CAC Subjectivity

[Kurtdog]

Folks don't get me wrong, I like to have CAC's opinion on a coin and I have explained why too many times on these boards and overall CAC is good for the collector if what they do is kept in perspective. Grading consistently is hard and challenging and CAC has some of the best and most experienced graders.

 

Here is their pledge on their home page:

 

"With CAC, prices for the solid quality coins can be untethered from the lesser quality counterparts.

 

A CAC sticker means:

 

It has been verified as meeting our strict quality standards.

 

CAC is an active bidder on many CAC coins. In fact, CAC has purchased over $275 million of CAC verified coins.

 

Want confidence in the quality of a coin?

 

Look for the CAC sticker!"

 

Given their statement for confidence above on their home page, what do you think of this (sorry Bob if I put you on the spot):

 

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/bean-wars-cac.254721/

 

Best, HT

Two observations. One, that's a lot of money backing their own beans. Two, they're not always on the bean.

[michael]

 

..This is what I am talking about - one man making decisions on the fate of value of a coin. Bill Jones has noted this many times, the market (that means us) has bought into this yet we see two examples here of stunning coppers that are relegated to lower value simply because JA/CAC says so and we follow, amen...

 

I think that's a ludicrous claim. There are plenty of collectors and dealers who make their own value and purchase decisions, regardless of the opinion of NGC, PCGS or CAC.

 

In order for you to get strong money for your half cent (which, to me, looks at least somewhat questionable in terms of color) all you need to do is locate one buyer who likes it as much as you do and is willing to pay accordingly. If you can't do that, I think it says much more about what you paid and and what you want for the coin, than it does the influence of CAC.

 

 

(thumbs u

[Hard Times]

 

..This is what I am talking about - one man making decisions on the fate of value of a coin. Bill Jones has noted this many times, the market (that means us) has bought into this yet we see two examples here of stunning coppers that are relegated to lower value simply because JA/CAC says so and we follow, amen...

 

I think that's a ludicrous claim. There are plenty of collectors and dealers who make their own value and purchase decisions, regardless of the opinion of NGC, PCGS or CAC.

 

 

Go to Greysheet Mark and see the prices on beaned vs unbeaned coins and tell me this is a ludicrous claim. The market, meaning collectors that buy coins, has bought totally into the idea that CAC beaned coins are better and those that aren't beaned are inferior and pay accordingly. Here are two examples shown where I disagree. There are 1000s more out there beaned and not beaned, that the same case can be made. Clearly many beaned coins are nice for their grades and worth a premium, but many are not any different than their unbeaned brethren. Surely there are some informed numismatists that make their own valuations of coins independent of the bean or not. But nevertheless, the market has spoken and I have heard from many how they rely on the bean to determine the value they will pay for a coin, not their personal grading or valuation skills. It is what it is.

 

Questionable color? I was not there during its whole life span to watch it change, so I can only go by what informed numismatists have told me about toning.

 

I state again, the toning on this coin, and on Bob's lincoln, do not have the toning attributes of something that was added quickly - for which I would call 'questionable color'. They have the attributes that suggest they took a long time to tone. So if you want to call it questionable, please lay our your evidence for it.

 

Best, HT

[MarkFeld]

 

..This is what I am talking about - one man making decisions on the fate of value of a coin. Bill Jones has noted this many times, the market (that means us) has bought into this yet we see two examples here of stunning coppers that are relegated to lower value simply because JA/CAC says so and we follow, amen...

 

I think that's a ludicrous claim. There are plenty of collectors and dealers who make their own value and purchase decisions, regardless of the opinion of NGC, PCGS or CAC.

 

 

Go to Greysheet Mark and see the prices on beaned vs unbeaned coins and tell me this is a ludicrous claim. The market, meaning collectors that buy coins, has bought totally into the idea that CAC beaned coins are better and those that aren't beaned are inferior and pay accordingly. Here are two examples shown where I disagree. There are 1000s more out there beaned and not beaned, that the same case can be made. Clearly many beaned coins are nice for their grades and worth a premium, but many are not any different than their unbeaned brethren. Surely there are some informed numismatists that make their own valuations of coins independent of the bean or not. But nevertheless, the market has spoken and I have heard from many how they rely on the bean to determine the value they will pay for a coin, not their personal grading or valuation skills. It is what it is.

