John Albanese - CoinWeek Podcast: “Talking CAC Coins and Future of Grading”

Stuart

I found what John Albanese (CAC) discussed in the following CoinWeek👇Podcast on Coin Grading to be very enlightening and informative and am pleased to share it with my fellow Forum Members!!😁

In this episode of the CoinWeek Podcast, Editor Charles Morgan talks with Certified Acceptance Corporation (CAC) President John Albanese about a number of topics that will prove to be highly interesting to even the most seasoned numismatist.

Charles asks John to explain the grade of MS-62. John proposes that the current grading system has Too Many Grades, and over the course of this 30 minute program Charles and John discuss the way the market is and what, with the benefit of hindsight, could have been done better had the major grading services understood what John and others have come to realize about the 70-point grading system.

It’s an enlightening and exciting conversation with one of the hobby’s most fluent and articulate market makers. You won’t want to miss it!

”Talking CAC Coins👇the Future of Grading with John Albanese”

https://youtu.be/WDBaogB0aO0

Insider2

THANKS!!!

ReadyFireAim

Very interesting.
He said at 20:15 that he thinks a + coin is an A coin.
I thought a + coin was a 1/2 coin

Another JA quote....(near the end)
"If crack-out dealers like CAC...we have a big problem".

I'm starting to like this guy more after hearing him speak.

ricko

Thanks for the link... very interesting. Cheers, RickO

topstuf

Is there a text link?

ReadyFireAim

Is there a text link?

ShadyDave

Pretty interesting podcast, thanks for sharing.

Interesting point that I haven't thought about before...reduce the number of grades used instead of adding in more or switching to a 100 point grading scale.

One question I have is does anyone know who are shareholders of CAC or is that kept confidential? JA mentioned there are approximately 20-24 shareholders...I bet a few post here.

PQueue

RE:
One question I have is does anyone know who are shareholders of CAC...

I do not know, but my "recollection" from the time of the original CAC announcement(s) is that Laura Sperber and Doug Winter were founding sponsors.

Elcontador

The proliferation of grades between MS 60-MS 70 I believe was strictly for the marketing of coins to collectors, and to a lesser extent, the public. It used to be an unc., a BU, and the 1 in 100 coins which were head and shoulders about the rest were called BU 'gem.' The latter term was hideously overused in attempt to justify unreasonable markups on attractive coins.

I'd be fine with a 60, 63, 65, and a very occasional 67. Same thing happened with AU. I'd go with an AU 50 and 55.

I think it's more honest, but it's not going to happen.

coinbuf

Thanks for the link, I enjoy hearing his thoughts and comments on the market and what and who CAC is. Years ago when CAC was just getting established JA did a few phone roundtable discussions where folks could call and ask him questions about CAC and what that service was all about. I was fortunate enough to be able to participate in a few of those discussions and learned a lot from them.

cameonut2011

@ReadyFireAim said:
Very interesting.
He said at 20:15 that he thinks a + coin is an A coin.
I thought a + coin was a 1/2 coin

Another JA quote....(near the end)
"If crack-out dealers like CAC...we have a big problem".

I'm starting to like this guy more after hearing him speak.

Well, when you can crack out PQ coins with a green sticker, upgrade the coins a point, and get them restickered, what's not to love? It's more common than you think.

divecchia

Thanks for sharing the link. It was very interesting listening to his thought's on the grading system and how CAC looks at coins and the effects on the market today.

Donato

Edited for spelling.

Stuart

I thought this may be an opportune time to Reference my following👇Forum Thread...

“50 Years of Numismatic Collecting Experience - Grading Changes, Thoughts & Perspectives”

Web Link: 👉 https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1019606/50-years-of-numismatic-collecting-experience-grading-changes-thoughts-perspectives

drei3ree

WOW, I almost feel asleep when JA started talking about MS62 coins.

ARCO

@Elcontador said:
The proliferation of grades between MS 60-MS 70 I believe was strictly for the marketing of coins to collectors, and to a lesser extent, the public. It used to be an unc., a BU, and the 1 in 100 coins which were head and shoulders about the rest were called BU 'gem.' The latter term was hideously overused in attempt to justify unreasonable markups on attractive coins.

I'd be fine with a 60, 63, 65, and a very occasional 67. Same thing happened with AU. I'd go with an AU 50 and 55.

I think it's more honest, but it's not going to happen.

Can't give up the MS64. Often, that is a 65 priced much lower.

jmlanzaf

@ARCO said:

@Elcontador said:
The proliferation of grades between MS 60-MS 70 I believe was strictly for the marketing of coins to collectors, and to a lesser extent, the public. It used to be an unc., a BU, and the 1 in 100 coins which were head and shoulders about the rest were called BU 'gem.' The latter term was hideously overused in attempt to justify unreasonable markups on attractive coins.

I'd be fine with a 60, 63, 65, and a very occasional 67. Same thing happened with AU. I'd go with an AU 50 and 55.

I think it's more honest, but it's not going to happen.

Can't give up the MS64. Often, that is a 65 priced much lower.

In my ever humble interpretation of the video, that is JAs point. So why have a faux numerical discrimination?

Stuart

I agree with John Albanese’s following quote (courtesy of @ElContador) with the exception that I find significant value in assigning the AU-58 grade to Truly Borderline Mint State Coins that may not Technically Merit a Mint State Grade, but have as much (or Higher) Eye Appeal and Flash with Very Light High Point Frictional Rub and/or Minimal Open Field Luster Breaks. (See Examples👇Below)

IMO Properly Graded AU-58’s are a very Compelling combination of High Eye-Appealing Beautiful Coins that can sometimes also be acquired at a very appealing Value Price as compared to Mint State examples.

_I'd be fine with a 60, 63, 65, and a very occasional 67. Same thing happened with AU. I'd go with an AU 50 and 55._

1827 NGC AU-58 Toned Capped Bust Half (O-104) Square 2

1852 $20 Gold Double Eagle (Type 1) - PCGS AU-58

1873-S (Closed 3) $20 Liberty (Type 2) Double Eagle - PCGS AU-58

1890-CC $20 Gold Liberty Double Eagle - NGC AU-58 (Semi-Prooflike)

1892-CC Morgan Dollar PCGS AU-58 (Semi-Prooflike)




Photos courtesy of Mike Printz - Harlan Berk Numismatics

1893-CC $20 Liberty Double Eagle - PCGS AU-58

SeattleSlammer

Sweet 58’s Stuart !

jmlanzaf

@Stuart said:
I agree with John Albanese’s following quote (courtesy of @ElContador) with the exception that I find significant value in assigning the AU-58 grade to Truly Borderline Mint State Coins that may not Technically Merit a Mint State Grade, but have as much (or Higher) Eye Appeal and Flash with Very Light High Point Frictional Rub and/or Minimal Open Field Luster Breaks. (See Examples👇Below)

Why couldn't those be 55s? The coins would look exactly the same.

In my humble interpretation of the video, JA's point is that the more minor discriminations you attempt to make, the more confusing it gets to the coin collecting public when they try to let the numbers do the discriminating instead of their eyes.

Coin Finder

Cool, so all Plus graded coins will get a CAC sticker!!

drei3ree

@thebigeng said:
Cool, so all Plus graded coins will get a CAC sticker!!

...if JA agrees they are plus.

spacehayduke

@thebigeng said:
Cool, so all Plus graded coins will get a CAC sticker!!

Nope. I have had plusses that did not..........

Coin Finder

Hmmmmmm...

breakdown

I thought one of the interesting points he made was that before CAC, he could buy a large percentage of the coins he liked out of auction but now that those same coins are stickered, he has a difficult time buying coins. Gave example that he will bid $2 million in an auction and end up spending $40,000.
As I have always thought, CAC has done a lot of good but there have been unintended consequences.

ColonelJessup

@thebigeng said:
Cool, so all Plus graded coins will get a CAC sticker!!

Heard the same that you did and I'm sure John is happy that there's someone out there picking nits.

Since CAC doesn't grade, it's oft-repeated that a grading service's plus to a grade is no guarantee that CAC will agree to the integer/numeric grade. More concretely MS65+ from either service is a fail if CAC considers the coin 65C or less.

The clearest manifestation of this is the PCGS introduction of "Plus" grades and the way that Collectors Universe, which also owns CCE, attempted to force CAC (and any other sight-unseen bidder) to accept any PCGS "+" grade at its sight-seen level. Coinplex, now absorbed by CDN, treated CAC (and any other) sight-seen bids without this loophole. I think CCE now has adopted the old Coinplex algorithm.

On the other hand, JA's use of "plus-coin" is clearly interpretable as his "high-end-for-grade".

Based on your post count, "Cool" and the exclamation mark, I'll congratulate you on trolling us.

I'm biased towards JA but more biased towards reality. We agree on a great deal. I just spent 40 minutes listening to someone I've talked with on this subject for hundreds of hours. I learned little new. But I heard a great deal explained with measured objectivity and simple clarity.

Anyone with nits to pick is clearly paying attention. A good end in itself whatever your biases.

jmlanzaf

@breakdown said:
I thought one of the interesting points he made was that before CAC, he could buy a large percentage of the coins he liked out of auction but now that those same coins are stickered, he has a difficult time buying coins. Gave example that he will bid $2 million in an auction and end up spending $40,000.
As I have always thought, CAC has done a lot of good but there have been unintended consequences.

The auction example shouldnt have been an unintended consequence, It was more the point of the entire project. What he's saying is that his eye allowed him to cherry pick auctions but once he "stuck his eye" on the slab, he's bidding against himself and can't win.

Gazes

@jmlanzaf said:

@breakdown said:
I thought one of the interesting points he made was that before CAC, he could buy a large percentage of the coins he liked out of auction but now that those same coins are stickered, he has a difficult time buying coins. Gave example that he will bid $2 million in an auction and end up spending $40,000.
As I have always thought, CAC has done a lot of good but there have been unintended consequences.

The auction example isn't an unintended consequence, I think it was more the point. What he's saying is that his eye allowed him to cherry pick auctions but once he "stuck his eye" on the slab, he's bidding against himself and can't win.

jmlanzaf---in all three your posts you state what JA's point is. Are you basing your opinon off the interview everyone can listen to or other interviews, articles, etc that JA has been involved in?

jmlanzaf

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@breakdown said:
I thought one of the interesting points he made was that before CAC, he could buy a large percentage of the coins he liked out of auction but now that those same coins are stickered, he has a difficult time buying coins. Gave example that he will bid $2 million in an auction and end up spending $40,000.
As I have always thought, CAC has done a lot of good but there have been unintended consequences.

The auction example isn't an unintended consequence, I think it was more the point. What he's saying is that his eye allowed him to cherry pick auctions but once he "stuck his eye" on the slab, he's bidding against himself and can't win.

jmlanzaf---in all three your posts you state what JA's point is. Are you basing your opinon off the interview everyone can listen to or other interviews, articles, etc that JA has been involved in?

The posted interview. Some of the comments here seem to have failed to listen to it and are only commenting on excerpts.

For example the 64/65 and 58 issues. JA was pretty clear in discussing why he thought fewer were better

Gazes

@jmlanzaf said:

@breakdown said:
I thought one of the interesting points he made was that before CAC, he could buy a large percentage of the coins he liked out of auction but now that those same coins are stickered, he has a difficult time buying coins. Gave example that he will bid $2 million in an auction and end up spending $40,000.
As I have always thought, CAC has done a lot of good but there have been unintended consequences.

The auction example isn't an unintended consequence, I think it was more the point. What he's saying is that his eye allowed him to cherry pick auctions but once he "stuck his eye" on the slab, he's bidding against himself and can't win.

JA himself says in the interview that not being able to buy coins at his price point was something that he did not forsee.

jmlanzaf

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@breakdown said:
I thought one of the interesting points he made was that before CAC, he could buy a large percentage of the coins he liked out of auction but now that those same coins are stickered, he has a difficult time buying coins. Gave example that he will bid $2 million in an auction and end up spending $40,000.
As I have always thought, CAC has done a lot of good but there have been unintended consequences.

The auction example isn't an unintended consequence, I think it was more the point. What he's saying is that his eye allowed him to cherry pick auctions but once he "stuck his eye" on the slab, he's bidding against himself and can't win.

JA himself says in the interview that not being able to buy coins at his price point was something that he did not forsee.

Yes, I suppose you could call that an unexpected result. But he really should have foreseen it. He's certifying at auction the very coins he wants to buy, so he's bidding against himself. I'm not sure why that surprised him since the whole point of the CAC sticker was to label the cream of the crop as the cream of the crop.

breakdown

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@breakdown said:
I thought one of the interesting points he made was that before CAC, he could buy a large percentage of the coins he liked out of auction but now that those same coins are stickered, he has a difficult time buying coins. Gave example that he will bid $2 million in an auction and end up spending $40,000.
As I have always thought, CAC has done a lot of good but there have been unintended consequences.

The auction example isn't an unintended consequence, I think it was more the point. What he's saying is that his eye allowed him to cherry pick auctions but once he "stuck his eye" on the slab, he's bidding against himself and can't win.

jmlanzaf---in all three your posts you state what JA's point is. Are you basing your opinon off the interview everyone can listen to or other interviews, articles, etc that JA has been involved in?

The posted interview. Dinne of the comments here seem to have failed to listen to it and are only commenting on excerpts.

For example the 64/65 and 58 issues. JA was pretty glib in discussing why he thought fewer were better

Nah - I listened to the whole thing. John Albanese specifically said that the "dynamic" of not being able to buy CAC coins from dealers or out of auction was something "I really didn't foresee."

jmlanzaf

@breakdown said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@breakdown said:
I thought one of the interesting points he made was that before CAC, he could buy a large percentage of the coins he liked out of auction but now that those same coins are stickered, he has a difficult time buying coins. Gave example that he will bid $2 million in an auction and end up spending $40,000.
As I have always thought, CAC has done a lot of good but there have been unintended consequences.

The auction example isn't an unintended consequence, I think it was more the point. What he's saying is that his eye allowed him to cherry pick auctions but once he "stuck his eye" on the slab, he's bidding against himself and can't win.

jmlanzaf---in all three your posts you state what JA's point is. Are you basing your opinon off the interview everyone can listen to or other interviews, articles, etc that JA has been involved in?

The posted interview. Dinne of the comments here seem to have failed to listen to it and are only commenting on excerpts.

For example the 64/65 and 58 issues. JA was pretty glib in discussing why he thought fewer were better

Nah - I listened to the whole thing. John Albanese specifically said that the "dynamic" of not being able to buy CAC coins from dealers or out of auction was something "I really didn't foresee."

Yes, I know. But that was really silly of him. The whole point of the sticker is to put the JA seal of approval on it. You can't cherry pick yourself.

I wasn't referring to you as one who hadn't listened. I was more referring to the lovers of 58s and 64s.

I didn't even mean to appear to disagree with what you were saying other than, while he may have been surprised at pricing himself out of the market, he can't claim that moving the auction needle was unintended. It was the whole point of creating CAC: label premium material as premium.

ColonelJessup

deleted

jmlanzaf

@ColonelJessup said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@breakdown said:
I thought one of the interesting points he made was that before CAC, he could buy a large percentage of the coins he liked out of auction but now that those same coins are stickered, he has a difficult time buying coins. Gave example that he will bid $2 million in an auction and end up spending $40,000.
As I have always thought, CAC has done a lot of good but there have been unintended consequences.

The auction example isn't an unintended consequence, I think it was more the point. What he's saying is that his eye allowed him to cherry pick auctions but once he "stuck his eye" on the slab, he's bidding against himself and can't win.

jmlanzaf---in all three your posts you state what JA's point is. Are you basing your opinon off the interview everyone can listen to or other interviews, articles, etc that JA has been involved in?

The posted interview. Dinne of the comments here seem to have failed to listen to it and are only commenting on excerpts.

For example the 64/65 and 58 issues. JA was pretty glib in discussing why he thought fewer were better

Glib
If you were better at being a troll, you might be despicable.

I didn't mean glib as an insult, poor choice of words. I meant he stated it fluently. His reasoning was pretty clear.

Gazes

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@breakdown said:
I thought one of the interesting points he made was that before CAC, he could buy a large percentage of the coins he liked out of auction but now that those same coins are stickered, he has a difficult time buying coins. Gave example that he will bid $2 million in an auction and end up spending $40,000.
As I have always thought, CAC has done a lot of good but there have been unintended consequences.

The auction example isn't an unintended consequence, I think it was more the point. What he's saying is that his eye allowed him to cherry pick auctions but once he "stuck his eye" on the slab, he's bidding against himself and can't win.

JA himself says in the interview that not being able to buy coins at his price point was something that he did not forsee.

Yes, I suppose you could call that an unexpected result. But he really should have foreseen it. He's certifying at auction the very coins he wants to buy, so he's bidding against himself. I'm not sure why that surprised him since the whole point of the CAC sticker was to label the cream of the crop as the cream of the crop.

i like how you mistakenly correct @breakdown and then state what JA "really" meant. Then when it is pointed out to you that you are incorrect, you seem to tell us that JA should have known what would happen in 10 years.

jmlanzaf

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@breakdown said:
I thought one of the interesting points he made was that before CAC, he could buy a large percentage of the coins he liked out of auction but now that those same coins are stickered, he has a difficult time buying coins. Gave example that he will bid $2 million in an auction and end up spending $40,000.
As I have always thought, CAC has done a lot of good but there have been unintended consequences.

The auction example isn't an unintended consequence, I think it was more the point. What he's saying is that his eye allowed him to cherry pick auctions but once he "stuck his eye" on the slab, he's bidding against himself and can't win.

JA himself says in the interview that not being able to buy coins at his price point was something that he did not forsee.

Yes, I suppose you could call that an unexpected result. But he really should have foreseen it. He's certifying at auction the very coins he wants to buy, so he's bidding against himself. I'm not sure why that surprised him since the whole point of the CAC sticker was to label the cream of the crop as the cream of the crop.

i like how you mistakenly correct @breakdown and then state what JA "really" meant. Then when it is pointed out to you that you are incorrect, you seem to tell us that JA should have known what would happen in 10 years.

Thanks. I appreciate the compliment.

I wasnt intending to "correct" breakdown, I was trying to elaborate. Whether JA foresaw it or not, it isn't exactly an "unintended consequence ". The whole point of CAC was to label premium material as premium. If that did not move the auction needle, the exercise would have been futile.

jmlanzaf

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@breakdown said:
I thought one of the interesting points he made was that before CAC, he could buy a large percentage of the coins he liked out of auction but now that those same coins are stickered, he has a difficult time buying coins. Gave example that he will bid $2 million in an auction and end up spending $40,000.
As I have always thought, CAC has done a lot of good but there have been unintended consequences.

The auction example isn't an unintended consequence, I think it was more the point. What he's saying is that his eye allowed him to cherry pick auctions but once he "stuck his eye" on the slab, he's bidding against himself and can't win.

JA himself says in the interview that not being able to buy coins at his price point was something that he did not forsee.

Yes, I suppose you could call that an unexpected result. But he really should have foreseen it. He's certifying at auction the very coins he wants to buy, so he's bidding against himself. I'm not sure why that surprised him since the whole point of the CAC sticker was to label the cream of the crop as the cream of the crop.

i like how you mistakenly correct @breakdown and then state what JA "really" meant. Then when it is pointed out to you that you are incorrect, you seem to tell us that JA should have known what would happen in 10 years.

And your dislike of me may trump your love of JA, but we should be in agreement here. The whole point of CAC was to change the perceived value of certain coins. The increase in auction prices was completely expected. It may have gone farther than JA thought do that he priced himself out of the market, but the auction price increase was the intended consequence of the sticker.

ColonelJessup

How about you delete your "glib" and I delete my "despicable"?

Gazes

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@breakdown said:
I thought one of the interesting points he made was that before CAC, he could buy a large percentage of the coins he liked out of auction but now that those same coins are stickered, he has a difficult time buying coins. Gave example that he will bid $2 million in an auction and end up spending $40,000.
As I have always thought, CAC has done a lot of good but there have been unintended consequences.

The auction example isn't an unintended consequence, I think it was more the point. What he's saying is that his eye allowed him to cherry pick auctions but once he "stuck his eye" on the slab, he's bidding against himself and can't win.

JA himself says in the interview that not being able to buy coins at his price point was something that he did not forsee.

Yes, I suppose you could call that an unexpected result. But he really should have foreseen it. He's certifying at auction the very coins he wants to buy, so he's bidding against himself. I'm not sure why that surprised him since the whole point of the CAC sticker was to label the cream of the crop as the cream of the crop.

i like how you mistakenly correct @breakdown and then state what JA "really" meant. Then when it is pointed out to you that you are incorrect, you seem to tell us that JA should have known what would happen in 10 years.

Thanks. I appreciate the compliment.

I wasnt intending to "correct" breakdown, I was trying to elaborate. Whether JA foresaw it or not, it isn't exactly an "unintended consequence ". The whole point of CAC was to label premium material as premium. If that did not move the auction needle, the exercise would have been futile.

Again JA states the idea of CAC was to identify "A" and "B" " coins. Not to label "premium material."

Gazes

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@breakdown said:
I thought one of the interesting points he made was that before CAC, he could buy a large percentage of the coins he liked out of auction but now that those same coins are stickered, he has a difficult time buying coins. Gave example that he will bid $2 million in an auction and end up spending $40,000.
As I have always thought, CAC has done a lot of good but there have been unintended consequences.

The auction example isn't an unintended consequence, I think it was more the point. What he's saying is that his eye allowed him to cherry pick auctions but once he "stuck his eye" on the slab, he's bidding against himself and can't win.

JA himself says in the interview that not being able to buy coins at his price point was something that he did not forsee.

Yes, I suppose you could call that an unexpected result. But he really should have foreseen it. He's certifying at auction the very coins he wants to buy, so he's bidding against himself. I'm not sure why that surprised him since the whole point of the CAC sticker was to label the cream of the crop as the cream of the crop.

i like how you mistakenly correct @breakdown and then state what JA "really" meant. Then when it is pointed out to you that you are incorrect, you seem to tell us that JA should have known what would happen in 10 years.

And your dislike of me may trump your love of JA, but we should be in agreement here. The whole point of CAC was to change the perceived value of certain coins. The increase in auction prices was completely expected. It may have gone farther than JA thought do that he priced himself out of the market, but the auction price increase was the intended consequence of the sticker.

i dont dislike you but you make alot of statements that in my opinion are incorrect and sometimes i point them out.

jmlanzaf

@Gazes said:

re why that surprised him since the whole point of the CAC sticker was to label the cream of the crop as the cream of the crop.

i like how you mistakenly correct @breakdown and then state what JA "really" meant. Then when it is pointed out to you that you are incorrect, you seem to tell us that JA should have known what would happen in 10 years.

Thanks. I appreciate the compliment.

I wasnt intending to "correct" breakdown, I was trying to elaborate. Whether JA foresaw it or not, it isn't exactly an "unintended consequence ". The whole point of CAC was to label premium material as premium. If that did not move the auction needle, the exercise would have been futile.

Again JA states the idea of CAC was to identify "A" and "B" " coins. Not to label "premium material."

Again, call it what you want. It is "premium for the grade", if you prefer that verbiage. Take away the CAC and all 66s are created equal. Add a CAC and the 66 is "premium for the grade" and therefore worth a premium bid. That is what happened and it is the whole point of separating the A&B coins from the C coins. That's why he roughly equates a "+" to the CAC

jmlanzaf

@ColonelJessup said:
deleted

Dude, I'm very tired today and pulled the wrong word - which I have corrected.

I defer to you as King of the Trolls.

Not sure why you've gone after me lately, but bring it on faux Colonel.

jmlanzaf

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@breakdown said:
I thought one of the interesting points he made was that before CAC, he could buy a large percentage of the coins he liked out of auction but now that those same coins are stickered, he has a difficult time buying coins. Gave example that he will bid $2 million in an auction and end up spending $40,000.
As I have always thought, CAC has done a lot of good but there have been unintended consequences.

The auction example isn't an unintended consequence, I think it was more the point. What he's saying is that his eye allowed him to cherry pick auctions but once he "stuck his eye" on the slab, he's bidding against himself and can't win.

JA himself says in the interview that not being able to buy coins at his price point was something that he did not forsee.

Yes, I suppose you could call that an unexpected result. But he really should have foreseen it. He's certifying at auction the very coins he wants to buy, so he's bidding against himself. I'm not sure why that surprised him since the whole point of the CAC sticker was to label the cream of the crop as the cream of the crop.

i like how you mistakenly correct @breakdown and then state what JA "really" meant. Then when it is pointed out to you that you are incorrect, you seem to tell us that JA should have known what would happen in 10 years.

And your dislike of me may trump your love of JA, but we should be in agreement here. The whole point of CAC was to change the perceived value of certain coins. The increase in auction prices was completely expected. It may have gone farther than JA thought do that he priced himself out of the market, but the auction price increase was the intended consequence of the sticker.

i dont dislike you but you make alot of statements that in my opinion are incorrect and sometimes i point them out.

No, you've gone beyond that here. You pay premium prices for CAC coins. You only collect CAC coins. When I call CAC coins premium, you correct that to "A or B" coins. That is nit-picking on an atomic scale.

You may edit these words to whatever suits you but the sentiment should be: CAC coins are premium coins and get premium prices.

As you are the recognized King of CAC in these here parts, I really don't know why you would correct that.

[I would also add that I'm probably the second biggest defender of CAC on these boards, so I'm not sure why you are picking this fight.]

jmlanzaf

@ColonelJessup said:
Perhaps @CaptHenway will explain gormlessness

No need, I have a search engine.

jmlanzaf

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

of the crop as the cream of the crop.

i like how you mistakenly correct @breakdown and then state what JA "really" meant. Then when it is pointed out to you that you are incorrect, you seem to tell us that JA should have known what would happen in 10 years.

Thanks. I appreciate the compliment.

I wasnt intending to "correct" breakdown, I was trying to elaborate. Whether JA foresaw it or not, it isn't exactly an "unintended consequence ". The whole point of CAC was to label premium material as premium. If that did not move the auction needle, the exercise would have been futile.

Again JA states the idea of CAC was to identify "A" and "B" " coins. Not to label "premium material."

I would also point out that in the 1st 4 minutes, JA refers to "A" coins as "PQ" which is, of course, short for "premium quality"

Gazes

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

of the crop as the cream of the crop.

i like how you mistakenly correct @breakdown and then state what JA "really" meant. Then when it is pointed out to you that you are incorrect, you seem to tell us that JA should have known what would happen in 10 years.

Thanks. I appreciate the compliment.

I wasnt intending to "correct" breakdown, I was trying to elaborate. Whether JA foresaw it or not, it isn't exactly an "unintended consequence ". The whole point of CAC was to label premium material as premium. If that did not move the auction needle, the exercise would have been futile.

Again JA states the idea of CAC was to identify "A" and "B" " coins. Not to label "premium material."

I would also point out that in the 1st 4 minutes, JA refers to "A" coins as "PQ" which is, of course, short for "premium quality"

i disagree the A and B vs premium distinction is nit picking. There is alot said about CAC and i think it is important to be accurate. A Coin that is B and solid for the grade gets a green sticker---that is different than being a premium coin.

