man arguments, saying things like "CAC isn't perfect like claimed". And it turns out the claim was never made in the first place.

 

That is fair, Mark.

 

I would argue that there is a third group:

 

3) Those who resent the automatic and often large premium usually attached to CAC coins, whether it is warranted or not, simply due to the presence of the sticker.

 

I believe that I am a member of the 1st and 3rd groups (and will freely admit that I don't know everything, am not as good as the experts at grading - but I am better than a lot and can usually judge a good coin for myself).

 

Jason, that's a very valid third group to add. And I can sympathize with its members.

[stman]

Those in the second group sometimes set up straw-man arguments, saying things like "CAC isn't perfect like claimed". And it turns out the claim was never made in the first place.

 

Mr. Feld - The claim was never made by CAC themselves, but I used to see the claim made by many, and more of this at at the beginning. Now that some time has gone by not so much. I never really had a problem with CAC.I mainly had a problem and still do with the ones that think they could do nothing wrong.

[MarkFeld]

Those in the second group sometimes set up straw-man arguments, saying things like "CAC isn't perfect like claimed". And it turns out the claim was never made in the first place.

 

Mr. Feld - The claim was never made by CAC themselves, but I used to see the claim made by many, and more of this at at the beginning. Now that some time has gone by not so much. I never really had a problem with CAC.I mainly had a problem and still do with the ones that think they could do nothing wrong.

 

Fair point, sir.

[mommam17]

When John makes a rare mistake he will take care of it. There is nothing he can do or we should expect of him.

[Nutmeg Coin]

I hear a lot of banter at the various shops and shows about the grading services and CAC, it is best not to repeat the criticism, most of it is self-serving, and it is hard not to consider most actions in the numismatic marketplace as ultimately self-serving, whether building a brand, a company, an auction company, a brick and mortar store or an online business. It is good that high value numismatic coins and currency that have been doctored become like the wandering vagabond in search of a place of rest without much respectable rest. But the extremely fussy, never satisfied without at the same time providing the full clarifications and rationale behind their rejecting good or decent coins, is a stigmatization that puts those doing it outside the mainstream. Objectivity is one thing, stigmatization and rejection are quite unnecessary when the problems or issues in any given coin or piece of currency fall within the acceptable bounds of aesthetic values.

[breakdown-migration]

While this thread is an interesting read, a few things jump out as misperceptions. Here are a few things to consider:

 

1. Gold stickers are not doled out plentifully. As I understand it, they are only used for can't miss/absolute upgrades in CAC's mind. If this is understood, the entire premise for this thread goes away.

 

2. Stickering is done, as I understand it, based on CAC's comfort in making a market for a coin at the level stickered. CAC may look at the coin and say, this may be technically a 64 but I'm not willing to pay full 64 money while it is in a 63 holder. This may be subtle but I think it makes sense.

 

3. Bill Jones has my admiration -- I love his political history threads, but if there is a bias towards PCGS/CAC over all else, including NGC/CAC, it is not because of CAC. I don't think CAC treats PCGS coins any differently than NGC and John Albanese has stated in interviews that CAC stickers coins from both services in about the same ratio. If you want to know where the bias for PCGS/CAC comes from, I would cast an eye towards the PCGS registry. [Mea culpa: most of my coins are PCGS and yes, I'm on the registry]

 

4. As for Physic's Fan's point about stickered coins bringing an unwarranted premium, again, do not blame CAC for this. CAC consistently states in its ads that the premium that CAC coins bring are due to the quality of the coin and not the sticker. Although there are definitely some blind followers of the sticker, truly nice coins will bring strong prices, with or without a sticker.

 

5. As Mark Feld said, CAC has never claimed to be perfect.

 

Just my thoughts. Honest debate is healthy.

[Tradedollarnut]

Good post!

[Hard Times]

A couple of things here:

 

To Mark: What is GS? I can't figure you the acronym on that one.

 

On CAC: CAC can do whatever it wants in terms of buying but I use them as another opinion. If you spend a lot on coins that's a pretty good idea. Especially when JA is nice enough to actually TELL you in person (or in my case over the phone) why they passed on a coin. Very nice and helpful, IMO. Do I disagree with him at times? Sure (like my 20P SLQ which I still think is an A or B MS65) but so what?

 

I'm not sure that CAC is making themselves out more than they are or is it the market that might be over-reacting to the stickers. I think it's mostly the latter....

 

To Nutmeg and Hard Times: Come on guys! Get different avatars please!

 

jom

 

But jom, having the same avatar is leading to some fun confusion!

