• 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.

PCGS CAC Coin Registry
0

57 posts in this topic

From the press release:

"CAC Founder John Albanese offers his excitement for the new PCGS CAC Set Registry. “We’ve been talking for some time about starting an independent CAC registry, but we’re a small company and it’s a lot of work to build a proper registry program,” said Albanese. “PCGS is a much larger firm and they get more eyeballs on their website than we do, so we’re excited that they have agreed to launch the PCGS CAC Set Registry. We’re appreciative and they have my blessing.”

I'm fairly certain that the team at CAC has also approached the team at NGC about building out a similar set registry.  It makes sense for their business not to exclude either collector base and would be a bad move to make the CAC Set Registry an exclusive arrangement with PCGS.

I understand all the personal opinions on stickers but it looks like NGC has 2 options here:  1) declare CAC Set registries apply to the "better suited for a custom registry" response, or, 2) emulate the competition and create their own "NGC CAC Set Registry".  Option 2 is where my vote would go if I were in that meeting.

....then again, the 8th paragraph starts with, "The exclusive PCGS CAC Set Registry kicks off with nearly 100 different sets...." so maybe it is an exclusive arrangement and NGC just missed the boat on that opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eh, forget what I said then.  Heather confirmed it exclusive.  So I guess our hosts will do nothing with CAC to counter to answer @erwindoc's original question.

"PCGS is proud to have this exclusive partnership which includes a connection to the CAC database, allowing us to cross reference coins to ensure legitimacy of both the holders and stickers.

Heather Boyd
PCGS Director of Marketing"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If NGC decided to opt-out, I support that decision 100%. This reminds me of boxing. You used to have the standard weight classes with one champion. Now there are several champions in way too many made up weight classes. 

And then what about Wings? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, World Colonial said:

If you are correct about the proportional loss, this says a lot about the state of the "hobby".  It also says a lot about what "collectors" actually think of the coins they are buying.

Well, I think that post assumes that the graded coin market and the registry here and ATS are far bigger than they are. The vast majority don't participate here so it would make no sense for a registry development of any kind to hit prices much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Zebo said:

If NGC decided to opt-out, I support that decision 100%. This reminds me of boxing. You used to have the standard weight classes with one champion. Now there are several champions in way too many made up weight classes. 

And then what about Wings? 

Wings is irrelevant because they don't make a market in the coins they sticker.  There is certainly no reason to believe non-US collectors will ever care about it.  I doubt hardly any collectors even know who they are.  I recently bought and returned a coin with their sticker and the seller made it evident they had no idea about it either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Revenant said:

Well, I think that post assumes that the graded coin market and the registry here and ATS are far bigger than they are. The vast majority don't participate here so it would make no sense for a registry development of any kind to hit prices much.

I didn't read the post to which I replied with your interpretation.

It's evident the registry only covers a very low proportion of the collector base but the point I was making (but didn't state) is that this whole subject has little and in many instances, nothing to do with collecting at all but is part of the long term trend (since the 1970's at least) toward the financialization of the "hobby".

I don't expect most buyers (notice I didn't just say collectors) to ignore how much they pay or what their coins are worth.  Concurrently, while this is an extremely unpopular opinion among US collectors generally and especially the bigger budget buyers, I also know that the existing price structure and price level doesn't exist because of the relative merits of the more expensive coins as a collectible, CAC stickered or not.

Overwhelmingly, above what I would describe as a relatively nominal price (maybe $300), it's evident that most buyers disproportionately don't pay the price they did without the expectation of recovering most, all or even more of their money back.  Presumably they like what they buy but not enough to lose a "substantial" proportion (whatever it means to them) of their outlay.  A low proportion yes, but that's all.

This new registry segment is another form of marketing.  So is CAC.  Nothing wrong with that but that's what it is.  I can see limited demand for it but don't see that it will achieve any scale since there isn't much scale to the registry either.

I'm also dubious that it will make any noticeable difference to PCGS' submission volume which presumably is the primary motive for it.  Without an alternative, I guess that PCGS will increase its cross over volume somewhat but don't believe it will ever be material because most coins aren't worth grading, aren't eligible for a CAC sticker and even when it is, isn't worth the expense of stickering either.  It's a niche market and nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

Wings is irrelevant because they don't make a market in the coins they sticker.  There is certainly no reason to believe non-US collectors will ever care about it.  I doubt hardly any collectors even know who they are.  I recently bought and returned a coin with their sticker and the seller made it evident they had no idea about it either.

I agree, but if you go down this road - U.S. Coins, why not world coins and then why not wings? Just another way to slice the apple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Zebo said:

I agree, but if you go down this road - U.S. Coins, why not world coins and then why not wings? Just another way to slice the apple.

