@Sonorandesertrat said:
An interesting comment, Insider2. Several dealers have told me similar things about the start of third-party grading, They also believed that the acceptance of TPGs has led to a reduction in dealer grading skills. Many just push slabs.
Well, yes and no. On the one hand, the TPGs taught many dealers and collectors how to grade to their standard. ( If you look at enough coins in slabs, you learn something.) On the other hand, slabs did make it possible for anyone to play, even if they knew nothing about grading.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Stupid question out of ignorance...Do you need to be a CAC Club member to submit coins? What does the club offer? Perhaps CAC tries to weed out coins w/no chance of stickering. The answer may be on their website. Color me lazy and requesting help.
It has been my experience that those who try to buy and sell using only the grading numbers did not last very long. To be a successful dealer you need grading skills and some level of ability to spot "the look" many collectors like.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
If you think you could handle the flack
That all our threads fire upon CAC
Give grade guarantees
Without Albanese
And just see all the flack you’d get back!
@Insider2 said:
Stupid question out of ignorance...Do you need to be a CAC Club member to submit coins? What does the club offer? Perhaps CAC tries to weed out coins w/no chance of stickering. The answer may be on their website. Color me lazy and requesting help.
I’m not a CAC member. I submit through my favorite dealers
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
my disagree is based upon not a personal opinion, but a professional diagnosis of @nottheRealDonnaTrump .
Mr. Jones has never flat-out attacked CAC, just differed.
There is no moral equivalence in unprovoked spurious insults.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
All these CAC threads got me thinking about what percentage of really high grade collections are beaned. So I "glanced" though the top 20 sets of registered Morgans. I'd estimate that well over 90% of the coins that had full slabbed pictures were CAC stickered. Many that didn't show their slab pictures had CAC in the comments fields.
It has been my experience that those who try to buy and sell using only the grading numbers did not last very long. To be a successful dealer you need grading skills and some level of ability to spot "the look" many collectors like.
Perhaps we should ...start.... a NEW service where people could submit beaned stuff and get a sticker for whether it would be likely to "appeal" to ....many collectors.
IMO, eye-appeal is too subjective except at its very best. Too many folks prefer the eye-appeal of an altered surface! Besides what's the point. At the moment it seems CAC's opinion of eye-appeal is what's the best.
@specialist said:
sorry folks, no here comes close to seeing what I do day to day. that is why I go nutso over comments that I know are so far off base.
I don't remember anyone screaming abotu David Hall in his hey day w/PCGS having too much power? No look at where we are-gradeflation is rampant. So JA stood up.
In the very, very early days PCGS and NGC were much closer in terms of return on investment. For a short window of time, NGC even seemed to have an edge (look at some of the CDN from 87-88 or so). As PCGS continued to gain over NGC, people have expressed concerns about a PCGS only mentality and that was even before CAC.
As for JA, he has contributed positively to the hobby, but as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The CAC sticker as an add-on/grade enhancement has created quirky situations as it leaves gaps where otherwise wholesome (accurately graded but low end coins) are left in coin purgatory. The solution would be a full service grading service or maybe the creation of a problem free sticker that does not look at grade but attests to original surfaces.
(Looking left and then right Ah, I think someone did. The "Dragon Lady" was a very powerful woman. Whoever called you that probably should be flagged for abuse although he probably thinks the name fits. ( Exit thread)
Truth is a good and absolute defense... (Just kidding Laura...)
@Insider2 said:
IMO, eye-appeal is too subjective except at its very best. Too many folks prefer the eye-appeal of an altered surface! Besides what's the point. At the moment it seems CAC's opinion of eye-appeal is what's the best.
EAA will take that into consideration of course. We will only be approving maybe the top 2/3 of the coins we see for "eye appeal."
@Justacommeman said:
Here we go again. Well while others can grade its pretty well known that JA is the guru of grading. So his opinion matters more to me then most if not all. I don’t personally know anybody that buys only CAC coins so the BS that often gets slung in these threads that people are lemmings or devotees is just that. BS. I bought a 40K medal without a sticker last year as I’ve looked at so many that I knew it was solid. It’s hadn’t been into CAC. I recently sent it in through the dealer I bought it from. It stickered. Is it worth more now? Probably. I just know I like the fact that JA liked it as well as myself and the dealer. Confirmation from JA is a good thing. There isn’t a negative.
