CAC Dealers...

[Tradedollarnut]

You said CAC was not formed for money but for a community service. How would a red sticker get them sued but a gold one does not? If it's really just about a service, a red sticker would be much more of a service than a gold one. Regardless if it was removed by the customer, they would be doing a service to the community greater than that of the gold sticker. A customer could then have a second opinion that it is indeed overgraded and take that complaint back to whomever they purchased the coin from. If it's just a service and CAC wasn't formed for money, then why not do this? Because it is about money.

 

With all due respect, that's an awful big leap in logic...

 

Couldn't it also be true that by using red stickers it could limit the number of submissions, and therefore limit the benefit of the CAC as a whole?

 

I can certainly relate to not wanting coins in my collection labeled as "low end", and it would certainly make me hesitate in submitting coins to the CAC if the policy were structured as you suggest.

 

Just wondering...Mike

 

As a collector, I certainly would NEVER submit my coins to any entity that would engrave the slabs as rejected.

[ctrl-migration]

With all due respect, that's an awful big leap in logic...

 

Couldn't it also be true that by using red stickers it could limit the number of submissions, and therefore limit the benefit of the CAC as a whole?

 

I can certainly relate to not wanting coins in my collection labeled as "low end", and it would certainly make me hesitate in submitting coins to the CAC if the policy were structured as you suggest.

 

Just wondering...Mike

That's exactly my point. Contrary to assertions here that CAC is simply performing a community service and was not formed for profit, having such a designation would in fact lose them money.

[EZ_E]

1) CAC example underpriced 1875 PR63 Trade$--PCGS price = $6500

 

2) 1858 PCGS AU50 CAC sold for $200---PCGS is $300 in AU55

 

3) will continue

 

Victor, You do realize that your first two examples tend to disprove the assertion that the CAC is causing a run-up in prices, don't you? Just wondering...Mike

 

I know. I'm not trying to skew the evidence. I was distracted from my seach after reading the John Albanese interview.

[MikeInFL]

The TPGs are there to facilitate sight-unseen bids,

 

And how'd that work out?

[MikeInFL]

With all due respect, that's an awful big leap in logic...

 

Couldn't it also be true that by using red stickers it could limit the number of submissions, and therefore limit the benefit of the CAC as a whole?

 

I can certainly relate to not wanting coins in my collection labeled as "low end", and it would certainly make me hesitate in submitting coins to the CAC if the policy were structured as you suggest.

 

Just wondering...Mike

That's exactly my point. Contrary to assertions here that CAC is simply performing a community service and was not formed for profit, having such a designation would in fact lose them money.

 

I understand your point, but couldn't it also limit their effectiveness in stoping some of the abuses inherent in the TPGs of today? In other words, the decision could have been made for a reason other than money, yet your responses don't seem to allow for this possibility. As you said, "It's all about money." Well, it might not be, and who are you to assume what's in the heart or mind of another -- particuarly someone you (presumably) don't know and haven't spoken with on the topic....Mike

[Tradedollarnut]

Ask the TPG's why they'd sue over a red sticker but not a gold one. The TPG's do sight unseen bids? That's news to me!

 

You know what I meant. The TPGs are there to facilitate sight-unseen bids. Don't be coy.

 

I guess you need to make up your mind if we are strictly talking specifics or in generalities if you don't want me to be coy.

 

Regarding sight unseen bids - frankly, they've failed. How much have sight unseen bids moved during this great bull market? Hardly at all - cuz the buyers are afraid of getting stuck with a dog.

[Tradedollarnut]

With all due respect, that's an awful big leap in logic...

 

Couldn't it also be true that by using red stickers it could limit the number of submissions, and therefore limit the benefit of the CAC as a whole?

 

I can certainly relate to not wanting coins in my collection labeled as "low end", and it would certainly make me hesitate in submitting coins to the CAC if the policy were structured as you suggest.

 

Just wondering...Mike

That's exactly my point. Contrary to assertions here that CAC is simply performing a community service and was not formed for profit, having such a designation would in fact lose them money.

 

Or ... having such a designation would provide no meaningful lasting service and get them sued.

[ctrl-migration]

The TPGs are there to facilitate sight-unseen bids,

 

And how'd that work out?