 

You know, I think you are completely correct, maybe it is the market that is over-reacting to the stickers. No doubt this is a brilliant marketing tool for JA et al. to market the coins he wants to sell, and that is okay, I just wish it were more clear and they get rid of the A and B vs. C stuff, 'cause if you take that at face value and buy into it, then you get frustrated as I have. I would love it if CAC's website just said - 'we sticker the coins we like' and leave it at that. Any good numismatist is going to differ in their opinions from what constitutes a PQ coin and with CAC's definition many times. But too often we hear from the CAC disciples that CAC can do no wrong - Ankur, momman you listening? They are staunchly defensive of the brand, and it has become religion. Kind of like many folks ATS drinking the kool-aid.

 

Best, HT

[mommam17]

I never, ever said CAC could do no wrong. C'mon man. Also, the A, B, C thing has been going on for many years among dealers.

[Hard Times]

I've thought about CAC and made my own judgements.. Point out all the inconsistencies you want but CAC is highly consistent and that's a fact. They make a market for nice coins, which is good if you have them.

 

I agree. Perfect, of course not. Highly consistent? Obviously they are highly consistent at applying a sticker to quality coins and not applying a sticker to lesser coins. From a market perspective they do that very well and the market has confirmed that countless times over the last 6 years.

 

They are somewhat consistent in applying the sticker to quality coins and somewhat inconsistent in rejecting quality coins. They love to reward 'original' surfaces even on butt ugly coins and even on MS and AU coins that pretty much lack luster. They reward stickers to coins in one grade, then when they get bumped to a higher grade by a TPG, they reward a sticker again, and this is common based on posts in this thread. They reward coins with unsightly scratches for the grade that could be in a details holder on any given day. Then they take gorgeous coins with dripping eye appeal, clean surfaces for the grade, that might be a touch bit worn for the grade and don't sticker them because they believe these are overgraded, yet if you look at enough stickered coins, you see identical coins and the same grade with the same level of wear that got the sticker.

 

Just another opinion from a well respected numismatist is what a CAC sticker means. Having said that, many times a CAC stickered coins means you will like it. But grading is subjective and the human factor makes it hard to be highly consistent.

 

Best, HT

 

 

[Hard Times]

My experience has been that there are two primary groups which do most of the complaining about CAC (as well as NGC and/or PCGS, though perhaps to a lesser extent, since they have been in existence much longer):

 

1) Those who say that they don't need help grading coins and/or determining what nice coins look like.

and

2) Those who, for watever reason(s) had unrealistic expectations in the first place.

 

Those in the first group who are most vocal, often need far more help than they realize.

Those in the second group sometimes set up straw-man arguments, saying things like "CAC isn't perfect like claimed". And it turns out the claim was never made in the first place.

 

That is fair, Mark.

 

I would argue that there is a third group:

 

3) Those who resent the automatic and often large premium usually attached to CAC coins, whether it is warranted or not, simply due to the presence of the sticker.

 

I believe that I am a member of the 1st and 3rd groups (and will freely admit that I don't know everything, am not as good as the experts at grading - but I am better than a lot and can usually judge a good coin for myself).

 

+1

 

 

[mommam17]

So, where do I say they can do no wrong? Also, when you said it's like a religion, well, that's just laughable....Also, you are under estimating John's grading skills, for sure.

[Hard Times]

I never, ever said CAC could do no wrong. C'mon man. Also, the A, B, C thing has been going on for many years among dealers.

 

I agree you never said that, it was a bad expression by me trying to interpret your staunch support of CAC. I have heard many dealers even discuss the grades in decimal places and the splitting hairs that fine, given in many cases many highly regarded numismatists can't even agree on something like a 63 or 64, means that splitting things into A,B, and C will be even more subjective. I think CAC should back off on that because taken at face value that is where alot of the people that disagree with CAC in their decisions many times are coming from.

 

Best, HT

[Hard Times]

So, where do I say they can do no wrong? Also, when you said it's like a religion, well, that's just laughable....Also, you are under estimating John's grading skills, for sure.

 

See last post. I have seen enough coins to know what I like and to know that I don't always agree with CAC and despite what must be amazing grading skills, just as in the case of all the graders at NGC and PCGS surely are, doesn't mean I have to agree with all these entities grading decisions. They are subjective opinions.

 

Religion may be a poor choice for a word for what I mean but I can't think of a better one.

