CAC Dealers...
0

374 posts in this topic

Yes, quite. :devil:

 

You are neglecting a correctly-graded coin that has been made into a mistake.

I thought we were speaking in terms of weeding out, not creating mistakes? But if not, I agree with you. ;)
Link to post
Share on other sites

But the CAC is not weeding anything out if they're introducing errors themselves....

 

I am talking about the total number of "mistakes" that result -- weeding them out or introducing them matters not. What's important (at least to me, and I would expect everyone else too) is the confidence (i.e. probability of accuracy) one can place in the TPG grade versus the TPG grade with CAC sticker.

 

Again, I think the CAC has a distinct advantage not because of an inherently lower error rate, but rather that they back up their sticker with a bid, essentially shifting much the risk from the buyer to the CAC. However, to suggest there will be fewer misgraded coins through the intoduction of the CAC (which was, I believe, TDN's point) is a fallacy unless they prove to be less error-prone than the TPGs (and I think you agree).

 

Thank you for the interesting discussion...>Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, to suggest there will be fewer misgraded coins through the intoduction of the CAC (which was, I believe, TDN's point) is a fallacy unless they prove to be less error-prone than the TPGs

 

Here is where we disagree: I see a mistake as a coin that shouldn't even be in a TPG holder but WITH a CAC sticker. This number will be 0.25% vs 5% using the examples that I've given. 95% of the mistakes made by the TPG will be weeded out by CAC. I'm completely ignoring a coin holdered by a TPG that doesn't receive the CAC sticker erroneously - because for now these just go back into the pool of coins that 'haven't even been seen'.

 

There's no way that an extra set of eyes compounds the problem - it reduces it drastically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That makes sense, TDN. Thanks for the explanation.
Mike, I feel the same way as TDN/Bruce does about that, but wasn't able to articulate like he did. :(

 

Thanks Bruce. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I didn't want to argue about it any more...and I don't think we were disagreeing -- we just misunderstood each other. :grin:

 

I see what TDN is saying, and it took the realization of some of his prior posts that indicated he was more concerned with doctored or other problem coins making their way into his collection, rather than they being misgraded.

 

Given one is confident in their grading skills, as I believe TDN is, I can see how the additional errors related to grade are of less importance. While I'm confident in my grading skills, I'm not confident enough that another opinion won't help, so I was more focused on the larger error rate associated with grade. We kind of missed each other's point....

 

So I still maintain what I wrote to be accurate -- from my perspective as somone also concerned with grading errors -- but I can also understand how someone else's value points may be different from my own as TDN (and you) illustrated for me.

 

So in summary, the total number of problem and doctored coins should go down through successive weeding by the TPG and CAC, but I still maintain the number of grading/stickering errors will be that of the last in line (CAC). However, given the CAC takes a great deal of the downside risk in this grading errors and increases liquidity and transparency at the same time, it seems to me that the CAC creates value for the collector on both sides of the issue.

 

Pretty elegant, actually...if executed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given one is confident in their grading skills, as I believe TDN is, I can see how the additional errors related to grade are of less importance.

 

How confident do you have to be when you have L.S. behind you....

 

 

Like her or not , She doesn't play.

 

 

I remember seeing her on dealer day in Baltimore last year...

 

 

I am not ashamed to admit I was a bit intimidated.

 

 

If I were ever to win the lotto and could afford TDN or Boiler type coins I would make a Bee line straight for Ms. Laura.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

I agree with you Mike. In the last edition of Coin World there was a letter to the Editor in which a subscriber called the CAC sticker a "coffee bean" sticker and claimed that CAC had caused a 10% markup and that he refused to pay !0% more for a coffee bean.

 

While I think that this is a little bit over the line I am not on the opposite extreme where there is a 'blind" following of CAC.I am probably somewhere in the middle even though I do not plan to ever use any of their services.

 

I see from other posts that CAC is issuing an upgrade sticker. Waht happens when people and there will be some get an upgrade sticker and send the coin to TPG1 who certified it and demands the upgrade and they refuse to do it? Is CAC going to thehn reimburse them for the difference? Is CAC going to have too srtict grade standards so they won't have to be put in these positions?

