Looking at the recent FUN sale results and seeing the Greysheet CAC and non-CAC price changes on Bust, Seated, and early US gold coinage, it made me think about the pricing correlation between CAC and non-CAC coins. In general, the formula is generally non-CAC is "x" and CAC is "x"+15%. I completely understand when you move the prices up for a non-CAC coin due to a sales record or two and then add 15% to the CAC coin price too, if there are no sales records of CAC coins to use. What I don't necessarily agree with is if a strong price is realized for a CAC coin that it necessitates bringing up the non-CAC coin to be within 15% of the CAC price. I would be curious to get your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance.
The very recent Heritage FUN auctions that were postponed a week was almost unbelievable. Some prices are double or triple or more the current CDN and auction prices realized results. Especially on US gold coins. I wonder if those astronomical prices can sustain? Not all of the coins were exceptionally rare.
Looking at the recent FUN sale results and seeing the Greysheet CAC and non-CAC price changes on Bust, Seated, and early US gold coinage, it made me think about the pricing correlation between CAC and non-CAC coins. In general, the formula is generally non-CAC is "x" and CAC is "x"+15%. I completely understand when you move the prices up for a non-CAC coin due to a sales record or two and then add 15% to the CAC coin price too, if there are no sales records of CAC coins to use. What I don't necessarily agree with is if a strong price is realized for a CAC coin that it necessitates bringing up the non-CAC coin to be within 15% of the CAC price. I would be curious to get your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance.
I have been carefully reviewing the majority of results from the FUN Heritage auction with the same concern and even heard from a couple people today regarding (strong) levels. Frankly, when we’re talking about quality Bust, Seated, early US coins (of any denomination) the distinction between “choice” (or CAC) quality vs. non-CAC can be severe to be sure. But in every case I have actually reviewed the numbers to make sure new prices are consistent with past market levels, etc.
Take, for example, the 73-CC dime in XF45. It has seen wild price swings since our records on CDN start in 2008. The same exact coin (with the mark on the breast) which is now CAC original sold twice in 2008 & 2009 (pre-CAC days) for $34,500. Then, as a CAC, it sold in 2010 for $19,500. Now it realized $51,600. Whew. This is, however, in my opinion a symptom of the larger strength of CC coinage overall. Dated CC gold went nuts last week, across the board and not just CAC coinage. Our valuation reflects this larger view. I think CC coins are super strong right now, and it would be a mistake to under-estimate this. I am generally inclined to believe that these are the new levels for collector coins across the board, CC, Seated, gold, etc.
That said, there are a lot of outliers that we will not chase completely. A lot more than usual, so we are keeping an eye on things. Last year or two have been strong from a demand sense, but prices have remained in check… until now, maybe. Only time will tell. If next levels show declines, we will be sure to reflect that as well.
p.s. the CAC = non-CAC + 15% is only a starting point for our valuations. We deviate from these levels when we have empirical evidence (i.e. actual auction data) and we've even seen series (like Seated dollars) where a 20% premium is more accurate.
The very recent Heritage FUN auctions that were postponed a week was almost unbelievable. Some prices are double or triple or more the current CDN and auction prices realized results. Especially on US gold coins. I wonder if those astronomical prices can sustain? Not all of the coins were exceptionally rare.
Agreed. Further evidence that this bull market may be for real...
With access to the thinking of John Feigenbaum, this thread probably represents one of the best “values” of this Forum!
Here’s a question: While CAC does not “recognize” Plus grades, “the market” does recognize the extra value in coins with CAC’s that also have plus grades, even though the sticker only says the coin is solid for that “whole number” grade, and is NOT saying the coin is solid as a plus. Can your publication provide pricing guidance for this situation? In many cases of high grades, a coin with a CAC AND a Plus realizes in auctions more than double the price of coins with CAC’s without the Plus. One example: 1858 Large Letters Flying Eagle Cents, MS66 vs MS66+.
With access to the thinking of John Feigenbaum, this thread probably represents one of the best “values” of this Forum!
Here’s a question: While CAC does not “recognize” Plus grades, “the market” does recognize the extra value in coins with CAC’s that also have plus grades, even though the sticker only says the coin is solid for that “whole number” grade, and is NOT saying the coin is solid as a plus. Can your publication provide pricing guidance for this situation? In many cases of high grades, a coin with a CAC AND a Plus realizes in auctions more than double the price of coins with CAC’s without the Plus. One example: 1858 Large Letters Flying Eagle Cents, MS66 vs MS66+.
Thanks.
Steve
Thanks for the compliment, Steve!
