@ColonelJessup said:
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
So, since you were wrong on your challenge of my summary of JA [Go to about 3:20 and hear him say "A which is very very high end or PQ"], are you retracting your "please shut up"?
@ColonelJessup said:
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
So, since you were wrong on your challenge of my summary of JA [Go to about 3:45 and hear him say "A coin or PQ"], are you retracting your "please shut up"?
Apparently a growing number of people are recognizing the hostility with which you treat so many. "Snide" covers it well.
JA is "silly" for not foreseeing himself priced out of his own market. How magnanimous you are in your condescension!
I haven't gone back to see if you deleted your "glib". I deleted "despicable" on good faith. But your gormlessness is quintessentially pathetic.
You are so bad at this that I won't even call @Laurie by her current Forum name to invoke a comparison. She deserves the weekend off. Shall I point out that you, the second biggest defender of CAC here, have done more than anyone else on this thread to disrupt it via interjections about minutiae which do little to inform but much to document your need for attention?
Comparing our relative familiarity with JA's grading, I'll leave the rest of this thread to you.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@ColonelJessup said:
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
So, since you were wrong on your challenge of my summary of JA [Go to about 3:45 and hear him say "A coin or PQ"], are you retracting your "please shut up"?
Apparently a growing number of people are recognizing the hostility with which you treat so many. "Snide" covers it well.
JA is "silly" for not foreseeing himself priced out of his own market. How magnanimous you are in your condescension!
I haven't gone back to see if you deleted your "glib". I deleted "despicable" on good faith. But your gormlessness is quintessentially pathetic.
You are so bad at this that I won't even call @Laurie by her current Forum name to invoke a comparison. She deserves the weekend off. Shall I point out that you, the second biggest defender of CAC here, have done more than anyone else on this thread to disrupt it via interjections about minutiae which do little to inform but much to document your need for attention?
Comparing our relative familiarity with JA's grading, I'll leave the rest of this thread to you.
I deleted glib quite a while ago. As I said, it was an unintentional word slip which comes from being very tired and typing on my phone while walking the dogs.
And, yes, in my ever humble opinion JA should have foreseen CAC prices increasing. Think about it, Faux Colonel G:
You start a sticker service to identify "PQ" coins or "high end for the grade" or whatever you want to call them. You do it in large measure because you think "C coins" are hurting the market.
One of two things will happen:
No one cares about your opinion and so you have pretty green stickers that everyone ignores come auction time.
People value your opinion and put a premium on coins you've identified as being worth a premium and auction prices rise.
So, either CAC fails as an endeavor and he can keep buying coins at auction using his very skilled eyes or CAC succeeds as an endeavor because everyone is seeing through his eyes and auction prices reflect his judgment.
@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.
To be sure. It has created artificial "sticker rarity" by decreasing the available supply of CAC coins for the PCGS/CAC only crowd.
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.
Perhaps it is because many things you post are, shall we say, uninformed? That's the only time I go after you. I usually give you an "agree" or a "like" when warranted.
This was a good podcast. I made some notes and will check out this discussion tomorrow.
PS if it ever came down to a vote about who should put away the keyboard...LOL.
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.
Perhaps it is because many things you post are, shall we say, uninformed? That's the only time I go after you. I usually give you an "agree" or a "like" when warranted.
This was a good podcast. I made some notes and will check out this discussion tomorrow.
Could you provide an example? Since you insist that disagrees require specifics.
I made 3 comments on this thread in explication of the JA podcast:
Someone defended the need for 58s. JA clearly explains why he feels there is no need for so many AU grades.
Someone defended the need for a 64. JA clearly explains why he feels there is no need for so many distinctions.
Someone mentioned "unintended consequences" and I (clumsily, admittedly) tried to suggest that the consequences had to have been intended. You don't sticker coins so that their value doesn't change.
I may have parsed too fine a point in #3, but I'm in complete agreement with JA on points 1 and 2.
Thank you @Stuart. An excellent listen. Your briefest editorial comments made it clear how much was to be learned by both the careful and the casual listener.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
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.
Perhaps it is because many things you post are, shall we say, uninformed? That's the only time I go after you. I usually give you an "agree" or a "like" when warranted.
This was a good podcast. It made some notes and will check out this discussion tomorrow.
Could you provide an example? Since you insist that disagrees require specifics.