 

Another problem is that whether or not CAC rejects a coin that is incorrectly graded or approves a coin that is incorrectly graded there are still going to be mistakes and as JA stated in the Rosen Interview " Graders are going to make mistakes". The situation still remains that there is going to be another layer evaluating the TPGs and this other layer is also going to make mistakes.

 

 

The other situation which is also troubling for me is that Albanese is the head of CAC and I will not rehash the reasons I mentioned before These points would be less if anyone other than Albanese had started CAC.Whether or not these things will happen is immaterial. If they do happen and the motives etc of Albanese become questionable because of his Tenure at PCGS and NGC then it will throw the whole situation into turmoil and it will be the Collector who suffers.

 

 

It also bothers me in the Interview where Rosen asked Albanese if he ever intended to start his own Grading Company and he responded in the negative. It implies that he was never associated with one. That along with the statement of JA that " Graders make mistakes". Why does he appear innocently or not to be distancing himself from the situation?I would like to know why he left NGC and PCGS and if there was an agreement that he would not enter into the establishment of a Grading Company and if so then for what period.If you watch these Financial programs on such channels as CNBC and an Analyst recoomends a Stock then they now have to tell you if they or their Company has a position in it.

 

Meanwhile if a person wants to partake of the Services of CAC then I have no problem.They just need to go into it with their eyes open and to be aware of Future possibilites no matter how remote they might seem at this time .

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see from other posts that CAC is issuing an upgrade sticker. Waht happens when people and there will be some get an upgrade sticker and send the coin to TPG1 who certified it and demands the upgrade and they refuse to do it? Is CAC going to thehn reimburse them for the difference? Is CAC going to have too srtict grade standards so they won't have to be put in these positions?

 

This has already been explained previously. No one is claiming that such a sticker (which is being awarded only in extreme cases on a tiny % of the coins reviewed by CAC) will ensure anything in the eyes of NGC or PCGS. And there is no evidence that anyone will "demand the upgrade" at NGC or PCGS. But if they do and are refused, CAC has reason to "reimburse them for the difference". The gold sticker means that the coin will be eligible for a sight-unseen CAC bid at the next grade up. Again, you are making things more complicated than they are and dealing with supposition and not facts.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that I've got your attention... :devil: I found the following things amusing. Two well known (to forum members) CAC dealers have made the following comments on their web sites:

 

Some examples from Dealer #1

1) 1C 1881 PCGS MS67RD: Technically, this jaw dropping beauty is a borderline MS69!

Yet, this coin only received the "average for the grade" green sticker. Where is the coveted gold sticker?

 

2) 1C 1881 PCGS PR-66 RB: A borderline monster PR67RB.

Again, only a green sticker, not a gold one.

 

3) 1C 1884 PCGS PR68RB: This older green tag holder coin really does make a strong case for a PR69 designation! We assume PCGS did not do it because they are fearful of designating ANY coin that high.

I guess CAC is fearful of designating any coin graded PF68 as "PQ / gold sticker"???

 

4) $20 1926S PCGS MS64: Very high end quality.

Again, only a green sticker, not a gold one.

 

Is the dealer hyping their coins well beyond the truth or is CAC unable to tell real PQ coins from average?

 

Some examples from Dealer #2

1) 1932-D Washington Quarter PCGS MS64: It would be difficult to find a noticeably better MS64 example of this seemingly always-popular key date. CAC declined to award a sticker to this coin.

What? It would be difficult to find a noticeably better MS64 example, but CAC didn't even give the lousy green sticker to this coin?

 

2) 1889 Legend Obverse Seated Liberty Dime NGC MS66: Pristine looking and most pleasing to the eye. CAC declined to award a sticker to this coin.

Pristine? Most pleasing to the eye? Dog?

 

3) 1888 Liberty Nickel NGC PR65: But this glittering, medium depth toned example is quite appealing, especially when viewed in person. CAC declined to award a sticker to this coin.