 

Questionable color? I was not there during its whole life span to watch it change, so I can only go by what informed numismatists have told me about toning.

 

I state again, the toning on this coin, and on Bob's lincoln, do not have the toning attributes of something that was added quickly - for which I would call 'questionable color'. They have the attributes that suggest they took a long time to tone. So if you want to call it questionable, please lay our your evidence for it.

 

Best, HT

 

It doesn't matter what the CDN or any other publication says. You have stated that you form your own opinions about coins and their value. And so have numerous others. If that is the case, I repeat, all you should need to do is find a single individual who feels the way you do about the coin. Surely that person exists and can be located.

 

My "evidence" of the coin's color looking questionable is simply the color of the coin. It does not look like what I usually associate with a naturally toned coin of that type. I might feel differently, were to I see it in hand and either way, I very well might be mistaken.

[Afterword]

"The market, meaning collectors that buy coins, has bought totally into the idea that CAC beaned coins are better and those that aren't beaned are inferior and pay accordingly."

 

 

 

 

For a good percentage of these collectors, I think it is more about money and salability than the quality of the coins.

[mommam17]

"For more than three decades Feld has been an active and important presence in the rare coin business, working for Steve Ivy Rare Coins, Heritage Rare Coin Galleries (and early incarnation of Heritage Auctions), David Hall, Mark Salzberg, NGC, Pinnacle Rarities and as owner of his own numismatic business, Mark Feld Rare Coins." If Mark questions the color, maybe it's because he's seen hundreds, if not thousands of these coins??

[newprepper]

he prob saw that one off the press

[Hard Times]

 

..This is what I am talking about - one man making decisions on the fate of value of a coin. Bill Jones has noted this many times, the market (that means us) has bought into this yet we see two examples here of stunning coppers that are relegated to lower value simply because JA/CAC says so and we follow, amen...

 

I think that's a ludicrous claim. There are plenty of collectors and dealers who make their own value and purchase decisions, regardless of the opinion of NGC, PCGS or CAC.

 

 

Go to Greysheet Mark and see the prices on beaned vs unbeaned coins and tell me this is a ludicrous claim. The market, meaning collectors that buy coins, has bought totally into the idea that CAC beaned coins are better and those that aren't beaned are inferior and pay accordingly. Here are two examples shown where I disagree. There are 1000s more out there beaned and not beaned, that the same case can be made. Clearly many beaned coins are nice for their grades and worth a premium, but many are not any different than their unbeaned brethren. Surely there are some informed numismatists that make their own valuations of coins independent of the bean or not. But nevertheless, the market has spoken and I have heard from many how they rely on the bean to determine the value they will pay for a coin, not their personal grading or valuation skills. It is what it is.

 

Questionable color? I was not there during its whole life span to watch it change, so I can only go by what informed numismatists have told me about toning.

 

I state again, the toning on this coin, and on Bob's lincoln, do not have the toning attributes of something that was added quickly - for which I would call 'questionable color'. They have the attributes that suggest they took a long time to tone. So if you want to call it questionable, please lay our your evidence for it.

 

Best, HT

 

It doesn't matter what the CDN or any other publication says. You have stated that you form your own opinions about coins and their value. And so have numerous others. If that is the case, I repeat, all you should need to do is find a single individual who feels the way you do about the coin. Surely that person exists and can be located.

 

My "evidence" of the coin's color looking questionable is simply the color of the coin. It does not look like what I usually associate with a naturally toned coin of that type. I might feel differently, were to I see it in hand and either way, I very well might be mistaken.