World coins are too fragmented.  Might be an options with certain segments but would say this is also contingent upon noticeably higher acceptance of TPG first which I don't believe will ever happen with most non-US collectors in most markets.  Equivalent financialization of "collecting" isn't going to happen elsewhere (ever) because the credit bubble isn't going to last long enough to make it possible, even if the market will otherwise accept it which I don't believe either.

Edited by World Colonial
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

World coins are too fragmented.  Might be an options with certain segments but would say this is also contingent upon noticeably higher acceptance of TPG first which I don't believe will ever happen with most non-US collectors in most markets.  Equivalent financialization of "collecting" isn't going to happen elsewhere (ever) because the credit bubble isn't going to last long enough to make it possible, even if the market will otherwise accept it which I don't believe either.

The world coin market is fragmented and adoption of TPG in most areas will probably not be accepted or will be slow to be accepted. But those markets are not the primary markets. Who uses the registries the most? With the slow, but increasing acceptance of TPG in the UK, Australia and Canada - this would be pertinent. The U.S. as the largest population that uses the registries - it's does carry over to the world collections. The argument that the vast majority does not use TPG is very true, but they are not the ones who use the registries so CAC and Wings are meaningless - as are the registries. Even though Wings has not caught on with the world collectors who use the registries - it is still a valid point about the slippery slope of slicing the apple too many times. It also should not be overlooked as NGC would be picking CAC over Wings in their decision if they decided on having a U.S. and World CAC registry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zebo said:

The world coin market is fragmented and adoption of TPG in most areas will probably not be accepted or will be slow to be accepted. But those markets are not the primary markets. Who uses the registries the most? With the slow, but increasing acceptance of TPG in the UK, Australia and Canada - this would be pertinent. The U.S. as the largest population that uses the registries - it's does carry over to the world collections. The argument that the vast majority does not use TPG is very true, but they are not the ones who use the registries so CAC and Wings are meaningless - as are the registries. Even though Wings has not caught on with the world collectors who use the registries - it is still a valid point about the slippery slope of slicing the apple too many times. It also should not be overlooked as NGC would be picking CAC over Wings in their decision if they decided on having a U.S. and World CAC registry. 

I'd expect it to be more pertinent with Chinese coins than others first.  I also suspect that it's primarily local buyers who are submitting their coins versus Americans which is almost certainly usually the case elsewhere.  It's also the only market where I believe meaningful scale can ever exist.

Most other countries will never have any financial scale in their collecting which means TPG isn't going anywhere.  The three countries you mentioned, maybe but if so, but by a local equivalent unless it's driven by Americans.  Australia has the best potential since it is one of the most financialized based upon the price level.

Ultimately, whether such an outcome "succeeds" or not is a function of the local collecting culture.  I state "succeeds" in quotes because there is a limit to the level of financialization possible in a supposed "hobby".  I believe the US is reaching or has already reached its endgame with it because only the hobbyist collector derives any actual utility from collecting, not financial buyers more interested in speculating for profit .  These gimmicks are only sufficient to maintain interest as long as the price level is stable or increasing.  It hasn't happened yet, but the bursting of the credit mania will eventually reverse it.  If collectors think prices have been stagnant over the last decade, just wait until financial assets crash later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2019 at 1:49 PM, World Colonial said:

If you are correct about the proportional loss, this says a lot about the state of the "hobby".  It also says a lot about what "collectors" actually think of the coins they are buying.

I was exaggerating a bit, unfortunately not all that much.  Of course some of this depends on the value and the coin, a chain cent or coiled hair gold coin will have buyers and a strong following to keep the prices higher.  But more widget type coins could see significant price falls if the fail data were ever released by CAC, some might even be close to my 50% number, its really tough to say for sure which coins would be the biggest losers.  Remember that if that data were released its affects would not be limited to registry participants, it would be felt across the entire hobby.

Quote

I'm also dubious that it will make any noticeable difference to PCGS' submission volume which presumably is the primary motive for it.  Without an alternative, I guess that PCGS will increase its cross over volume somewhat but don't believe it will ever be material because most coins aren't worth grading, aren't eligible for a CAC sticker and even when it is, isn't worth the expense of stickering either.  It's a niche market and nothing more.

I suspect this was a move to quash any attempt by CAC to develop a registry that would include all CAC approved coins, PCGS sees itself as above NGC and doesn't want to see a mixed registry.  Also this move allows them to continue their marketing as the best, top TPG with the exclusive wording in the press release.  Those two things I believe are the driving force behind the idea not any immediate revenues that may or may not come in the form of increased cross over attempts, although its quite possible that they will see a quick surge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, World Colonial said:

I didn't read the post to which I replied with your interpretation.