We don't price + coins for a few reasons. Primarily, it is our belief that + coins are worth somewhere between the assigned grade and the next grade. CAC-approved or not. I think it's an insane challenge to add + for CAC and non-CAC to the huge number of prices we already assign and we feel the buyer has enough data at this point to interpret value. Going back to our mantra, price guides are just "guides," which is also why we feel auction data is very important. Use everything you have to determine what you want to pay, or realize when you sell.
This is broad, but have you all looked at pricing for Walking Liberty and Silver Commemorative half dollars lately? It seems like CDN/Greysheet is pretty low for these series (especially common dates). On the other end of the spectrum, Franklin half dollar pricing (especially FBL on more common dates) is pretty high where some dates do well to sell for Greysheet price at auction.
With access to the thinking of John Feigenbaum, this thread probably represents one of the best “values” of this Forum!
Here’s a question: While CAC does not “recognize” Plus grades, “the market” does recognize the extra value in coins with CAC’s that also have plus grades, even though the sticker only says the coin is solid for that “whole number” grade, and is NOT saying the coin is solid as a plus. Can your publication provide pricing guidance for this situation? In many cases of high grades, a coin with a CAC AND a Plus realizes in auctions more than double the price of coins with CAC’s without the Plus. One example: 1858 Large Letters Flying Eagle Cents, MS66 vs MS66+.
Thanks.
Steve
I think that would quickly become unmanageable and contentious. To me, the + just says "look closely." I searched for quite a while for a proof $5 Liberty. Finally got a 63+ as it filled my wants.
"Looking closely" I could see that it filled my search for minimal hairlines and great contrast even better than those of higher grade.
This is broad, but have you all looked at pricing for Walking Liberty and Silver Commemorative half dollars lately? It seems like CDN/Greysheet is pretty low for these series (especially common dates). On the other end of the spectrum, Franklin half dollar pricing (especially FBL on more common dates) is pretty high where some dates do well to sell for Greysheet price at auction.
Please give a specific example of two for review. APRs for Walkers and Commems tend to be all over the place. Thanks!
This is broad, but have you all looked at pricing for Walking Liberty and Silver Commemorative half dollars lately? It seems like CDN/Greysheet is pretty low for these series (especially common dates). On the other end of the spectrum, Franklin half dollar pricing (especially FBL on more common dates) is pretty high where some dates do well to sell for Greysheet price at auction.
Please give a specific example of two for review. APRs for Walkers and Commems tend to be all over the place. Thanks!
Pretty much any of the common date Walkers from the 40s seem undervalued, but that’s a lot of data to dive in to. Franklins are the same but on the other end of the spectrum.
I will get specific with another series, though. $3 gold, specifically the common dates of 1854, 1874, and 1878, are way undervalued (at least in the high AU range which is what I normally look at). For example, Greysheet for the 1874 in AU58 is $1000 and it’s impossible (outside of stealing or taking advantage of someone) to get one for under $1200. This is the case for the other two dates in the same grade (and honestly $1200 is probably conservative).
This is broad, but have you all looked at pricing for Walking Liberty and Silver Commemorative half dollars lately? It seems like CDN/Greysheet is pretty low for these series (especially common dates). On the other end of the spectrum, Franklin half dollar pricing (especially FBL on more common dates) is pretty high where some dates do well to sell for Greysheet price at auction.
Please give a specific example of two for review. APRs for Walkers and Commems tend to be all over the place. Thanks!
Pretty much any of the common date Walkers from the 40s seem undervalued, but that’s a lot of data to dive in to. Franklins are the same but on the other end of the spectrum.
I will get specific with another series, though. $3 gold, specifically the common dates of 1854, 1874, and 1878, are way undervalued (at least in the high AU range which is what I normally look at). For example, Greysheet for the 1874 in AU58 is $1000 and it’s impossible (outside of stealing or taking advantage of someone) to get one for under $1200. This is the case for the other two dates in the same grade (and honestly $1200 is probably conservative).
Thank you for this feedback. I reviewed $3 gold type coins and updated XF-MS61 coins. We regularly monitor Walkers and Commems so you will need to give me something more specific there if you think we are off on a particular issue.
“1. No. We don't for several reasons. Time is a huge factor but transparency is another. We really want people to see how pricing is derived so, without being able to show the auction data to users (dealers on CDN Exchange, or subscribers on the web site) people won't understand why prices moved.”
I have been pondering statement this early January and confess I don’t understand it. GC is for many collectors an exceedingly vibrant market participant for CAC coins. A cursory glance at the weekly results makes this obvious. CAC coins are routinely bid by 5-10-15 different bidders. Prices have been steadily increasing, and bidding has become more intense. The coin slabs are fully photographed with slab numbers, the photos can be enlarged for accurate depiction of the coins (much, better than another misnamed photo service…), the prices paid are public, and all these data are archived and easily accessible. I do not understand the lack of transparency or how this important market segment can be ignored by a CAC price guide. On a related topic, is the price guide also using data from the major specialized auction venues? Anyone who seriously collects bust halves or seated liberty coins knows that electronic auctions routinely held by Sheridan Downey and Gerry Fortin are important market venues for CAC specimens, and pays close attention to bid levels, photographs, descriptions, and results. Again, all these data are posted and transparent. Wouldn’t the CAC price guide be more robust if it incorporated these important sales? If the guide’s mission is to help collectors of CAC coins understand the current market, I believe these sources cannot be ignored.
