Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Kasia, post: 2087130, member: 31533&quot;]Just a thought (speculation, so maybe someone can confirm/deny this) after reading this and some of the PCGS board stuff, both now poofed and not poofed. Perhaps CAC coins don&#039;t get so much a &quot;premium&quot; on them, but are seen to be higher than the &#039;supposed&#039; price for a coin in that grade (prices &#039;lowered&#039; due to gradeflation bringing the prices down on all coins unseen in that grade (ie, AU sliders being slabbed at times as UNC but recognizing they have &#039;friction&#039; on them, i.e, accepable&#039; wear, or color on truly UNC coins to bump up a coin a notch or two, or even AU coins with market acceptable toning being graded as mid or higher UNC because allowing friction and toning/luster to override the actual wear noticed on the coin) simply by being a quality coin of that grade? So their price actually reflects what the price of that grade coin should be???</p><p><br /></p><p>But at least CAC is an acceptable &#039;allowance&#039; for a better price for a coin in that grade.</p><p><br /></p><p>And market grading coins (like bumping up exceptional looking coins with toning, etc.) to an actual grade that it might sell for with a premium applied if it was a lower grade coin could be a reaction to the TPGs wanting to be able to put a price on each grade they do and not have extraneous features/likeability affect that pricing, because then they don&#039;t have to allow for that in seeing auction prices?</p><p><br /></p><p>Again, this is just being tossed out there for discussion. I can&#039;t say it is true or not, but these are things that might possibly be what is behind this, no?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in