 

Best, HT

[mommam17]

Why should they back off on something that's been going on for years in numismatics? I don't think that's why people disagree with CAC. The first person, I remember disagreeing with CAC said it would cost him too much money in postage and wanted it to fail. Then later when he bought an expensive gold commem, where did he go?? Yup, right to CAC for an opinion. YES, I've been a supporter of CAC since it started in 2007, because I believe in John Albanese.

[Tradedollarnut]

YES, I've been a supporter of CAC since it started in 2007, because I believe in John Albanese.

 

Ditto...even though I will occasionally buy a large coin without the sticker, I always want to know why it didn't get it and at what level it would sticker so I can make an informed decision. For instance, I have three six figure coins not stickered to share:

 

1838 gobrecht in 65. Has a tiny scratch under the eagle that JA didn't like on a gem. Would sticker at 64+ which is still a six figure coin so I bought it anyway.

 

1799 dollar in 66. The fingerprint coin. JA would sticker it at 65 but doesn't like the print on a 66. But I bought it just over 65 money and it has dripping luster so I keep it

 

1801 dollar in 65. Has a series of light lines or friction on the cheek. JA would sticker it at 64+ so I had to make a big boy decision to lose six figures on this coin to upgrade from my 63. Other than the friction, the coin has full flowing luster and great eye appeal so it's the best I will ever get.

 

Those are three real life examples where I own coins without CAC stickers. In each case I questioned WHY NOT and used the answer in assessing whether or not to buy the coin. The lack of sticker was just one factor...not the religious death knell that some claim.

[BillJones]

Why should they back off on something that's been going on for years in numismatics? I don't think that's why people disagree with CAC. The first person, I remember disagreeing with CAC said it would cost him too much money in postage and wanted it to fail. Then later when he bought an expensive gold commem, where did he go?? Yup, right to CAC for an opinion. YES, I've been a supporter of CAC since it started in 2007, because I believe in John Albanese.

 

I hope that you are not referring to me, because if you are, you have the story wrong.

[mommam17]

You have already denied wishing CAC to fail, right?

[Hard Times]

Why should they back off on something that's been going on for years in numismatics? I don't think that's why people disagree with CAC. The first person, I remember disagreeing with CAC said it would cost him too much money in postage and wanted it to fail. Then later when he bought an expensive gold commem, where did he go?? Yup, right to CAC for an opinion. YES, I've been a supporter of CAC since it started in 2007, because I believe in John Albanese.

 

Why? Because they sticker no where near 67% of the coins they see and collectors and probably dealers are sending in their best coins - more like 20 to 30% so many have told me, and these are the best ones. You mean to tell me the world consists of 80% or so C coins? I would like to hear some numismatists with decades of experience weigh in on this - what is the split between A, B, and C in proportions? How do the experts decide what is A, B, and C?

 

Below apparently is a C coin for the grade as it did not pass CAC. It is much better than any of the 53's Ha has sold over the years (albeit comparing images), shows just a touch less wear than the 58 sold at their FUN auction and much more eye appeal that the 58 (I viewed it at the lot viewing), has no major marks on the surfaces, rich in toning and dripping luster, and the nicest

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

 

[mommam17]

Why didn't you ask John and learn from him?

[Tradedollarnut]

I would hazard a guess that A coins are 10-15%, B coins are 35-40% and C coins are 45-50% of a classic coin's population. The overall numbers you are quoting include lots of generic gold - where the C coins are upward of 80%.

 

No way to tell on the half off an image. The best way would be to ask JA if resubmitted....or BS at a show. If you are comparing it to images of other auction coins, I just don't think that an accurate way to formulate an opinion.

[BillJones]

YES, I've been a supporter of CAC since it started in 2007, because I believe in John Albanese.

 

Ditto...even though I will occasionally buy a large coin without the sticker, I always want to know why it didn't get it and at what level it would sticker so I can make an informed decision. For instance, I have three six figure coins not stickered to share:

 

1838 gobrecht in 65. Has a tiny scratch under the eagle that JA didn't like on a gem. Would sticker at 64+ which is still a six figure coin so I bought it anyway.

 

1799 dollar in 66. The fingerprint coin. JA would sticker it at 65 but doesn't like the print on a 66. But I bought it just over 65 money and it has dripping luster so I keep it

 

1801 dollar in 65. Has a series of light lines or friction on the cheek. JA would sticker it at 64+ so I had to make a big boy decision to lose six figures on this coin to upgrade from my 63. Other than the friction, the coin has full flowing luster and great eye appeal so it's the best I will ever get.

 

Those are three real life examples where I own coins without CAC stickers. In each case I questioned WHY NOT and used the answer in assessing whether or not to buy the coin. The lack of sticker was just one factor...not the religious death knell that some claim.

