What Gold Coins Do CAC Stickers Add the Most Value to?

After two+ years of being traded on the open market, I think few collectors and dealers would argue the statement that CAC stickering has added considerable value and liquidity to many types of United States gold coinage. But are we now able to determine with a decent degree of accuracy which coins are most affected by a CAC (or the absence of a sticker)? Let's take a look at some areas of the gold coin market and see how CAC is adding value. One of the areas that CAC has added the greatest amount of value is in the St. Gaudens double eagle market. The impact is seen two ways. The first is with common "generic" issues in MS65 and MS66. One of the main reasons why the premium for non-CAC certified MS65 Saints is so low when compared to MS64 coins is that most of the coins in MS65 holders are not significantly better than those graded MS64.

What CAC has done is to identify those coins graded MS65 that are nice quality and which are "real" 65's. Currently, non-CAC Saints in MS65 trade for around $2,300. Those with CAC stickers are worth at least 10-15% more. They are also quite liquid and can be sold even when dealers have extensive numbers of non-CAC coins in stock. Non-CAC MS66 Saints are currently worth around $2,750-2,850 per coin. The premium for MS66 Saints with CAC stickers is at least $750-1,000 per coin. Given the fact that the stickered MS66 coins I have seen are very nice (as compared with the non-stickered coins which range from inferior for the grade to decent) this premium makes sense.

Another area where CAC stickered coins are selling for a significant premium is in the better date Saint market. Let me pick a random issue: the 1927-S in MS64. This coin has a current bid of $70,000 in this grade and a bona-fide Gem is worth double this. The quality of 1927-S double eagles varies greatly and there are coins that are very low end and hard to sell for $55,000 and coins that are very high end and worth over bid. I can't recall having ever seen a 1927-S in MS64 with a CAC sticker but if I had a PCGS/CAC coin that I liked I'd quote $75,000+.

Early gold (i.e. gold coins struck from 1795 to 1834) is area that has shown itself to be influenced by CAC stickers. I don't like every single piece of CAC-stickered early gold that I see but I like at least 90% of the coins. Compare this to non-CAC early gold where probably 50-60% (or more) of the coins offered at auction or through dealer's websites are not, in my opinion, nice for the grade. I find this to be especially true with early gold in the MS63 and MS64 grades. As an example, an 1812 half eagle in MS64 with a CAC sticker is currently worth around $40,000. The same coin in the same grade that is not stickered and which is not a CAC-quality coin, in my opinion, might be hard to sell for $32,500. More and more collectors of coins like this are demanding that they be CAC stickered and the premium for the pieces that have the Green Bean is at least 10-15% and climbing.

Because so many Proof gold coins have been doctored over the years, CAC-stickered pieces are currently garnering high premiums. This is more so with Matte Proofs than Brilliant Proofs. I can't remember seeing more than a few Matte Proof gold coins in the last two years that weren't doctored to the point that they weren't even the right color. When the few remaining fresh pieces come onto the market, they realize strong prices. As an example, Stack's just sold at auction a lovely 1913 Matte Proof gold set. All four coins were CAC stickered and all four brought exceptional prices. I see similarly graded washed-out NGC Matte Proof gold from time to time and it brings Greysheet prices or lower; these superb, vibrant Gems brought numbers that were way over "sheet."

I've found CAC to be very particular when it comes to Brilliant Proof gold as well. Lower grade (PR63 and below) Proofs aren't really impacted by having or not having having CAC stickers unless they are a very rare early date issue. In this case, the premium seems to be around 10%. The real premium is for very high grade pieces. As an example, from time to time, a really remarkable PR68 or PR69 Liberty Head quarter eagle will become available. While these coins tend to be pretty amazing from a visual standpoint, very few are CAC approved. I believe that a PR68 or PR69 gold coin with a CAC would sell for a very significant premium; maybe 20-30%.

There is no doubt in my mind that CAC has greatly improved the value and liquidity of nice NGC coins. As someone who sells a good number of NGC coins, I've noticed that pieces that have CAC stickers are regarded as being just about as "good" to collectors as PCGS coins; unless the collector is working on a PCGS-only Registry Set and will not purchase any coins at all in NGC holders. In the collector marketplace, the current hierarchy for many series of US gold coins is as follows:

1. PCGS coins with CAC stickers 2. NGC coins with CAC stickers 3. PCGS coins without CAC stickers 4. NGC coins without CAC stickers

A major exception to this rule is rarity. If a coin is a very rare date (say an 1883-O eagle or an 1842-C Small Date half eagle), collectors are still concerned first and foremost with the coin itself and not the plastic.

