@jmlanzaf said:
Please note that I am NOT ACCUSING JA or CAC of doing anything nefarious. I am simply asking the question of whether we should question the absolute objectivity of an entity that is in the coin business.
YAWN...
Don't forget Rick Snow, Wings, etc.
I must have missed something as I thought the stickers indicate that the coin meets the standard assigned to it. What is wrong with the fact that someone will purchase a coin that meets their approval? We all do that! Sticker/no sticker and raw/certified. e hoʻomaopopo?
The POTENTIAL problem is that it removes objectivity. See my OP. If someone hands me an MS65 Chain cent, I could NOT sticker it, buy it myself, then sticker it and make a whole lot of money. I could also cherry pick my own stickered coins...and make a whole lot of money.
There is nothing wrong with it from the standpoint of being a coin dealer. There is a POTENTIAL problem with then viewing the opinion as objective.
It's like a dealer putting PQ on all his raw coins and then getting a premium based on the PQ. From a dealer standpoint, it's great marketing. But the market as a whole should not necessarily be viewing the PQ designation as meaningful in a quality sense since the opinion is tainted by self interest. [POTENTIALLY.]
It suggests that it would be more appropriate to consider CAC as akin to APMEX and not as akin to PCGS.
Where does this notion of objectivity come from? There is no guarantee, and CAC has always correctly taken the position that it is not a grading service (or it would be stickering all accurately graded coins, no?). If JA and crew like it and would buy it at published bid levels, they sticker it. That's what it all comes down to, and they can be as subjective or objective as they want in deciding what they will purchase in the future.
@chumley said:
I have probably had 50 coins sticker since I was given submisson priviliges.........never got an offer from CAC to buy....of course my level of collecting may be a bit below their radar
OMG, here we go again. You think CAC wants to buy nothing but garbage back? NO! By being a true market maker it up holds their product. By keeping his standards tough making markets is much easier.
CAC does not buy non cac coins to bean them-so bogus. CAC is a service founded by a group who is NOT out to profit from what they do. They want to save the damn coin market form what the other services have done. Wake up to that fact. Geez, you people crow about gradeflation every day.
@specialist said:
CAC is a service founded by a group who is NOT out to profit from what they do. They want to >save the damn coin market form what the other services have done.
>
NGC and PCGS will be glad to hear this.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
@specialist said: "Geez, you people crow about gradeflation every day."
It would be interesting to find out the number of NGC and PCGS coins that are graded each year and the percentage of CAC coins in the market for each year. It would seem that the CAC % would go up with each improvement to TPG grading standards.
As for the other thing, I guess we'll need to wait a few years to see if CAC has stopped the grading standards from becoming more liberal.
@Insider2 said: @specialist said: "Geez, you people crow about gradeflation every day."
It would be interesting to find out the number of NGC and PCGS coins that are graded each year and the percentage of CAC coins in the market for each year. It would seem that the CAC % would go up with each improvement to TPG grading standards.
As for the other thing, I guess we'll need to wait a few years to see if CAC has stopped the grading standards from becoming more liberal.
next...
Only anecdotal evidence but PCGS and NGC have tightened up a lot over the past year or so.
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......
@Insider2 said: @specialist said: "Geez, you people crow about gradeflation every day."
It would be interesting to find out the number of NGC and PCGS coins that are graded each year and the percentage of CAC coins in the market for each year. It would seem that the CAC % would go up with each improvement to TPG grading standards.
As for the other thing, I guess we'll need to wait a few years to see if CAC has stopped the grading standards from becoming more liberal.
next...
Only anecdotal evidence but PCGS and NGC have tightened up a lot over the past year or so.
m
That's what I heard. Is that because of the "down" coin market or to improve the product?
No, CAC has not stopped gradeflation. I see coins with stickers now that I don’t think would have stickered 6 years ago. But they sure as hell have slowed it down to a reasonable crawl
@tradedollarnut said:
No, CAC has not stopped gradeflation. I see coins with stickers now that I don’t think would have stickered 6 years ago. But they sure as hell have slowed it down to a reasonable crawl
Are you saying that we are experiencing stickerflation. That JA has loosened standards?
I use the CAC bid in bidding on / pricing CAC coins. I have no problem with them being both a sticker service and trader. They are not a TPG. The TPG grade on the holder is the grade I use.
The CDN has done a fantastic job in including CAC bids and this is Great synergy for CAC, investors, and the market.
@tradedollarnut said:
No, CAC has not stopped gradeflation. I see coins with stickers now that I don’t think would have stickered 6 years ago. But they sure as hell have slowed it down to a reasonable crawl
So now there is sticker inflation too? This hobby is so screwed.