CAC-"approved" is simply a second opinion. It's the same thing as a submission to PCGS and resubmission to NGC with the same grade, but it's displayed. I don't have any problem with a green tag. It's just a label of a second-opinion. But it's just that, another opinion.

 

It's just as much a for-profit venture and a community service as the TPGs are.

[MikeInFL]

Thank you for the response, but you didn't answer the question.

 

How well have the TPGs executed on sight-unseen bids?

[Tradedollarnut]

But it's just that, another opinion.

 

Agreed - but it's backed up with liquidity in the form of subsequently sight unseen bids.

 

[ctrl-migration]

That's exactly my point. Contrary to assertions here that CAC is simply performing a community service and was not formed for profit, having such a designation would in fact lose them money.

 

I don't disagree with you, but couldn't it also limit their effectiveness in stoping some of the abuses inherent in the TPGs of today? In other words, the decision could have been made for a reason other than money, yet your responses don't seem to allow for this possibility. As you said, "It's all about money."

Who elected them the coin-police? If they're the ultimate grading opinion, then why not introduce a full-serviced TPG? (ANSWER: because they found a profitable niche that is easier to break into.) It's simply a second opinion, not the universe's final word.

 

Regarding sight unseen bids - frankly, they've failed. How much have sight unseen bids moved during this great bull market? Hardly at all - cuz the buyers are afraid of getting stuck with a dog.

If dealers are already making statements that CAC got it wrong on the conservative side, what's the possiblity of them getting it wrong on the liberal side? Now we're back to square one.

 

That's exactly my point. Contrary to assertions here that CAC is simply performing a community service and was not formed for profit, having such a designation would in fact lose them money.

 

Or ... having such a designation would provide no meaningful lasting service and get them sued.

It's just as meaningful a service as the other TPGs.

[ctrl-migration]

Thank you for the response, but you didn't answer the question.

 

How well have the TPGs executed on sight-unseen bids?

That's exactly my point. Contrary to assertions here that CAC is simply performing a community service and was not formed for profit, having such a designation would in fact lose them money.

 

Or ... having such a designation would provide no meaningful lasting service and get them sued.

 

Given the quantity of coins graded, it's statistically very likely that there will be an increasing number of mis-graded coins. That goes for the TPGs as well as CAC (already happening according to the dealers in the original post).

[MikeInFL]

That's exactly my point. Contrary to assertions here that CAC is simply performing a community service and was not formed for profit, having such a designation would in fact lose them money.

 

I don't disagree with you, but couldn't it also limit their effectiveness in stoping some of the abuses inherent in the TPGs of today? In other words, the decision could have been made for a reason other than money, yet your responses don't seem to allow for this possibility. As you said, "It's all about money."

Who elected them the coin-police? If they're the ultimate grading opinion, then why not introduce a full-serviced TPG? (ANSWER: because they found a profitable niche that is easier to break into.) It's simply a second opinion, not the universe's final word.

 

The premise of your argument is not valid, as nobody elected them anything. They are simply an opinion -- just like the TPGs, just like Eagle Eye, and in many ways just like yours and mine.

 

Again, your logic allows for no other alternative motiviations other than money, and that's a big assumption, a huge jump in logic, and one that I don't necessarily agree with based on what I know of the principals.

 

Respectfully...Mike

[MikeInFL]

Thank you for the response, but you didn't answer the question.

 

How well have the TPGs executed on sight-unseen bids?

That's exactly my point. Contrary to assertions here that CAC is simply performing a community service and was not formed for profit, having such a designation would in fact lose them money.

 

Or ... having such a designation would provide no meaningful lasting service and get them sued.

 

Given the quantity of coins graded, it's statistically very likely that there will be an increasing number of mis-graded coins. That goes for the TPGs as well as CAC (already happening according to the dealers in the original post).

 

Again, thanks for the response, but I'm still (patiently ) waiting for an answer to the question.

 

How have the TPGs done with sight-unseen bids?

[ctrl-migration]

...? Again, I wasn't seriously arguing CAC had been "elected". What is going on? If they are the ultimate opinion and the force to stop all grading abuses, then why not make a full-service TPG? I maintain that it's an easier niche to enter and profit from by simply giving a visible second opinion, even (especially) if that second opinion is ONLY POSITIVE.

