CAC Dealers...

[physics-fan3.14]

Perhaps the major TPGs simply need to adopt an extra level of precision for the grading scale. Formally introduce MS-##-{A,B,C} and be done with it. Or even better (more lucrative for the dealers and more off-putting for normal collectors), multiply the current numerical grade by 10, introducing 10 more points of precision. MS-###. That should solve the world's problems... (I'm quite aware this is not a new idea, don't worry.)

 

Before that level of confusion occurs, they would be much more likely to adopt a 100 point scale. This has been put forward much more frequently, in fact JA even mentions it in that interview (but lets not start the whole scale debate right now )

[gmarguli]

Of course mistakes will be made - no one has said otherwise. That doesn't mean that a second expert opinion isn't better than just one. It really is that simple.

 

Congratulations Mark, I'm going to make you the first official dealer to my new service where I will be stickering CAC stickered coins. After all, a third expert opinion is better than just two.

 

[jom]

Again, the "level of precision" gets brought up again. I don't see how that solves anything. People should realize that "precision" and "accuracy" are not the same thing. In fact, it would be far better to eliminate MS grades as then the TPG's wouldn't be so burdened to get the high accuracy and being forced to market grade coins. Just let the market decide the value of the in between grades.

 

Greg's post just shows regardless of how many stickers you can put on a coin holder people will disagree on the grade of a coin. Period. Dealers (or rather sellers) will always claim the coin is better and the buyer will claim otherwise.

 

jom

[MarkFeld]

Of course mistakes will be made - no one has said otherwise. That doesn't mean that a second expert opinion isn't better than just one. It really is that simple.

 

Congratulations Mark, I'm going to make you the first official dealer to my new service where I will be stickering CAC stickered coins. After all, a third expert opinion is better than just two.

 

Fine Greg, but your stickers, while nicely expressive, are too large.

[jom]

Fine Greg, but your stickers, while nicely expressive, are too large.

 

Nah. He should put them right over the coin. If the TPG's can cover up the edges why not just cover up the rest of the coin? I mean, who really looks at the coin anyway? The printed grade is all that matters.

 

jom

[physics-fan3.14]

Fine Greg, but your stickers, while nicely expressive, are too large.

 

Nah. He should put them right over the coin. If the TPG's can cover up the edges why not just cover up the rest of the coin? I mean, who really looks at the coin anyway? The printed grade is all that matters.

 

jom

 

But then how will the company that verifies his verification of the verification of the grade be able to work their shyster magic?

[Tradedollarnut]

shyster magic

 

Such inflammatory language. tsk tsk.

[jom]

But then how will the company that verifies his verification of the verification of the grade be able to work their shyster magic?

 

Peel the label off. Eventually, it will be anyway.

 

BTW, I'm starting a company that will verify Greg's verification. I'll use a black marker to draw mustaches on his labels.

 

jom

[physics-fan3.14]

shyster magic

 

Such inflammatory language. tsk tsk.

 

I suppose I should clarify that this was intended to be humourous and satirical. A few emoticons might help:

[Oldtrader3]

Gee, we can't get it right with only (70) grades, let's go to (100) grades instead and it will be less subjective?.

[ctrl-migration]

Gee, we can't get it right with only (70) grades, let's go to (100) grades instead and it will be less subjective?.

Well, that's effectively what CAC is doing by specifying a division between XX-##-{A/B} and XX-##-{other}. Effectively adding 2 new score points per grade.

[mommam17]

WOW! CAC has people wound up. Some people like and support it. Some people hate it and wish it would go away. Some people don`t care. Some years down the road, I guess, we will look back at these threads and we`ll know if CAC was a good thing or not. Right now I support it and agree with the people who are supporting it. I hope I am right.

[rons]

I am a small fish in a large ocean. I don't believe that CAC will have an impact on my collecting habits. Having said that if I enter into the HIGH price coinage I would appreciate another opinion on a coin I am considering. ( In my case it is an 1892 proof Morgan) but I think for the majority of collectors CAC is more of a distraction than a concern. As we climb the ladder in collecting this may become more important but at this point in time it is superfluous. IMO and it seems that many will disagree but I am still learning

[Oldtrader3]

I'm fur weighing, as it flies one way and then the other, and trying to decide where I think all this will go. My sense of it right now is, that it has already served it's purpose and has screwed down the grading tightness at NGC/PCGS.

[CHABSENTIA]

....People still don't want to answer my original question many moths ago when I brought it up so I will give an example.

 

There is a Morgan dollar in a holder by a top TPG who we weill call TPG #1. It presently does not have a CAC sticker and the Buyer decides to obtain one. CAC refuses to give one and says it is overgraded.

