Recently, the PCGS message boards have been bubbling with CAC or CACG threads and many of these deal with the first submission experience of various members. I have been a long-time proponent of CAC and thought that I would share what my first submission was like way back when CAC first opened their doors and attended a local coin show in 2008.
10 February 2024
10 February 2024
Results Of My First Submission To CAC And Images & Analysis
Lately I have seen myriad threads on the PCGS boards regarding a first submission to CAC, the submission process for CAC or “guess the CAC” on the boards. Therefore, I thought it might be interesting to drag up my first CAC submission. Many (most?) folks likely realize I am a big fan of CAC and of the small investment required to get some truly experienced eyes to review (sticker) coins at a much slower rate than they are reviewed (graded) through the TPGs. As with anything else though, I don’t agree with all the calls made by CAC and I believe there have been times where their communication has been lacking.
My first submission to CAC was done November 8, 2008 in-person at the now defunct CoinFest show held in CT and hosted by Laurie Sperber of Legend Numismatics. John Albanese (JA) and company were set-up at the show and they offered to evaluate 20-coins per person for free and the coins would be returned that day. That was a pretty darn generous offer so, like anyone else, I went to the show with 72-coins to submit! Yeah, 72 is more than 20, but if CAC wasn’t busy I assumed they would look through all of them. Also, I had known JA and company for more than a decade at that point and I knew they would be generous with their time and appreciate the market penetration.
My first submission to CAC was done November 8, 2008 in-person at the now defunct CoinFest show held in CT and hosted by Laurie Sperber of Legend Numismatics. John Albanese (JA) and company were set-up at the show and they offered to evaluate 20-coins per person for free and the coins would be returned that day. That was a pretty darn generous offer so, like anyone else, I went to the show with 72-coins to submit! Yeah, 72 is more than 20, but if CAC wasn’t busy I assumed they would look through all of them. Also, I had known JA and company for more than a decade at that point and I knew they would be generous with their time and appreciate the market penetration.
One of the coins I guessed green correctly on was this 1795 DBSE dollar in a PCGS EF40 holder.
This is the point where things get geeky. I’m a scientist and thought it would be cool if I predicted the CAC results prior to submission. We know how it would have gone otherwise…if I hadn’t predicted the results then I’d have gone through the box and said “I assumed that would green…I thought that would fail…I knew that would gold…etc…” With that in mind I prepared a two-page Word document and emailed it to Mark Feld of Heritage Auctions (HA) on October 26, 2008. In this way there was a written record of the coin-by-coin prediction. TOTAL SCIENCE GEEK! Mark received the email, presumably read it, perhaps didn’t fall asleep due to its length and dryness, recovered his breath from laughing so hard and then politely responded with-
“I looked at your list and comments. As nice as I imagine most of your coins must be, I would still be shocked if you receive as many green and gold stickers combined as you are estimating. I look forward to being mistaken, however.”
The list actually contained a few more coins than the 72-submitted, but I sold those in the two-week gap. Although the Word document has a detailed list of each coin and its prediction, I will absolutely not hammer everyone with the details. The aggregate totals are below-
Guessed Fail-2
Guessed Green-65
Guessed Gold-5
“I looked at your list and comments. As nice as I imagine most of your coins must be, I would still be shocked if you receive as many green and gold stickers combined as you are estimating. I look forward to being mistaken, however.”
The list actually contained a few more coins than the 72-submitted, but I sold those in the two-week gap. Although the Word document has a detailed list of each coin and its prediction, I will absolutely not hammer everyone with the details. The aggregate totals are below-
Guessed Fail-2
Guessed Green-65
Guessed Gold-5
I guessed gold for this 1921 WLH PCGS VF25 OGH, but didn't get it.
This would have been a 97.2% sticker rate that included a 6.9% rate for gold stickers. Yes, I know, there is a word for that…“hubris”. The coins went through and these were the results-
Actual Fail-4
Actual Green-60
Actual Gold-8
Actual Fail-4
Actual Green-60
Actual Gold-8
I guessed green for this 1946-S WQ PCGS MS66, but was pleasantly surprised with gold.
The results were pretty darn close, but not exact. The overall sticker rate was lower at 94.4%, but the gold sticker rate was higher at 11.1%. Overall, I was pleased. A few notes on the results and/or process-
1) The coins submitted ran the gamut from early Federal silver to gem nineteenth century type to superb mid-century silver. I did not submit scores of low hanging fruit (proof Franklin half dollars, late date MS Mercury dimes or 1938-D Buffalo nickels). If I had, then my gold sticker rate would have gone up.
2) Many of these coins were either submitted for certification or purchased in the 1990s, which means the pool of coins that I was choosing from was a bit different than would be found today since many of these coins would have, in the intervening years, been resubmitted in search of a higher grade or might already be tucked away in collections.
3) None of the coins that I predicted would receive a gold sticker actually received a gold sticker.