For brevity I'm not going to quote your whole post, just part of this so that what I'm saying is clearly a reply to you, but, your point is taken / a good one and I see where you're coming from and you're probably right.

I'm not a flipper and I'm hoping to never sell, so I don't really care about my coins as an investment and that's just not really how I think - which is probably why CAC never appealed to me.

I like the TPGs because it helps insure the coin is authentic and I like the presentation that the NGC holders in particular gives the coin - especially some of the smaller gold coins I collect, especially the newer pronged holders. I like higher grades - often MS64 to MS66 - because this generally means fewer distracting marks on the coins, and I enjoy the registry. But that's the extent of my interest.

This actually probably the biggest reason why my Zimbabwe Note set grew this year even though it hadn't really grown much in the last 10 years, even though I'd wanted to build it. Years ago I would have paid $30-50 a note for most of them. Prices have come down and now, this year, I've been able to build a lot of the set for $8-15 a note, already PMG graded. That got the price of building the set low enough that I could have fun building the rather large set and just think of it as a fun hobby / research activity and not care about not recovering my paid prices at any point down the road. At the higher prices I was happier going for silver rounds, knowing I'd at least have silver content for the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

I was exaggerating a bit, unfortunately not all that much.  Of course some of this depends on the value and the coin, a chain cent or coiled hair gold coin will have buyers and a strong following to keep the prices higher.  But more widget type coins could see significant price falls if the fail data were ever released by CAC, some might even be close to my 50% number, its really tough to say for sure which coins would be the biggest losers.  Remember that if that data were released its affects would not be limited to registry participants, it would be felt across the entire hobby.

What market segment you live in would definitely play a part. I've been having fun trying to collect some type coins for late 19th and early 20th century European gold coins. Several of those sell for only 20-50% above melt in grades of MS63 to MS65 (depending on the coin / date / whatever). Some of them are more like 100% over melt. Still... It's hard for me to imagine those dropping much. They're nice Ch BU or Gem BU examples that are already barely over melt. They're not going to drop under melt. So, unless melt drops, I don't see the market caring about CAC / WINGS all that much, and a 1-2 point change in grade doesn't change value much in that grade range- another reason I just roll my eyes when I see someone paid fees and shipping to get one stickered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

I was exaggerating a bit, unfortunately not all that much.  Of course some of this depends on the value and the coin, a chain cent or coiled hair gold coin will have buyers and a strong following to keep the prices higher.  But more widget type coins could see significant price falls if the fail data were ever released by CAC, some might even be close to my 50% number, its really tough to say for sure which coins would be the biggest losers.  Remember that if that data were released its affects would not be limited to registry participants, it would be felt across the entire hobby.

I suspect this was a move to quash any attempt by CAC to develop a registry that would include all CAC approved coins, PCGS sees itself as above NGC and doesn't want to see a mixed registry.  Also this move allows them to continue their marketing as the best, top TPG with the exclusive wording in the press release.  Those two things I believe are the driving force behind the idea not any immediate revenues that may or may not come in the form of increased cross over attempts, although its quite possible that they will see a quick surge. 

Makes sense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, World Colonial said:

This new registry segment is another form of marketing

 

9 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

I suspect this was a move to quash

Those two quotes sum it up nicely in my experience. They are big on marketing hype and quashing. I'm surprised CAC fell for it. It was a great opportunity for CAC to cement their status as an Uber-grader, and now they're just a PCGS lackey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kbbpll said:

 

Those two quotes sum it up nicely in my experience. They are big on marketing hype and quashing. I'm surprised CAC fell for it. It was a great opportunity for CAC to cement their status as an Uber-grader, and now they're just a PCGS lackey.

CAC didn’t “fall” for anything. You don’t know the whole story, but if you did, you wouldn't have said that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Just Bob said:

Is it a secret, or is it something that you can share with the rest of us?

It's not something I'm at Liberty to share - otherwise I'd be happy to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

It's not something I'm at Liberty to share - otherwise I'd be happy to.

Understood.

You must admit, though, that this appears, at least on the surface, to be a move on the part of PCGS to create a CAC registry that is populated exclusively by PCGS graded coins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Revenant said:

What market segment you live in would definitely play a part. I've been having fun trying to collect some type coins for late 19th and early 20th century European gold coins. Several of those sell for only 20-50% above melt in grades of MS63 to MS65 (depending on the coin / date / whatever). Some of them are more like 100% over melt. Still... It's hard for me to imagine those dropping much. They're nice Ch BU or Gem BU examples that are already barely over melt. They're not going to drop under melt. So, unless melt drops, I don't see the market caring about CAC / WINGS all that much, and a 1-2 point change in grade doesn't change value much in that grade range- another reason I just roll my eyes when I see someone paid fees and shipping to get one stickered.

