Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by ddddd, Oct 3, 2021.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
The purpose of CAC is that it is supposed to help you avoid NGC and PCGS graded coins that are over graded or those that have been “worked on” too much. You read in the blogs about how John Albanese, the founder of the company, is “the go-to guy” whose expertise is superior to everyone else. That is the opinion of CAC’s supporters, not what Albanese says about himself.
When it started, it was supposed to denote the coins that John Albanese, and group of associated dealers were willing to buy at unspecified prices. Since then, it has morphed into what I defined above in the minds of it’s fans.
In truth, CAC has approved of coins that have been net graded, and, at times, there have been coins that followed “grade-flatiron” or were “off” completely. I have a file of pictures of these pieces, which fall short, in my opinion.
I have started many times that CAC gets it right well over 90% of the time, but that’s not good enough for the “CAC community.” For them, if you don’t support the concept that it is “the industry standard,” you are a heretic. By definition, in these people’s minds, coins without the sticker fall short, even though there is a chance that CAC may not have reviewed them, or there are other experts who might disagree.
That’s not accurate. Toning is a part of the grade they evaluate it. The only thing they ignore is plus grades
I think the obverse on 1 is prettier, but like a lot of toning a little splotchy. #2 is both a creamy, uniform toning and toned reverse. Since much of this toning was done in albums, toned reverses not as common. I would easily say #2 would sell for more ignore the CAC. Not from me, I would not pay toning premiums nowadays on any coin, but technically see the difference between the two even if I believe the obverse of #1 is prettier to me.
Do they though? To what end? The slab just says it is a 64. What exactly are they validating about it being a 64 that includes the *premium* for monster toning? Nothing. They may take toning into account for the grade, but that is almost irrelevant for a monster toned Morgan.
I can guarantee if they think it’s not at least market acceptable toning they won’t sticker it. Just like they won’t sticker PL, or dcam, fh, fbl etc unless they agree. The only grading aspect they ignore is the + and *.
Toning is part of a grade as it impacts eye appeal and surfaces which is part of a grade. The whole thing is evaluated.
As for me, I am not interested in either one. It’s a common date.
Oh boy, perhaps with uncommon color?
SensibleSal66, posted: "CAC in my opinion is just another Company looking to capitalize on the buyer and in return, we as collector's ultimately pay the price, literally ! We get srewed again."
Thanks for your opinion, I'll file it where it goes.
Morgans with neon green toning go for much more than standard rainbow toned coins.
That's generally the case for anti-cac people as they have to ignore the fact its a nicer coin to dismiss cac and ill just leave it at that
A friend of mine used to own the second coin, it's one of the best toned Morgans I have ever seen. IMO, the price it went for is justified.
That kind of toning is very common especially on 1887 Morgans. I just sold a very similar one for $220.
I know what it went for and I don't have any problem with it. I do think how it was sold helped it a little, but I wouldnt expect a price crash on it without that
This wasn’t meant to be a CAC thread but I guess that happens when a coin has one. To me the sticker doesn’t matter in this case but I know certain buyers want it. So it makes sense to spend the fee and submit a coin if selling (even if it adds one extra buyer to the pool, that would more than cover the nominal fee).
Back to the coins, the second has better toning but I was still surprised with the final result. It did not have the look of a $10k toner, especially since it is rare to see that kind of money spent on almost any toned common date Morgan below gem level. My valuations are $1k and $5k (but I don’t have the benefit of seeing the second one in hand).
As an individual who's an avid user/collector of CAC coins, I agree with your observation that some CACed coins don't deserve the technical grade given. If you collect scarce/key coins, I believe the majority of market-graded scarce/key coins can be many grades from their technically past graded counterparts.
We probably should remember that a CAC bean only signifies that the coin is at least average for the specific TPG grading period.
The CACed 2nd coin could easily sell at multiples of the C.D.N. listed value, as the CAC bean is relatively inexpensive, but the market value may be appreciably greater than the C.D.N./TPG listed value, and possibly realizing an appreciably increased R.O.I.. LOL
Separate names with a comma.