I’ll take a stab at the OP’s question
If JA announced he was ending the service eventually you would see an avalanche of submissions. Post JA the spread would widen in value CAC coins over non CAC coins. Classic gold through Saints would be the most effected. Mid four figure coins and up would also benefit. NGC coins without stickers God help your soul especially on big ticket items.
Whether you like CAC or not the evidence is overwhelming that stickered coins being more money then non stickered coins. PCGS stickered coins being at the top of the pyramid.
Unless you plan on living forever and plan on keeping your coins into eternity or just don’t like your heirs then by all means don’t use the service. If you think you are the smartest person in the room and you’ve convinced everyone else your the bestest grader ever don’t use the service. If you ever plan on selling your coins during your lifetime and like money and your family I think you would be a fool not to use this service IMO ( on low to mid four figure coins and higher)
mark
But you are deflecting and not addressing the issue that has been brought up. No one has questioned JA's grading skills or knowledge, and no one advocated not submitting to CAC (which would be pretty dumb when it comes to selling if you have more expensive material). The concern is that a well meaning business may also create some unintended consequences even while it also brings some positive changes to the hobby as well. It isn't an all or nothing proposition and that is the false dichotomy that is repeated ad nauseam on the forums.
I think another point you are missing is that you are an anomaly collector wise. You actually know what you are doing and are not a sycophant. You are in a very, very small minority of the rare coin market. The lack of grading skills and general knowledge among collectors and dealers alike in this hobby is absolutely terrifying. Also, yes, there are a number of collectors that will not look at a coin if it is not stickered. Maybe your coin friends are more sophisticated.
@Insider2 said:
IMO, eye-appeal is too subjective except at its very best. Too many folks prefer the eye-appeal of an altered surface! Besides what's the point. At the moment it seems CAC's opinion of eye-appeal is what's the best.
While eye appeal is a necessary component of grading, as long as it is solidly graded, CAC will sticker ugly coins. It has done a number of them, and it is justified (based on its announced standards) in doing so.
@cameonut2011 said: "As for JA, he has contributed positively to the hobby, but as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The CAC sticker as an add-on/grade enhancement has created quirky situations as it leaves gaps where otherwise wholesome (accurately graded but low end coins) are left in coin purgatory. The solution would be a full service grading service or maybe the creation of a problem free sticker that does not look at grade but attests to original surfaces.
Ever hear the expression there is nothing new under the sun? Your excellent "new" idea was already done decades ago. I can assure you that It did not garner a lot of praise. The next idea also over a decade old and never consummated, was to "sticker" coins that were in true, MS condition. The idea was shelved and when pitched to a major TPGS, they did not wish to implement this practice. You see, it would have "tainted" much of their older slabs.
As you have pointed out in your post, a similar thing occurred when CAC began to examine TPGS coins.
IMHO, we don't need another TPGS, we need set standards based on precise grading so AU's don't become MS and a little color which raises the price of a coin will not increase its technical grade. The ONLY way a standard can be acheicved is to separate the value of a coin from its condition of preservation. This was also done decades and did not appeal to coin dealers.
Grading the condition of a coin is uncomplicated. Putting a grade on a coin based on what it should be worth is more difficult and subjective. It even fluctuates up and down with market conditions and the passage of time or the whims of collectors. To do it "right," it takes the experience only found on the bourse floor and in auctions plus a finger on the coin market.
If you think that eye apeal does not matter, see how well you do with ugly or so-so looking coins, even when they are properly graded.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@Insider2 said:
IMHO, we don't need another TPGS, we need set standards based on precise grading so AU's don't become MS and a little color which raises the price of a coin will not increase its technical grade. The ONLY way a standard can be acheicved is to separate the value of a coin from its condition of preservation. This was also done decades and did not appeal to coin dealers.
Grading the condition of a coin is uncomplicated. Putting a grade on a coin based on what it should be worth is more difficult and subjective. It takes the experience only found on the bourse floor and in auctions to do it best.