You are referring to non-US coins.  Many later date US classic gold either effectively are or likely to be treated as bullion type coins.  The coins are (very) common.  The metal value accounts for a disproportionate amount of the value (most of it) but as a collectible, there are far better options for the money.  Can't proved it but I don't believe that most of these buyers really prefer it over comparably priced coinage.  They buy it as a gold substitute and it's much better liquidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2019 at 3:17 PM, Revenant said:

Maybe so, but I think they're shiny eye-sores that only impair the presentation of the coin - I hold the same opinion of the CAC stickers. They're not much better than scratches on the slab IMO. So, regardless of what they signify, I tend to dislike their presence. "Stupid" is mostly an indication of that dislike. I guess I should go with "ugly" instead.

I honestly like them even less now that I know.

You may remove those stickers and your coins will still be recognized by CAC. ¬¬

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Revenant said:

For brevity I'm not going to quote your whole post, just part of this so that what I'm saying is clearly a reply to you, but, your point is taken / a good one and I see where you're coming from and you're probably right.

I'm not a flipper and I'm hoping to never sell, so I don't really care about my coins as an investment and that's just not really how I think - which is probably why CAC never appealed to me.

I like the TPGs because it helps insure the coin is authentic and I like the presentation that the NGC holders in particular gives the coin - especially some of the smaller gold coins I collect, especially the newer pronged holders. I like higher grades - often MS64 to MS66 - because this generally means fewer distracting marks on the coins, and I enjoy the registry. But that's the extent of my interest.

This actually probably the biggest reason why my Zimbabwe Note set grew this year even though it hadn't really grown much in the last 10 years, even though I'd wanted to build it. Years ago I would have paid $30-50 a note for most of them. Prices have come down and now, this year, I've been able to build a lot of the set for $8-15 a note, already PMG graded. That got the price of building the set low enough that I could have fun building the rather large set and just think of it as a fun hobby / research activity and not care about not recovering my paid prices at any point down the road. At the higher prices I was happier going for silver rounds, knowing I'd at least have silver content for the money.

I have no problem with CAC since I don't collect US coins.

A CAC equivalent service for the world coinage I collect would not be an improvement but a defect assuming it would be accepted anyway.  The supply of the better coinage is disproportionately so low (when it even exists), that a handful or very low number of collectors are able to acquire it while everyone else is "locked out" and relegated to buying the "left overs".  That's also why registry sets make little sense because few can participate to showcase their collections.  In my primary current interest, I'd guess based upon the coins I know or believe to exist, that maybe two to four can likely have a comparable/better/more complete collection than mine.  This assumes the coins are concentrated and not dispersed.

If it did gain acceptance, the only thing it would succeed in doing is reducing affordability for an ever greater proportion of the collector base.  Such an outcome can only reduce interest by hobbyist collectors.  It hasn't been a problem (yet) in US coinage because there is still enough variety with sufficient supply at relatively affordable prices to maintain interest.  US collectors have also adopted specialization which doesn't exist elsewhere for the same reason.

One of the main reasons US based collectors choose to collect non-US coinage is because they cannot afford to buy the US coins they want.  Now, US coins have been the most expensive for as long as I have been alive but I'm not referring to elite or actual "trophy" coinage but better quality collector coins prior to about 1916; not real (as opposed to imaginary) rarities, not scarcer "key" dates, not patterns, and not most gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Just Bob said:

Understood.

You must admit, though, that this appears, at least on the surface, to be a move on the part of PCGS to create a CAC registry that is populated exclusively by PCGS graded coins.

I’m confident that CAC was fully aware of any such implications. My point was that whether one agrees or disagrees with such a move, CAC didn’t “fall” for anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

I’m confident that CAC was fully aware of any such implications. My point was that whether one agrees or disagrees with such a move, CAC didn’t “fall” for anything.

Obviously there was a reason JA left PCGS for a different direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't know your story and you probably don't know mine. Forums are for opinions, and mine is that exclusively sharing their database with PCGS will end badly for CAC. Why would I send NGC slabs to CAC, knowing that they are now in bed with PCGS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kbbpll said:

No, I don't know your story and you probably don't know mine. Forums are for opinions, and mine is that exclusively sharing their database with PCGS will end badly for CAC. Why would I send NGC slabs to CAC, knowing that they are now in bed with PCGS?

Have you sent NGC coins to CAC previously? If so, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0