CAC Dealers...

[Oldtrader3]

Hmm, 1/4 of one % is only one coin in 400. If that is actually CAC's grading error rate, I would call that a phenomenal rate for a human grader!

[Tradedollarnut]

Hmm, 1/4 of one % is only one coin in 400. If that is actually CAC's grading error rate, I would call that a phenomenal rate for a human grader!

 

If you repeat something often enough on the internet, it becomes true. Only 640 more times to go!

[MikeInFL]

James, How do you feel about the TPGs having overgraded, undergraded, or been inconsistent in their grade in CTcollector's examples? Just wondering if you are as uncomfortable with the TPGs as you seem to be with the CAC...Mike

It would depend on whether I bought them already undergraded, or sent them in and they came back undergraded. I'd be thrilled as all get out to buy undergraded coins, since my goal (most likely) would be to crack them out and put them in my album collection. But if I were planning to sell, and sent coins in for grading to have them come back two points low, I'd be upset.

 

But I do not believe PCGS or NGC claim to police other service's grades, either. It appears to me that that's the CAC's purpose, and I should think that if you are going to be the policeman, people will really want to know exactly what the laws ("standards") are that need to be abided.

 

Thanks for your response James. If I might respond...

 

I find it a bit curious, candidly, that you have recongized and accepted the TPGs shortcomings yet don't seem to give the CAC the same benefit of the doubt.

 

You're thrilled if the TPG's variability works in your favor, and unhappy if it doesn't. While I might call that a bit self-centered and even slightly evil , your opinion is certainly as valid as my own or anyone else's.

 

However, you're (seemingly) not allowing the CAC the same right as you allow the TPG -- to be recognized and accepted and factored into the market and how we as collectors/dealers navigate it.

 

So while I might be able to look past your position on TPG variability, I am having a tough time justifying the rationale for not allowing the CAC to do the same.

Hmm, I am not sure why a point that seems obvious to me is giving me difficulty explaining. I'll explain it a different (?) way.

 

I want an S-VDB in MS-63 RB. I shop and shop and shop, and eventually find one that seems to be very nice for the PCGS MS-63 RB grade. I buy it. A few months later, I decide to sell, so I send it to CAC. It comes back with a green sticker. I sell it for MS-63 RB money, maybe even strong 63 RB money (because of the sticker). Some time later, I see my exact same coin in an NGC MS-65 RB holder, sold for MS-65 RB money.

 

Mike, I do not understand why you or Mark would think I should be incensed with PCGS at this point. Maybe the guy who sold it to me undergraded would be? I would sure not be upset at discovering I bought a coin for lot less money than it should have cost me. But if this scenario of subsequent upgrades took place five times with my coins after I sold them, don't you think I would be even just a little incensed that CAC was unable to identify at least one or two of those as lock upgrades? Especially while the grading services are supposedly "tight" right now because of the very same CAC?

 

Make more sense now, I hope? Would this scenario shake my confidence in TPG accuracy? Yes, it would - 5% error rate by TDN's figuring. But, what kind of confidence would it give me in CAC - .25% error rate per TDN - to fail to identify all those upgrades?

 

Even after all this takes place, I would find that I still have zero idea about what the "standard" is, other than that John Albanese was unable to identify a coin that jumped - not one point, but two in grade - again under "tight grading" circumstances! And what's frustrating is, I have no idea why. There is no "standard" that I can refer to, although I can drive to New Jersey and ask about it, I suppose.

 

I would understand that PCGS used a standard - their internal reference grading set, and NGC used a standard - their internal reference grading set, and that the two standards are different because they are different grading companies using different internal grading sets. Fine, that makes sense. I also understand that CAC uses yet another, third standard that somehow accommodates two other varying standards - itself a remarkable achievement. But again, if there is going to be this new sheriff in town, taking down the bad guys (overgraded coins), I just don't understand why it wouldn't make sense to know how it's being determined what makes the bad guys bad. Does CAC have yet another, third internal grading set being used to police the other two?