I agree, but there isn't a snowball's chance in Hades this will ever happen as the grading services need new streams of revenue to stay around especially if they are to guarantee a coin. Perhaps the solution is to not offer a guarantee at all, but of course this could not be done retroactively. A new service would fix a lot of things: New population reports, debt free, plenty of revenue from crossovers (if it can get its foot in the door), etc. I think a CAC style grading service could clean house as a large number of market participants apparently no longer trust the mainstream services currently.
P.S. @insider2 - I think your idea would also require us to kill market grading. I'm all for that, but I doubt that it would even pan out very well either.
"Putting a grade on a coin based on what it should be worth is more difficult and subjective."
This is the crux of the problem, one that was evident in Dr. Sheldon's time. This sort of thing would not be tolerated in any measurement system accepted in science, engineering, or medicine. Doing things the way they're done now has left a lot of room for mischief and confusion.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
@BillJones said:
If you think that eye apeal does not matter, see how well you do with ugly or so-so looking coins, even when they are properly graded.
Silly rebuttal as we all can agree...an ugly MS coin with low eye appeal sells for less than an MS coin that is pretty. Additional proof that eye-appel matters is that a lower grade coin with eye-appeal sells for more than the ugly MS coin. GRADE THE COIN PROPERLY. Let the market price it based on its appearance. Problem solved!
"GRADE THE COIN PROPERLY. Let the market price it based on its appearance."
Amen. Pass the ammunition.
As was stated, none of this will happen in our lifetime or if ever. The ideas I expressed here are used to teach beginners about grading coins. When all the extraneous "fluff" is eliminated grading becomes very easy. Then they must develop a sense of "taste" based on the present time (toning is "in" at the moment) and adjust for changes in the standards. At one time a Morgan dollar could not grade over MS-64 without complete hair detail over the ear! One service would not grade a darkly toned Morgan over MS-64.
LOL, as I've been told, grading is evolving as we learn more. Blah, Blah, blah...
I don't seek to change the status quo. As I've said before, I admire a professional who can look me in the eye, tell me a particular coin is circulated and then tell me it deserves to be graded MS-63 or MS-64 because of its value.
"LOL, as I've been told, grading is evolving as we learn more. Blah, Blah, blah..."
No, grading continues to evolve in order to provide a means to extract money from collectors (lessen buyer price resistance). It has nothing to do with learning. Some of the biggest problems with grading concern coins that were made in primitive circumstances (colonials, pioneer/territorial coins)---learning should have 'fixed' this by now.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
I will. I think if JA would select a successor and publicaly work with that individual during a transition period, then I think CAC can go on as before assuming financial guarantees are in place that drive the buy/sell aspect. If not, then I think the brand suffers and will not survive. Previously stickered coins will gain in value much like desired old TPG holders in that scenario.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
The truth should at length now be told
About coins that we buy, sell or hold:
Should J. Albanese
Ever happen to sneeze
Would all numismatics catch cold?
Deep beneath whatever, there remains a truism. Even for the "ain't a-never gonna sell nuttin" crowd.
If you trade stocks "against a trend" your "portfolio" (term for "collection" since about 1990) is gonna suffer.
@specialist said:
This is the MOST brilliant comment I have ever seen here!! EVER!!! This is so true, oh could I name names!
They also believed that the acceptance of TPGs has led to a reduction in dealer grading skills. Many just push slabs.
I agree with that 100%, which is why I believe the emphasis should be on the coin and not plastic/stickers. If a coin is truly high end it should fetch a premium regardless of its fancy dressings. It is also why I don't understand the PCGS/CAC only mantra. Yes it is fine to emphasize the value of CAC and to have a preferred brand of plastic (I favor PCGS holders from an optical stand point), but you come across as universally condemning all NGC coins as crap in your blog posts at time.
I'm certain that you don't believe that all coins good coins are PCGS/CAC only. You had (and may still have) a neat NGC piece that was rejected by CAC. I also happened to buy a NGC coin from you several years ago, and it is one of my favorites. I'm also confident that you and your business partners have also purchased NGC coins (maybe even non-NGC coins) to crack even if it is only to downgrade them. The coins don't change based on the holder.
