Sent 23 Morgans To CAC....The Results!

Yes, that's what I think and that's what most of my experience (albeit not as great as yours) would lead me to conclude.

Do you agree ?

I see what you are saying here -- and it is INTUITIVELY logical -- but if for most coins the 'inflection point' on coins is MS-65 or MS-66, then it stands to reason that the most submissions would be for coins that have a shot to go MS-65 or MS-66 or maybe even MS-67.

If you have a Saint or MSD and it can gain -- what ? 10% ? -- by going up 1 grade or getting a CAC in the low-60's, is it worth it ?

OTOH, if you can go from an MS-65 to MS-66 for some Saints/MSD years, it can add 20-50%, maybe more.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Doug,

I agree with Physics that it doesn't necessarily mean overgrading is rampant (although I do believe that it is a huge problem). Even CAC acknowledges that accurately graded coins fail CAC because CAC supposedly only stickers those that are solid or high end for the grade. A low end MS65, for instance, might still be a MS65, but it is not CAC material.

 

I'm sorry that I overlooked your reply earlier; I didn't intentionally ignore the question you asked.

The counterfeits that are the cheapest to make tend to be shoddy and can be spotted by someone with a reasonable amount of numismatic knowledge and thus should pose little concern to collectors or dealers entering into a transaction. Good "quality" counterfeits - those that I define as good enough to fool a significant number of collectors and maybe even some dealers - require a lot of time and resources to perfect. They are more costly and therefore the economic considerations of counterfeiting seem to lean towards them being profitable only for more expensive items. This isn't to say that they don't exist for cheaper items, but they are MUCH, MUCH rarer. Put another way, if you are going to pour a lot of effort into counterfeiting, you are looking to maximize the return on your "investment." Counterfeiting $100-$150 coins isn't going to do that. And I think the TPGs and collecting community would catch on very quickly if someone started a massive operation.

And with regards to counterfeiting, I think Morgan Dollars are easier to authenticate, in many instances, given to the enormous amount of information in the public domain (e.g. VamWorld) about the various dies used to strike legitimate coins. Most counterfeiters would overlook subtle nuisances that could be used to authenticate a coin. Moreover, the series is very different than Trade Dollars for instance, as the latter are known for producing very deceptive pieces.

 

Coin, I've seen photos on the Web of tons of MSDs in a Chinese warehouse. There must be plenty of buyers for these coins, must be lots of people not able to pick out a counterfeit.

Another factor is the markup to the bullion itself. If you include $12 in silver in an MSD counterfeit, you want to be able to sell them for a big multiple of that bullion. It's tricker with a Saint, where you are going to need over $1,000 in gold (assuming you are using gold) and unless it's a very rare mintage or year, you're going to replicate a common with a mark-up of maybe 30-50% at best.

Given who buys what, I think your average Saint buyer is more likely to be a coin expert than your average Morgan buyer. Because there are lots more part-time, occasional buyers of Morgans given the lower $$$ involved in buying them. Saints require alot more money to purchase and the average buyer is collector is probably more knowledgeable about that type of coin. There are lots more MSD collectors than Saints, I think that's the consensus.

Of course, as we have seen here, the 'experts' on both coins are extremely knowledgeable. But neither are likely to be looking at any counterfeit coins. It's the occasional, casual, or gift-buyer who I think is the target.

 

I think your logic is severely flawed. The fact that the orient may have stockpiled hoards of shoddily produced counterfeits says nothing about how deceptive they would be to a reasonably knowledgeable buyer, particularly in the U.S. And if someone is that oblivious (based on the Chinese fakes I have seen), then they should not be buying their own materials but should be buying through a dealer or other agent. (After all, slabs can be counterfeited too!). And I doubt gift buyers really care about CAC or any reassurance (see the next to last paragraph).

