• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

What does a CAC sticker really mean? -- A proposal

142 posts in this topic

As a novice collector I find the concept of CAC interesting. With time it would seem the holders would be covered in stickers....CAC sticker for the slabbed coins...then another sticker to validate which of the CAC's are really good...and then another company to sticker those.

 

 

Hence Barry Stuppler has just introduced the PQ sticker.......

 

The Eagle Eye sticker for indian cents predates all of this. There may be others but the buisness model to do this really took off with Rick Snow started the EE sticker. I am hoping my IC's with EE's will also get the CAC's! :banana:

 

Best, HT

 

In the world coin market, the WINGS sticker (orange/gold) has been around since 2008, and for Ike variety collectors, there is a red DIVA sticker affixed to slabs that have been reviewed for variety attribution. We are well on our way to representing the entire rainbow of stickers. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When JA decides to retire that means CAC will close its doors correct?

 

Don't know. Have you tried contacting him and asking him?

Since I don't think he posts here, it is doubtful any response you get would be more than just a guess.

 

If you really wanted to know the answer, then I suggest you call/email him and ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original "scientific" proposal is in my judgement unscientific because it demands an imaginary standard. The comparison used was coin testing with pregnancy tests.

 

With pregnancy tests, of course there are various levels of reliability, and furthermore a fertilized embryo is often spontaneously aborted which can reverse the result. But you are either pregnant or not.

 

In numismatics, the assigned grades are always subjective, there is no chemically pure grade.

 

Just because someone announces they're a scientist doesn't mean their proposals should be accepted as scientific, as was recently exposed in the news about Ken Ham and his creation science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is apparently advantageous to their business model for the process to remain a black box.

 

No, just to ignore bozos

 

There is also absolutely no logical reason why coins that have been submitted to CAC and failed to sticker shouldn't be listed in their database as such. At least then people would know not to waste their time and money sending in the same coins. Alas, it's pretty clear how this policy i$ of benefit for their bu$ine$$.

 

That's just stupid. CAC makes no money on the submission fees so you are totally out to friggen lunch.

 

Perhaps TDN can enlighten us on how CAC stays in business if no money for submission cost is made. Just curious. (shrug)

 

By making a market in CAC stickered coins. The stickers are a necessary loss leader.

 

I see so in essence CAC is a coin marketing business. Thanks for the reply ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original "scientific" proposal is in my judgement unscientific because it demands an imaginary standard. The comparison used was coin testing with pregnancy tests.

 

With pregnancy tests, of course there are various levels of reliability, and furthermore a fertilized embryo is often spontaneously aborted which can reverse the result. But you are either pregnant or not.

 

In numismatics, the assigned grades are always subjective, there is no chemically pure grade.

 

Just because someone announces they're a scientist doesn't mean their proposals should be accepted as scientific, as was recently exposed in the news about Ken Ham and his creation science.

 

The pregnancy example was only used to describe the concepts of reliability and validity (two concepts that the US general public don't understand). The analogy to a subjective matter was that of interpretation of images from an X-Ray (or other similar subjective visual test). You clearly didn't read the entire thread. The proposal was that a review by 4 independent reviewers from varied but important areas of the field would be the "standard" for comparison.

 

For the record, my credentials include more than 50+ peer reviewed publications in scientific journals, 10 years of experience as a professional researcher, and the fact that you would even dare compare me to Ken Ham is hilarious. He's one of the biggest quacks around. But, thank you for your reply; even though misconstrued and not consistent with any aspect of the actual proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is apparently advantageous to their business model for the process to remain a black box.

 

No, just to ignore bozos

 

There is also absolutely no logical reason why coins that have been submitted to CAC and failed to sticker shouldn't be listed in their database as such. At least then people would know not to waste their time and money sending in the same coins. Alas, it's pretty clear how this policy i$ of benefit for their bu$ine$$.

 

That's just stupid. CAC makes no money on the submission fees so you are totally out to friggen lunch.

 

Perhaps TDN can enlighten us on how CAC stays in business if no money for submission cost is made. Just curious. (shrug)

 

By making a market in CAC stickered coins. The stickers are a necessary loss leader.

 

I see so in essence CAC is a coin marketing business. Thanks for the reply ;)

 

Since you apparently didn't understand CAC's business plan, you started out with a question. And with words like "Perhaps TDN can enlighten us.." its tone seemed to be confrontational. Yet you receievd a polite and factual answer.