“1. No. We don't for several reasons. Time is a huge factor but transparency is another. We really want people to see how pricing is derived so, without being able to show the auction data to users (dealers on CDN Exchange, or subscribers on the web site) people won't understand why prices moved.”
I have been pondering statement this early January and confess I don’t understand it. GC is for many collectors an exceedingly vibrant market participant for CAC coins. A cursory glance at the weekly results makes this obvious. CAC coins are routinely bid by 5-10-15 different bidders. Prices have been steadily increasing, and bidding has become more intense. The coin slabs are fully photographed with slab numbers, the photos can be enlarged for accurate depiction of the coins (much, better than another misnamed photo service…), the prices paid are public, and all these data are archived and easily accessible. I do not understand the lack of transparency or how this important market segment can be ignored by a CAC price guide. On a related topic, is the price guide also using data from the major specialized auction venues? Anyone who seriously collects bust halves or seated liberty coins knows that electronic auctions routinely held by Sheridan Downey and Gerry Fortin are important market venues for CAC specimens, and pays close attention to bid levels, photographs, descriptions, and results. Again, all these data are posted and transparent. Wouldn’t the CAC price guide be more robust if it incorporated these important sales? If the guide’s mission is to help collectors of CAC coins understand the current market, I believe these sources cannot be ignored.
As always.
Just to clarify further, it's really hard -- nearly impossible -- to determine pricing without a full data set, just as you observe. I agree that GC is a tremendous source of price discovery, as are the myriad of other sales that exist (eBay, private web sites, etc) but if these companies do not wish to contribute their pricing sets to our database we cannot effectively include them in our evaluation. For sure, we refer to GC and others on specific items when we see them, or brought to our attention. But we require their data feed to incorporate into our larger database to really make use of their realizations. I. have been in conversations with Ian @ GC on this topic. I encourage readers of this forum to encourage him on this topic as well. We would be happy to get data from Fortin and Downey as well. The more the merrier.
Outstanding clarification, and logical request, given the goal of the publication.
I appreciate that market considerations by the named entities have to be evaluated for impact the sharing would have, as well as dedicating time to the task, and possibly a concern that buyers/bidders (or owners of consigned pieces) would base decisions only on the publication and this would in some manner have an impact on pricing that would be counter-productive to the goals of the entities.
The automobile industry....now there is a Model of Market Price sharing....
Ms. Billie Blattel. A helpful good humored soul, that applies the extra effort to help, and does so with low keyed pleasant patience. She 'gets it". I thoroughly enjoyed the experience and conversation.
Ms. Billie Blattel. A helpful good humored soul, that applies the extra effort to help, and does so with low keyed pleasant patience. She 'gets it". I thoroughly enjoyed the experience and conversation.
Thank you! I will pass this on and she will be very happy to hear it. John
JF, Thanks for pulling back the curtain and providing more detail on the process. I have no background in market technology, but it makes total sense that the data need to be submitted in a format that enables the price guide to integrate automatically. Otherwise you would need a small army of coin geeks to process constantly changing data for thousands of coins at 25 grade levels. As a geek I would volunteer, but I can’t quit my day job … because I need an income to collect coins….I wish you success with GC and hope they understand that having up to date values in the CAC price guide supports their sale of CAC coins. I believe GC widely advertises their CAC sales, so self-interest should prevail.
Comments
Looking at the recent FUN sale results and seeing the Greysheet CAC and non-CAC price changes on Bust, Seated, and early US gold coinage, it made me think about the pricing correlation between CAC and non-CAC coins. In general, the formula is generally non-CAC is "x" and CAC is "x"+15%. I completely understand when you move the prices up for a non-CAC coin due to a sales record or two and then add 15% to the CAC coin price too, if there are no sales records of CAC coins to use. What I don't necessarily agree with is if a strong price is realized for a CAC coin that it necessitates bringing up the non-CAC coin to be within 15% of the CAC price. I would be curious to get your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance.
Take, for example, the 73-CC dime in XF45. It has seen wild price swings since our records on CDN start in 2008. The same exact coin (with the mark on the breast) which is now CAC original sold twice in 2008 & 2009 (pre-CAC days) for $34,500. Then, as a CAC, it sold in 2010 for $19,500. Now it realized $51,600. Whew. This is, however, in my opinion a symptom of the larger strength of CC coinage overall. Dated CC gold went nuts last week, across the board and not just CAC coinage. Our valuation reflects this larger view. I think CC coins are super strong right now, and it would be a mistake to under-estimate this. I am generally inclined to believe that these are the new levels for collector coins across the board, CC, Seated, gold, etc.