What's more, the initial comment I responded to involved statements that the CAC sticker would reassure the buyers of the coins listed in the OP (most probably worth less than $200 each) in terms of authenticity. As I stated, I think the odds of a deceptive counterfeit being produced in those grades/dates/mint marks/varieties are very small. And if we are concerned about authenticity, then why is the TPG's opinion not enough? Unlike grading, which is highly subjective, authentication is usually fairly clearly cut (although admittedly there are exceptions). And even in the event of rare exceptions, the TPG, who is able to weigh the coin raw and examine its edges, etc., that are hidden by the slab, is in a much better position than CAC.

So, again, I do not think the CAC sticker provides any real added assurances concerning the authenticity of coins which are unquestionably genuine and unlikely to be counterfeited at all. That is what I was trying to say.

 

For collectors I believe points one and two, which I have placed in bold text, are the main points regarding the 40-50% success rate at CAC. For dealers I would think the failure rate might be driven more by attempting to add liquidity to liner coins than any type of inexperience.

 

That is a really good point regarding the dealers, and I think there are collectors who will do the same since collectors do not pay for coins that do not sticker. This tends to make collectors more liberal in what they might submit. Collectors, myself included, often use CAC as a marketing tool to move leftovers and duplicates from their holdings.

 

Coin, I agree with the gist of your statement -- but there are plenty of suckers out there. As an investment advisor, I can tell you there are MILLIONS of people who are suckers with their money. I just read a story of a guy who put his kids college savings into Beanie Babies 15 years ago.

The people buying these coins will never find their way to forum like CT.

No argument...I don't really need a CAC on a $250 MSD. But on a $2,500 Saint (or more), it's not a bad thing to have. Yes, I'll do my own DD and try and look for any flaws/problems, but knowing that a TPG and CAC/JA have already looked it over is a good feeling. I may or may not be making a wise investment but I am NOT getting taken in by a fraud.

That's worth something to a novice grader like myself.

I'm not disagreeing....but I still think it's nice to have, don't you ?

 

CAC would be able to tell us how many submsissions they get for each coin that are high-MS and low-MS. I still think that in relative and MAYBE absolute numbers, it's the former. I could be wrong, but it just seems that most people with an MS-60 or MS-61 or MS-62 aren't seeking out CAC. I don't see many at my LCS or the shows I attend.

Hey GD, I don't want to turn this thread into a Grading Thread like our other one, but you do realize that JA @ CAC is using ANA standards and is a former grader, right ? He is trying to correct the occassional periods of 'sloppiness' or 'looseness' the industry has had, but not looking to repeal the last 30 years of grade history.

He's CONCURRING with the TPG grades !!

Just sayin'.........

 

No, especially not on coins worth less than $500 each.

 

You say potato......

 

I will when I get them back. It takes a good 4-5 days for registered to move a couple states down to me and since I am leaving for Wash, DC and the Baltimore Whitman show on Wed morning, it may have to wait until I return and can get them from the PO.

 

Does CAC ever not sticker a coin just because they wouldn't want to buy it?

Part of the meaning of the sticker is that it is solid for the grade (A or B), AND they are willing to make an offer on it.

 

Yes. If a coin has toning that is too dark (for example), even if it is solid for the grade, CAC will not sticker it because it doesn't mesh with CAC's taste. @Lehigh96 posted a picture of a Lafayette commemorative in a CAC thread I bumped up recently that illustrates my point nicely. (It is the one with the sticker with John Albanese's writing on it that says that it is a 65 but too dark). This is a limited example, but it does occur.

 

8

If you are sending in an Ultra Cameo you can send it to Rick Tomaska when you get it back from CAC for a third set of eyes and a second sticker. Then, if you got the coin from Stacks or Heritage it will have their inventory control sticker on it so you could potentially have three stickers on the slab. The next buyer will surely believe it to be authentic with four verifications and three stickers.

 

IMO, every coin that does not sticker is one they don't want to buy. Period. End of Story.

 

You are absolutely correct.

However.....the odds of fraud, already reduced greatly by the TPG, go to very very small with the 2nd opinion. The 3rd and 4th are clearly over-kill for 99.999% of the coin population.