 

Then, you followed that up with what appeared to be a smart reply. I'm sorry that TDN went to the trouble, however small, to bother to reply to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post isn't meant to inflame an already hot topic but I am curious as to how CAC makes a market in the coins it stickers. Does it mean if I were to walk into CAC tomorrow with all my beaned coins, they would buy them all? At what price? How is this different than selling to a dealer or fellow collector. If the stickers are a loss leader, then how does CAC make money?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post isn't meant to inflame an already hot topic but I am curious as to how CAC makes a market in the coins it stickers. Does it mean if I were to walk into CAC tomorrow with all my beaned coins, they would buy them all? At what price? How is this different than selling to a dealer or fellow collector. If the stickers are a loss leader, then how does CAC make money?

 

 

CAC lists bid prices for hundreds of coins on electronic trading networks. They have also been known to make offers on coins, after being contacted by email or phone.

 

Selling to them is very much like selling to a dealer, as long as the dealer is one who publishes bid prices like CAC does.

 

CAC makes money if/when they can by and then resell coins for a profit. They work on very small margins, but do considerable business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two possible ways I can think of would be:

 

1) They buy coins at shows without stickers but that would pass "muster" to receive their sticker, they sticker these coins, then they release them back into the market and reap the premium many will pay for beaned coins. I think of this as the "catch, sticker, and release" scenario.

 

2) They buy coins with stickers at less than market value from collectors/dealers, and then sell these off at a profit to their "preferred" dealer network.

 

Just two WAG, I'll wait for those "in the know" to chime in with what actually happens. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two possible ways I can think of would be:

 

1) They buy coins at shows without stickers but that would pass "muster" to receive their sticker, they sticker these coins, then they release them back into the market and reap the premium many will pay for beaned coins. I think of this as the "catch, sticker, and release" scenario.

 

2) They buy coins with stickers at less than market value from collectors/dealers, and then sell these off at a profit to their "preferred" dealer network.

 

Just two WAG, I'll wait for those "in the know" to chime in with what actually happens. (shrug)

 

They don't sticker coins that they buy.- that would be a conflict of interest, actually deserving of a shot or accusation of the type that has been levied against them here.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "buy coins with stickers at less than market value", but they buy coins at fair, competitive, strong prices - whatever you and other wish to label them. And they mark them up by small margins - my experience has been that it's approximately 3-5%. Others might have different experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Mark. Do you have a link to any of the trading networks so I can see bid prices? Is this free or do you have to pay to view?

 

You're welcome. The two networks are Certified Coin Exchange (CCE) and CoinPlex. As far as I know, both are pay sites with respect to trading and viewing bids, but I have provided links below, in case you want to check them out.

 

By the way, it is my understanding that in mnay cases, CDN bid prices are the same as/the result of CAC bid prices.

 

CCE

 

CoinPlex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Feld wrote.....

They don't sticker coins that they buy.- that would be a conflict of interest, actually deserving of a shot or accusation of the type that has been levied against them here.

 

 

 

So are you saying none of the graders there run their own dealership inventory through there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Feld wrote.....
They don't sticker coins that they buy.- that would be a conflict of interest, actually deserving of a shot or accusation of the type that has been levied against them here.

 

 

 

So are you saying none of the graders there run their own dealership inventory through there?

 

No, I'm not saying that. But I am extremely confident those graders don't review or sticker their own coins. Can I prove that? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Feld wrote.....
They don't sticker coins that they buy.- that would be a conflict of interest, actually deserving of a shot or accusation of the type that has been levied against them here.

 

 

 

So are you saying none of the graders there run their own dealership inventory through there?

 

Numismatic Americana- Bill Shamhart ... Was nice to meet him the few times I met him. Seems like a great guy. Id trust his opinions on Buffalo Nickels and Commemorative Silver Halves. I know more about Bill than I do JA...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two possible ways I can think of would be:

 

1) They buy coins at shows without stickers but that would pass "muster" to receive their sticker, they sticker these coins, then they release them back into the market and reap the premium many will pay for beaned coins. I think of this as the "catch, sticker, and release" scenario.

 

2) They buy coins with stickers at less than market value from collectors/dealers, and then sell these off at a profit to their "preferred" dealer network.

 

Just two WAG, I'll wait for those "in the know" to chime in with what actually happens. (shrug)

 

They don't sticker coins that they buy.- that would be a conflict of interest, actually deserving of a shot or accusation of the type that has been levied against them here.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "buy coins with stickers at less than market value", but they buy coins at fair, competitive, strong prices - whatever you and other wish to label them. And they mark them up by small margins - my experience has been that it's approximately 3-5%. Others might have different experiences.