 

It turns out that Albanese was a Founder or one of the Co Founders at TPG #1 when this particular coin was certified.There are these possible conclusions.

 

1. CAC standards are more strict now then when Albanese was running the show at TPG #1

2. The Standards were too low at TPG #1 when Albanese was running the show at TPG #1.

 

Either way CAC is suspect in either #1 or #2 because Albanese is also the founder of TPG#1 and I find it hard to believe that each and every sticker granted or not granted by CAC is going to reflect 100% of the Tenure of Albanese at either PCGS or NGC.

 

I assume that PCGS and NGC has databases that give dates of when this coin were certified . What happens when irate Buyers return these coins to PCGS and NGC because a sticker was refused and because of the a large number of them that PCGS and NGC in their defense shows that these coins were certified during his Tenure?

 

Not only is CAC then suspect in the first place in #1 and #2 above but in the latter case there is going to be lot of irate CAC holders.

 

Maybe no one answered your question because no one else was worried about it. But either way, you appear to be making a huge jump to a conclusion in your stated scenario - I don't expect that there will be "irate buyers". Nor will they "return these coins to PCGS and NGC...". Even with perfectly consistent and accurate grading (which people understand we don't have), a coin could have been accurately graded as a (low end) coin of grade X years ago and still merit that grade today, but be refused a sticker. You seem to be taking a very simple concept and trying to turn it into something much bigger and more complicated than it really is.

 

If a lot of people don't return their coins to NGC and PCGS then there is no problem. Unlike some people I cant predict the Future. I was not the first to mention tens of thousands. Should this be the case then I would think that it is a possibillty.

 

I can see people that are highly supportive of CAC not wanting to acknowledge any possible negatives or at least to minimize them.I have no interest in CAC one way or the other.

 

There is nothing that I can do about the price of a gallon of gasoline even though I know the causes for it but I can be ready for the consequences ahead of time and plan for it.

[CHABSENTIA]

Could it be possible that CAC is not stickering the 'Modern" coins because many are uncirculated and in Proof condition as well as other recent attributes and they don't have the opportuntites for the differences in grades as they do for the older circulated coins?This would be another aspect of Money in that the opportunites wouldn't be there as much in the Moderns.

 

Or could it be that it's not actually about the money but more about providing a needed service to the collecting community? Since moderns are less likely to be puttied, lasered, stripped and retoned, enhanced, etc - where is the value added?

 

Face facts - there are plenty of doctored coins in TPG holders. Go view a major auction sometime ... you'll see them by the dozens.

 

Is there an echo in here ? "Where is the value added " was my point. There is no value added and consequently there is no room for Profit.

 

People still don't want to answer my original question many moths ago when I brought it up so I will give an example.

 

There is a Morgan dollar in a holder by a top TPG who we weill call TPG #1. It presently does not have a CAC sticker and the Buyer decides to obtain one. CAC refuses to give one and says it is overgraded.

 

It turns out that Albanese was a Founder or one of the Co Founders at TPG #1 when this particular coin was certified.There are these possible conclusions.

 

1. CAC standards are more strict now then when Albanese was running the show at TPG #1

2. The Standards were too low at TPG #1 when Albanese was running the show at TPG #1.

 

Either way CAC is suspect in either #1 or #2 because Albanese is also the founder of TPG#1 and I find it hard to believe that each and every sticker granted or not granted by CAC is going to reflect 100% of the Tenure of Albanese at either PCGS or NGC.

 

I assume that PCGS and NGC has databases that give dates of when this coin were certified . What happens when irate Buyers return these coins to PCGS and NGC because a sticker was refused and because of the a large number of them that PCGS and NGC in their defense shows that these coins were certified during his Tenure?

 

Not only is CAC then suspect in the first place in #1 and #2 above but in the latter case there is going to be lot of irate CAC holders.

 

 

Here's your answer...

 

Said simply, one explanation is the TPG made a mistake in your example. It is worth noting that JA didn't grade all the coins back then, and nobody is perfect. Are you?

 

A second, and perhaps the more logical, explanation is the coin is simply low-end for the grade. Remember, CAC isn't saying a coin which doesn't get a sticker is necesarily overgraded. From the CAC website:

 

3. If a coin doesnt receive a CAC sticker, does this mean CAC believes the coin is over-graded?

 

Absolutely not. There are many coins that are certified accurately for their grade. Unfortunately, it is an inescapable reality that many are at the lower end of the quality range for the assigned grade. CACs rejection of a coin does not necessarily mean that CAC believes the coin has been over-graded. It simply means that there are other coins with CAC stickers that are of higher quality for the grade. CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins. Many of these rejected coins will be acceptable to numerous dealers and collectors and will continue to be available in the marketplace. For quality-conscious collectors and dealers, a coin with a CAC sticker will have significant meaning.

