CAC question

[toyonakataro]

Sorry if someone asked this question before, but is there any way to tell if a non CAC stickered coin has already been sent to CAC (and not stickered)?

I went to their site and typed a certification# of a coin whitch did not pass CAC and then I got a message "This certification number is NOT in the CAC database"

 

[MarkFeld]

17 minutes ago, toyonakataro said:

Sorry if someone asked this question before, but is there any way to tell if a non CAC stickered coin has already been sent to CAC (and not stickered)?

I went to their site and typed a certification# of a coin whitch did not pass CAC and then I got a message "This certification number is NOT in the CAC database"

 

There is no way to tell if a non-CAC coin has already been submitted. 

[toyonakataro]

1 hour ago, MarkFeld said:

There is no way to tell if a non-CAC coin has already been submitted. 

That's too bad.

By the way, I have another question.

Does CAC have data base of certification # they once rejected to sticker?

[MarkFeld]

My guess is yes, but I don't know that for a fact. They do not disclose the cert numbers for rejected coins because they believe that would be unfair to and penalize the owners of those coins.

[toyonakataro]

23 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

 They do not disclose the cert numbers for rejected coins because they believe that would be unfair to and penalize the owners of those coins.

I understand that. But as a buyer, it would have been helpful to know if CAC approved the coin when buy a coin sight unseen.

[BillJones]

This argument as gone on to ad noisome, and I've been the source of a fair amount of the controversy. CAC represents one man's opinion. That man is an acknowledged expert. No one is questioning that. The question is should that one man's opinion have the power to condemn other people's holdings, even when other experts might disagree with the opinion? If CAC to publish a list of the serial numbers of the coins that they have rejected, they would be doing just that, and I say that is wrong.

If you don't want to take the chance of buying a coin that CAC has rejected, then you should buy only CAC stickered coins. The answer is as simple as that. If CAC were to publicize the serial numbers of the coins they rejected, they would be deluged with lawsuits.

Expert opinions can differ on the grade of a coin. NO ONE has the definitive answer on the grade of a coin 100% of the time. Therefore it is not fair to put an onus on a given coin just because one person didn't agree with the grade.

[LINCOLNMAN]

1 hour ago, toyonakataro said:

it would have been helpful to know if CAC approved the coin when buy a coin sight unseen.

To be clear, if CAC has stickered a coin, has approved it, you will find it when you go to their website. 

 

[WoodenJefferson]

JA can take/look the CAC list (info stored on lap top) to an auction/pre-auction, look up to see if he's rejected a coin before and if he has, with hold his bid. So, is that fair to the other bidders who might think a coin will CAC?

[MarkFeld]

3 minutes ago, WoodenJefferson said:

JA can take/look the CAC list (info stored on lap top) to an auction/pre-auction, look up to see if he's rejected a coin before and if he has, with hold his bid. So, is that fair to the other bidders who might think a coin will CAC?

 

3 minutes ago, WoodenJefferson said:

JA can take/look the CAC list (info stored on lap top) to an auction/pre-auction, look up to see if he's rejected a coin before and if he has, with hold his bid. So, is that fair to the other bidders who might think a coin will CAC?

Firstly, I don't think he goes to auctions. Secondly, when he does bid (on line), other than in extremely rare instances, he bids on CAC coins. And thirdly,  in the extremely rare instances in which he bids on non-CAC coins, I seriously doubt that he checks to see if the coins have been rejected by CAC.  

[numisport]

CAC is neither the guarantor or the all seeing eye of the rare coin market. However purchase and hammer prices do reflect the value of 4th party verification. Whether that fourth party is JA,  another dealer or another collector I respect these opinions. The fact CAC has verified nearly every coin I have submitted means something to me - I'm on the right track.

[LINCOLNMAN]

With respect to the auction question, unless one is an expert or represented by one, one is at a gigantic disadvantage in an auction setting. As collectors we are competing with a sea of experts who have previewed the coins or who already know the coins and their probable market value. If JA were to be amongst the bidders it would make no difference. As collectors we do our research and do the best we can to buy the coins that meet our own criteria at prices that we can live with, regardless of 4th party or 3rd party opinions. If we're smart, we might beat typical retail prices. If we're lucky, our coins will appreciate over time. If not, we'll have fun. Too much is made of what other parties think of these interesting objects of history and art. Unless perhaps one is more of an investor or a gambler, in which case no sympathy here.

[KMAG100]

4 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

 

Firstly, I don't think he goes to auctions. Secondly, when he does bid (on line), other than in extremely rare instances, he bids on CAC coins. And thirdly,  in the extremely rare instances in which he bids on non-CAC coins, I seriously doubt that he checks to see if the coins have been rejected by CAC.  

+1......His real money is made putting stickers on the slabs not exploiting a few auctions by knowing whether he's rejected a coin for a sticker.  Wouldn't make much sense for him to undermine his legitimate business of grading the graders.......

[physics-fan3.14]

It would be fair to the buyer of a coin to know that a coin had been rejected by the all-powerful wizard of CAC. 

However, these coins would sell at a discount to other coins. Sellers would be furious. CAC would see less volume because of it. CAC would suffer. 