 

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the response. I hear this all the time, 'color' looks questionable about coins, but again there is no evidence of rapid toning there based on what folks have said about what rapid toning would look like - my avatar is an example of that, toning 'rides' on the surface and extends across the stars, devices etc., so it could be AT. We simply don't know the history of these coins, there has been way too much subjectivity in interpreting toning. There seems to be some concept laid out in the community that toning must be a certain way or it is AT or not MA. But coins don't agree, they are going to all tone according to their environments, which are going to be different for every coin, so we can in no way quantify toning, we can only discern whether it looks like it took a long time or if it perhaps tone quickly. Color is in part going to depend on what is in the atmosphere during the toning time, heat, humidity, and alot of other environmental factors. For the quickly toned coins, we can look for those telltale signs of rapid toning. This one does not have it, so in such a case, it must have taken a long time to tone, and then, must be an NT coin.

 

I will be at the Smithsonian this morning, can't wait to see the small numismatic exhibit with the unique gold coins they have on display!

 

Best, HT

[MarkFeld]

 

..This is what I am talking about - one man making decisions on the fate of value of a coin. Bill Jones has noted this many times, the market (that means us) has bought into this yet we see two examples here of stunning coppers that are relegated to lower value simply because JA/CAC says so and we follow, amen...

 

I think that's a ludicrous claim. There are plenty of collectors and dealers who make their own value and purchase decisions, regardless of the opinion of NGC, PCGS or CAC.

 

 

Go to Greysheet Mark and see the prices on beaned vs unbeaned coins and tell me this is a ludicrous claim. The market, meaning collectors that buy coins, has bought totally into the idea that CAC beaned coins are better and those that aren't beaned are inferior and pay accordingly. Here are two examples shown where I disagree. There are 1000s more out there beaned and not beaned, that the same case can be made. Clearly many beaned coins are nice for their grades and worth a premium, but many are not any different than their unbeaned brethren. Surely there are some informed numismatists that make their own valuations of coins independent of the bean or not. But nevertheless, the market has spoken and I have heard from many how they rely on the bean to determine the value they will pay for a coin, not their personal grading or valuation skills. It is what it is.

 

Questionable color? I was not there during its whole life span to watch it change, so I can only go by what informed numismatists have told me about toning.

 

I state again, the toning on this coin, and on Bob's lincoln, do not have the toning attributes of something that was added quickly - for which I would call 'questionable color'. They have the attributes that suggest they took a long time to tone. So if you want to call it questionable, please lay our your evidence for it.

 

Best, HT

 

It doesn't matter what the CDN or any other publication says. You have stated that you form your own opinions about coins and their value. And so have numerous others. If that is the case, I repeat, all you should need to do is find a single individual who feels the way you do about the coin. Surely that person exists and can be located.

 

My "evidence" of the coin's color looking questionable is simply the color of the coin. It does not look like what I usually associate with a naturally toned coin of that type. I might feel differently, were to I see it in hand and either way, I very well might be mistaken.

 

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the response. I hear this all the time, 'color' looks questionable about coins, but again there is no evidence of rapid toning there based on what folks have said about what rapid toning would look like - my avatar is an example of that, toning 'rides' on the surface and extends across the stars, devices etc., so it could be AT. We simply don't know the history of these coins, there has been way too much subjectivity in interpreting toning. There seems to be some concept laid out in the community that toning must be a certain way or it is AT or not MA. But coins don't agree, they are going to all tone according to their environments, which are going to be different for every coin, so we can in no way quantify toning, we can only discern whether it looks like it took a long time or if it perhaps tone quickly. Color is in part going to depend on what is in the atmosphere during the toning time, heat, humidity, and alot of other environmental factors. For the quickly toned coins, we can look for those telltale signs of rapid toning. This one does not have it, so in such a case, it must have taken a long time to tone, and then, must be an NT coin.

 

I will be at the Smithsonian this morning, can't wait to see the small numismatic exhibit with the unique gold coins they have on display!

 

Best, HT

 

Many coins almost certainly tone "naturally" but look "unnatural". Perhaps yours is one of them. Many others tone "unnaturally" but look "natural".