 

Hope this helps...Mike

 

It does make a dfference. If mistakes were made when he was in charge of the two TPGs then what is ti say that mistakes will not be made while he is in charge of CAC? Is he going to be grading all the coins for a CAC sticker?In fact he states in the Rosen Interview that "Graders are only human and that mistakes will be made". Since this is the case then why is there a need for CAC.?

 

I mention only the possible Legal responses should tens of thousands of coins be submitted back to the TPGs since I have not seen where CAC is going to refund the Money if they refuse to sticker a coin.

 

The problem would be a little different if JA had not started CAC.

Of course mistakes will be made - no one has said otherwise. That doesn't mean that a second expert opinion isn't better than just one. It really is that simple.

 

Still not an answer. If nobody is perfect and mistakes are going to be made then why do we need another layer that is also prone to mistakes?Do we then need another layer in the alphabetical sequence such as :"DAD" to further minimize the mistakes for which CAC is prone ?Then we can have another layer to minimize the mistakes of CAC and DAD ETC.

[CHABSENTIA]

Gee, we can't get it right with only (70) grades, let's go to (100) grades instead and it will be less subjective?.

 

There you go . Apparently we need several layers above the TPGs to minimize the mistakes that are prone to each.Then we can change the grading from 70 to 100 and we will need even more layers that are also prone to mistakes to minimize the mistakes of the extra 30 grades.

 

There is going to be a problem with all the different stickers because there won't be room for all of them. We can start a new service for micro stickers and then we can sell special magnifying appliances for reading the micro stickers.

[Tradedollarnut]

If nobody is perfect and mistakes are going to be made then why do we need another layer that is also prone to mistakes?

 

Mathmatically speaking:

 

What is the probability of two concurrent mistakes occurring if the odds of getting it correct are 95% each time? [.25%]

 

How many total mistakes occur in 5,000,000 events under each circumstance??

[250,000 vs 12,500]

 

So even if event B is no more expert than event A, it cuts the number of mistakes BY A FACTOR OF 20 by undergoing a second review.

[MikeInFL]

TDN, I thought to make the same argument last night but am not sure it makes mathematical sense. I believe the two variables are (relatively) independant, given the second grader (CAC) is trying to catch mistakes in the first (TPG). Therefore, the error rate in the end will be that of CAC becuase the CAC is evaluating all the coins, not just the TPG mistakes. Probabalistically yours..Mike

[MarkFeld]

TDN, I thought to make the same argument last night but am not sure it makes mathematical sense. I believe the two variables are (relatively) independant, given the second grader (CAC) is trying to catch mistakes in the first (TPG). Therefore, the error rate in the end will be that of CAC becuase the CAC is evaluating all the coins, not just the TPG mistakes. Probabalistically yours..Mike

Mike, while that might be correct, the bottom line is that a second expert will have screened the coins and weeded out some (though not all) of the mistakes. Likewise, a knowledgeable collector or dealer could do the same, though they wouldn't be backing up their opinion with sight-unseen bids, etc.

[MikeInFL]

I agree with you Mark, and from my posts I think it should be clear that I see the value in the CAC, however, it is important to be objective in our evaluation and not overstep logic when evaluating the resulting error rate. Unless the CAC has a lower error rate, they will not be weeding out anything, and what's worse they could actually be introducing a higher error rate -- and that's precisely why I've posted (several time) that EXECUTION (and the resulting market perception) will be key to the CAC's success. The fact that they back the coins with a bid does alleviate some of the risk on the error side from the collector, and that's the key to the whole agrument as you point out -- essentially pushing much of the downside risk from the collector to the CAC...Mike

[gmarguli]

What is the probability of two concurrent mistakes occurring if the odds of getting it correct are 95% each time? [.25%]

 

How many total mistakes occur in 5,000,000 events under each circumstance??

[250,000 vs 12,500]

 

So even if event B is no more expert than event A, it cuts the number of mistakes BY A FACTOR OF 20 by undergoing a second review.

 

This would be more accurate if both expert A and expert B were using the same standards. Expert B is using different standards than expert A.