@Insider2 said: As I've said before, I admire a professional who can look me in the eye, tell me a particular coin is circulated and then tell me it deserves to be graded MS-63 or MS-64 because of its value.
I would never say that. However, I might occasionally argue that a circulated coin should be graded 64 because it’s overall quality is equal to strictly mint state coins that grade 64.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Opinions are never accurately transferred from one generation to the next, which means more sticker and TPG fees for the next round, a good future for CLCT, and winners and losers for those who buy coins as investments.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
@BillJones said:
If you think that eye apeal does not matter, see how well you do with ugly or so-so looking coins, even when they are properly graded.
That's another problem with market grading. It is easy to assign a technical grade to a total dog, but how do you market grade it? Sometimes you cannot discount it enough grade wise for it to make sense. I always find that I am very punitive with ugly coins, and I would struggle if I was a grader in trying to be fair both to a future buyer and to the submitter.
@Catbert said:
I will. I think if JA would select a successor and publicaly work with that individual during a transition period, then I think CAC can go on as before assuming financial guarantees are in place that drive the buy/sell aspect. If not, then I think the brand suffers and will not survive. Previously stickered coins will gain in value much like desired old TPG holders in that scenario.
So you are suggesting that the sticker itself would become a collectible? As for your other note, maybe @specialist and her crew could run CAC when John retires.
@Insider2 said: As I've said before, I admire a professional who can look me in the eye, tell me a particular coin is circulated and then tell me it deserves to be graded MS-63 or MS-64 because of its value.
I would never say that. However, I might occasionally argue that a circulated coin should be graded 64 because it’s overall quality is equal to strictly mint state coins that grade 64.
If we are going to be consistent and give words like "mint state" meaning, then it is time to dump the current grading scale all together and start over. Perhaps a new scale would treat minor rub the same as contact marks. I think it is a bit disingenuous to do this within the current framework though.
@Insider2 said: As I've said before, I admire a professional who can look me in the eye, tell me a particular coin is circulated and then tell me it deserves to be graded MS-63 or MS-64 because of its value.
I would never say that. However, I might occasionally argue that a circulated coin should be graded 64 because it’s overall quality is equal to strictly mint state coins that grade 64.
You can value a coin however you like. I agree with you on that especially if it is outstanding piece. I don’t see how a circulated coin can “grade” one point shy of gem uncirculated. Circulated is circulated, no matter what the grade.
@Insider2 said: As I've said before, I admire a professional who can look me in the eye, tell me a particular coin is circulated and then tell me it deserves to be graded MS-63 or MS-64 because of its value.
I would never say that. However, I might occasionally argue that a circulated coin should be graded 64 because it’s overall quality is equal to strictly mint state coins that grade 64.
I think that calling a circulated coin MS-64 is taking it too far. I don't have a problem with MS-62 for a really attractive AU-58. Once you hit MS-63 and above for a coin that is very scarce in strict Mint State, you have started down an unfortunate slippery slope when you call an AU, MS-64. The pricing structure has been set up to reflect the rarity of such coins, and you dilute the supply with over graded material, price adjustments and crack-outs to make the real MS-64s into 65s and 66s will be the result.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@Insider2 said: As I've said before, I admire a professional who can look me in the eye, tell me a particular coin is circulated and then tell me it deserves to be graded MS-63 or MS-64 because of its value.
I would never say that. However, I might occasionally argue that a circulated coin should be graded 64 because it’s overall quality is equal to strictly mint state coins that grade 64.
Has everyone lost their minds? I don't give a rat's butt what the coin is or what it's worth. Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@ms70 said:
Has everyone lost their minds? I don't give a rat's butt what the coin is or what it's worth. Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent.
It's just like the good old days pre-TPGS but now there is a false veneer of legitimacy because of ever "evolving" guarantees, pretty holders, and purportedly objective third party grading.
@ms70 said:
Has everyone lost their minds? I don't give a rat's butt what the coin is or what it's worth. Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent.
It's just like the good old days pre-TPGS but now there is a false veneer of legitimacy because of ever "evolving" guarantees.