I'll tell you what. If you insist, I'll go through my comments to discussions and find a few replies to your misinformation. It would have been much easier if we still had the disagree button.
You know what. I just changed my mind. I should be much easier for you to look back through your comments and find the times I called you out.
PS There will be more in the future and I'll be sure to make them bold and easy to see.
Not sure why you've gone after me lately, but bring it on faux Colonel.
Perhaps it is because many things you post are, shall we say, uninformed? That's the only time I go after you. I usually give you an "agree" or a "like" when warranted.
This was a good podcast. I made some notes and will check out this discussion tomorrow.
PS if it ever came down to a vote about who should put away the keyboard...LOL.
I should also add that I don't consider you to be "going after me". We've had a few discussions, but while you can be a bit arrogant, I don't find you demeaning or insulting - usually. I also tend to agree with you far more than disagree so if I'm "uninformed", I guess you are also.
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.
Perhaps it is because many things you post are, shall we say, uninformed? That's the only time I go after you. I usually give you an "agree" or a "like" when warranted.
This was a good podcast. I made some notes and will check out this discussion tomorrow.
Could you provide an example? Since you insist that disagrees require specifics.
I made 3 comments on this thread in explication of the JA podcast:
Someone defended the need for 58s. JA clearly explains why he feels there is no need for so many AU grades.
Someone defended the need for a 64. JA clearly explains why he feels there is no need for so many distinctions.
Someone mentioned "unintended consequences" and I (clumsily, admittedly) tried to suggest that the consequences had to have been intended. You don't sticker coins so that their value doesn't change.
I may have parsed too fine a point in #3, but I'm in complete agreement with JA on points 1 and 2.
I have not read the entire thread. I don't know what you or anyone said. You asked a question that was easy to answer. You are playing in the major league with all-stars. You are not on their level in any respect. You and I belong in the minors yet even I jump on your PAST (not in this thread) comments when I disagree. That's why I wrote that I took notes of the JA interview and I will see if there is anything I can add tomorrow.
I just answered your question: Perhaps it is because many things you post are, shall we say, uninformed? That's the only time I go after you. I usually give you an "agree" or a "like" when warranted. Clear???
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.
Perhaps it is because many things you post are, shall we say, uninformed? That's the only time I go after you. I usually give you an "agree" or a "like" when warranted.
This was a good podcast. It made some notes and will check out this discussion tomorrow.
Could you provide an example? Since you insist that disagrees require specifics.
I'll tell you what. If you insist, I'll go through my comments to discussions and find a few replies to your misinformation. It would have been much easier if we still had the disagree button.
You know what. I just changed my mind. I should be much easier for you to look back through your comments and find the times I called you out.
PS There will be more in the future and I'll be sure to make them bold and easy to see.
This bothers me, more than the Colonel's direct insults.
You are the one who insists on evidence, yet...
I don't think of us disagreeing that much, at least since the original 4T's blow-up last year. The fact that you do is an oddly low opinion of me.
Then again, compared to @ColonelJessup 's direct insults, I suppose your low opinion of me is
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.
Perhaps it is because many things you post are, shall we say, uninformed? That's the only time I go after you. I usually give you an "agree" or a "like" when warranted.
This was a good podcast. I made some notes and will check out this discussion tomorrow.
Could you provide an example? Since you insist that disagrees require specifics.
I made 3 comments on this thread in explication of the JA podcast:
Someone defended the need for 58s. JA clearly explains why he feels there is no need for so many AU grades.
Someone defended the need for a 64. JA clearly explains why he feels there is no need for so many distinctions.
Someone mentioned "unintended consequences" and I (clumsily, admittedly) tried to suggest that the consequences had to have been intended. You don't sticker coins so that their value doesn't change.
I may have parsed too fine a point in #3, but I'm in complete agreement with JA on points 1 and 2.
I have not read the entire thread. I don't know what you or anyone said. You asked a question that was easy to answer. You are playing in the major league with all-stars. You are not on their level in any respect. You and I belong in the minors yet even I jump on your PAST (not in this thread) comments when I disagree. That's why I wrote that I took notes of the JA interview and I will see if there is anything I can add tomorrow.
I just answered your question: Perhaps it is because many things you post are, shall we say, uninformed? That's the only time I go after you. I usually give you an "agree" or a "like" when warranted. Clear???