Yes I am a defender of CAC and am glad to hear you are too. I do on occassion look at non cac coins. I just bid on one---it was super rare and i spoke to someone i highly respect who confirmed to me that the coin was original (very important to me) and why it probably did not CAC. i decided to bid on it but didnt win it.

i would love to explain my evolution in buying primarily CAC coins but quite frankly it would probably upset alot of people. Therefore, i do what is best for me and what I like but respect others who want to collect differently. I do enjoy CAC threads (like this one) because i often learn something.

ColonelJessup

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:

of the crop as the cream of the crop.

i like how you mistakenly correct @breakdown and then state what JA "really" meant. Then when it is pointed out to you that you are incorrect, you seem to tell us that JA should have known what would happen in 10 years.

Thanks. I appreciate the compliment.

I wasnt intending to "correct" breakdown, I was trying to elaborate. Whether JA foresaw it or not, it isn't exactly an "unintended consequence ". The whole point of CAC was to label premium material as premium. If that did not move the auction needle, the exercise would have been futile.

Again JA states the idea of CAC was to identify "A" and "B" " coins. Not to label "premium material."

I would also point out that in the 1st 4 minutes, JA refers to "A" coins as "PQ" which is, of course, short for "premium quality"

"A" coins are not premium quality for the technical grade. They have powerful eye appeal.

Please shut up and I will delete my "please shut up", but please shut up.

What special gift do you believe yourself to have for explication that JA does not?

Gormless

Stuart

Directly Quoting from the CAC web site:

“For many years, coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B, and C among themselves to further describe coins.

C indicates Low-End for the grade, B indicates Solid for the grade, and A indicates High-End.

CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category.

C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker.”

Also, According to John Albanese:

Coins that are Definitely Undergraded -- and would receive at least a Green Sticker in the Next Higher Grade -- are bestowed Gold Stickers.

jmlanzaf

hich is, of course, short for "premium quality"

i disagree the A and B vs premium distinction is nit picking. There is alot said about CAC and i think it is important to be accurate. A Coin that is B and solid for the grade gets a green sticker---that is different than being a premium coin.

Yes I am a defender of CAC and am glad to hear you are too. I do on occassion look at non cac coins. I just bid on one---it was super rare and i spoke to someone i highly respect who confirmed to me that the coin was original (very important to me) and why it probably did not CAC. i decided to bid on it but didnt win it.

i would love to explain my evolution in buying primarily CAC coins but quite frankly it would probably upset alot of people. Therefore, i do what is best for me and what I like but respect others who want to collect differently. I do enjoy CAC threads (like this one) because i often learn something.

I think you explained it sufficiently elsewhere.

I am not "CAC only", but I will pay the CAC premium especially for sight unseen coins.

AGain, you can call it what you will "superior for the grade" "premium for the grade". The point remains. JA wanted to separate the "A/B" coins from the rest and makes no bones about the fact that he felt the C coins were holding down prices. [JA himself refered to the A coins as PQ.] To that extent, the increase in value of CAC coins was intentional (in my humble opinion) and not an accident. But, however.

Maybe I'll just start every post with IMHO

jmlanzaf

i like how you mistakenly correct @breakdown and then state what JA "really" meant. Then when it is pointed out to you that you are incorrect, you seem to tell us that JA should have known what would happen in 10 years.

Thanks. I appreciate the compliment.

I wasnt intending to "correct" breakdown, I was trying to elaborate. Whether JA foresaw it or not, it isn't exactly an "unintended consequence ". The whole point of CAC was to label premium material as premium. If that did not move the auction needle, the exercise would have been futile.

Again JA states the idea of CAC was to identify "A" and "B" " coins. Not to label "premium material."

I would also point out that in the 1st 4 minutes, JA refers to "A" coins as "PQ" which is, of course, short for

yawn...deleted

ColonelJessup

I liked my explanation better, even if I was wrong. Actually, JA grew up 25 miles north of me in Flemington, and pronounces "A" differently than I do. @Stuart seems to have a better ear than eye do