[MikeInFL]

If you're not seriously arguing it, then why do you continue to repeat it (and incidentally, many of the posters in this thread seem to agree with you -- which is equally puzzling to me)? I don't disagree that it makes it easier to enter the market (and profit), but it also makes it easier to effect the change in the market the founders state as their goal. Couldn't both be true, and where's the harm in that?...Mike

 

p.s. I guess you're not going to answer the sight-unseen question.

[ctrl-migration]

Given the quantity of coins graded, it's statistically very likely that there will be an increasing number of mis-graded coins. That goes for the TPGs as well as CAC (already happening according to the dealers in the original post).

 

Again, thanks for the response, but I'm still (patiently ) waiting for an answer to the question.

 

How have the TPGs done with sight-unseen bids?

That was an answer. They've worked out pretty well overall, but over time there are an increasing number of mis-graded examples, leading to a fall in confidence in sight-unseen purchasing. A grade can never encompass everything well enough for a 100% success rate for sight-unseen buying anyway, CAC or not.

 

If you're not seriously arguing it, then why do you continue to repeat it (and incidentally, many of the posters in this thread seem to agree with you -- which is equally puzzling to me)? I don't disagree that it makes it easier to enter the market (and profit), but it also makes it easier to effect the change in the market the founders state as their goal. Couldn't both be true, and where's the harm in that?...Mike

 

p.s. I guess you're not going to answer the question.

Good lord. I am seriously arguing, but I clearly was not seriously arguing that they were elected anything! It very well could be true, but you haven't answered MY question: if they are the ultimate in moral grading and superior in opinion, WHY NOT have a full-service TPG that would rule the coin world?

[MikeInFL]

Thanks for the response, and thanks for pointing out the answer I missed.

 

I must admit that I don't agree that sight-unseen trading was successful judging by the Blueseet, but we're all entitled to our own opinion on the topic.

 

To address your response directly... Given the loss of confidence in TPG grades, wouldn't a service such as the CAC go to gain that confidence back, particularly if the CAC sight-unseen bids, quite unlike the TPG, are published and adhered to and stronger than Bluesheet? In other words, put the burden of the error rate on the one setting the bids, not the market/Bluesheet? To me, that seems like a great idea and clearly superior to the failed attempts of the TPGs to provide for an equitable and liquid sight-unseen market.

 

To your second point, and I apologize for not answering your question, one reason why they might have chosen not to have a full-time grading service is the barriers to entry are too large -- i.e. the current TPGs are too entrenched -- and the sticker game was a faster and better (and yes, cheaper) way to affect the change they were trying to make.

 

Take care...Mike

 

p.s. I can't tell when you're serious and when you're not. Perhaps an emoticon or two might help.

[EZ_E]

Mike, et al, read the interview of John Albanese. Lots of your questions are answered there.

[MikeInFL]

I have, thanks Victor.

[Oldtrader3]

Sage Rad, look at B&M, Heritage or DLRC prices and history, tete a tete, CAC vs. not CAC. IMHO, what Victor states about CAC prices has some basis in fact and merit.

[MikeInFL]

OT3, I have, and frankly I don't see it. I see what I've always seen -- good coins go for higher prices, and no-so-good coins go for lower prices; regardless if they are stickered or not....Mike

[EZ_E]

I see what I've always seen -- good coins go for higher prices, and no-so-good coins go for lower prices

 

 

That has usually always been the case. My main point is that bids are increasing across the board with the C & D coins selling at discounts unless sold to a "sucker".

 

Now, the market is changing where nice coins for the grade cannot be cherry picked.

 

Conversely, the dregs will tail along with the price increases.

 

JA even backs up what I am saying in his interview.

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Sage Rad, look at B&M, Heritage or DLRC prices and history, tete a tete, CAC vs. not CAC. IMHO, what Victor states about CAC prices has some basis in fact and merit.

That may be true in some cases, but in others, it's not. I can only speak factually from personal experience and mine is as follows....

 

For the approximately 20 coins that I received CAC acceptance of/stickers for AFTER already having bought and priced them, I did not raise my asking price on a single coin. And for the approximately 20 CAC coins that were already stcikered at the time I bought them, I don't feel that I necessarily had to pay a premium for them. I paid good money for good coins, as I would have done, had they not been stickered.