4) Fifteen-years later, I still own 40 of the 72-coins submitted. None have been regraded in that time.
5) The only gold-stickered MS66 Barber half dollar was in that group and I still own it.
6) My green and gold sticker rates have dropped only a small amount over the last decade and a half.
7) Some folks have mentioned that CAC has gotten tighter since the launch of CACG, but my small dataset of CAC submissions in that time has not shown much difference.
8) I strongly believe it was easier in 2008 to have a high success rate at CAC than it is today, especially if one is looking at $500+ coinage because so much of what is offered today has already cycled through the process whereas it was all new in 2008.
9) The CAC booth was not terribly busy at the CoinFest show and many folks there were not interested in taking CAC up on their offer, even if they brought nice coins with them.
10) My success rate at CAC was not universal at all as there were other dealers and collectors who submitted similar types of coinage and who received sticker rates of 20% or less.
11) Alas, Mark was correct, I did not receive the guessed 70 coins to receive green+gold stickers, only 68-coins.
1) The coins submitted ran the gamut from early Federal silver to gem nineteenth century type to superb mid-century silver. I did not submit scores of low hanging fruit (proof Franklin half dollars, late date MS Mercury dimes or 1938-D Buffalo nickels). If I had, then my gold sticker rate would have gone up.
2) Many of these coins were either submitted for certification or purchased in the 1990s, which means the pool of coins that I was choosing from was a bit different than would be found today since many of these coins would have, in the intervening years, been resubmitted in search of a higher grade or might already be tucked away in collections.
3) None of the coins that I predicted would receive a gold sticker actually received a gold sticker.
4) Fifteen-years later, I still own 40 of the 72-coins submitted. None have been regraded in that time.
5) The only gold-stickered MS66 Barber half dollar was in that group and I still own it.
6) My green and gold sticker rates have dropped only a small amount over the last decade and a half.
7) Some folks have mentioned that CAC has gotten tighter since the launch of CACG, but my small dataset of CAC submissions in that time has not shown much difference.
8) I strongly believe it was easier in 2008 to have a high success rate at CAC than it is today, especially if one is looking at $500+ coinage because so much of what is offered today has already cycled through the process whereas it was all new in 2008.
9) The CAC booth was not terribly busy at the CoinFest show and many folks there were not interested in taking CAC up on their offer, even if they brought nice coins with them.
10) My success rate at CAC was not universal at all as there were other dealers and collectors who submitted similar types of coinage and who received sticker rates of 20% or less.
11) Alas, Mark was correct, I did not receive the guessed 70 coins to receive green+gold stickers, only 68-coins.
This 1839-O Reeded Edge half dollar PCGS EF45 received a green sticker.
My biggest whiff, if we can call it that, was with predicting gold CAC sticker coins. What we have to keep in mind is that I had seen exceptionally few CAC-stickered coins up to that point and only owned a single CAC-stickered coin in my collection. I had known JA and company for 15-years or more at that point and I also knew that I graded along the same lines as JA and company, but my "line in the sand" for certain grades or certain surface properties was slightly different (depending upon the grade and/or surface property) than that for JA and company. We largely overlapped far more than most folks overlap, but there were (and still are) some points where we disagree at the margins.
That is where the CAC gold sticker misses came from; coins on the margins. In particular, I grade WQs about a third to a half point tighter, on average, than PCGS while I grade them even tighter relative to NGC. I had not known where the CAC gold sticker line was and so at that point I was guessing at the margins. So, the 1946-S and other WQs received CAC gold stickers while I guessed green, but within the body of the email I sent to Mark Feld I wrote that they were undergraded as MS66, but did not feel they met what I interpreted as the CAC standard for a gold sticker at that grade. Really, it was a miss at the margins.
Similar things can be written about the other coins that did or did not receive a CAC gold sticker. As for the VF25 1921 WLH that only received a green sticker, I asked JA and he agreed that the coin was a VF30 or VF35, but he didn't want to give it a gold CAC sticker unless it was really pushing hard on EF40. Perhaps that stance has changed with time, but when I submitted the coin the line was there.
That is where the CAC gold sticker misses came from; coins on the margins. In particular, I grade WQs about a third to a half point tighter, on average, than PCGS while I grade them even tighter relative to NGC. I had not known where the CAC gold sticker line was and so at that point I was guessing at the margins. So, the 1946-S and other WQs received CAC gold stickers while I guessed green, but within the body of the email I sent to Mark Feld I wrote that they were undergraded as MS66, but did not feel they met what I interpreted as the CAC standard for a gold sticker at that grade. Really, it was a miss at the margins.
Similar things can be written about the other coins that did or did not receive a CAC gold sticker. As for the VF25 1921 WLH that only received a green sticker, I asked JA and he agreed that the coin was a VF30 or VF35, but he didn't want to give it a gold CAC sticker unless it was really pushing hard on EF40. Perhaps that stance has changed with time, but when I submitted the coin the line was there.