Another exception is the popularity of the series and who the end users are. Certain series, like three dollar gold pieces, are just not popular enough right now that CAC stickers make all that much of a difference from a price standpoint. Other series, like Type Three Liberty Head double eagles and Indian Head quarter eagles, are sold mainly by marketers who do not "preach the gospel" of CAC and, therefore, the current market premium is not as great as in other series.

It has been interesting to view the market acceptance of CAC in the last two years. The market has gone from being initially cynical (and in some cases hostile) to being accepting to, in some cases, fully embracing CAC. This has been most clear in the premiums paid for CAC coins and I think we'll see these premiums continue and, in many cases, increase as demand grows in the coming years for the highest quality rare coins.

PCGS Hires a New Grader and Some Thoughts on Third-Party Grading

I’ve used this forum in the past as a venue to criticize the grading services. So, it’s only fair to give credit where credit is due and congratulate PCGS on their new hire as a grader, Charlie Browne. I’ve known Charlie for the better part of two decades. He was last employed by Certified Asset Management, a wholesale firm and market maker of high-end US coins.

Charlie is an old school New England coin dealer; one of the last of the “smart and fair” guys (along with Warren Mills from RCNH and a few others) that used to include such now-retired luminaries as Ed Leventhal, Russ Vaughn, Chris Tracey and Jay Miller.

Here’s what I’ve always admired about Charlie. He’s a guy who gets by with a great eye for coins; not an ability to bake/putty/smoke/laser them. I’ve always liked doing business with Charlie: he’s a square shooter, he paid-up for nice coins and his inventory always had more choice, original pieces than most dealers. He’s going to make a great addition to the PCGS staff.

For the most part, I’m pretty impressed by PCGS and NGC’s ability to get it right when it comes to grading. But I’ve always had two basic complaints when it comes to the whole concept of third-party certification. The first is that graders are continually looking at coins that are out of their comfort zone. I think that I can grade 18th and 19th century gold as well as anyone but I’m pretty clueless when it comes to series like Buffalo Nickels and Walkers. How can PCGS and NGC expect their graders to be experts, simultaneously, in Indian Cents and Pattern silver dollars?

My second issue has to do with real-world experience. I love the fact that in Charlie Browne, PCGS now has a world-class grader on staff who has spent the last few decades buying and selling coins. You can read about grading, you can take grading classes, you can set yourself up as an expert on grading in chat rooms, etc. But there’s only one way to really, truly learn how to grade: you have to buy and sell coins and you have to do it in a situation where mistakes are going to hit you directly in the pocketbook.

Looking back over my two+ decade career as a professional dealer, my most vivid and memorable grading experiences haven’t been the big hits. They’ve been the situations where I made a titanic mistake; one that cost me financially. Trust me, there is nothing more humbling and more experiential than buying an early half eagle, paying MS63 money for it, having it come back a grade or two lower and, after much consternation, regrading and grumbling, selling it for a $10,000 loss. Unless you have absolutely no conscience, these mistakes teach you a lot!

Getting back to Charlie Browne and PCGS, what I really like about this hire is the “fresh eyes” that he will bring to the PCGS grading room. The more I think about it, the more I wish that both PCGS and NGC would bring in “guest graders” every few months. Guys like Charlie know the current market standards for most series, they know when the services are being too tight or too loose and they know that “look” that has the most commercial appeal.

When they coin market was in great shape a few years ago, I would imagine that the pool of potential graders that PCGS and NGC had to pick from was pretty unimpressive (or the impressive guys were probably pricing themselves at levels about two or three times their true market value...). Now that the market has contracted and some of the high-flyers are, shall we say “grounded,” the talent pool is probably a lot more impressive. For a variety of reasons, PCGS can now hire a world-class guy like Charlie Browne and I wouldn’t be surprised if NGC is in negotiation with their own impressive guy(s).

So, here’s to the Charlie Browne/PCGS situation working out well for everyone involved. I know that I’m excited about this announcement and I think Charlie will be a great addition to the PCGS staff.