 

Interesting that would be considered a "conflict of interest", but David Hall having his own rare coin business and being an exec at PCGS isn't a conflict of interest. hm

 

Thanks for your reply Mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be very surprised if selling a 2cent sticker for 12$ is a loss leader. Unless it takes 10 minutes to review each coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be very surprised if selling a 2cent sticker for 12$ is a loss leader. Unless it takes 10 minutes to review each coin.

 

You'd likely be very surprised then.

 

Factor in how many coins are seen, that any collector sending in coins doesn't pay for the ones that don't sticker (dealers do). Then figure out the costs they have (how many people they employ, the salaries, any other overhead (travel, building/office costs, marketing, etc).

 

I don't know the numbers to answer the above, but I am at least smart enough to realize that they are there and are real expenses (sunk costs) and likely not too minimal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be very surprised if selling a 2cent sticker for 12$ is a loss leader. Unless it takes 10 minutes to review each coin.

 

You'd likely be very surprised then.

 

Factor in how many coins are seen, that any collector sending in coins doesn't pay for the ones that don't sticker (dealers do). Then figure out the costs they have (how many people they employ, the salaries, any other overhead (travel, building/office costs, marketing, etc).

 

I don't know the numbers to answer the above, but I am at least smart enough to realize that they are there and are real expenses (sunk costs) and likely not too minimal.

 

Arent they there anyway? Don't they run a coin shop in spite of the CAC stickers? Based on the descriptions given here, I would be more inclined to calling postage stamps for office mail a loss leader before the CAC sticker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two possible ways I can think of would be:

 

1) They buy coins at shows without stickers but that would pass "muster" to receive their sticker, they sticker these coins, then they release them back into the market and reap the premium many will pay for beaned coins. I think of this as the "catch, sticker, and release" scenario.

 

2) They buy coins with stickers at less than market value from collectors/dealers, and then sell these off at a profit to their "preferred" dealer network.

 

Just two WAG, I'll wait for those "in the know" to chime in with what actually happens. (shrug)

 

They don't sticker coins that they buy.- that would be a conflict of interest, actually deserving of a shot or accusation of the type that has been levied against them here.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "buy coins with stickers at less than market value", but they buy coins at fair, competitive, strong prices - whatever you and other wish to label them. And they mark them up by small margins - my experience has been that it's approximately 3-5%. Others might have different experiences.

 

Interesting that would be considered a "conflict of interest", but David Hall having his own rare coin business and being an exec at PCGS isn't a conflict of interest. hm

 

Of course, that is another matter entirely (PCGS, HRH) but it IS something I've wondered about for 20 years.

 

I think CACs situation in terms of possible conflicts is really NO different that PCGS or NGC. If this were businesses related to the Stock Market they'd be highly regulated but in this case the exceedingly small coin market doesn't get that kind of scrutiny. We just have to trust that funny business is not going on because, like Mark said, there's no way to prove anything.

 

As collectors (or investors) we can ONLY protect ourselves by knowing how to grade and value coins. Period. There is no getting around it. Do your own research, ask questions and learn to grade. There are people right here in this thread that will probably help you...Mark for instance. Bill and others...

 

There should be more time spend on your own due diligence and less whining about the TPGs and CAC the better off we will be...IMO.

 

jom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I think about he loss leader claims, I would have more confidence in the CAC system if it weren't true. Ultimately if the stickering process is a loss for CAC, but they still make money, then the collector is losing out somewhere. So to justify anything because it is a loss leader is more alarming. Purely as a profitable service, it would make more sense. But alas, everything is an illusion in the world so I suppose its no different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's probably true they take a loss or break even on stickering because, if they didn't, they would sticker more issues, right? I mean they accept Washington's up to 1964, but no Rosie's at all, nor Kennedy's (not even '64s). Yet they accept Ikes. It seems logically inconsistent; but I guess it's because they feel they can't make a market in some of the more modern issues, but in others they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I think about he loss leader claims, I would have more confidence in the CAC system if it weren't true. Ultimately if the stickering process is a loss for CAC, but they still make money, then the collector is losing out somewhere. So to justify anything because it is a loss leader is more alarming. Purely as a profitable service, it would make more sense. But alas, everything is an illusion in the world so I suppose its no different.

 

Please explain how ".then the collector is losing out somewhere"?

 

Collectors either get low cost or free (excluding postage) review of their coins by a group of extremely sharp numismatists. And that service/benefit doesn't become any less (or more), based on how much the fee is or how the company does in other aspects of its business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I think about he loss leader claims, I would have more confidence in the CAC system if it weren't true. Ultimately if the stickering process is a loss for CAC, but they still make money, then the collector is losing out somewhere. So to justify anything because it is a loss leader is more alarming. Purely as a profitable service, it would make more sense. But alas, everything is an illusion in the world so I suppose its no different.