 

So far, the only "standard" seems to be - "would John Albanese buy it?" at this grade (green sticker) or the next grade (gold sticker), sight unseen to boot. What kind of standard is that?? Basically, any certified coin I own is worthy only if John Albanese would buy it?

 

It's frustrating, and I have the impression that not a single thing posted on the CAC website has the slightest accountability whatsoever.

 

The classic response that I keep seeing is: "just ignore the sticker if you don't care". That doesn't work when I keep having collectors (and dealers for that matter) come up to my table and ask me whether they think they should get their coins stickered or not. I have no idea what to tell them, because I can't figure out exactly what guarantees there are of the "CAC higher standards", other than "would JA buy it sight unseen". So my stock answer is: don't bother.

 

Edited to add:

I find it a bit curious, candidly, that you have recongized and accepted the TPGs shortcomings yet don't seem to give the CAC the same benefit of the doubt.

 

You're thrilled if the TPG's variability works in your favor, and unhappy if it doesn't. While I might call that a bit self-centered and even slightly evil , your opinion is certainly as valid as my own or anyone else's.

Mike, I had the same frustration with TPGs, literally for years, about apparent loose grading standards. I finally came to the conclusion that even if I can't rely on the grades, the TPGs do add an exceptional layer of authenticity and protection, two very basic elements of coin collecting. I recognize these as "added value". I can figure out absolutely nothing that CAC adds to the basics of coin collecting. So yes, I definitely do have different standards for judging the worthiness of these differing business ventures. I guess you can call that slightly evil if you want, but I see it more as sensibility. One should not expect "benefit of the doubt" to be the same for two different business models, particularly since CAC is keen on identifying themselves as NOT another grading company.

 

James,

 

Thank you very much for the long and thoughtful response -- I do understand better what you're trying to say & I appreciate you taking the time to explain yourself.

 

However, I still have a few problems with your logic/rationale...

 

First off, presuming any of those coins were undergraded to begin with... Given CTcollector seemed to debunk this when he said he agreed with the original grades and CAC sticker, it seems to me to be a jump in logic to presume these were undergraded the first time rather than overgraded the second. It also seems to me the scorn should lie with the TPGs and crack-out artists rather than the CAC for missing the grade the first time -- given what we know.

 

Secondly, you seem to be completely ignoring the value-add of the CAC with respect to the market they intend to make. I don't know about you or anyone else, but I know that knowing there's an easy way to sell my coins without having to quibble on price would hold value to me -- it would essentially put a floor on the amount of money I could get out of the coin for. Provided this floor price is over bluesheet/greysheet, the value-add seems obvious to me, yet in your responses you seem to be completely ignoring this. Case in point: "I have the impression that not a single thing posted on the CAC website has the slightest accountability whatsoever." -- what could be MORE accountable than a published bid for stickered coins?

 

Lastly, the transitive nature of accepting a flawed system. By this I mean you're obviously jaded towards the variability in TPG's grading, but seemingly have accepted them as a necessary evil, to be understood and played to your advantage. Yet you seem to not give the CAC the same benefit -- even if the CAC stands behind their stickers with a bid and market, yet the TPGs do not.

 

Respectfully hoping you will keep an open mind to the issues raised above...Mike

 

p.s. my "slightly evil" comment was not directed at your assessment of worthiness of business ventures, but rather your seemingly self-centered approach to the TPGs -- I like undergraded coins when buying, and overgraded ones when selling. Not that there's anything wrong with self-interest in and of itself, but I would hope that trying to make the flawed system less flawed would be a nobler and higher goal to aspire to.

[MikeInFL]

Hmm, 1/4 of one % is only one coin in 400. If that is actually CAC's grading error rate, I would call that a phenomenal rate for a human grader!

 

Someone's not paying attention.

 

The 0.25% error rate was only for "problem" coins making their way into slabbed and stickered coins. Call this the TDN-error-rate -- calculated by multiplying the probabilities (5% TPG error rate * 5% CAC error rate = 0.25% problem coins slabed & stickered).

 

The 5% error rate was for "misgraded/mis-stickered" coins (i.e. overgraded or undergraded but "problem-free"). Call this the MikeInFL-error-rate -- calculated by the error rate of the last-in-line, or CAC.

 

Clear as mud?

[ctrl-migration]

The 0.25% error rate was only for "problem" coins making their way into slabbed and stickered coins. Call this the TDN-error-rate -- calculated by multiplying the probabilities (5% TPG error rate * 5% CAC error rate = 0.25% problem coins slabed & stickered).

That's best case only. An improvement, but the same improvement you'd get in general if you resubmitted to a different grader, just that in CAC's case it's a visible second opinion. Not to mention the best opinion...

 

What do you think would be the price comparison of a PCGS MS-65 saint with a CAC sticker and a self-slabbed/graded MS-65 saint that CAC agreed with and stickered? You could save a lot of money.

[MikeInFL]

The 0.25% error rate was only for "problem" coins making their way into slabbed and stickered coins. Call this the TDN-error-rate -- calculated by multiplying the probabilities (5% TPG error rate * 5% CAC error rate = 0.25% problem coins slabed & stickered).

That's best case only. An improvement, but the same improvement you'd get in general if you resubmitted to a different grader, just that in CAC's case it's a visible second opinion. Not to mention the best opinion...

As a submitter, perhaps. However, as a buyer of a coin, you'd have no such advantage with a resubmitted coin -- all you would have to go on is the grade on the slab (and, of course, your own opinion of the coin) without the reassurance of a third opinion or the safety net of a published bid.

 

 

What do you think would be the price comparison of a PCGS MS-65 saint with a CAC sticker and a self-slabbed/graded MS-65 saint that CAC agreed with and stickered? You could save a lot of money.

I don't think that the CAC stickers self-slabbers. Getting past the unrealistic, I would expect the CAC bid to be exactly the same (which is kind of the point of CAC), and I would expect the price to be lower with the self-slabbed coin -- just as it is today. However, and perhaps more importantly, I would expect the CAC stickered self-slabbed coin to gain value with respect to its non-stickered bretheren because of the "floor effect" I've alluded to in prior posts.

 

Respectfully...Mike

[ctrl-migration]

Why would the price be lower with the self-slabbed coin? The ultimate opinion-makers agreed with the grade, so that should be it, end of story. It's a solid guarantee, why would anyone need a brand name slab? CAC stickered and saw that it was good.

[MikeInFL]

ctrl,

 

I see what you're saying, and in a sense I agree with you. However...

 

I'm not attempting to justify the difference in price, but rather am suggesting that today's market values the slab and slabber's reputation oftentimes more than the coin. While I think the CAC -- if it executes -- will tend to normalize that equation, I don't think that it will completely overcome it, and it will take some time to reach that point.

 

So if the CAC is successful, I think the prices will normalize, but not right out of the gate, and likely never given the unrealistic example used.

 

Lastly, I think your use of terms like "ultimate opinion-makers" and others is both pejorative and unfair.

 

Respectfully...Mike

[RGT]

The standards are: If JA likes it enough to buy it sight unseen in the future, it gets a green sticker. If he likes it enough to pay the next grade up in the future, it gets a gold sticker. Seems mightly clear to me.

 

 

But I do not believe PCGS or NGC claim to police other service's grades, either. It appears to me that that's the CAC's purpose, and I should think that if you are going to be the policeman, people will really want to know exactly what the laws ("standards") are that need to be abided.

 

Nope - the purpose of CAC is to create a subsequently sight unseen trading network with preapproved coins.

 

 

Ahhh...so it IS all about the money.

 

Seriously, CAC seems to be all about creating a sight unseen trading network. It's not about policing the TPGs. It's not about removing doctored coins from the market (though they mean to keep them out of the CAC market). It's not about protecting the collector. Some of these may be side effects, but are not the main goal.