 

All each of us can do is form an opinion based on what we have observed, experienced, been told and believe.

[TonerGuy]

 

Many coins almost certainly tone "naturally" but look "unnatural". Perhaps yours is one of them. Many others tone "unnaturally" but look "natural".

 

All each of us can do is form an opinion based on what we have observed, experienced, been told and believe.

 

Agree with all of the above - but I have to ask - wasnt PCGS's "Sniffer" an attempt to bring science to bear on the issue of NT vs AT ?

 

From PCGS's description here...

 

http://www.pcgs.com/News/Pcgs-Coin-Sniffertrade-Uses-Advanced-Technology-To-Detect-Doctored-Coins

 

it sounded as though they could detect almost any chemical applied to the surface of the coin.

 

Did this not pan out for PCGS ? Did anyone ever try out the "Sniffer Service ?" How well did it work ?

 

I would imagine with the science they say they are using it would be close to impossible not to identify MS70 copper or any other artificial toning for that matter.

[coinman_23885]

 

..This is what I am talking about - one man making decisions on the fate of value of a coin. Bill Jones has noted this many times, the market (that means us) has bought into this yet we see two examples here of stunning coppers that are relegated to lower value simply because JA/CAC says so and we follow, amen...

 

I think that's a ludicrous claim. There are plenty of collectors and dealers who make their own value and purchase decisions, regardless of the opinion of NGC, PCGS or CAC.

 

 

Go to Greysheet Mark and see the prices on beaned vs unbeaned coins and tell me this is a ludicrous claim. The market, meaning collectors that buy coins, has bought totally into the idea that CAC beaned coins are better and those that aren't beaned are inferior and pay accordingly. Here are two examples shown where I disagree. There are 1000s more out there beaned and not beaned, that the same case can be made. Clearly many beaned coins are nice for their grades and worth a premium, but many are not any different than their unbeaned brethren. Surely there are some informed numismatists that make their own valuations of coins independent of the bean or not. But nevertheless, the market has spoken and I have heard from many how they rely on the bean to determine the value they will pay for a coin, not their personal grading or valuation skills. It is what it is.

 

Questionable color? I was not there during its whole life span to watch it change, so I can only go by what informed numismatists have told me about toning.

 

I state again, the toning on this coin, and on Bob's lincoln, do not have the toning attributes of something that was added quickly - for which I would call 'questionable color'. They have the attributes that suggest they took a long time to tone. So if you want to call it questionable, please lay our your evidence for it.

 

Best, HT

 

It doesn't matter what the CDN or any other publication says. You have stated that you form your own opinions about coins and their value. And so have numerous others. If that is the case, I repeat, all you should need to do is find a single individual who feels the way you do about the coin. Surely that person exists and can be located.

 

My "evidence" of the coin's color looking questionable is simply the color of the coin. It does not look like what I usually associate with a naturally toned coin of that type. I might feel differently, were to I see it in hand and either way, I very well might be mistaken.

 

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the response. I hear this all the time, 'color' looks questionable about coins, but again there is no evidence of rapid toning there based on what folks have said about what rapid toning would look like - my avatar is an example of that, toning 'rides' on the surface and extends across the stars, devices etc., so it could be AT. We simply don't know the history of these coins, there has been way too much subjectivity in interpreting toning. There seems to be some concept laid out in the community that toning must be a certain way or it is AT or not MA. But coins don't agree, they are going to all tone according to their environments, which are going to be different for every coin, so we can in no way quantify toning, we can only discern whether it looks like it took a long time or if it perhaps tone quickly. Color is in part going to depend on what is in the atmosphere during the toning time, heat, humidity, and alot of other environmental factors. For the quickly toned coins, we can look for those telltale signs of rapid toning. This one does not have it, so in such a case, it must have taken a long time to tone, and then, must be an NT coin.

 

I will be at the Smithsonian this morning, can't wait to see the small numismatic exhibit with the unique gold coins they have on display!