 

Please explain how ".then the collector is losing out somewhere"?

 

Collectors either get low cost or free (excluding postage) review of their coins by a group of extremely sharp numismatists. And that service/benefit doesn't become any less (or more), based on how much the fee is or how the company does in other aspects of its business.

 

Well the world isn't a zero sum game. If someone is making money, someone is losing it. I don't imagine CAC service is a charity to collectors. Somewhere, maybe not the guy who got the sticker, someone is paying for CACs profits elsewhere in other aspects of their business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I think about he loss leader claims, I would have more confidence in the CAC system if it weren't true. Ultimately if the stickering process is a loss for CAC, but they still make money, then the collector is losing out somewhere. So to justify anything because it is a loss leader is more alarming. Purely as a profitable service, it would make more sense. But alas, everything is an illusion in the world so I suppose its no different.

 

How does the collector "lose out"? Coins are bought and sold in the market every day of the week so does that mean everyone is losing? In fact, items in other markets are bought and sold every day so I guess I'm "losing out" when I went to Ralphs this morning to buy milk....and it wasn't even sour! :D

 

Everyone seems to think being a coin dealer/seller is some huge profit venture. I'm fairly convinced after being around this 22 years or so that is simply NOT the case...not even remotely. The barrier to enter is pretty low for starters....and that is just the beginning...

 

jom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I think about he loss leader claims, I would have more confidence in the CAC system if it weren't true. Ultimately if the stickering process is a loss for CAC, but they still make money, then the collector is losing out somewhere. So to justify anything because it is a loss leader is more alarming. Purely as a profitable service, it would make more sense. But alas, everything is an illusion in the world so I suppose its no different.

 

How does the collector "lose out"? Coins are bought and sold in the market every day of the week so does that mean everyone is losing? In fact, items in other markets are bought and sold every day so I guess I'm "losing out" when I went to Ralphs this morning to buy milk....and it wasn't even sour! :D

 

Everyone seems to think being a coin dealer/seller is some huge profit venture. I'm fairly convinced after being around this 22 years or so that is simply NOT the case...not even remotely. The barrier to enter is pretty low for starters....and that is just the beginning...

 

jom

'

 

Milk is a consumable good. You could argue it is needed for survival. A coin is a luxury good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I think about he loss leader claims, I would have more confidence in the CAC system if it weren't true. Ultimately if the stickering process is a loss for CAC, but they still make money, then the collector is losing out somewhere. So to justify anything because it is a loss leader is more alarming. Purely as a profitable service, it would make more sense. But alas, everything is an illusion in the world so I suppose its no different.

 

Please explain how ".then the collector is losing out somewhere"?

 

Collectors either get low cost or free (excluding postage) review of their coins by a group of extremely sharp numismatists. And that service/benefit doesn't become any less (or more), based on how much the fee is or how the company does in other aspects of its business.

 

Well the world isn't a zero sum game. If someone is making money, someone is losing it. I don't imagine CAC service is a charity to collectors. Somewhere, maybe not the guy who got the sticker, someone is paying for CACs profits elsewhere in other aspects of their business.

 

If dealer B buys a CAC coin from dealer A for $1000 and sells it for $1100, he makes $100 (less any expenses). It sounds like you're claiming that since there was a $100 profit, someone had to have lost $100. If so, who lost the $100? And who was responsible for causing that $100 loss? Not CAC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I think about he loss leader claims, I would have more confidence in the CAC system if it weren't true. Ultimately if the stickering process is a loss for CAC, but they still make money, then the collector is losing out somewhere. So to justify anything because it is a loss leader is more alarming. Purely as a profitable service, it would make more sense. But alas, everything is an illusion in the world so I suppose its no different.

 

Please explain how ".then the collector is losing out somewhere"?

 

Collectors either get low cost or free (excluding postage) review of their coins by a group of extremely sharp numismatists. And that service/benefit doesn't become any less (or more), based on how much the fee is or how the company does in other aspects of its business.

 

Well the world isn't a zero sum game. If someone is making money, someone is losing it. I don't imagine CAC service is a charity to collectors. Somewhere, maybe not the guy who got the sticker, someone is paying for CACs profits elsewhere in other aspects of their business.

 

If dealer B buys a CAC coin from dealer A for $1000 and sells it for $1100, he makes $100 (less any expenses). It sounds like you're claiming that since there was a $100 profit, someone had to have lost $100. If so, who lost the $100? And who was responsible for causing that $100 loss? Not CAC.

 

If the same dealer takes the same coin, submits it to CAC and gets a green sticker, and now sells the same coin for $1200, where does that extra $100 come from? The pocket of the collector, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites