CAC Dealers...
0

374 posts in this topic

Is an educated opinion really speculation?

 

Knowing how the coin industry works, the odds of being able to purchase a significant undergrade are near zero. Therefore, the chances are heavily weighted to NGC overgrading the coins. Yes, CAC is trying to limit this occurrence, obviously not as successful as desired yet.

 

There have been some awfully ugly coins with CAC stickers posted on the forums. Your response typically is to discount the opinion of anyone who hasn't seen the coin in person. Now you defend Mark's speculation that coins have been overgraded -- when he hadn't even seen a picture, much less hold the coin in hand -- as "an educated opinion." You can't have it both ways.

 

I'm just pointing out that speculation doesn't advance the discussion either way. And, to Mark's credit, he admitted that he was guessing. So, yes, I'd say that his comment was really speculation.

Lou, the person who owned the coins (meaning he did SEE them in hand) has indicated that he thought CAC was accurate, despite the fact that he is aware some of them later up-graded. He said:
Also - I agree with CAC's original assessment
That is really all we have to go by, other than guessing, speculation, etc.
But you don't agree with NGC's??

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James, it appears that without having seen the coins, and despite what CT Collector just wrote in his most recent post, you wish to assume that CAC should have awarded gold stickers. Hopefully you are as or more "uncomfortable" with the idea that PCGS might have under-graded the coins by 1 or more points in the first place.

I am uncomfortable that PCGS may have three times undergraded a coin by 2 points, and two times undergraded a coin by a full point. But I am more uncomfortable (and again, if I were a seller, I'd be downright incensed) that a company that purports to have "stringent grading standards" which will identify the "best of the best" was, out of five confirmed upgrades, unable to identify a single one as a "lock upgrade". It would be a stunning coincidence that there actually were zero out of seven points of potential upgrade possible. Again, as a seller, that's potentially a lot of dollars left on the table.

 

You also have no idea as to whether the CAC stickers helped crackout artists narrow down the field. But as I said before, feel free to speculate your heart out.

Since CAC coins are "the best of the best", you honestly don't believe those would be the first coins a crackout artist would look at? Do you really think he's going to say "let me see your 100 unstickered coins first, then I'll take a look at your five stickered coins"? Come on, Mark, it isn't idle speculation, and you know it. I've spent thousands of hours behind a bourse table, and I have talked to many crackout specialists at length, and I think I know just a little bit about how they think. The first thing they always want to know is: which coins are most likely to upgrade? It isn't a mere coincidence that they often will ask right off the bat if I have any "NGC star" coins.

 

Edited to add: Just for the record, despite the horrors that the CAC claims have been perpetrated on the market by crackout artists, they really do not bother me in the slightest.

Edited by James_EarlyUS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James, it appears that without having seen the coins, and despite what CT Collector just wrote in his most recent post, you wish to assume that CAC should have awarded gold stickers. Hopefully you are as or more "uncomfortable" with the idea that PCGS might have under-graded the coins by 1 or more points in the first place.

I am uncomfortable that PCGS may have three times undergraded a coin by 2 points, and two times undergraded a coin by a full point. But I am more uncomfortable (and again, if I were a seller, I'd be downright incensed) that a company that purports to have "stringent grading standards" which will identify the "best of the best" was, out of five confirmed upgrades, unable to identify a single one as a "lock upgrade". It would be a stunning coincidence that there actually were zero out of seven points of potential upgrade possible. Again, as a seller, that's potentially a lot of dollars left on the table.

 

You also have no idea as to whether the CAC stickers helped crackout artists narrow down the field. But as I said before, feel free to speculate your heart out.

Since CAC coins are "the best of the best", you honestly don't believe those would be the first coins a crackout artist would look at? Do you really think he's going to say "let me see your 100 unstickered coins first, then I'll take a look at your five stickered coins"? Come on, Mark, it isn't idle speculation, and you know it. I've spent thousands of hours behind a bourse table, and I have talked to many crackout specialists at length, and I think I know just a little bit about how they think. The first thing they always want to know is: which coins are most likely to upgrade? It isn't a mere coincidence that they often will ask right off the bat if I have any "NGC star" coins.

 

Edited to add: Just for the record, despite the horrors that the CAC claims have been perpetrated on the market by crackout artists, they really do not bother me in the slightest.

James, the gold sticker is supposed to signify (in my words) a no questions asked upgrade. That is not the same thing or even close to a "potential upgrade".

 

So you'd be "incensed" with CAC for not issuing a gold sticker, but NOT PCGS (for grading some coins 2 points lower than NGC later did) or NGC (for grading some coins 2 points higher than PCGS previously did)? That truly is incredible, and in my opinion, shows how biased you are against CAC.

 

Regarding crack-out artists - if they are truly asking you about/focusing on "NGC star" coins, they're probably not the sharpest at their craft. NGC star coins are typically extra eye-appealing in one way or another, but NOT conservatively graded. The especially sharp crack-out dealers I know look at essentially any coin with good spread potential and focus on the COINS, not the holders or the grading labels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sooner or later, when professionals continue to cast doubt on the abilities of other professionals, and when they insist that yet another opinion on the top of all the others is needed as "insurance" against overgrading and doctored coins, the collector base will withdraw from the hobby. That will be the unintended consequence of CAC and its progeny.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lou,

 

That's an awful doom and gloom prediction, and quite out of character. :(

 

However, do you think this is the CAC and its progeny's consequence, or did the TPGs bring it on themselves -- through the inevitable realization that the original arbiters of grade/value weren't quite as authoritative as they seem to be and it was only a matter of time that confidence was eroded.

 

In other words, if a collapse were to occur would it be the TPG's fault for their error or the CAC's for pointing it out and trying to correct it?

 

Or are we better off as ignorant koolaid drinkers?

 

As someone ATS said, and I think it makes a lot of sense, people react badly when they realize their koolaid was spiked the whole time, and I think in a way that's what you're saying.

 

Just wondering...Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The industry encourages huge price differences between slight grade variations that even the experts can't agree on. The purported need for opinions on top of opinions on top of opinions will not eliminate the problem. Instead, it will show more clearly the absurdity that already exists. A, B, C & D coins within one grade. Better watch out we don't get stuck with a C having paid for a B! Good grief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you'd be "incensed" with CAC for not issuing a gold sticker, but NOT PCGS (for grading some coins 2 points lower than NGC later did) or NGC (for grading some coins 2 points higher than PCGS previously did)? That truly is incredible, and in my opinion, shows how biased you are against CAC.

Mark, PCGS grades to PCGS' standard, which is apparently loose at least to some degree since two point differentials occur. NGC grades to NGC's standard, which apparently can differ from PCGS' standard by two points. I can't figure out what the CAC stringent standard is or can possibly be, since it seems to somehow combine PCGS and NGC standards that can be two points apart, and despite the CAC being "stringent", their standard cannot be expressed in words (as we previously discussed). We do know that five times out of five, CAC disagreed with NGC's upgrade decision (in an era of "tighter TPG grading" supposedly brought on by CAC itself) of six possible candidates. Sure, I'd be incensed about paying ANOTHER grading fee to a company that "polices" the TPGs, yet miserably fails to let me know that I left five upgrades on the table. Incensed may be too weak of a word, when that same company explicitly claims to identify "select quality within any particular grade", and in particular, the "best of the best".

 

I'm not sure why you think I would be incensed about a coin already in a slab at a certain grade, since I would have bought the coin, not the holder. There seems to be no correlation here.

 

Regarding crack-out artists - if they are truly asking you about/focusing on "NGC star" coins, they're probably not the sharpest at their craft. NGC star coins are typically extra eye-appealing in one way or another, but NOT conservatively graded. The especially sharp crack-out dealers I know look at essentially any coin with good spread potential and focus on the COINS, not the holders or the grading labels.

I know very well what the NGC says the "star" designation means, but the crackout artists know even more than I do. I suspect that when confronted with a case full of coins, they need a starting point to help narrow down the potential upgrades from the dreck. And a good starting point might be "star" designations, or stickers.

 

Some on the board criticize CAC for not being stringent enough, and yet others for CAC being too stringent.

 

It truly is a lose-lose proposition. lol

I agree. It sure would be helpful if those "stringent standards" could be spelled out to collectors, wouldn't it ;) ?

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My conclusion, PCGS is tighter on technical aspects of grading and NGC is a little more forgiving, particularly if the coins have eye appeal. But I am sure most of you knew that already.

 

Just for clarification, I submitted to CAC and sold about 40 coins. The ones I mentioned in my original post are just the ones that I noticed coming up for resale.

 

Also - I agree with CAC's original assessment.

 

CTcollector,

 

Having had the chance to use the CAC's services yourself, would you care to comment on a) their accuracy, b) the value you see in the sticker, and c) any lessons learned.

 

I'd be very interested in your perspective.

 

Thanks in advance...Mike

 

 

A) In my humble opinion, I find CAC accurate versus traditional and technical standards. However, it appears to me that they are less apt to award stickers on a "market grade" basis.

 

B) I see value in my experience with CAC. Let me put it this way, JA has always made time for me and I have yet to pay him a cent. Take TDN's advice and go to Coinfest or make a trip to Central Jersey, if its feasible. Although some of my coins are now appearing in higher holders, I sitll did very well when I sold. I think the CAC stickers helped. Whenever I asked JA to explain something about a coin (ie why didn't it CAC?), he explains it to me. It is usually a subtle technical point that I missed at arm's length. As a result, I am more knowledgeable from the conversation. Its more than the sticker, its the knowledge and experience behind the sticker that provides value.

 

C) Lessons learned - Learn the technical aspect of grading. Eye appeal is nice, buts it only the start. Seek out and pay up for the coins that possess both eye appeal and strong technical merits for the grade. Don't be fooled or pay up for market graded coins. My coins that didn't CAC were market graded. They were still pretty and original, but technically flawed (for the grade). Another lesson learned - it appears that I hooked up with the right dealers over time as the coins I purchased from them were well received by CAC and sold strong.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, I'd be incensed about paying ANOTHER grading fee to a company that "polices" the TPGs, yet miserably fails to let me know that I left five upgrades on the table. Incensed may be too weak of a word, when that same company explicitly claims to identify "select quality within any particular grade", and in particular, the "best of the best".

 

Come now - are you playing around? If a company is identifying the best of the best, as you say, why would they identify an upgrade which would then be weak in the next grade up? This isn't about pointing out potential upgrades - it's about nice for the grade coins and lock upgrades.

 

I suspect that when confronted with a case full of coins, they need a starting point to help narrow down the potential upgrades from the dreck. And a good starting point might be "star" designations, or stickers.

 

Absolutely not. A good crackout artist can run his eyes over your case and pick out the potential upgrades in 10 seconds flat.

 

Some on the board criticize CAC for not being stringent enough, and yet others for CAC being too stringent.

 

It truly is a lose-lose proposition. lol

I agree. It sure would be helpful if those "stringent standards" could be spelled out to collectors, wouldn't it ;) ?

 

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. lol

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you'd be "incensed" with CAC for not issuing a gold sticker, but NOT PCGS (for grading some coins 2 points lower than NGC later did) or NGC (for grading some coins 2 points higher than PCGS previously did)? That truly is incredible, and in my opinion, shows how biased you are against CAC.

 

Have we heard anything about how long ago the coins were graded by PCGS? It is very possible that PCGS graded them accurately the first time, NGC graded them accurately the last time, and CAC didn't recognize them as greatly undergraded while in the PCGS slab.

 

Or there are many other possibilities...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :devil::grin: , 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.

 

Perhaps it is just resistance to change? Perhaps you're taking a too literal interpretation of CAC's marketing message or it rubbed you the wrong way. Perhaps it's something more personal or emotional. Whatever it is, it just doesn't make sense to me, and you've always struck me as a pretty rational guy.

 

Respectfully...Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you'd be "incensed" with CAC for not issuing a gold sticker, but NOT PCGS (for grading some coins 2 points lower than NGC later did) or NGC (for grading some coins 2 points higher than PCGS previously did)? That truly is incredible, and in my opinion, shows how biased you are against CAC.

 

Have we heard anything about how long ago the coins were graded by PCGS? It is very possible that PCGS graded them accurately the first time, NGC graded them accurately the last time, and CAC didn't recognize them as greatly undergraded while in the PCGS slab.

 

Or there are many other possibilities...

 

I agree. Way too many possibilites to make generalziations or draw solid conclusions. Not that your OP wasn't rife with them to begin with. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The industry encourages huge price differences between slight grade variations that even the experts can't agree on. The purported need for opinions on top of opinions on top of opinions will not eliminate the problem. Instead, it will show more clearly the absurdity that already exists. A, B, C & D coins within one grade. Better watch out we don't get stuck with a C having paid for a B! Good grief.

 

So what's the solution? (shrug)

 

Is the solution in flattening the exponential price curves with respect to grade...or are market prices accurate today? hm

 

Is the solution in clearer standards that are less subjective and more objective...or is this even an attainable goal? hm

 

Is there really a need for consistent, independant third party (e)valuation in numismatics...or were the EAC guys right the whole time? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sooner or later, when professionals continue to cast doubt on the abilities of other professionals, and when they insist that yet another opinion on the top of all the others is needed as "insurance" against overgrading and doctored coins, the collector base will withdraw from the hobby. That will be the unintended consequence of CAC and its progeny.

 

 

I was reading this thread by the pool earlier this evening, and it occurred to me that:

 

1) This discussion was giving me a headache. :(

 

2) If coin collecting is this complicated and contentious, it might be time to find another hobby. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wagons.jpg
Steve, instead of your "circle the wagons" picture/point, why not join the debate and illustrate where one of those who are supposedly circling the wagons (as in TDN or myself) said something that was incorrect?

 

What, you didn't like my drive-by? haha

I don't feel like nor have or want to spend the time debating. These days I try and just state my opinion. This time it was a picture. If I get in a debate I don't feel like being nice about it.

 

AND, I do take issue with a statement TDN something to the effect if it is an ugly coin it's most likely the image and odds are CAC won't sticker an ugly coin.

 

I could post some seriously ugly cac coins, but it would be blamed on the image.

I can read an image good enough to know when a coin has been cleaned.

 

This I believe was pointed out to TDN a while ago, and I believe he said well the TPG's do it. So because they slab cleaned coins IMO they sure don't deserve a sticker. I guess if CAC respected originality a bit more I wouldn't have such a problem with them. I even thought about buying one of the POS stickered coins that I just know it's been cleaned, Get a good image of it, but why waste my time when IMO the wagons will be circled. OK, that's all you get Mr. Feld.

 

And, who is Steve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could CAC just be a way for some to possession themselves back in the coin market or to make a market with the hopes that with the falling stock market and with large numbers of people thinking of moving assets from one place to another. If you had no presents CAC

would provide one for you if you/they were thinking that the market could respond like it did in 79 thru early 80s with the Wall Street influx of cash. If that the idea I don;t think it will work

because only crazy money managers would invest in the coin market and what sticker something has would make know difference even if I had a large store of thousands of slab and rolls of sticker to put on my coins. WHY pay to grade / slab if the sticker adds value

Heck you could buy 10,000 stickers for the cost to grade 2 coins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The solution is to let things lie where they are and see what will happen. The idea of CAC is a good one. I can't imagine anyone denying that. And be sure to blame the right culprit, the grading services for needing the service in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :devil::grin: , 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 :frustrated: 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 :devil::grin: , 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.

Edited by James_EarlyUS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't for anyone in particular but I think this is what James was eluding to earlier..

I'm sure that some will say that you can't grade by a picture... I am going to have to say.. Bull :censored: (One of my favorite drinking games when I used to partake)It's up to $350.00 with 15 hrs to go.

 

It's a givin that TPGs are forgiving to CC Morgans but it appears the CAC is as well..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, what kind of confidence would it give me in CAC - .25% error rate per TDN - to fail to identify all those upgrades?

 

I'm sorry, but you have completely missed the point I was making if you think I'm asserting that CAC has a .25% error rate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why you think I would be incensed about a coin already in a slab at a certain grade, since I would have bought the coin, not the holder. There seems to be no correlation here.

Are you really serious? If you think CAC blew it by not awarding a gold sticker and you'd be incensed about that, you should be at least equally incensed that the original grading company blew it just as badly when it originally (under)graded the coin.

 

Maybe that's fine for you, the buyer of an under-graded coin, but what about the original submitter who got short changed? After all, you said you'd be incensed as a submitted to CAC if they failed to issue gold stickers for coins that you presume must have been under-graded.

 

What's the difference in the culpability of PCGS or NGC vs. CAC here? I am truly confounded by some of your replies in this thread.

 

Edited to add: You've talked about the stated grading standards for PCGS and complained about the lack of the same for CAC - what difference does it make if those "standards" are published if they are so vague as to allow the inconsistencies and inaccuracies that we see? And I'm not picking on PCGS here - I'm just commenting that written standards are often of little or no practical use, even if it makes people feel better to be able to read them.

Edited by MarkFeld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why you think I would be incensed about a coin already in a slab at a certain grade, since I would have bought the coin, not the holder. There seems to be no correlation here.

Are you really serious? If you think CAC blew it by not awarding a gold sticker and you'd be incensed about that, you should be at least equally incensed that the original grading company blew it just as badly when it originally (under)graded the coin.

 

Maybe that's fine for you, the buyer of an under-graded coin, but what about the original submitter who got short changed? After all, you said you'd be incensed as a submitted to CAC if they failed to issue gold stickers for coins that you presume must have been under-graded.

 

What's the difference in the culpability of PCGS or NGC vs. CAC here? I am truly confounded by some of your replies in this thread.

Mark, you realize you've basically rewritten what I posted, don't you? I'm not sure why you feel confounded hm .... seems like you have a handle on the issue.

 

PCGS and NGC are in the grading business. CAC is not in the grading business, they are in a "police the graders" business. Why would anyone think two differing businesses would have "the same culpability"?? CAC's job is to catch mistakes by PCGS and NGC - that's what they (seemingly) promise! That's what I pay them for!!!!!!

 

Please explain why you think I should be incensed that the previous owner of my undergraded coins did not bother to investigate the possibility of upgrade himself. Maybe that would help me understand the confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why you think I would be incensed about a coin already in a slab at a certain grade, since I would have bought the coin, not the holder. There seems to be no correlation here.

Are you really serious? If you think CAC blew it by not awarding a gold sticker and you'd be incensed about that, you should be at least equally incensed that the original grading company blew it just as badly when it originally (under)graded the coin.

 

Maybe that's fine for you, the buyer of an under-graded coin, but what about the original submitter who got short changed? After all, you said you'd be incensed as a submitted to CAC if they failed to issue gold stickers for coins that you presume must have been under-graded.

 

What's the difference in the culpability of PCGS or NGC vs. CAC here? I am truly confounded by some of your replies in this thread.

Mark, you realize you've basically rewritten what I posted, don't you? I'm not sure why you feel confounded hm .... seems like you understand the issue perfectly.

 

PCGS and NGC are in the grading business. CAC is not in the grading business. Why would anyone think two differing businesses would have "the same culpability"?? CAC's job is to catch mistakes by PCGS and NGC - that's what they (seemingly) promise!

 

Please also explain why you think I should be incensed that the previous owner of my undergraded coins did not bother to investigate the possibility of upgrade himself. Maybe that would help me understand the confusion.

I THINK I understand the issue perfectly, just not your seemingly extremely inconsistent takes and attitude.

 

I'll say it one more time and then I'm done - If CAC blew it (and to me, it's not a given that they did), NGC and PCGS blew it just as badly. They are all experts who were paid to perform a service and it doesn't matter if the services are identical or not. In my view, none of them deserve a free pass from you, if you are simultaneously incensed by one of the others. Yes, I am still confounded by your posts and see no hope of that changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll say it one more time and then I'm done - If CAC blew it (and to me, it's not a given that they did), NGC and PCGS blew it just as badly. They are all experts who were paid to perform a service and it doesn't matter if the services are identical or not. In my view, none of them deserve a free pass from you, if you are simultaneously incensed by one of the others. Yes, I am still confounded by your posts and see no hope of that changing.

Now wait just a darned minute. I don't think PCGS and NGC have ever taken on any role of "policing" grading - that's all the CAC's self-appointed undertaking. So I absolutely would not expect them to have the same responsibilities. PCGS/NGC grade coins, which is to offer an opinion as to the coin's grade. Can they blow it? Of course. But that is where CAC steps in, no? CAC polices grades, which is to determine whether the grading opinion is valid or not (ie. meets the "higher standard").

 

How in the heck are "grading" and "policing" - which are different functions - to be somehow judged the same?

 

My whole point in sending already-graded coins to CAC would be to have them catch the mistakes already made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0