 

CAC doesn't remove doctored, problem or overgraded coins from the market. It simply refuses to sticker them. Then the owner is alerted that it might be possible to get the TPG to remove it from the market. If the TPG doesn't agree then CAC has accomplished nothing except kept that coin out of it's own sight unseen trading network. In essense, it has protected itself from buying the problem coin sight unseen but has done nothing for Joe Collector who is offered to coin at a later date.

[Tradedollarnut]

Seriously, CAC seems to be all about creating a sight unseen trading network. It's not about policing the TPGs. It's not about removing doctored coins from the market (though they mean to keep them out of the CAC market). It's not about protecting the collector. Some of these may be side effects, but are not the main goal.

 

Without the need for protecting the collector, CAC would never have been formed.

 

 

 

BTW - How could anyone expect CAC to take bad coins off the market? I may be altruistic, but I'm not insane...

[MikeInFL]

RGT,

 

Isn't it also possible that the trading network is a means to an end, rather than the end?

 

Futhermore, couldn't the buyer who needed the help in identifying doctored or overgraded coins simply focus on stickered coins, therefore accomplishing quite a bit compared to the status-quo of today's market?

 

Just wondering...Mike

 

 

[RGT]

Seriously, CAC seems to be all about creating a sight unseen trading network. It's not about policing the TPGs. It's not about removing doctored coins from the market (though they mean to keep them out of the CAC market). It's not about protecting the collector. Some of these may be side effects, but are not the main goal.

 

Without the need for protecting the collector, CAC would never have been formed.

 

 

 

BTW - How could anyone expect CAC to take bad coins off the market? I may be altruistic, but I'm not insane...

 

So is the sight unseen market the side effect of protecting the collector?

 

I belive I recall you reporting that CAC had helped get some bad coins off the market.. Of course they didn't do it, they just let the collector know that they needed to be sent back to the TPG. I think everyone understands that.

 

I can't vouch for the state of your sanity though.

[MikeInFL]

So is the sight unseen market the side effect of protecting the collector?

Bingo!

[ctrl-migration]

Isn't it also possible that the trading network is a means to an end, rather than the end?

 

Futhermore, couldn't the buyer who needed the help in identifying doctored or overgraded coins simply focus on stickered coins, therefore accomplishing quite a bit compared to the status-quo of today's market?

From the interview, it seems the goals for JA are: provide a service demarcating A&B coins, thereby creating a market for the top-quality-for-the-grade coins that are viable to be sold sight-unseen as well as create such a marketplace for that trading to accomodate Wall Street and fund managers to be comfortable viewing coins as an asset to be traded ... and there we go. TDN will point and laugh at me for not thinking it's purely altruistic, I'm sure. While I think some of the intermediate results are good for the community, the overall effect and goals have me concerned. Feel free to laugh now, TDN.

[IGWT]

...it will show more clearly the absurdity that already exists

Lou, regardless of how it occurs, do you think that's necessarily a bad thing?

 

No, not necessarily.

[Tradedollarnut]

Isn't it also possible that the trading network is a means to an end, rather than the end?

 

Futhermore, couldn't the buyer who needed the help in identifying doctored or overgraded coins simply focus on stickered coins, therefore accomplishing quite a bit compared to the status-quo of today's market?

From the interview, it seems the goals for JA are: provide a service demarcating A&B coins, thereby creating a market for the top-quality-for-the-grade coins that are viable to be sold sight-unseen as well as create such a marketplace for that trading to accomodate Wall Street and fund managers to be comfortable viewing coins as an asset to be traded ... and there we go. TDN will point and laugh at me for not thinking it's purely altruistic, I'm sure. While I think some of the intermediate results are good for the community, the overall effect and goals have me concerned. Feel free to laugh now, TDN.

 

Actually, this is a very good summary. I never claimed it was purely altruistic - just that its primary goal is not 'all about the money'.

 

But while you focus on Wall Street and the negatives, I prefer to focus on coin docs and the positives. That and the fact that collectors own the vast majority of nice coins and are benefitted by rising prices for those coins.

[James_OldeTowne]

First off, presuming any of those coins were undergraded to begin with... Given CTcollector seemed to debunk this when he said he agreed with the original grades and CAC sticker, it seems to me to be a jump in logic to presume these were undergraded the first time rather than overgraded the second.

According to CAC principals (as well as numerous statements on both boards), grading is tighter now thanks to the CAC. Thus, I think it logical to believe that the coins would not be overgraded, if we are in a tighter era, don't you agree? And it happened five times? The odds just seem overwhelming against all five coins being overgraded in an era of tighter grading, unless the CAC contention of current tighter grading is false (I happen to think they are correct).

 

It also seems to me the scorn should lie with the TPGs and crack-out artists rather than the CAC for missing the grade the first time -- given what we know.

Scorn should lie in both places. The TPG should have gotten the grade right, and so should CAC. But for all we know, my S-VDB was graded twelve years and seventeen owners ago, while the CAC sticker is fresh and new. From a practical standpoint, it would seem to me that the CAC's recent incorrect "regrade" was more responsible for my failure to sell the coin at the correct grade than an error that occurred twelve years ago.

 

Crackout artists mean nothing to me. I buy the coin, not the holder, so they can crackout and upgrade to their heart's content for all I care. I freely admit that I have sold numerous coins to crackout artists, knowing full well their intentions.

 

Secondly, you seem to be completely ignoring the value-add of the CAC with respect to the market they intend to make. I don't know about you or anyone else, but I know that knowing there's an easy way to sell my coins without having to quibble on price would hold value to me -- it would essentially put a floor on the amount of money I could get out of the coin for. Provided this floor price is over bluesheet/greysheet, the value-add seems obvious to me, yet in your responses you seem to be completely ignoring this. Case in point: "I have the impression that not a single thing posted on the CAC website has the slightest accountability whatsoever." -- what could be MORE accountable than a published bid for stickered coins?

In a quick phrase: show me the guarantee. I looked and looked and looked for one on the CAC website, and came to a realization that not a single claim made on that website is backed by any kind of guarantee whatsoever. If there is one, it perhaps should be more obvious (first page maybe).

 

I will believe in the "market making" aspect of all this when it happens. Please show me the list of published bids! For now, it is just another promise, so far as I can tell.

 

Lastly, the transitive nature of accepting a flawed system. By this I mean you're obviously jaded towards the variability in TPG's grading, but seemingly have accepted them as a necessary evil, to be understood and played to your advantage. Yet you seem to not give the CAC the same benefit -- even if the CAC stands behind their stickers with a bid and market, yet the TPGs do not.

A TPG provides me with more than just a grade. I get a guarantee of authenticity, a protective holder, and (optionally) an attribution, plus a grade - four items of value in exchange for my grading fee. A TPG could correctly provide three out of those four items, and I would still feel I received value for my dollar. In other words, I miss out on 25% of what I paid for.

 

With the CAC, there is one, and only one item of value - a "regrade". Therefore, if an error is made, it's a 100% error.

 

If TPGs offered a grade and nothing else, I would feel differently.

 

I don't mind the questions. As I mentioned to Mark Feld via PM, these discussions help crystallize the flaws I am seeing with the CAC concept.

 

Edited to add:

I prefer to focus on coin docs and the positives. That and the fact that collectors own the vast majority of nice coins and are benefitted by rising prices for those coins.

Every time I see similar comments, it's like nails on a blackboard (with all due respect). I am absolutely, positively 100% certain that rising coins prices have been a serious detriment to me as a collector, not a benefit.

[Tradedollarnut]

With the CAC, there is one, and only one item of value - a "regrade". Therefore, if an error is made, it's a 100% error.

 

Huh?

 

[James_OldeTowne]

With the CAC, there is one, and only one item of value - a "regrade". Therefore, if an error is made, it's a 100% error.

 

Huh?

CAC "regrade" per coin can only be right or wrong, as it is the only service provided.

 

TPG "certification" per coin can vary, as it provides four services, any one or more of which can be right or wrong.

 

Put another way, CAC regrade is either 100% right (the coin is properly graded), or 100% wrong (the coin is not properly graded, and the failed to catch it, or the coin is properly graded, and they found otherwise).