Thus, CAC does not publish this list (as much as I think they should).

[Afterword]

If they were rejected by CAC, and this fact was made public, could they not simply be re-graded and re-slabbed?

[numisport]

5 minutes ago, Afterword said:

If they were rejected by CAC, and this fact was made public, could they not simply be re-graded and re-slabbed?

CACs' stated goal is to verify the coin being A or B for the grade, and not C quality. They do not assign a grade so I see no reason to regrade the coin if it does not CAC.

[Afterword]

10 minutes ago, numisport said:

CACs' stated goal is to verify the coin being A or B for the grade, and not C quality. They do not assign a grade so I see no reason to regrade the coin if it does not CAC.

Even if CAC makes that fact known to the public via the certification number on the slab? 

[physics-fan3.14]

10 minutes ago, numisport said:

CACs' stated goal is to verify the coin being A or B for the grade, and not C quality. They do not assign a grade so I see no reason to regrade the coin if it does not CAC.

The idea is, if they track the slab number, a new slab would be reconsidered independently. 

Given the variability of grading, a coin that was rejected as a C coin one day could be reconsidered as a B coin the next, or an A+ coin if the grader had a good weekend. If they track them by slab number, the coin won't actually be re-verified - they'd just check the number and instantly reject it. 

Of course, if you believe that JA is a grading god among numismatic mortals, then you believe he's not subject to variance or subjectivity, and that his opinion is the immutable truth. (These superlatives sound ridiculous, but I've heard the sycophants repeat these mantras. Quick note - not all CAC supporters are brainlessly kowtowing to their overlord. Some are extremely knowledgeable and well respected numismatic personalities. I just disagree with them on the importance of CAC. Only those who blindly accept CAC without critically thinking are subject to the most sardonic sarcasm - and there are more of these than you think (even those who deny it).)  Anyways, according to this schema, a coin rejected one day will equally fail the next, no matter its clothes. A coin accepted one day will equally pass the next, no matter its clothes.

This is, of course, a load of bollocks. Nobody can grade to this fine of a detail with absolute consistency - even JA. JA makes mistakes (no, say it ain't so!!!!). JA accepts coins with problems (stop the presses!!!). JA has variance (really?!?!). Of course, JA has made significant contributions to the hobby and is extremely experienced and knowledgeable (more so than most). He makes far less mistakes than anyone else here, I'm sure. But, he still makes mistakes. The idea that CAC will solve all our problems is ridiculous. 

[MarkFeld]

I've never seen anyone claim that "CAC will solve all our problems". And by the way, CAC will sometimes knowingly sticker cons that they previously rejected. They freely admit that they're imperfect.

[Raisethis2]

My understanding is that CAC only keeps an accounting of coins it has beaned. There have been coins on occasion submitted more than once that have subsequently been beaned. My understanding is that JA will buy at Gray Sheet coins he has beaned. When he buys at auction his preference is to buy coins his firm has beaned, however, there are coins he has purchased that were not beaned either because they didn't meet the criteria or were never previously submitted. 

 

I think his level of integrity would preclude him from checking if a coin he's considering buying has ever been submitted. 

 

 

[BillJones]

49 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

I've never seen anyone claim that "CAC will solve all our problems". And by the way, CAC will sometimes knowingly sticker cons that they previously rejected. They freely admit that they're imperfect.

No, they don't. Show a CAC mistake, and they circle the wagons around CAC. 

CAC is coming very close to ending my almost 60 year interest in this hobby, and I am not kidding. 

[BillJones]

2 hours ago, Afterword said:

If they were rejected by CAC, and this fact was made public, could they not simply be re-graded and re-slabbed?

That assumes that CAC is correct, which not always true. Do you think CAC is always right?

[Afterword]

5 minutes ago, BillJones said:

That assumes that CAC is correct, which not always true. Do you think CAC is always right?

No, if it assumes anything, it assumes that a large number of collectors perceive it to be true. Even a collector that did not believe it to be true (like myself) would take this into consideration when confronted with the scenario of mine that you quoted. 

 CAC would be foolish not to admit being less than perfect - being mere mortals like the rest of us.

 

[WoodenJefferson]

[LINCOLNMAN]

I've only recently jumped back into collecting US coins, although I've got 60+ years in numismatic collecting. From the short time I've been exposed to the CAC discussions here and ATS, the only conclusion I've been able to reach is that CAC provides a valuable service to collectors who buy coins who can't examine the coin in hand. However, I find this merely comforting, but not conclusive by any means as I make purchase decisions. No different in kind from the old days when we used the eyes of a trusted professional to look a coin over before we bought it.  Rick Snow provides the same service, which I find very useful as I complete my IHC set. The problem, if there is one, is one that we, the ultimate consumers have created. We have allowed, as a result of our own buying behavior, a separate pricing tier where there shouldn't be one. We have over-rewarded some coins and penalized others without sufficient justification. As a matter of perspective I can tell you that our hobby is a real soap opera. Leave for a few years and when you return, drama of some sort, but always surrounding grading.