 

Yes, certain dealers over-hype and over-price CAC (as well as non-CAC) coins, and for the most part, the same dealers over-hyped and over--priced their coins before CAC came into existence. On the other hand, certain other dealers offer their CAC coins at reasonable prices, just as they have done and still do for their non-CAC coins. So, from my experience, it's much more about the sellers/dealers than it is about the CAC sticker.

 

 

[EZ_E]

So, from my experience, it's much more about the sellers/dealers than it is about the CAC sticker.

 

I accept that statement.

 

There was a numismatic add with all CAC coins and all over-hyped and over-priced, IMO. Guess that it does boil down to the individual's ethic.

 

I got the proof 62 Trade $ from you, Mark, that was CAC stickered and priced very well!

[TomB]

Oh goody - the old 'dipping is doctoring' straw man arguement.

 

:eyerolls:

I believe Greg's initial post has substantial merit and had also noticed the descriptions on the Legend site prior to this thread.

 

There is not much to add in a typical CAC thread, but I must comment on TDN's post, above. If it is meant to follow the circular argument that "...if dipping is doctoring and AT, burnishing, whizzing, plugging or otherwise intentionally altering is doctoring then there is no difference between dipping, AT, burnishing, whizzing, plugging or otherwise intentionally altering and all of these coins should be slabbed and/or stickered..." then I agree with the rolling eyes comment. However, if TDN is instead stating that dipping is not doctoring then that statement is simply incorrect. Dipping is nearly universally accepted and is by far the most widely accepted form of doctoring, but it is still doctoring a coin. Even though it is market acceptable, it is still a process whereby a small portion of the coin's surface metal is stripped away, on command, in order to produce a product of more acceptable appearance or higher grade. That is one definition of a doctored coin. Of course, if the coin had PVC or some other harmful contaminant then we would call it "conservation", but I would venture an experienced guess that the vast majority of dipped coins are not dipped for conservation; they are dipped to be doctored.

[WinstonWare]

Oh goody - the old 'dipping is doctoring' straw man arguement.

 

:eyerolls:

I believe Greg's initial post has substantial merit and had also noticed the descriptions on the Legend site prior to this thread.

 

There is not much to add in a typical CAC thread, but I must comment on TDN's post, above. If it is meant to follow the circular argument that "...if dipping is doctoring and AT, burnishing, whizzing, plugging or otherwise intentionally altering is doctoring then there is no difference between dipping, AT, burnishing, whizzing, plugging or otherwise intentionally altering and all of these coins should be slabbed and/or stickered..." then I agree with the rolling eyes comment. However, if TDN is instead stating that dipping is not doctoring then that statement is simply incorrect. Dipping is nearly universally accepted and is by far the most widely accepted form of doctoring, but it is still doctoring a coin. Even though it is market acceptable, it is still a process whereby a small portion of the coin's surface metal is stripped away, on command, in order to produce a product of more acceptable appearance or higher grade. That is one definition of a doctored coin. Of course, if the coin had PVC or some other harmful contaminant then we would call it "conservation", but I would venture an experienced guess that the vast majority of dipped coins are not dipped for conservation; they are dipped to be doctored.

 

 

I agree with Tom (thumbs u

 

[Jeffrey Cardona]

Why even submit the coins to NGC or PCGS? If you trust their grading abilities...why would you need another to authenticate the grade.

 

I guess it would be like buying an apple tree at Lowe's or Home Depot then driving over to your local nursery and having them say "yep" that's an apple tree and paying for them say that.

 

IMHO I believe it's just someone's idea to make money and/or to mark up the value of coins just because a label is on it. Just a scam and/or marketing ploy just like the "First Strike" and "Early Release" programs. People are paying money for things that mean absolutely nothing!

[just-john]

WOW whats the record for the most post and responses to post in the shortest time.

is this a record ?

as for me I'm still waiting to have my first coin graded by a TPG never used my 4 free things when i joined the Collector Society the first time

IF you go through NGC PCGS or CAC or anybody else it's your money do what makes you feel good. If somebody doesn't think its a wise decision to use a second opinion on a grade

for what ever reason that's their choose

opinions are like -------- everybody got one don't worry if you think yours will make you look fat or dumb

[MAULEMALL]

I view it more as Insurance... If you can afford it, Go for it.

 

Somewhere down the road the sticker will become part of the provenance of the coin..

 

In 10 or 20 years you may a premium for the sticker,,,,,,,,,,,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or not.