 

With a TPG, I am paying for four services: authenticity, holder, attribution and grade. If one of those service is wrong, then I got 75% of what I paid for.

 

Dunno how to explain it any other way...

[Tradedollarnut]

Define "regrade".

[James_OldeTowne]

Define "regrade".

As I've used it above, "regrade" = shorthand for "verification of a grade using stringent, higher grading standards", or something close to that effect.

Edited to add: in retrospect, I probably should be stating "verification", rather than "regrade". I apologize for any confusion.

[Tradedollarnut]

Hmmm. I would think that these are all positives:

 

1) verification that the holder is authentic

2) determination that the coin isn't doctored

3) added liquidity via subsequent sight unseen trading

4) graded correctly AND nice for the grade

[RGT]

RGT,

 

Isn't it also possible that the trading network is a means to an end, rather than the end?

 

Futhermore, couldn't the buyer who needed the help in identifying doctored or overgraded coins simply focus on stickered coins, therefore accomplishing quite a bit compared to the status-quo of today's market?

 

Just wondering...Mike

 

 

I was just quoting what TDN said and he would be in a better position to know than me. I don't think a trading network would be required if the goal was just to "police the TPGs". It does add some credibility though.

 

I can see where a collector who wants the added assurance could be helped by buying only CAC'd coins. It helps some collectors who need it and it helps some dealers who trade in CAC coins. I think most collectors would be better off if they would just buy what they understand, not buy what CAC understands. Sure, we all make mistakes even when we try to stay with what we think we understand, but there's something to be said for learning before and from mistakes rather than having someone hold your hand.

 

I don't collect at the level that I feel needs another layer of protection. I'm neutral on CAC and have no stickered coins. I don't have much to loose from my mistakes.

[coinman1794]

Pinch me, I think that I am invisible! Each time this subject (CAC) comes up, it ends of with 13+ pages of posts of circular arguments that leave me dizzy and disoriented. Have we decided on a solution yet?

The only solution is to blindly, unquestionably trust CAC's every opinion, charity, and result on the market as the ultimate decider. Any doubt or question and you'll just get laughed at and called illogical around here. I see the benefits of a visible second opinion, but I have my doubts it will magically fix everything the way some around here proclaim. I also do not relish the idea of JA getting his wish of Wall Street reentering the market because of CAC. Oh, it's about money alright.

 

After 32 pages, nothing has come of this. The answer is: as with everything in life, you must take CAC's services with a grain of salt.

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

Hmmm. I would think that these are all positives:

 

1) verification that the holder is authentic <- no stated guarantee

2) determination that the coin isn't doctored <- no stated guarantee

3) added liquidity via subsequent sight unseen trading <- no stated guarantee (yet)

4) graded correctly AND nice for the grade <- but no indication if a coin ISN'T graded correctly

If I were a cynic my responses would be as noted above.

 

Luckily, I'm not a cynic, so my new catchphrase will simply be:

 

Would JA buy it sight unseen?

 

 

[Tradedollarnut]

Hmmm. I would think that these are all positives:

 

1) verification that the holder is authentic <- no stated guarantee

2) determination that the coin isn't doctored <- no stated guarantee

3) added liquidity via subsequent sight unseen trading <- no stated guarantee (yet)

4) graded correctly AND nice for the grade <- but no indication if a coin ISN'T graded correctly

If I were a cynic my responses would be as noted above.

 

Luckily, I'm not a cynic, so my new catchphrase will simply be:

 

Would JA buy it sight unseen?

 

 

From Legend's website:

 

SORRY WE DO NOT BUY COINS SIGHTUNSEEN (UNLESS THEY ARE CAC STICKERED) OR GIVE QUOTES. PLEASE CALL YOUR LOCAL COIN STORE.

 

It matters not what CAC does or doesn't do to increase liquidity. If dealers have confidence in the product, liquidity is increased.