 

Unfortunately most of us don't have the access to JA that you have.

 

Since I don't send coins to CAC I have no way of knowing what would pass in my collection and what wouldn't, but I do know one dealer who has a code on his inventory stickers that state whether a coin has passed the CAC muster or not. I own two that flunked.

 

This 1851-O gold dollar is probably too dull for a CAC approved MS-63 despite the fact that the coin is virtually mark free. It was struck with "tired dies." The price was right however, and it fit in with the rest of my gold dollar collection.

 

 

The second is an "1861" Scott Restrike of the Confederate half dollar. This is a quirky item to be sure. In 1876 the Scott Stamp and Coin Company acquired the die that was used to strike the four known Confederate half dollars that were made at the New Orleans mint. Scott acquired 500, 1861-O half dollars, planed off the reverses and stuck them with the Confederate die. The obverse of all of these coins was crushed in the process (coins were held in a copper pan when they were over struck) so that it can't really be graded. The Confederate die was broken and rusted which resulted in imperfect impressions. Grading is mostly based on luster, marks, possible wear and cleaning (presence or lack of it). This piece is an PCGS MS-62, and it flunked at CAC for whatever reason. It's pretty decent for what it is.

 

[mommam17]

 

"I had the option of returning the piece or paying $12,000 so I could find out what the “secret” CAC bid for it was. I’ll bet I would not have gotten $12,000 for it from CAC. At any rate this coin should not have had a CAC sticker if the service is a perfect as its cheerleaders claim. It sure shook my faith in the belief that CAC is “perfect.” SO, Bill did CAC buy this coin from you??

 

 

[BillJones]

You have already denied wishing CAC to fail, right?

 

Why should they back off on something that's been going on for years in numismatics? I don't think that's why people disagree with CAC. The first person, I remember disagreeing with CAC said it would cost him too much money in postage and wanted it to fail. Then later when he bought an expensive gold commem, where did he go?? Yup, right to CAC for an opinion. YES, I've been a supporter of CAC since it started in 2007, because I believe in John Albanese.

 

Okay you have called me out, and I'm going to respond.

 

The coin in question was an 1825 2.50 gold piece. It was graded PCGS MS-61, CAC. I bought that coin in a Heritage auction based upon the photo, PCGS grade and the CAC endorsement. Here is the Heritage photo.

 

 

This is a difficult type coin to find. I took me over almost three years to find an example that suited me. I went to a lot shows and reviewed a lot of auctions and found that very few examples of this coin were offered for sale, and this the most common date in the series. So my reaction when I saw this piece about a year and a half into the process was to go after this piece based on those three factors. I started with the assumption that CAC was filtering out the over graded coins. But when I received the coin, it looked like this.

 

 

Still, since I had not seen a huge number of coins of this type I decided to run it past a collector - dealer friend of mine who at one point had formed a complete date collection of these coins. His assessment of the piece was that it was subpar for the MS-61 grade, and that it cast "a poor reflection upon CAC." It was then the I went public with this piece.

 

I'm not going to into the contacts I had with JA in private because I don't want to drag him into this, but the offer to buy this coin was not immediate. All I will say is that JA bought back for what I paid at auction, and after he had a chance to look at it, he called it a "B minus coin." I know that I do have some influence here and ATS, and I'm not sure if someone else would have gotten the same treatment.

 

The lesson that I took away from this was that I could not bid on something in an auction that I had not seen based in large part on a CAC endorsement. I'm not trying tear CAC down; I'm only saying that it is not as consistent as I perceived it to be when it came on the scene. I also had an issue with a 1796 half dime, graded PCGS AU-50, CAC that had a significant scratch in the right obverse field. I was able to return that coin. So my first two encounters with CAC endorsed coins, both with 5 figure price tags, were not what I had hoped they would be.

 

I have several coins in my collection that have the CAC endorsement. They are very nice pieces, and fully deserve the CAC endorsement, but I saw them before I bought them.

 

Now I'll get into the issue of sending my collection to CAC to have it endorsed. I'm not thrilled with the idea of spending thousands of dollars to get my collection re-graded after I spent a few thousand to get the raw coins graded the first time. I'm not thrilled with idea of putting my coins at risk to have them shipped. Too many coins have disappeared in the mail, collecting insurance claims is a pain in the butt, and finding replacements is not fun after spending years of time and travel money to find the right pieces.

 

I hope that you will let this issue rest. You are not CAC any favors by calling me out, and you have done it three times now. The time has come for you to give it a rest.