[MarkFeld]

I agree with you Mark, and from my posts I think it should be clear that I see the value in the CAC, however, it is important to be objective in our evaluation and not overstep logic when evaluating the resulting error rate. Unless the CAC has a lower error rate, they will not be weeding out anything, and what's worse they could actually be introducing a higher error rate -- and that's precisely why I've posted (several time) that EXECUTION (and the resulting market perception) will be key to the CAC's success. The fact that they back the coins with a bid does alleviate some of the risk on the error side from the collector, and that's the key to the whole agrument as you point out -- essentially pushing much of the downside risk from the collector to the CAC...Mike

Mike, that sounds fair and fair is all I ask for.

[Tradedollarnut]

Unless the CAC has a lower error rate, they will not be weeding out anything

 

Sorry, but this is not true. CAC can have exactly the same error rate and still weed out 95% of the mistakes by the TPGs. In order for what you assert to be true, CAC would have to make the errors on exactly the same 5% of coins - and that's practically impossible.

 

This would be more accurate if both expert A and expert B were using the same standards. Expert B is using different standards than expert A.

 

That's true [i assumed the same standards, same error rate]. Since I expect JA's standards to be stricter and at the same time his revue more diligent [his $'s on the line, after all], the screening rate should be much higher.

 

[MikeInFL]

Unless the CAC has a lower error rate, they will not be weeding out anything

 

Sorry, but this is not true. CAC can have exactly the same error rate and still weed out 95% of the mistakes by the TPGs. In order for what you assert to be true, CAC would have to make the errors on exactly the same 5% of coins - and that's practically impossible.

 

I'm sorry but I believe it is true, TDN, and what I believe you are missing is that the CAC is introducing their errors into the equation on the coins the TPG didn't make a mistake on. The only way they would decrease the overall number of errors would be if they were only evaluating the TPG errors (or had a lower error rate than the TPGs), and they aren't (or won't necessarily).

 

Let's use an example....

 

NGC and CAC error rates are each 5%.

 

NGC grades 100 coins with a 95% accuracy rate, leaving 5 incorrectly graded coins. CAC evaluates the same 100 coins with a 95% accuracy rate, and still 5% are incorrectly graded -- or 5 coins.

 

The only way you can make your numbers work is if the CAC only evaluated the 5 "incorrect" coins with a 95% accuracy rate, then the probabilities would be multiplicative and yield a 0.25% (5%*5%) error rate. As it is, they are independant variables and the probabilities are sequential with the last in line (CAC) defining the overall error rate.

 

Respectfully....Mike

[MarkFeld]

Unless the CAC has a lower error rate, they will not be weeding out anything

 

Sorry, but this is not true. CAC can have exactly the same error rate and still weed out 95% of the mistakes by the TPGs. In order for what you assert to be true, CAC would have to make the errors on exactly the same 5% of coins - and that's practically impossible.

 

I'm sorry but I believe it is true, TDN, and what I believe you are missing is that the CAC is introducing their errors into the equation on the coins the TPG didn't make a mistake on. The only way they would decrease the overall number of errors would be if they were only evaluating the TPG errors (or had a lower error rate than the TPGs), and they aren't (or won't necessarily).

 

Let's use an example....

 

NGC and CAC error rates are each 5%.

 

NGC grades 100 coins with a 95% accuracy rate, leaving 5 incorrectly graded coins. CAC evaluates the same 100 coins with a 95% accuracy rate, and still 5% are incorrectly graded -- or 5 coins.

 

The only way you can make your numbers work is if the CAC only evaluated the 5 "incorrect" coins with a 95% accuracy rate, then the probabilities would be multiplicative and yield a 0.25% (5%*5%) error rate. As it is, they are independant variables and the probabilities are sequential with the last in line (CAC) defining the overall error rate.

 

Respectfully....Mike

Mike, thinking about it a bit more, regardless of what CAC's error rate is, odds are that they will 1) reject some coins that should get stickered and 2) sticker some coins that should be rejected. But the net result should still be that more mistakes are weeded out due to the additional expert opinion.

[MikeInFL]

I think you need to give it some more thought, Mark.

 

I'm fairly certain that can be true ONLY if their error rate was less than the TPG to being with, Mark.

[MarkFeld]

I think you need to give it some more thought, Mark.

 

I'm fairly certain that can be true ONLY if their error rate was less than the TPG to being with, Mark.

I have given it additional thought and determined that you're mistaken. Whatever the error rate of each company, a second set of eyes will catch some of the errors made by the first.

[MikeInFL]

And introduce others not made by the first....

[MarkFeld]

And introduce others not made by the first....

Not quite. Since the coins have already been graded, if CAC stickers a "mistake", they are not "introducing" a mistake - they are affirming one. However, if they reject a "'mistake", they have in a sense, weeded it out, at least with respect to anyone who is aware of it.

 

My head hurts, but not much more so than before we started this discussion.