Maybe some of this is behind-the-scenes talk that slipped.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@ms70 said:
Has everyone lost their minds? I don't give a rat's butt what the coin is or what it's worth. Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent.
You're making a case for CAC. I have seen a number of old gold coins that were graded Ms 61 or MS 62 that did not sticker because there was a hint of wear. They were not doctored and were very eye appealing but didnt sticker because they were technically AU 58
@ms70 said:
Has everyone lost their minds? I don't give a rat's butt what the coin is or what it's worth. Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent.
You're making a case for CAC. I have seen a numer of old gold coins that were graded Ms 61 or MS 62 that did not sticker because there was a hint of wear. They were not doctored and were very eye appealing but didnt sticker because they were technically AU 58
CAC is like a band-aid; it can superficially treat a flesh wound, but it doesn't stop the infectious process occurring deep below.
Comments
Well, yes and no. On the one hand, the TPGs taught many dealers and collectors how to grade to their standard. ( If you look at enough coins in slabs, you learn something.) On the other hand, slabs did make it possible for anyone to play, even if they knew nothing about grading.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Gosh another CAC thread , this a great thread , please guys lets not get this one poofed too.
Dragon lady?
. spilled coffee reading that!
Like every question about CAC hasn't been answered already. Yeah, we need more.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Stupid question out of ignorance...Do you need to be a CAC Club member to submit coins? What does the club offer? Perhaps CAC tries to weed out coins w/no chance of stickering. The answer may be on their website. Color me lazy and requesting help.
It has been my experience that those who try to buy and sell using only the grading numbers did not last very long. To be a successful dealer you need grading skills and some level of ability to spot "the look" many collectors like.
If you think you could handle the flack
That all our threads fire upon CAC
Give grade guarantees
Without Albanese
And just see all the flack you’d get back!
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
I’m not a CAC member. I submit through my favorite dealers
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
This is the MOST brilliant comment I have ever seen here!! EVER!!! This is so true, oh could I name names!
They also believed that the acceptance of TPGs has led to a reduction in dealer grading skills. Many just push slabs.
my disagree is based upon not a personal opinion, but a professional diagnosis of @nottheRealDonnaTrump
.
Mr. Jones has never flat-out attacked CAC, just differed.
There is no moral equivalence in unprovoked spurious insults.
All these CAC threads got me thinking about what percentage of really high grade collections are beaned. So I "glanced" though the top 20 sets of registered Morgans. I'd estimate that well over 90% of the coins that had full slabbed pictures were CAC stickered. Many that didn't show their slab pictures had CAC in the comments fields.
Ignore it if you like!
Time/wait/bide
Perhaps we should ...start.... a NEW service where people could submit beaned stuff and get a sticker for whether it would be likely to "appeal" to ....many collectors.
EAA Eye Appeal Arbiters.
IMO, eye-appeal is too subjective except at its very best. Too many folks prefer the eye-appeal of an altered surface! Besides what's the point. At the moment it seems CAC's opinion of eye-appeal is what's the best.
In the very, very early days PCGS and NGC were much closer in terms of return on investment. For a short window of time, NGC even seemed to have an edge (look at some of the CDN from 87-88 or so). As PCGS continued to gain over NGC, people have expressed concerns about a PCGS only mentality and that was even before CAC.
As for JA, he has contributed positively to the hobby, but as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The CAC sticker as an add-on/grade enhancement has created quirky situations as it leaves gaps where otherwise wholesome (accurately graded but low end coins) are left in coin purgatory. The solution would be a full service grading service or maybe the creation of a problem free sticker that does not look at grade but attests to original surfaces.
Truth is a good and absolute defense...
(Just kidding Laura...)
EAA will take that into consideration of course. We will only be approving maybe the top 2/3 of the coins we see for "eye appeal."
" Too many folks prefer the eye-appeal of an altered surface! "
Insider2, I'm quite sure you are correct. And scary.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
But you are deflecting and not addressing the issue that has been brought up. No one has questioned JA's grading skills or knowledge, and no one advocated not submitting to CAC (which would be pretty dumb when it comes to selling if you have more expensive material). The concern is that a well meaning business may also create some unintended consequences even while it also brings some positive changes to the hobby as well. It isn't an all or nothing proposition and that is the false dichotomy that is repeated ad nauseam on the forums.