[BillJones]

I too have great respect for the Rick Snow sticker. I've never seen a coin that he stickered that I didn't like. I can't say the same for CAC.

A guy ATS says that almost 100% of the non generic coins that are offered by Stacks', Heritage and the Goldberg Auctions have been sent to CAC. That means that coins that don't have stickers have failed. If that's true, the people here who are clamoring for a list of serial numbers for the coins that failed to get a CAC sticker are closer to their wish. The "scarlet letter" will be easier to see if that is true.

 

I don't care about the fact that the CAC people make money. That's what capitalism is all about. What I don't like is when CAC-A-files down grade the value of other people's holdings based on one man's opinion.

 

This assumption that CAC has seen every graded coin, and that every coin that doesn't have a CAC sticker is over graded is ridiculous. There are lot of private collectors who have never sent a coin to CAC, me included. And given the fact that CAC is often a closed group that only takes on new members occasionally, make the claim that CAC is omnipotent even less valid.

 

CAC is killing the hobby for me. I have to either decide to ignore them, or really decrease my purchases. Right now I'm thinking that I am almost done with U.S. coins. Spending many thousands dollars on truly scarce to rare coins only to have their value degraded because it don't fit one man's grading criteria or isn't something he wants to promote at the moment is just plain unfair.

[MarkFeld]

6 minutes ago, BillJones said:

'This assumption that CAC has seen every graded coin, and that every coin that doesn't have a CAC sticker is over graded is ridiculous. There are lot of private collectors who have never sent a coin to CAC, me included. And given the fact that CAC is often a closed group that only takes on new members occasionally, make the claim that CAC is omnipotent even less valid."

 

Of course CAC hasn't seen anywhere close to every graded coin. And I haven't seen a single person claim that every non-CAC coin is over-graded. CAC hasn't claimed that, the poster on the PCGS forum to whom you refer hasn't claimed that and neither has anyone else i'm aware of. But for some reason, you seem to have that thought in your head. 

 

[numisport]

15 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

The idea is, if they track the slab number, a new slab would be reconsidered independently. 

Given the variability of grading, a coin that was rejected as a C coin one day could be reconsidered as a B coin the next, or an A+ coin if the grader had a good weekend. If they track them by slab number, the coin won't actually be re-verified - they'd just check the number and instantly reject it. 

Of course, if you believe that JA is a grading god among numismatic mortals, then you believe he's not subject to variance or subjectivity, and that his opinion is the immutable truth. (These superlatives sound ridiculous, but I've heard the sycophants repeat these mantras. Quick note - not all CAC supporters are brainlessly kowtowing to their overlord. Some are extremely knowledgeable and well respected numismatic personalities. I just disagree with them on the importance of CAC. Only those who blindly accept CAC without critically thinking are subject to the most sardonic sarcasm - and there are more of these than you think (even those who deny it).)  Anyways, according to this schema, a coin rejected one day will equally fail the next, no matter its clothes. A coin accepted one day will equally pass the next, no matter its clothes.

This is, of course, a load of bollocks. Nobody can grade to this fine of a detail with absolute consistency - even JA. JA makes mistakes (no, say it ain't so!!!!). JA accepts coins with problems (stop the presses!!!). JA has variance (really?!?!). Of course, JA has made significant contributions to the hobby and is extremely experienced and knowledgeable (more so than most). He makes far less mistakes than anyone else here, I'm sure. But, he still makes mistakes. The idea that CAC will solve all our problems is ridiculous. 

Yes I guess I missed that point. A new cert. # would open the door again but only worth it for higher value coins and you could risk a down grade. I do like 4th party verifiers however and there are a few that are good ones. Rick Snow tag is one but another legitimate marker would be Rick Tomaska Everest label. I think there is some problems with heavily toned and dirty original coins with high grades that grading companies seem to like. I will avoid those all day long and JA seems to like those coins.

[MarkFeld]

57 minutes ago, numisport said:

Yes I guess I missed that point. A new cert. # would open the door again but only worth it for higher value coins and you could risk a down grade. I do like 4th party verifiers however and there are a few that are good ones. Rick Snow tag is one but another legitimate marker would be Rick Tomaska Everest label. I think there is some problems with heavily toned and dirty original coins with high grades that grading companies seem to like. I will avoid those all day long and JA seems to like those coins.

When, in order to generate a new cert number, you get a coin "re-graded", in its holder, the chances of getting a down-grade are incredibly small. And in the event that that does occur, there is compensation to the coin's owner. 

[BillJones]

57 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

 

The poster ATS says that the major auction houses are sending every major coin to CAC before they are put up for sale. If that is true, it means that there are lot of good coins that have brought strong prices that are not CAC worthy.

[LINCOLNMAN]

I too have great respect for the Rick Snow sticker. I've never seen a coin that he stickered that I didn't like. I can't say the same for CAC

Bill, the first Eagle Eye IHC's I bought blew me away. Can't say the same for CAC either, but then I understand that CAC is looking for A's and B's. Lots of B's around in most series, at least the ones I collect, so the quality difference may not be so remarkable. I don't look for CAC coins, but when I find a coin that I like that's stickered, I say to myself "that's nice", but that's about it.