GET OVER IT! Grading standards have evolved and it will continue! I've got Franklins in my teaching set that were graded Proof 64, Proof 64 Cameo, and Proof 65 Cameo in 1987. I use them to show they are all identical. Furthermore they grade 67 and 68 today by anyone's strict standard. LOL.
Learn to grade, buy the best you can afford, have fun, and don't sweat the small stuff...and it's all small stuff. Not my words, the title of a book I recommend folks read.
No, CAC has not stopped gradeflation. I see coins with stickers now that I don’t think would have stickered 6 years ago
as I understand "gradeflation" I think it is only inevitable that after a certain point CAC would succumb to the phenomenon. I also think that CAC would be just as likely to do the same things as PCGS/NGC were it not for the coins submitted to them being in a capsule with a grade: ie, the way grades on a coin move when it is cracked out and submitted raw.
it isn't a criticism of CAC to think that would happen.
@Insider2 said:
GET OVER IT! Grading standards have evolved and it will continue! I've got Franklins in my teaching set that were graded Proof 64, Proof 64 Cameo, and Proof 65 Cameo in 1987. I use them to show they are all identical. Furthermore they grade 67 and 68 today by anyone's strict standard. LOL.
Learn to grade, buy the best you can afford, have fun, and don't sweat the small stuff...and it's all small stuff. Not my words, the title of a book I recommend folks read.
**
Do not 'sweat' the small stuff.** Those are fantastic words that I try to live by
I hope everyone here has a great day because I learn more here than I did with all of my formal education
@Insider2 said:
GET OVER IT! Grading standards have evolved and it will continue! I've got Franklins in my teaching set that were graded Proof 64, Proof 64 Cameo, and Proof 65 Cameo in 1987. I use them to show they are all identical. Furthermore they grade 67 and 68 today by anyone's strict standard. LOL.
Learn to grade, buy the best you can afford, have fun, and don't sweat the small stuff...and it's all small stuff. Not my words, the title of a book I recommend folks read.
Get over it? A large amount of the money that comes into this hobby is based on the understanding that professional grading services offer guarantees. This presupposes fixed, consistent standards. If the "standards" constantly change, then those guarantees are worthless and the entire market is predicated upon a huge fraud (a non-existent guarantee and resulting implied stability/legitimacy). Your overgraded MS64 of yesteryear is now today's MS66 - no TPGS payout for you. Oh and the new MS66 equals old MS63-63+ value and quality! Old cleaning on your coins? No problem. You may have bought a turd in the 1990s, but it is now market acceptable based on current "standards." Guess what, it is also worth less now in the MS66 holder than in the MS64 holder when you bought it because grade inflation has driven people and their money out of this hobby!
Edited to add: My comments aren't directed at CAC since there is no CAC guarantee, and it is not a grading service. But if they too accept grade inflation, then they are not the remedy that many believe as they are complicit in evolving grading scales.
Aren't you an attorney? If so, why don't you chase down CAC, all the TPGS's. all the sticker guys, etc. The world and the board will probably be grateful for your service.
I'm a chemist, or do you forget?
The problem is NOT CAC. It's the way WE are viewing CAC. They are a retail coin business, not an objective 3rd party opinion or even an arbiter of grading standards. As a coin retailer, marketability is going to matter more than specific grading standards.
And, again, as long as WE recognize what they are doing, there is no real issue. But we have to recognize that, in a sense, the bean is simply a market opinion, a purchase offer of sorts.
But the fact that every major auction house is submitting their entire catalog of premium material to CAC who is also a BUYER of coins seems at least POTENTIALLY problematic.
@AllCoinsRule said:
CAC doesn't hide or misrepresent the fact they buy coins. The interests of stickering and buying are combined from the get go. I would not call that a conflict but just one packaged together interest in buying and marketing quality coins.
Again, CAC as a coin retailer is doing nothing wrong. I'm more concerned with the way WE view them. If we all recognize that they are just a coin seller, perhaps a trusted one, maybe there is no issue.
Where does this notion of objectivity come from? There is no guarantee, and CAC has always correctly taken the position that it is not a grading service (or it would be stickering all accurately graded coins, no?). If JA and crew like it and would buy it at published bid levels, they sticker it. That's what it all comes down to, and they can be as subjective or objective as they want in deciding what they will purchase in the future.
Yes and no. Virtually every major auction house sends their entire catalog of premium coins to CAC for stickering. AGain, I'm not making a specific accusation, but that would give me the ability to view the coins, decide what's a crack out upgrade or not. I could then refrain from stickering the coins I want to buy, buy them at auction, break them out and then sticker them. Again, I'm not saying they are doing that, but they COULD which is why we should at least give a little consideration to the conflict of interest.
IMO, based on what I read, you do not have a basic understanding of the coin market. Your comments read like a fairy tale wrapped in wishful thinking. I'm going to reply to your post as I see things and look forward to being corrected so I can learn which of my comments are incorrect.
Grading standards have evolved and it will continue! This is a provable fact and anyone who disputes this is uninformed. I prefer to use the word "ignorant" on the subject but those who are ignorant of the definition of that word will be offended.,
You have posted: "A large amount of the money that comes into this hobby is based on the understanding that professional grading services offer guarantees." Yes, this is another fact. However, what you may think is a GRADING error pf some kind that should be covered may fall into the category of the way the TPGS interprets market acceptable based on the standards they employ. So your "understanding" means squat!
This presupposes fixed, consistent standards. Oh my, do you ever read the discussions on CU? As I wrote above, this belief about a fixed standard is just plain ... I won't write the word again. What part of THERE ARE NO STANDARDS AND WHAT WE THINK THEY ARE CHANGES - often monthly - but in a constant march to looser over a long period of time don't you understand?
If the "standards" constantly change, then those guarantees are worthless and the entire market is predicated upon a huge fraud (a non-existent guarantee and resulting implied stability/legitimacy). AFAIK, all the TPGS's honor their Grading guarantee when they deem warranted. It is their choice. Furthermore, I see no dire collapse of the coin market or fraud committed by the TPGS's. If you think so, back up your contention now. I'll lay it out for you. The standards DO CHANGE. Where is the fraud you write about?
Your overgraded MS64 of yesteryear is now today's MS66 -YES no TPGS payout for you. Oh and the new MS66 equals old MS63-63+ value and quality! YES Old cleaning on your coins? No problem. You may have bought a turd in the 1990s, but it is now market acceptable based on current "standards." Guess what, it is also worth less now in the MS66 holder than in the MS64 holder when you bought it because grade inflation has driven people and their money out of this hobby! Yes, there is a light at the end of your post. My coins WERE GRADED 100% correctly when I bought them as examples for the grades. Now they grade higher. So what. Just as their grades have become more liberal, prices have dropped to reflect that, the present popularity of the series, and the condition of the market. It's all relative.
Where does this notion of objectivity come from? There is no guarantee, and CAC has always correctly taken the position that it is not a grading service (or it would be stickering all accurately graded coins, no?). If JA and crew like it and would buy it at published bid levels, they sticker it. That's what it all comes down to, and they can be as subjective or objective as they want in deciding what they will purchase in the future.
Yes and no. Virtually every major auction house sends their entire catalog of premium coins to CAC for stickering. AGain, I'm not making a specific accusation, but that would give me the ability to view the coins, decide what's a crack out upgrade or not. I could then refrain from stickering the coins I want to buy, buy them at auction, break them out and then sticker them. Again, I'm not saying they are doing that, but they COULD which is why we should at least give a little consideration to the conflict of interest.
How long would it take for consignors to notice the pattern? Believe me - dealers and collectors know when their coins reappear - they’re posted here all the time. I’d know in a second if any of mine picked up a bean or were upgraded
@jmlanzaf said: "...But the fact that every major auction house is submitting their entire catalog of premium material to CAC who is also a BUYER of coins seems at least POTENTIALLY problematic."
@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf said: "...But the fact that every major auction house is submitting their entire catalog of premium material to CAC who is also a BUYER of coins seems at least POTENTIALLY problematic."
LOL, Perhaps only to a chemist.
No. Also to the lawyers.
It is considered a conflict of interest for me to have a relationship of any kind with textbook manufacturers because I have the ability to choose my course's textbook. As such, even lunch is reportable.
Years ago, GM cracked down on engineers taking swag (lunch, hockey tickets) from vendors because it could potentially influence buying decisions.
People have been ranting about the relationship between drug company reps and doctors in recent years.
There is a reason that companies have conflict of interest rules. They come from the lawyers, not the chemists.
Now, we are all free to not care. If my doctor gets a free trip to Bermuda from the XPQ drug rep and then prescribes me XPQ, I don't have to care. If my coin opinion comes from Apmex who also wants to buy my coin, I don't have to care. But let's not pretend there isn't at least the appearance of a conflict.
How long would it take for consignors to notice the pattern? Believe me - dealers and collectors know when their coins reappear - they’re posted here all the time. I’d know in a second if any of mine picked up a bean or were upgraded
Noticing and being able to figure out how it happened is another matter. Especially if you believe that CAC is completely trustworthy.
When a coin you used to own reappears on the market in an upgraded PCGS holder, do you think that PCGS bought the coin and reslabbed it themselves? No, in part because PCGS doesn't buy coins. But you also know that people are resubmitting constantly and eventually coins find their way up. You would tend to assume [if you ignore the possibility of the conflict of interest] that someone reslabbed the coin then resubmitted it to CAC and got the bean.
I also think that you are talking about a handful of rare coins that could be identified. Much of the market is so generic that it would not be easily traceable.
I wonder if there's something in the fine print at CAC which asks the submitter to waive the conflict.
If they buy a coin and slap a sticker on it the managers should go to the big house as this is no different than insider trading. Frankly I think CAC is all about money and does the hobby of collecting coins no favors. PCGS is good enough for me and I do not see the need for someone else looking over their shoulder.
@oldgoldlover said:
If they buy a coin and slap a sticker on it the managers should go to the big house as this is no different than insider trading.
I don't understand the comparison to insider trading at all. Moreover laws regarding the securities market do not apply to the coin market. CAC puts a sticker on it if it will buy it back later at published bid levels. That's all it really means. It can use whatever criteria it wants and change them without notice.
@thefinn said:
They would have to do a lot of work to watch for serial numbers of coins that they thought would upgrade. Definitely more time that it would be worth.
Think about it.
Computers - all they need to do is have someone write the code.
That is only one of a dozen ways they could manipulate things. The easiest thing is just to buy slabbed coins and sticker them.
And while they may not be doing any of these things, they could...which is why it is a conflict of interest to be both certifying coins and buying and selling coins.
If PCGS submitted purchase offers in all of your packages, would you not be concerned that the coins would upgrade?
All of these concerns you mention are possible, therefore one must ask the next logical question. What is the likelihood or probability that they will occur? The answer is extremely low, this is based on JA's reputation and my personal experience.
One can come up with a hypo creating a conflict or unfair situation for almost anything---dealers conspire about buying coins, selling coins, TPG conspiring about how to grade coins, collectors conspiring at auction, etc.
I think CAC has proven through its actions it actually helps solves problems---it helps prevent someone unwittingly purchasing a doctored coin, it helps collectors purchase accurately graded coins, etc. I think it is a bit unfair to speculate on all the wrong CAC could do when the objective facts are that is has operating in an ethical way and has done so for years now. At the end of the day, if someone doesn't like CAC, they can just not buy stickered coins.
I do believe it is a conflict of interest to grade a coin while also buying and selling.
I don't see how it can be viewed otherwise.
I always believe if you grade, then stick with grading and if you buy and sell, then stick with this and don't grade.
My entire profession was a gemologist and jewelry appraiser and I always made it a point to have another company's appraisal (or grade) on an item that I was selling.
Human nature is what it is and there will always be a temptation to overgrade one's own merchandise.
Even if the grader is 100% honest and accurate with their own merchandise, there is still the 'perception' of it being overgraded.
"Gold is money, and nothing else" (JP Morgan, 1912)
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
It is my understanding the the bean is awarded based on an opinion that begins with the TPG's grade. Call it what you want but the bean is just another grade.
Putting aside all the fancy words that tells us what the bean means, we're basically paying someone in hopes that they will say that the TPG undergraded the coin and thus add value to the coin. Wonder how many submissions out of a thousand get the "undergraded" bean?
Does more third party "good" opinion actually make us like our coin more? The only real advantage I see to these outside opinions (other than authenticity) is their ability to convince a potential buyer to like the coin more. Labels and stickers are basically coin marketing tools. Can't wait to see the latest development in this arena.
How long before someone comes up with a sticker that tells us the bean got it wrong?
I see little, if no conflict of interest. CAC offers an opinion, nothing more. CAC's opinion is optional, not compulsory ... despite what some may infer. We (the royal we) want to assign a value to that opinion. We allow this opinion to affect the marketplace. We are sentient beings with free will.
Here is an alternative business model for CAC. Send certified coins to CAC for an opinion. CAC records the opinion in a database. CAC returns the coin without any exterior indication (i.e., no fancy sticker to cause skirts to get into a bunch). CAC then charges a subscription to search the database. Same result, just more cumbersome.
I know of dealers and collectors who have incredible memories and/or keep a record of 'choice coins.' CAC does the same thing, but on a massive scale and relies on technology to assist. These dealers and collectors are willing to buy those 'choice coins' whenever the coins become available. CAC does the same.
A conflict of interest may be if, PCGS, for example, started offering opinions on coins graded by it's competition and placed 'we agree or disagree with the grade' stickers on the other TPG slabs.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
@DoubleEagle59 said:
I do believe it is a conflict of interest to grade a coin while also buying and selling.
I don't see how it can be viewed otherwise.
I always believe if you grade, then stick with grading and if you buy and sell, then stick with this and don't grade.
My entire profession was a gemologist and jewelry appraiser and I always made it a point to have another company's appraisal (or grade) on an item that I was selling.
Human nature is what it is and there will always be a temptation to overgrade one's own merchandise.
Even if the grader is 100% honest and accurate with their own merchandise, there is still the 'perception' of it being overgraded.
I completely agree with your points here. CAC does not grade coins, pure and simple.
When a second professional opinion of a coin is based on an earlier professional opinion of it's grade, the second opinion is a grade, even if the person offering the second opinion says it is not a grade. The original grade is the starting point for the second opinion.
While CAC does not write a grade on their sticker, they are using the TPG grade vs. industry grading standards to agree or disagree. Otherwise beans would be applied directly to raw coins. If it walks like a duck. . .
When a second professional opinion of a coin is based on an earlier professional opinion of it's grade, the second opinion is a grade, even if the person offering the second opinion says it is not a grade
it reminds me of when I was a little less educated about everything Numismatic and I couldn't understand how PCGS could charge me a "grading fee" for a coin they BB'd.
this thread, and the line of thought it follows, is sort of interesting. it was prompted by an innocent question in response to a CW ad and morphed in to a debate centered on paranoia, delusion and denial.
I was able to sell them a PCGS CAC stickered coin that would not cross at NGC (their reasoning was 'abrasion in hair'). CAC made me a sight unseen offer for that proof Washington that I was satisfied with.
They appear to be a consortium with their own goals. As long as people accept their pricing concept they have smooth sailing. On high grade USA big ticket vintage material (a numismatic area their principals are heavily invested in) the sticker has the biggest bang. A brilliant move for them especially in this lackluster market.
I look forward to the sheet covering more series displaying their bids as this gives me a firm basis in pricing any CAC material.
To say they are a TPG is absurd. They provide a service sorta like when I mite take a Newp over to my ole school club dealer friend Rip and getting his opinion. Sometimes he would say use at least keystone markup. On lotta my CAC coins I do - Got CAC? If ya got the green I have the bean.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Some drink the Kool-Aid. Some sniff the glue. Some sip the wine. Some chug the brew.
"Buy the book " or buy the coin...
And by the way, who is JA ?
@keets said:
this thread, and the line of thought it follows, is sort of interesting. it was prompted by an innocent question in response to a CW ad and morphed in to a debate centered on paranoia, delusion and denial.
I don't know about paranoia, but there's a lot of denial.
While I don't think JA is trying to scam anyone, there is an undeniable conflict of interest. It's the virtual definition. I mean: I sell stickers then I buy coins with stickers. Then I resell coins with stickers for a profit. It's like the grocery store issuing USDA Prime labels and then charging you a premium based on the fact that it is USDA Prime.
Comments
Where does this notion of objectivity come from? There is no guarantee, and CAC has always correctly taken the position that it is not a grading service (or it would be stickering all accurately graded coins, no?). If JA and crew like it and would buy it at published bid levels, they sticker it. That's what it all comes down to, and they can be as subjective or objective as they want in deciding what they will purchase in the future.
CAC won't make an offer unless you ask for one.
OMG, here we go again. You think CAC wants to buy nothing but garbage back? NO! By being a true market maker it up holds their product. By keeping his standards tough making markets is much easier.
CAC does not buy non cac coins to bean them-so bogus. CAC is a service founded by a group who is NOT out to profit from what they do. They want to save the damn coin market form what the other services have done. Wake up to that fact. Geez, you people crow about gradeflation every day.
next......
>
NGC and PCGS will be glad to hear this.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
@specialist said: "Geez, you people crow about gradeflation every day."
It would be interesting to find out the number of NGC and PCGS coins that are graded each year and the percentage of CAC coins in the market for each year. It would seem that the CAC % would go up with each improvement to TPG grading standards.
As for the other thing, I guess we'll need to wait a few years to see if CAC has stopped the grading standards from becoming more liberal.
next...
Only anecdotal evidence but PCGS and NGC have tightened up a lot over the past year or so.
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......
That's what I heard. Is that because of the "down" coin market or to improve the product?
No, CAC has not stopped gradeflation. I see coins with stickers now that I don’t think would have stickered 6 years ago. But they sure as hell have slowed it down to a reasonable crawl
@tradedollarnut said: "No, CAC has not stopped gradeflation…. But they sure as hell have slowed it down to a reasonable crawl"
Thanks for the conformation of what I see.
No...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Are you saying that we are experiencing stickerflation. That JA has loosened standards?
I use the CAC bid in bidding on / pricing CAC coins. I have no problem with them being both a sticker service and trader. They are not a TPG. The TPG grade on the holder is the grade I use.
The CDN has done a fantastic job in including CAC bids and this is Great synergy for CAC, investors, and the market.
“You people” wow that’s impressive.
So now there is sticker inflation too? This hobby is so screwed.
GET OVER IT! Grading standards have evolved and it will continue! I've got Franklins in my teaching set that were graded Proof 64, Proof 64 Cameo, and Proof 65 Cameo in 1987. I use them to show they are all identical. Furthermore they grade 67 and 68 today by anyone's strict standard. LOL.
Learn to grade, buy the best you can afford, have fun, and don't sweat the small stuff...and it's all small stuff. Not my words, the title of a book I recommend folks read.
No, CAC has not stopped gradeflation. I see coins with stickers now that I don’t think would have stickered 6 years ago
as I understand "gradeflation" I think it is only inevitable that after a certain point CAC would succumb to the phenomenon. I also think that CAC would be just as likely to do the same things as PCGS/NGC were it not for the coins submitted to them being in a capsule with a grade: ie, the way grades on a coin move when it is cracked out and submitted raw.
it isn't a criticism of CAC to think that would happen.
CAC will retract an approval if it's proven that one of their picks has been monkeyed with.
Fine, that's good business BUT it is not the same thing as FOLLOWING the market or even leading it.
Seems aperopriate
Interesting, an appearance of conflict !!!
**
Do not 'sweat' the small stuff.** Those are fantastic words that I try to live by
I hope everyone here has a great day because I learn more here than I did with all of my formal education
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
Get over it? A large amount of the money that comes into this hobby is based on the understanding that professional grading services offer guarantees. This presupposes fixed, consistent standards. If the "standards" constantly change, then those guarantees are worthless and the entire market is predicated upon a huge fraud (a non-existent guarantee and resulting implied stability/legitimacy). Your overgraded MS64 of yesteryear is now today's MS66 - no TPGS payout for you. Oh and the new MS66 equals old MS63-63+ value and quality! Old cleaning on your coins? No problem. You may have bought a turd in the 1990s, but it is now market acceptable based on current "standards." Guess what, it is also worth less now in the MS66 holder than in the MS64 holder when you bought it because grade inflation has driven people and their money out of this hobby!
Edited to add: My comments aren't directed at CAC since there is no CAC guarantee, and it is not a grading service. But if they too accept grade inflation, then they are not the remedy that many believe as they are complicit in evolving grading scales.
After they buy it or before a purchase is made?
I'm a chemist, or do you forget?
The problem is NOT CAC. It's the way WE are viewing CAC. They are a retail coin business, not an objective 3rd party opinion or even an arbiter of grading standards. As a coin retailer, marketability is going to matter more than specific grading standards.
And, again, as long as WE recognize what they are doing, there is no real issue. But we have to recognize that, in a sense, the bean is simply a market opinion, a purchase offer of sorts.
But the fact that every major auction house is submitting their entire catalog of premium material to CAC who is also a BUYER of coins seems at least POTENTIALLY problematic.
Again, CAC as a coin retailer is doing nothing wrong. I'm more concerned with the way WE view them. If we all recognize that they are just a coin seller, perhaps a trusted one, maybe there is no issue.
Yes and no. Virtually every major auction house sends their entire catalog of premium coins to CAC for stickering. AGain, I'm not making a specific accusation, but that would give me the ability to view the coins, decide what's a crack out upgrade or not. I could then refrain from stickering the coins I want to buy, buy them at auction, break them out and then sticker them. Again, I'm not saying they are doing that, but they COULD which is why we should at least give a little consideration to the conflict of interest.
@cameonut2011
IMO, based on what I read, you do not have a basic understanding of the coin market. Your comments read like a fairy tale wrapped in wishful thinking. I'm going to reply to your post as I see things and look forward to being corrected so I can learn which of my comments are incorrect.
Grading standards have evolved and it will continue! This is a provable fact and anyone who disputes this is uninformed. I prefer to use the word "ignorant" on the subject but those who are ignorant of the definition of that word will be offended.,
You have posted: "A large amount of the money that comes into this hobby is based on the understanding that professional grading services offer guarantees." Yes, this is another fact. However, what you may think is a GRADING error pf some kind that should be covered may fall into the category of the way the TPGS interprets market acceptable based on the standards they employ. So your "understanding" means squat!
This presupposes fixed, consistent standards. Oh my, do you ever read the discussions on CU? As I wrote above, this belief about a fixed standard is just plain ... I won't write the word again. What part of THERE ARE NO STANDARDS AND WHAT WE THINK THEY ARE CHANGES - often monthly - but in a constant march to looser over a long period of time don't you understand?
If the "standards" constantly change, then those guarantees are worthless and the entire market is predicated upon a huge fraud (a non-existent guarantee and resulting implied stability/legitimacy). AFAIK, all the TPGS's honor their Grading guarantee when they deem warranted. It is their choice. Furthermore, I see no dire collapse of the coin market or fraud committed by the TPGS's. If you think so, back up your contention now. I'll lay it out for you. The standards DO CHANGE. Where is the fraud you write about?
Your overgraded MS64 of yesteryear is now today's MS66 -YES no TPGS payout for you. Oh and the new MS66 equals old MS63-63+ value and quality! YES Old cleaning on your coins? No problem. You may have bought a turd in the 1990s, but it is now market acceptable based on current "standards." Guess what, it is also worth less now in the MS66 holder than in the MS64 holder when you bought it because grade inflation has driven people and their money out of this hobby! Yes, there is a light at the end of your post. My coins WERE GRADED 100% correctly when I bought them as examples for the grades. Now they grade higher. So what. Just as their grades have become more liberal, prices have dropped to reflect that, the present popularity of the series, and the condition of the market. It's all relative.
PS You are one of my top five "foils."
How long would it take for consignors to notice the pattern? Believe me - dealers and collectors know when their coins reappear - they’re posted here all the time. I’d know in a second if any of mine picked up a bean or were upgraded
@jmlanzaf said: "...But the fact that every major auction house is submitting their entire catalog of premium material to CAC who is also a BUYER of coins seems at least POTENTIALLY problematic."
LOL, Perhaps only to a chemist.
No. Also to the lawyers.
It is considered a conflict of interest for me to have a relationship of any kind with textbook manufacturers because I have the ability to choose my course's textbook. As such, even lunch is reportable.
Years ago, GM cracked down on engineers taking swag (lunch, hockey tickets) from vendors because it could potentially influence buying decisions.
People have been ranting about the relationship between drug company reps and doctors in recent years.
There is a reason that companies have conflict of interest rules. They come from the lawyers, not the chemists.
Now, we are all free to not care. If my doctor gets a free trip to Bermuda from the XPQ drug rep and then prescribes me XPQ, I don't have to care. If my coin opinion comes from Apmex who also wants to buy my coin, I don't have to care. But let's not pretend there isn't at least the appearance of a conflict.
Noticing and being able to figure out how it happened is another matter. Especially if you believe that CAC is completely trustworthy.
When a coin you used to own reappears on the market in an upgraded PCGS holder, do you think that PCGS bought the coin and reslabbed it themselves? No, in part because PCGS doesn't buy coins. But you also know that people are resubmitting constantly and eventually coins find their way up. You would tend to assume [if you ignore the possibility of the conflict of interest] that someone reslabbed the coin then resubmitted it to CAC and got the bean.
I also think that you are talking about a handful of rare coins that could be identified. Much of the market is so generic that it would not be easily traceable.
I wonder if there's something in the fine print at CAC which asks the submitter to waive the conflict.
If they buy a coin and slap a sticker on it the managers should go to the big house as this is no different than insider trading. Frankly I think CAC is all about money and does the hobby of collecting coins no favors. PCGS is good enough for me and I do not see the need for someone else looking over their shoulder.
I don't understand the comparison to insider trading at all. Moreover laws regarding the securities market do not apply to the coin market. CAC puts a sticker on it if it will buy it back later at published bid levels. That's all it really means. It can use whatever criteria it wants and change them without notice.
They would have to do a lot of work to watch for serial numbers of coins that they thought would upgrade. Definitely more time that it would be worth.
Think about it.
And while they may not be doing any of these things, they could...which is why it is a conflict of interest to be both certifying coins and buying and selling coins.
If PCGS submitted purchase offers in all of your packages, would you not be concerned that the coins would upgrade?
All of these concerns you mention are possible, therefore one must ask the next logical question. What is the likelihood or probability that they will occur? The answer is extremely low, this is based on JA's reputation and my personal experience.
One can come up with a hypo creating a conflict or unfair situation for almost anything---dealers conspire about buying coins, selling coins, TPG conspiring about how to grade coins, collectors conspiring at auction, etc.
I think CAC has proven through its actions it actually helps solves problems---it helps prevent someone unwittingly purchasing a doctored coin, it helps collectors purchase accurately graded coins, etc. I think it is a bit unfair to speculate on all the wrong CAC could do when the objective facts are that is has operating in an ethical way and has done so for years now. At the end of the day, if someone doesn't like CAC, they can just not buy stickered coins.
I do believe it is a conflict of interest to grade a coin while also buying and selling.
I don't see how it can be viewed otherwise.
I always believe if you grade, then stick with grading and if you buy and sell, then stick with this and don't grade.
My entire profession was a gemologist and jewelry appraiser and I always made it a point to have another company's appraisal (or grade) on an item that I was selling.
Human nature is what it is and there will always be a temptation to overgrade one's own merchandise.
Even if the grader is 100% honest and accurate with their own merchandise, there is still the 'perception' of it being overgraded.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
It is my understanding the the bean is awarded based on an opinion that begins with the TPG's grade. Call it what you want but the bean is just another grade.
Putting aside all the fancy words that tells us what the bean means, we're basically paying someone in hopes that they will say that the TPG undergraded the coin and thus add value to the coin. Wonder how many submissions out of a thousand get the "undergraded" bean?
Does more third party "good" opinion actually make us like our coin more? The only real advantage I see to these outside opinions (other than authenticity) is their ability to convince a potential buyer to like the coin more. Labels and stickers are basically coin marketing tools. Can't wait to see the latest development in this arena.
How long before someone comes up with a sticker that tells us the bean got it wrong?
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
I see little, if no conflict of interest. CAC offers an opinion, nothing more. CAC's opinion is optional, not compulsory ... despite what some may infer. We (the royal we) want to assign a value to that opinion. We allow this opinion to affect the marketplace. We are sentient beings with free will.
Here is an alternative business model for CAC. Send certified coins to CAC for an opinion. CAC records the opinion in a database. CAC returns the coin without any exterior indication (i.e., no fancy sticker to cause skirts to get into a bunch). CAC then charges a subscription to search the database. Same result, just more cumbersome.
I know of dealers and collectors who have incredible memories and/or keep a record of 'choice coins.' CAC does the same thing, but on a massive scale and relies on technology to assist. These dealers and collectors are willing to buy those 'choice coins' whenever the coins become available. CAC does the same.
A conflict of interest may be if, PCGS, for example, started offering opinions on coins graded by it's competition and placed 'we agree or disagree with the grade' stickers on the other TPG slabs.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
I completely agree with your points here. CAC does not grade coins, pure and simple.
Kind regards,
George
When a second professional opinion of a coin is based on an earlier professional opinion of it's grade, the second opinion is a grade, even if the person offering the second opinion says it is not a grade. The original grade is the starting point for the second opinion.
While CAC does not write a grade on their sticker, they are using the TPG grade vs. industry grading standards to agree or disagree. Otherwise beans would be applied directly to raw coins. If it walks like a duck. . .
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
Some drink the Kool-Aid. Some sniff the glue. Some sip the wine. Some chug the brew.
"Buy the book " or buy the coin...
And by the way, who is JA ?
When a second professional opinion of a coin is based on an earlier professional opinion of it's grade, the second opinion is a grade, even if the person offering the second opinion says it is not a grade
it reminds me of when I was a little less educated about everything Numismatic and I couldn't understand how PCGS could charge me a "grading fee" for a coin they BB'd.
this thread, and the line of thought it follows, is sort of interesting. it was prompted by an innocent question in response to a CW ad and morphed in to a debate centered on paranoia, delusion and denial.
I was able to sell them a PCGS CAC stickered coin that would not cross at NGC (their reasoning was 'abrasion in hair'). CAC made me a sight unseen offer for that proof Washington that I was satisfied with.
They appear to be a consortium with their own goals. As long as people accept their pricing concept they have smooth sailing. On high grade USA big ticket vintage material (a numismatic area their principals are heavily invested in) the sticker has the biggest bang. A brilliant move for them especially in this lackluster market.
I look forward to the sheet covering more series displaying their bids as this gives me a firm basis in pricing any CAC material.
To say they are a TPG is absurd. They provide a service sorta like when I mite take a Newp over to my ole school club dealer friend Rip and getting his opinion. Sometimes he would say use at least keystone markup. On lotta my CAC coins I do - Got CAC? If ya got the green I have the bean.
John Albanese
I don't know about paranoia, but there's a lot of denial.
While I don't think JA is trying to scam anyone, there is an undeniable conflict of interest. It's the virtual definition. I mean: I sell stickers then I buy coins with stickers. Then I resell coins with stickers for a profit. It's like the grocery store issuing USDA Prime labels and then charging you a premium based on the fact that it is USDA Prime.