 

Best, HT

 

Your response assumes that slow toning versus rapid toning solves the questionable color debate. It does not. A coin may very well have toned again through normal processes over the years after having been treated chemically long ago and still acquire a predictable look later.

[brg5658]

 

Many coins almost certainly tone "naturally" but look "unnatural". Perhaps yours is one of them. Many others tone "unnaturally" but look "natural".

 

All each of us can do is form an opinion based on what we have observed, experienced, been told and believe.

 

Agree with all of the above - but I have to ask - wasnt PCGS's "Sniffer" an attempt to bring science to bear on the issue of NT vs AT ?

 

From PCGS's description here...

 

http://www.pcgs.com/News/Pcgs-Coin-Sniffertrade-Uses-Advanced-Technology-To-Detect-Doctored-Coins

 

it sounded as though they could detect almost any chemical applied to the surface of the coin.

 

Did this not pan out for PCGS ? Did anyone ever try out the "Sniffer Service ?" How well did it work ?

 

I would imagine with the science they say they are using it would be close to impossible not to identify MS70 copper or any other artificial toning for that matter.

 

IMO, the "sniffer" was all hype. It is not hard to rinse a coin's surface so that no remnants of any of the MS70 (or other material) would be able to be detected by that machine.

[coinman_23885]

 

Many coins almost certainly tone "naturally" but look "unnatural". Perhaps yours is one of them. Many others tone "unnaturally" but look "natural".

 

All each of us can do is form an opinion based on what we have observed, experienced, been told and believe.

 

Agree with all of the above - but I have to ask - wasnt PCGS's "Sniffer" an attempt to bring science to bear on the issue of NT vs AT ?

 

From PCGS's description here...

 

http://www.pcgs.com/News/Pcgs-Coin-Sniffertrade-Uses-Advanced-Technology-To-Detect-Doctored-Coins

 

it sounded as though they could detect almost any chemical applied to the surface of the coin.

 

Did this not pan out for PCGS ? Did anyone ever try out the "Sniffer Service ?" How well did it work ?

 

I would imagine with the science they say they are using it would be close to impossible not to identify MS70 copper or any other artificial toning for that matter.

 

It might help, but it isn't definitively conclusive in my opinion. There are compounds that are not IR or Raman active. Also, this assumes a chemical was applied. AT can be accomplished by non-chemical means as well. With regards to MS70 specifically, I'm not sure and don't currently have a bottle around with the ingredients listed.

[Afterword]

Too many variables to ever be certain, unless you know the coin's history.

[jom]

For a good percentage of these collectors, I think it is more about money and salability than the quality of the coins.

 

I agree with this. Great point.

 

The AT issue is a difficult one since the definition of "AT" hasn't really been settled upon. Especially since it is possible (evidently) to "AT" a coin and have it be stable.

 

jom

[Kurtdog]

The AT issue is a difficult one since the definition of "AT" hasn't really been settled upon.

Gee, do you think? Listen, when you get to the question why you even care about these arbitrary terms, now you're going places. Just my opinion.

[Hard Times]

 

..This is what I am talking about - one man making decisions on the fate of value of a coin. Bill Jones has noted this many times, the market (that means us) has bought into this yet we see two examples here of stunning coppers that are relegated to lower value simply because JA/CAC says so and we follow, amen...

 

I think that's a ludicrous claim. There are plenty of collectors and dealers who make their own value and purchase decisions, regardless of the opinion of NGC, PCGS or CAC.

 

 

Go to Greysheet Mark and see the prices on beaned vs unbeaned coins and tell me this is a ludicrous claim. The market, meaning collectors that buy coins, has bought totally into the idea that CAC beaned coins are better and those that aren't beaned are inferior and pay accordingly. Here are two examples shown where I disagree. There are 1000s more out there beaned and not beaned, that the same case can be made. Clearly many beaned coins are nice for their grades and worth a premium, but many are not any different than their unbeaned brethren. Surely there are some informed numismatists that make their own valuations of coins independent of the bean or not. But nevertheless, the market has spoken and I have heard from many how they rely on the bean to determine the value they will pay for a coin, not their personal grading or valuation skills. It is what it is.