Disagree lol
You might want to check your scorecard.
The majority of my comments are on ebay threads (20 years and 70,000 transactions), CAC threads, and modern mint products. I'll throw my credentials in with anyone in those arenas.
I will do some GTG and is it real threads, but I usually defer to the experts there.
@jmlanzaf posted: "The majority of my comments are on ebay threads (20 years and 70,000 transactions), CAC threads, and modern mint products. I'll throw my credentials in with anyone in those arenas."
LOL, I don't dislike ANYONE on CU. In fact, I just gave you a "like" for an informative post in another thread. But I see now that I did have you "pegged" correctly...a BIG fish in a pond.
One of the more interesting & enlightening aspects (for me) listening to the John Albanese Podcast Interview that enters into their Stickering decision, is that CAC considers the Commercial Market Value that in their expert opinion a coin should attain in the marketplace, in combination with its Technical Meritfor the Specified Grade.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf posted: "The majority of my comments are on ebay threads (20 years and 70,000 transactions), CAC threads, and modern mint products. I'll throw my credentials in with anyone in those arenas."
LOL, I don't dislike ANYONE on CU. In fact, I just gave you a "like" for an informative post in another thread. But I see now that I did have you "pegged" correctly...a BIG fish in a pond.
I really really try to like you. I do enjoy listening to you. But then you pick a squabble like this, for what reason? The disagreement here wasn't between you and me. As you just pointed out, we were just having a friendly agreement on the Civil War tag thread. Then you come over here and don't make any points about the topic under discussion but just insert a general insult in my direction. It was gratuitous, to say the least.
@Stuart said:
One of the more interesting & enlightening aspects (for me) listening to the John Albanese Podcast Interview that enters into their Stickering decision, is that CAC considers the Commercial Market Value that in their expert opinion a coin should attain in the marketplace, in combination with its Technical Meritfor the Specified Grade.
And, to flog a dead horse, he oddly claims he didn't expect CAC auction prices to rise...???? I don't think he meant to say that. In the same section he claims in the 1st 5 years of CAC he could continue to buy coins at auctions and mentions that, during that period, the market was uncertain about the value of CAC.
In the end, it sounds like the whole point of CAC was to fix the Market more than coin grading. He thinks the C coins were dragging down Mr. Market and so he moved to discriminate the A/B from the C.
It does seem like he's suggesting the best way to view CAC is as a Market Opinion.
[All thoughts expressed here represent my own opinions and are not meant to supercede or contradict the opinions expressed by others.]
@Stuart said:
One of the more interesting & enlightening aspects (for me) listening to the John Albanese Podcast Interview that enters into their Stickering decision, is that CAC considers the Commercial Market Value that in their expert opinion a coin should attain in the marketplace, in combination with its Technical Meritfor the Specified Grade.
At the risk of inflaming...I would also offer the following humble question: Is it a good idea to include Market Value in the sticker?
The Market changes over time. [We can argue separately whether technical grading does.] If part of the CAC sticker is Market perception, what happens if that changes?
For example, toners are all the rage now. 20 years ago, most people preferred blast white. If JA includes "original skin" as part of the CAC certification and the Market 20 years from now prefers blast white...???
[All opinions expressed here are humbly mine and are not meant to contradict or supersede those of any other poster.]
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.
Perhaps it is because many things you post are, shall we say, uninformed? That's the only time I go after you. I usually give you an "agree" or a "like" when warranted.
This was a good podcast. I made some notes and will check out this discussion tomorrow.
Could you provide an example? Since you insist that disagrees require specifics.
I made 3 comments on this thread in explication of the JA podcast:
Someone defended the need for 58s. JA clearly explains why he feels there is no need for so many AU grades.
Someone defended the need for a 64. JA clearly explains why he feels there is no need for so many distinctions.
Someone mentioned "unintended consequences" and I (clumsily, admittedly) tried to suggest that the consequences had to have been intended. You don't sticker coins so that their value doesn't change.
I may have parsed too fine a point in #3, but I'm in complete agreement with JA on points 1 and 2.
As for your third comment, JA states that he used the stickers originally to help him buy coins he liked. I don't think he "intended" to change their value. Why would he intentionally create a higher price for himself? I think that is why he didn't foresee the degree that prices would rise on CAC coins.
Could you provide an example? Since you insist that disagrees require specifics.