I think another point you are missing is that you are an anomaly collector wise. You actually know what you are doing and are not a sycophant. You are in a very, very small minority of the rare coin market. The lack of grading skills and general knowledge among collectors and dealers alike in this hobby is absolutely terrifying. Also, yes, there are a number of collectors that will not look at a coin if it is not stickered. Maybe your coin friends are more sophisticated.
While eye appeal is a necessary component of grading, as long as it is solidly graded, CAC will sticker ugly coins. It has done a number of them, and it is justified (based on its announced standards) in doing so.
@cameonut2011 said: "As for JA, he has contributed positively to the hobby, but as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The CAC sticker as an add-on/grade enhancement has created quirky situations as it leaves gaps where otherwise wholesome (accurately graded but low end coins) are left in coin purgatory. The solution would be a full service grading service or maybe the creation of a problem free sticker that does not look at grade but attests to original surfaces.
Ever hear the expression there is nothing new under the sun? Your excellent "new" idea was already done decades ago. I can assure you that It did not garner a lot of praise. The next idea also over a decade old and never consummated, was to "sticker" coins that were in true, MS condition. The idea was shelved and when pitched to a major TPGS, they did not wish to implement this practice. You see, it would have "tainted" much of their older slabs.
As you have pointed out in your post, a similar thing occurred when CAC began to examine TPGS coins.
IMHO, we don't need another TPGS, we need set standards based on precise grading so AU's don't become MS and a little color which raises the price of a coin will not increase its technical grade. The ONLY way a standard can be acheicved is to separate the value of a coin from its condition of preservation. This was also done decades and did not appeal to coin dealers.
Grading the condition of a coin is uncomplicated. Putting a grade on a coin based on what it should be worth is more difficult and subjective. It even fluctuates up and down with market conditions and the passage of time or the whims of collectors. To do it "right," it takes the experience only found on the bourse floor and in auctions plus a finger on the coin market.
If you think that eye apeal does not matter, see how well you do with ugly or so-so looking coins, even when they are properly graded.
I agree, but there isn't a snowball's chance in Hades this will ever happen as the grading services need new streams of revenue to stay around especially if they are to guarantee a coin. Perhaps the solution is to not offer a guarantee at all, but of course this could not be done retroactively. A new service would fix a lot of things: New population reports, debt free, plenty of revenue from crossovers (if it can get its foot in the door), etc. I think a CAC style grading service could clean house as a large number of market participants apparently no longer trust the mainstream services currently.
P.S. @insider2 - I think your idea would also require us to kill market grading. I'm all for that, but I doubt that it would even pan out very well either.
"Putting a grade on a coin based on what it should be worth is more difficult and subjective."
This is the crux of the problem, one that was evident in Dr. Sheldon's time. This sort of thing would not be tolerated in any measurement system accepted in science, engineering, or medicine. Doing things the way they're done now has left a lot of room for mischief and confusion.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Silly rebuttal as we all can agree...an ugly MS coin with low eye appeal sells for less than an MS coin that is pretty. Additional proof that eye-appel matters is that a lower grade coin with eye-appeal sells for more than the ugly MS coin. GRADE THE COIN PROPERLY. Let the market price it based on its appearance. Problem solved!
"GRADE THE COIN PROPERLY. Let the market price it based on its appearance."
Amen. Pass the ammunition.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
No> @Sonorandesertrat said:
As was stated, none of this will happen in our lifetime or if ever. The ideas I expressed here are used to teach beginners about grading coins. When all the extraneous "fluff" is eliminated grading becomes very easy. Then they must develop a sense of "taste" based on the present time (toning is "in" at the moment) and adjust for changes in the standards. At one time a Morgan dollar could not grade over MS-64 without complete hair detail over the ear! One service would not grade a darkly toned Morgan over MS-64.
LOL, as I've been told, grading is evolving as we learn more. Blah, Blah, blah...
I don't seek to change the status quo. As I've said before, I admire a professional who can look me in the eye, tell me a particular coin is circulated and then tell me it deserves to be graded MS-63 or MS-64 because of its value.