Appealing, but still an overgraded pig?

 

Does dealer #2 need glasses (or a dictionary to learn what 'pristine' and 'appealing' mean) or is CAC unable to tell average coins from below average?

 

I'm not picking on either of these dealers - I like them both, or CAC, but I find it funny how the savior of our hobby/industry that is promoted by these two dealers is either exposing their hype/weaknesses or exposing the CAC's inability to do its job. Either the statements from these dealers is wrong or the CAC is wrong.

 

You know what, Greg? I'm actually starting to like you... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I see from other posts that CAC is issuing an upgrade sticker. Waht happens when people and there will be some get an upgrade sticker and send the coin to TPG1 who certified it and demands the upgrade and they refuse to do it? Is CAC going to thehn reimburse them for the difference? Is CAC going to have too srtict grade standards so they won't have to be put in these positions?

 

This has already been explained previously. No one is claiming that such a sticker (which is being awarded only in extreme cases on a tiny % of the coins reviewed by CAC) will ensure anything in the eyes of NGC or PCGS. And there is no evidence that anyone will "demand the upgrade" at NGC or PCGS. But if they do and are refused, CAC has reason to "reimburse them for the difference". The gold sticker means that the coin will be eligible for a sight-unseen CAC bid at the next grade up. Again, you are making things more complicated than they are and dealing with supposition and not facts.

 

Again. I have no way of knowing if the possibilities will occur that I mentioned. What I said is that there is a possibility and I gave logical responses to those possibilites.

 

"The coin will be "elgible" for a sight unseen CAC bid at the next grade is not a guarantee that it will receive the next hgher grade. It is only "elgible" for the next..........So we don't have another class.We have a "possible" class

 

 

I do not intend to use the CAC in my situation but I want to be aware and be able to plan should the hammer drop.There are too many variables that could exist and I still think that had anybody else besdides JA would have founded CAC that the potential for these variables would be less.

 

 

As far as I am aware it is the Rosen interview which is the latest and I would like to know why any of these Interviews do not mention his previuos times at PCGS and NGC..The Rosen interview and the way the answer is phrased seems to imply that he does not plan to start a grading company and also that there has never been one whether the reply was intended or not.

 

Reading the Interview Rosen mentions " when we were grading coins" at least once.Does this mean that Rosen and JA were both at either PCGS and NGC and if so were they there together or does this mean that they both graded coins but at different times and in different places?

 

 

There seems to be many thing taken for granted and too many questions that are not mentioned.

 

If one wants to be an advocate of CAC then it is a personal preference . One should go into it with eyes wide open and be aware of what could happen It may or may not happen but if it does happen then one needs to be aware of the possible outcomes.

 

I agree with Mike in Florida on the error possibilites and given the statement by JA that "Graders are not perfect etc". and the possibilty that correctly graded coins can be incorrectly stickered by CAC and that incorrectly coins by the TPGs can be given an approving sticker than I have to wonder about not only the need for another Layer but the reasons of JA for creating CAC.

 

I don't find these things to be complicated. Just want answers.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the page: "Do note: in auctions CAC stickered coins have been selling for more than non CAC'd pieces. "

And from a previous article: "When buying from a major auction house, hire someone to screen the coins! Or, if you are buying from a dealer, ask for them to sent to CAC. "

 

Which substantiates both arguments of higher prices for collectors as well as an extra monetary burden on people who wish to sell their coins, PQ or not.

 

Even though you clearly think CAC is pure angelic charity and JA can do nothing wrong (your absolute refusal to admit anything even neutral bears this out), don't automatically dismiss the concerns of others as pure illogical madness.

 

There are clear benefits of the service, but also some questions about the blind devotion and absolute faith people like you put into JA's decisions and opinions as well as what the overall impact of this service will be on individual collectors, whether 'buy-and-hold'ers or sellers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea, his coin doctoring isn't for everyone...