 

Questionable color? I was not there during its whole life span to watch it change, so I can only go by what informed numismatists have told me about toning.

 

I state again, the toning on this coin, and on Bob's lincoln, do not have the toning attributes of something that was added quickly - for which I would call 'questionable color'. They have the attributes that suggest they took a long time to tone. So if you want to call it questionable, please lay our your evidence for it.

 

Best, HT

 

It doesn't matter what the CDN or any other publication says. You have stated that you form your own opinions about coins and their value. And so have numerous others. If that is the case, I repeat, all you should need to do is find a single individual who feels the way you do about the coin. Surely that person exists and can be located.

 

My "evidence" of the coin's color looking questionable is simply the color of the coin. It does not look like what I usually associate with a naturally toned coin of that type. I might feel differently, were to I see it in hand and either way, I very well might be mistaken.

 

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the response. I hear this all the time, 'color' looks questionable about coins, but again there is no evidence of rapid toning there based on what folks have said about what rapid toning would look like - my avatar is an example of that, toning 'rides' on the surface and extends across the stars, devices etc., so it could be AT. We simply don't know the history of these coins, there has been way too much subjectivity in interpreting toning. There seems to be some concept laid out in the community that toning must be a certain way or it is AT or not MA. But coins don't agree, they are going to all tone according to their environments, which are going to be different for every coin, so we can in no way quantify toning, we can only discern whether it looks like it took a long time or if it perhaps tone quickly. Color is in part going to depend on what is in the atmosphere during the toning time, heat, humidity, and alot of other environmental factors. For the quickly toned coins, we can look for those telltale signs of rapid toning. This one does not have it, so in such a case, it must have taken a long time to tone, and then, must be an NT coin.

 

I will be at the Smithsonian this morning, can't wait to see the small numismatic exhibit with the unique gold coins they have on display!

 

Best, HT

 

Many coins almost certainly tone "naturally" but look "unnatural". Perhaps yours is one of them. Many others tone "unnaturally" but look "natural".

 

All each of us can do is form an opinion based on what we have observed, experienced, been told and believe.

 

Thems good points Mark, but we agree to disagree on on some issues, no worries. I believe both Bob's lincoln and my half cent are A+ coins for the grade and are not AT and CAC is in error for not endowing the greenie beanie on them. But, that proves the point, CAC is just as subjective in grading as we all are, an opinion on a grade is simply that, an opinion. And they will only bean what coins they wish to make a market for, which is their right. Problem is, their opinion has no scientific basis with respect to AT, NT, MA, MS70, etc. it is simply an opinion with little to no true knowledge on how a coin will tone under the infinite amount of variables than can drive the process during a coins lifetime. Hence, take all opinions into account and make an assessment of ones own. My opinion is, I will take Bob's lincoln and my half cent any day over a drab, heavily patinated copper that is beaned. JMHO. Funny thing is, all of my other half cents beaned, and they were far inferior in eye appeal for the same grade. Hmmm......

 

Best, HT

[$ilverHawk]

The reality is the market place. If you are selling, it's the market, if you are collecting, it's your personal perspective. We may debate AT, NT whatever. Yes, the precise toning history of a coin may never be known. It doesn't matter.

 

Bottom line, if you are content with your coin, it doesn't matter what the TPG's or CAC say about your coin. The important point is that you are satisfied with your coin regardless of holder or CAC "blessing".

 

Carl

[AHFreak]

What exactly do these types of mind numbing conversations do for anyone? out of curiosity?

[TonerGuy]

The reality is the market place. If you are selling, it's the market, if you are collecting, it's your personal perspective. We may debate AT, NT whatever. Yes, the precise toning history of a coin may never be known. It doesn't matter.

 

Bottom line, if you are content with your coin, it doesn't matter what the TPG's or CAC say about your coin. The important point is that you are satisfied with your coin regardless of holder or CAC "blessing".

 

Carl

 

I generally agree with you but the problem is the area I highlighted. The market will not be content with your raw toned coins when it comes time to sell unless they are graded by PCGS, NGC and maybe ANACs.

 

For example, I see toned Peace $ on EBay that I know are NT but because they are raw people are worried about bidding more than $30-$50 for them. Once that coin is graded and pops back up on EBay for auction it may sell for $100-$200.

 

For $20 its a wise investment for your heirs to have your toned coins graded. Im not yet sold on whether CAC means anything to toned coin guys - for me - I dont care what CAC says and its difficult to attribute an increase in sale price solely to CAC since the coin is already graded.

[mommam17]

TonerGuy- John's opinion doesn't matter to you? It means a lot to me, as I look at many coins on line, deciding which ones might be added to my collection, especially the toned ones which I focus on.

[TonerGuy]

TonerGuy- John's opinion doesn't matter to you? It means a lot to me, as I look at many coins on line, deciding which ones might be added to my collection, especially the toned ones which I focus on.

 

Im not saying it shouldnt matter to the toner enthusiast. Its just a personal opinion and observation.

 

From the responses so far it doesnt appear that CAC pays anymore for toned coins therefore their "buy option" is not really an option for coins that command a toning premium. If I am incorrect please someone correct me.

 

And since Ive already seen AT but MA coins in TPG slabs with CAC green beans I know now that its just basically a rubber stamp of the TPG when it comes to the originality of the toning. As it probably should be since trying to determine AT vs. NT/MA without a plastic slab in the way is already difficult enough - trying to do it through plastic would be almost impossible.

 

I would be interested to see if purchasers are paying more for toned CAC coins then their toned non CAC counterparts. And if so how much... maybe then it would make more sense to me as an investment only. I honestly dont know and I have not tracked those price comparisons.

 

Has anyone done that research ?

 

[mommam17]

do you have pictures of AT coins in slabs with beans? If I love a coin I see, I'll pay up for it. Ready to pay double bid for a toned coin with sticker, this weekend.....

[TonerGuy]

Someone posted a 314xxx toned Peace $ with a CAC green bean at some point. Thats the last one I have a recollection of.

 

Okay - so here's a question for you... you say you are ready to pay double bid for the toned CAC coin - is that bid amount based on the toning, the TPG or the CAC or a combination of some/all of the 3 ? Or something else ?

 

So if it didnt have the CAC would you only pay 1.5x bid for example ? Or its not even worth bidding on without the CAC bean ?

 

Thats the issue I was addressing. When I pay for a toning Im looking at the toning/color 1st, TPG 2nd and a distant 3rd is CAC.

 

#1 and #2 can increase or decrease my bid but rarely with #3 have any effect.

[mommam17]

Some times everything is right. It has the right toned look for me. It is in the right holder, for me, either NGC or PCGS. It is the right grade. It has a CAC sticker. Without holding it in hand, CAC sticker is very important in my double "greysheet bid" bid. I know John likes it and that means a lot.....Without sticker, I would bid much less. *Forgot to add, it is one of my favorite coins.

[$ilverHawk]

The reality is the market place. If you are selling, it's the market, if you are collecting, it's your personal perspective. We may debate AT, NT whatever. Yes, the precise toning history of a coin may never be known. It doesn't matter.

 

Bottom line, if you are content with your coin, it doesn't matter what the TPG's or CAC say about your coin. The important point is that you are satisfied with your coin regardless of holder or CAC "blessing".

 

Carl

 

I generally agree with you but the problem is the area I highlighted. The market will not be content with your raw toned coins when it comes time to sell unless they are graded by PCGS, NGC and maybe ANACs.

 

For example, I see toned Peace $ on EBay that I know are NT but because they are raw people are worried about bidding more than $30-$50 for them. Once that coin is graded and pops back up on EBay for auction it may sell for $100-$200.

 

For $20 its a wise investment for your heirs to have your toned coins graded. Im not yet sold on whether CAC means anything to toned coin guys - for me - I dont care what CAC says and its difficult to attribute an increase in sale price solely to CAC since the coin is already graded.

 

To be clear, in my post, I was not addressing raw toned coins, I was addressing slabbed coins. Please refer to the sentence after the sentence you highlighted. I referred to my conviction that the important issue for a collector is that they are satisfied with the coin purchased regardless of a TPG grade including MA or AT and including whether or not CAC judged the coin acceptable in their market strategy.

 

Carl

[MarkFeld]

Someone posted a 314xxx toned Peace $ with a CAC green bean at some point. Thats the last one I have a recollection of.

 

Okay - so here's a question for you... you say you are ready to pay double bid for the toned CAC coin - is that bid amount based on the toning, the TPG or the CAC or a combination of some/all of the 3 ? Or something else ?

 

So if it didnt have the CAC would you only pay 1.5x bid for example ? Or its not even worth bidding on without the CAC bean ?

 

Thats the issue I was addressing. When I pay for a toning Im looking at the toning/color 1st, TPG 2nd and a distant 3rd is CAC.

 

 

#1 and #2 can increase or decrease my bid but rarely with #3 have any effect.

 

Just as some buyers are more confident in a coin's grade, due to a CAC sticker, some are more confident about the "originality" of a toned coin, due to a CAC sticker. To each his own.

[TonerGuy]

I know John likes it and that means a lot.....Without sticker, I would bid much less. *Forgot to add, it is one of my favorite coins.

 

I dont know John and I dont really know what he likes and its really not that important to me - but what is important to me is your statement that you would bid less if the coin wasnt CAC'd.

 

Its interesting that you would like the coin's toning less if it werent CAC. Is that because you think the CAC means the toning is original or the grade is more solid.

 

I wonder how many other toned specialist would bid less on the a toner just because it wasnt CAC'd.

 

I suppose that I can make an analogy to NGC * toned coins. Ive seen those coins command premiums far beyond just a toning premium, especially with toned Peace $.

 

And like you with CAC I will bid much stronger on * coins that are deserving of the *

[mommam17]

No , it's not that I would like the coin less if it wasn't stickered. Sometimes, pictures of coins don't really represent what the coin looks like. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it's nicer than the picture, sometimes not as nice. With the sticker, I know that it is probably a nice coin I will like, and not have problems like PVC contamination or something distracting. John's opinion means a lot to me and, as you say, is not important to you.

[Hard Times]

Someone posted a 314xxx toned Peace $ with a CAC green bean at some point. Thats the last one I have a recollection of.

 

Okay - so here's a question for you... you say you are ready to pay double bid for the toned CAC coin - is that bid amount based on the toning, the TPG or the CAC or a combination of some/all of the 3 ? Or something else ?

 

So if it didnt have the CAC would you only pay 1.5x bid for example ? Or its not even worth bidding on without the CAC bean ?

 

Thats the issue I was addressing. When I pay for a toning Im looking at the toning/color 1st, TPG 2nd and a distant 3rd is CAC.

 

 

#1 and #2 can increase or decrease my bid but rarely with #3 have any effect.

 

Just as some buyers are more confident in a coin's grade, due to a CAC sticker, some are more confident about the "originality" of a toned coin, due to a CAC sticker. To each his own.

 

I think that is a really important point. CAC is very conservative with what they will consider 'originality' of a toned coin. In truth, there is really no way to know how a coin toned in most cases and whether there was any human assistance applied, they do go for particular looks and you can be sure when you get a coin from them sight unseen, it will have that particular look within their definitions of it.

 

However, they will accept dipped silver coins that are blast white if the dipping 'wasn't too severe' - JA talked about this in an interview that is posted on their website - just another example of their subjectivity.

 

Take home message is learn as much as you can about these issues and decide for yourself, and be aware that CAC is just an opinion about a coin, as is the grade anyone can give to a coin.

 

Best, HT