"LOL, as I've been told, grading is evolving as we learn more. Blah, Blah, blah..."
No, grading continues to evolve in order to provide a means to extract money from collectors (lessen buyer price resistance). It has nothing to do with learning. Some of the biggest problems with grading concern coins that were made in primitive circumstances (colonials, pioneer/territorial coins)---learning should have 'fixed' this by now.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
As you guys battle over the merits of CAC, you’ve not answered the OP’s qustion.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I will. I think if JA would select a successor and publicaly work with that individual during a transition period, then I think CAC can go on as before assuming financial guarantees are in place that drive the buy/sell aspect. If not, then I think the brand suffers and will not survive. Previously stickered coins will gain in value much like desired old TPG holders in that scenario.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
The truth should at length now be told
About coins that we buy, sell or hold:
Should J. Albanese
Ever happen to sneeze
Would all numismatics catch cold?
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
It's buried deep in the thread, but it is there.
Deep beneath whatever, there remains a truism. Even for the "ain't a-never gonna sell nuttin" crowd.
If you trade stocks "against a trend" your "portfolio" (term for "collection" since about 1990) is gonna suffer.
I agree with that 100%, which is why I believe the emphasis should be on the coin and not plastic/stickers. If a coin is truly high end it should fetch a premium regardless of its fancy dressings. It is also why I don't understand the PCGS/CAC only mantra. Yes it is fine to emphasize the value of CAC and to have a preferred brand of plastic (I favor PCGS holders from an optical stand point), but you come across as universally condemning all NGC coins as crap in your blog posts at time.
I'm certain that you don't believe that all coins good coins are PCGS/CAC only. You had (and may still have) a neat NGC piece that was rejected by CAC. I also happened to buy a NGC coin from you several years ago, and it is one of my favorites. I'm also confident that you and your business partners have also purchased NGC coins (maybe even non-NGC coins) to crack even if it is only to downgrade them. The coins don't change based on the holder.
I would never say that. However, I might occasionally argue that a circulated coin should be graded 64 because it’s overall quality is equal to strictly mint state coins that grade 64.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Opinions are never accurately transferred from one generation to the next, which means more sticker and TPG fees for the next round, a good future for CLCT, and winners and losers for those who buy coins as investments.
hey....
BUY THE COIN...NOT THE HOLDER."
AWWKKKKK where's my cracker?
That's another problem with market grading. It is easy to assign a technical grade to a total dog, but how do you market grade it? Sometimes you cannot discount it enough grade wise for it to make sense. I always find that I am very punitive with ugly coins, and I would struggle if I was a grader in trying to be fair both to a future buyer and to the submitter.
So you are suggesting that the sticker itself would become a collectible? As for your other note, maybe @specialist and her crew could run CAC when John retires.
If we are going to be consistent and give words like "mint state" meaning, then it is time to dump the current grading scale all together and start over. Perhaps a new scale would treat minor rub the same as contact marks. I think it is a bit disingenuous to do this within the current framework though.
See my earlier post (in French). My apologies to Mme. de Pompadour. English: After him, the deluge.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
I think that calling a circulated coin MS-64 is taking it too far. I don't have a problem with MS-62 for a really attractive AU-58. Once you hit MS-63 and above for a coin that is very scarce in strict Mint State, you have started down an unfortunate slippery slope when you call an AU, MS-64. The pricing structure has been set up to reflect the rarity of such coins, and you dilute the supply with over graded material, price adjustments and crack-outs to make the real MS-64s into 65s and 66s will be the result.
I admire you anyway.
Has everyone lost their minds? I don't give a rat's butt what the coin is or what it's worth. Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
It's just like the good old days pre-TPGS but now there is a false veneer of legitimacy because of ever "evolving" guarantees, pretty holders, and purportedly objective third party grading.
Maybe some of this is behind-the-scenes talk that slipped.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
You're making a case for CAC. I have seen a number of old gold coins that were graded Ms 61 or MS 62 that did not sticker because there was a hint of wear. They were not doctored and were very eye appealing but didnt sticker because they were technically AU 58
CAC is like a band-aid; it can superficially treat a flesh wound, but it doesn't stop the infectious process occurring deep below.