 

;)

 

Bruce, we all know dipping (even in MS70) isn't coin doctoring. :angel:

Greg, technically speaking, I have no argument with your labeling "dipping" as "doctoring". But do you consider AT'ing coins, puttying coins, lazering coins, etc. no worse than or the same as dipping with respect to acceptable (edited to add: or ethical) behavior ? Edited by MarkFeld
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though you clearly think CAC is pure angelic charity and JA can do nothing wrong (your absolute refusal to admit anything even neutral bears this out), don't automatically dismiss the concerns of others as pure illogical madness.

 

lol What planet are you from - do you even read what is posted? Both Mark and I have repeatedly stated 'use it if it's of value to YOU' and have acknowledged that JA/CAC can and does make mistakes. Kindly cut the hyperbole.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea, his coin doctoring isn't for everyone...

 

;)

 

Bruce, we all know dipping (even in MS70) isn't coin doctoring. :angel:

Greg, technically speaking, I have no argument with your labeling "dipping" as "doctoring". But do you consider AT'ing coins, puttying coins, lazering (SIC) coins, etc. no worse than or the same as dipping with respect to acceptable (edited to add: or ethical) behavior ?

 

There are different levels of doctoring, but they're all still doctoring. Having said that, I'd prefer this discussion not take place in this thread as we don't need to to go (even more) off topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea, I let Laura's social skills infect my mostly acceptable behavior

 

;)

:whistle:

 

lol So directness is great from Greg, but not from Bruce? ;)

Only when one dishonestly misquotes me ;)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea, his coin doctoring isn't for everyone...

 

;)

 

Bruce, we all know dipping (even in MS70) isn't coin doctoring. :angel:

Greg, technically speaking, I have no argument with your labeling "dipping" as "doctoring". But do you consider AT'ing coins, puttying coins, lazering (SIC) coins, etc. no worse than or the same as dipping with respect to acceptable (edited to add: or ethical) behavior ?

 

There are different levels of doctoring, but they're all still doctoring. Having said that, I'd prefer this discussion not take place in this thread as we don't need to to go (even more) off topic.

Thanks for your reply Greg and I will respect your preference regarding the (off) topic. ;)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea, I let Laura's social skills infect my mostly acceptable behavior

 

;)

:whistle:

 

lol So directness is great from Greg, but not from Bruce? ;)

Only when one dishonestly misquotes me ;)

 

Excuse me? That was an HONEST misquote! lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea, I let Laura's social skills infect my mostly acceptable behavior

 

;)

:whistle:

 

lol So directness is great from Greg, but not from Bruce? ;)

Only when one dishonestly misquotes me ;)

 

Excuse me? That was an HONEST misquote! lol

hm I think you have been hanging around with to many Lawyers ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:baiting:

Link to post
Share on other sites

For what its worth to this debate, I auctioned off a significant portion of my collection a little while back. Prior to selling, the coins were CAC'd. Since then 6 of the CAC (green sticker) coins have resurfaced as follows;

 

1 at Same Grade

2 at +1 point (PCGS to PCGS & PCGS to NGC)

3 at +2 points (PCGS to NGC)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
For what its worth to this debate, I auctioned off a significant portion of my collection a little while back. Prior to selling, the coins were CAC'd. Since then 6 of the CAC (green sticker) coins have resurfaced as follows;

 

1 at Same Grade

2 at +1 point (PCGS to PCGS & PCGS to NGC)

3 at +2 points (PCGS to NGC)

This sounds like it could be evidence of poor review standards at CAC. Why didn't at least 3 of these coins get gold stickers (lock for being undergraded), and really more like five of the coins?

Link to post
Share on other sites
This sounds like it could be evidence of poor review standards at CAC. Why didn't at least 3 of these coins get gold stickers (lock for being undergraded), and really more like five of the coins?

Remember, default is that CAC made the right decision. Everyone else is wrong, so now if they were submitted back to CAC, they would likely be C or D for the grade, or worse, and possibly command a lower price than when they were lower grades with the CAC sticker. The TPGs are simply overgrading everything as usual.

Link to post
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