That said, there are a lot of outliers that we will not chase completely. A lot more than usual, so we are keeping an eye on things. Last year or two have been strong from a demand sense, but prices have remained in check… until now, maybe. Only time will tell. If next levels show declines, we will be sure to reflect that as well.
p.s. the CAC = non-CAC + 15% is only a starting point for our valuations. We deviate from these levels when we have empirical evidence (i.e. actual auction data) and we've even seen series (like Seated dollars) where a 20% premium is more accurate.
Here’s a question: While CAC does not “recognize” Plus grades, “the market” does recognize the extra value in coins with CAC’s that also have plus grades, even though the sticker only says the coin is solid for that “whole number” grade, and is NOT saying the coin is solid as a plus. Can your publication provide pricing guidance for this situation? In many cases of high grades, a coin with a CAC AND a Plus realizes in auctions more than double the price of coins with CAC’s without the Plus. One example: 1858 Large Letters Flying Eagle Cents, MS66 vs MS66+.
Thanks.
Steve
We don't price + coins for a few reasons. Primarily, it is our belief that + coins are worth somewhere between the assigned grade and the next grade. CAC-approved or not. I think it's an insane challenge to add + for CAC and non-CAC to the huge number of prices we already assign and we feel the buyer has enough data at this point to interpret value. Going back to our mantra, price guides are just "guides," which is also why we feel auction data is very important. Use everything you have to determine what you want to pay, or realize when you sell.
Steve
I searched for quite a while for a proof $5 Liberty.
Finally got a 63+ as it filled my wants.
"Looking closely" I could see that it filled my search for minimal hairlines and great contrast even better than those of higher grade.
I'm happy as a clam with it.
I will get specific with another series, though. $3 gold, specifically the common dates of 1854, 1874, and 1878, are way undervalued (at least in the high AU range which is what I normally look at). For example, Greysheet for the 1874 in AU58 is $1000 and it’s impossible (outside of stealing or taking advantage of someone) to get one for under $1200. This is the case for the other two dates in the same grade (and honestly $1200 is probably conservative).
-John
“1. No. We don't for several reasons. Time is a huge factor but transparency is another. We really want people to see how pricing is derived so, without being able to show the auction data to users (dealers on CDN Exchange, or subscribers on the web site) people won't understand why prices moved.”
I have been pondering statement this early January and confess I don’t understand it. GC is for many collectors an exceedingly vibrant market participant for CAC coins. A cursory glance at the weekly results makes this obvious. CAC coins are routinely bid by 5-10-15 different bidders. Prices have been steadily increasing, and bidding has become more intense. The coin slabs are fully photographed with slab numbers, the photos can be enlarged for accurate depiction of the coins (much, better than another misnamed photo service…), the prices paid are public, and all these data are archived and easily accessible. I do not understand the lack of transparency or how this important market segment can be ignored by a CAC price guide. On a related topic, is the price guide also using data from the major specialized auction venues? Anyone who seriously collects bust halves or seated liberty coins knows that electronic auctions routinely held by Sheridan Downey and Gerry Fortin are important market venues for CAC specimens, and pays close attention to bid levels, photographs, descriptions, and results. Again, all these data are posted and transparent. Wouldn’t the CAC price guide be more robust if it incorporated these important sales? If the guide’s mission is to help collectors of CAC coins understand the current market, I believe these sources cannot be ignored.
As always.
John
I appreciate that market considerations by the named entities have to be evaluated for impact the sharing would have, as well as dedicating time to the task, and possibly a concern that buyers/bidders (or owners of consigned pieces) would base decisions only on the publication and this would in some manner have an impact on pricing that would be counter-productive to the goals of the entities.
The automobile industry....now there is a Model of Market Price sharing....
Acknowledgement when deserved:
Ms. Billie Blattel. A helpful good humored soul, that applies the extra effort to help, and does so with low keyed pleasant patience.
She 'gets it". I thoroughly enjoyed the experience and conversation.
John
Thanks for pulling back the curtain and providing more detail on the process. I have no background in market technology, but it makes total sense that the data need to be submitted in a format that enables the price guide to integrate automatically. Otherwise you would need a small army of coin geeks to process constantly changing data for thousands of coins at 25 grade levels. As a geek I would volunteer, but I can’t quit my day job … because I need an income to collect coins….I wish you success with GC and hope they understand that having up to date values in the CAC price guide supports their sale of CAC coins. I believe GC widely advertises their CAC sales, so self-interest should prevail.