 

[James_OldeTowne]

From Legend's website:

 

SORRY WE DO NOT BUY COINS SIGHTUNSEEN (UNLESS THEY ARE CAC STICKERED) OR GIVE QUOTES. PLEASE CALL YOUR LOCAL COIN STORE.

 

It matters not what CAC does or doesn't do to increase liquidity. If dealers have confidence in the product, liquidity is increased.

 

From the Rosen Advisory:

 

MR: Please discuss the trading market that is developing for CAC coins. When will it be introduced? Also, how much capital is supporting CAC.

 

JA: It’s somewhat informal. CAC coins are not now listed on the CCE coin exchange. We’re developing our own trading system named Coinplex that will trade CAC coins, as well as all other certified coins from any service. We’re only weeks away from it being introduced. At only $100/month, we should have a large audience. The initial capital for CAC is $10 million with commitments for up to $25 million. We will also be retaining earnings so this can be substantial in five years. But please understand that we’re not trying to promote the idea of sigh-unseen bidding. Coins are works of art and must appeal to a buyer whether stickered by CAC or not.

 

 

I suppose the best way I can conclude for now is by offering the following product in a special internet promotion, sight unseen, for $329.95 delivered:

 

[MikeInFL]

OK, that's it! I'm sending in a group of coins to CAC to find out for myself, and I will be completely transparent. Hopefully we'll all be able to learn through this process. Stay tuned....Mike

[lehigh96]

RGT,

 

Isn't it also possible that the trading network is a means to an end, rather than the end?

 

Futhermore, couldn't the buyer who needed the help in identifying doctored or overgraded coins simply focus on stickered coins, therefore accomplishing quite a bit compared to the status-quo of today's market?

 

Just wondering...Mike

 

 

I was just quoting what TDN said and he would be in a better position to know than me. I don't think a trading network would be required if the goal was just to "police the TPGs". It does add some credibility though.

 

I can see where a collector who wants the added assurance could be helped by buying only CAC'd coins. It helps some collectors who need it and it helps some dealers who trade in CAC coins. I think most collectors would be better off if they would just buy what they understand, not buy what CAC understands. Sure, we all make mistakes even when we try to stay with what we think we understand, but there's something to be said for learning before and from mistakes rather than having someone hold your hand.

 

I don't collect at the level that I feel needs another layer of protection. I'm neutral on CAC and have no stickered coins. I don't have much to loose from my mistakes.

 

RGT,

 

I don't know if I can agree with your statement that collectors should buy what they understand. I am essentially a type collector and there is no way I can expect to understand the subtleties of each series without having studied and collected that particular series for years. I can read a book and have a basic understanding of the grading elements for a series, but IMO there is no substitute for experience. In this regard, I think the CAC is very useful, especially when it comes to special designations. For example, I might be interested in purchasing a FH SLQ for my type set. If the TPG made a mistake on a coin and designated it FH when it didn't deserve it, I would not have the expertise to catch the mistake that a collector who specializes in SLQs would. Therefore, the CAC sticker gives me an added level of security and insurance that I am getting what I am paying for considering that FH SLQs bring very significant premiums over their non FH counterparts.

 

I previously posted a recent example of how the CAC helped me with regards to a CAMEO designation on a 1942-P proof Jefferson Nickel that had a poor photo by Heritage. IMO the CAC did exactly what they advertise by confirming that the coin was good for the assigned grade and creating a sight unseen market for the coin.

 

As a collector of rainbow toned coins, I have to routinely deal with market graded coins that are bumped up a grade due to superior eye appeal. The CAC will be instrumental in this regard as well.

 

I am a proponent of the CAC and think that the CAC can be a valuable tool to assist collectors that do not have the opportunity to purchase coins on a sight seen basis. I recognize that the CAC has some flaws, but I still think the benefit that the CAC provides with respect to their intended purpose far outweighs and negative unintended consequences.

 

Paul

[MAULEMALL]

OK, that's it! I'm sending in a group of coins to CAC to find out for myself, and I will be completely transparent. Hopefully we'll all be able to learn through this process. Stay tuned....Mike

And what will this prove/disprove?