I made 3 comments on this thread in explication of the JA podcast:
Someone defended the need for 58s. JA clearly explains why he feels there is no need for so many AU grades.
Someone defended the need for a 64. JA clearly explains why he feels there is no need for so many distinctions.
Someone mentioned "unintended consequences" and I (clumsily, admittedly) tried to suggest that the consequences had to have been intended. You don't sticker coins so that their value doesn't change.
I may have parsed too fine a point in #3, but I'm in complete agreement with JA on points 1 and 2.
As for your third comment, JA states that he used the stickers originally to help him buy coins he liked. I don't think he "intended" to change their value. Why would he intentionally create a higher price for himself? I think that is why he didn't foresee the degree that prices would rise on CAC coins.
I don't know. I don't really want to argue with you. This whole thread got derailed, partly my fault. My "short answers" clearly trigger some people. But, really, who wants to listen to my "long answer".
If you listen to the entirety of that section, he seems to imply that it was expected. He talks about being able to buy a lot of coins in the 1st 5 years. He then mentions that during those 5 years the market had mixed feelings about CAC. That seems to imply some causal relationship between the market uncertainty and the lack of a price change. He goes on to talk about not being able to buy coins now and market acceptance of CAC, again at least implying a causal relationship.
I also go back to the other 1000 words I've written on it here. It makes no sense to sticker coins and include marketability as part of the stickering (see Stuart's comment) and then to think there is no market implication to the stickering.
JA has said elsewhere that he thinks the CAC premium has gotten excessive. Maybe he was referring to the degree of the market move more than the actual market move itself when he says "unforeseen".
Logic alone dictates that if you are respected and if you sticker "A/high end/PQ coins" so they are recognized that those "A/high end/PQ coins" are going to sell for a premium. So, I still tend to think that the price increase itself was foreseen by JA, he's a smart man, but the degree of the move surprised him.
I also no longer really care. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want. In the end, the CAC price is the CAC price. JA isn't King, the Market is. Although if my interpretation is correct and JA really is smarter than the rest of us, it may mean CAC is due for a market reset to the downside.
@jmlanzaf said:
...if my interpretation is correct and JA really is smarter than the rest of us, it may mean CAC is due for a market reset to the downside.
If instead of looking at CAC coins trading at a premium and instead see non-stickered coins trading at a discount, then you could just as easily argue that the discount needs to “reset” to something less severe. That Could easily happen if the market gets a big influx of unsophisticated investor money. Otherwise, not very likely.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@jmlanzaf said:
...if my interpretation is correct and JA really is smarter than the rest of us, it may mean CAC is due for a market reset to the downside.
If instead of looking at CAC coins trading at a premium and instead see non-stickered coins trading at a discount, then you could just as easily argue that the discount needs to “reset” to something less severe. That Could easily happen if the market gets a big influx of unsophisticated investor money. Otherwise, not very likely.
True. Though it's really equivalent, in some sense, that may be the better way to look at it. JA wasn't really trying to get a premium. He was just trying to prevent the A coins from getting the C coin "discount".
Edited to add:
You know, I wonder if that is why JA was surprised. Maybe he really thought CAC coins would trade at roughly the same price as before and the C coins would just drop off.
You know, I wonder if that is why JA was surprised. Maybe he really thought CAC coins would trade at roughly the same price as before and the C coins would just drop off.
Someone should ask him.
Could be as simple as "I should have foreseen it, but didnt." or " I didnt know that CAC would grow to such a force"- it might have remained a small fish in a big pond, and be ignored by most of the market.
@Stuart said:
One of the more interesting & enlightening aspects (for me) listening to the John Albanese Podcast Interview that enters into their Stickering decision, is that CAC considers the Commercial Market Value that in their expert opinion a coin should attain in the marketplace, in combination with its Technical Meritfor the Specified Grade.
After a million CAC and PCGS grading anomaly/gradeflation threads I have come to this conclusion:
Grading (as currently practiced) has little to do with technical grades. Its all about coin dealers pricing coins. Some things to think about: A price guide by grade - makes sense in a market grade world, not in a technical grade one. Popularity of toned coins go up, grades of toned coins go up.
If you read the million threads on these topics, you will note that a large percentage of the replies are driven by the writers conflicts between whats observed in the marke, and what the write beleives the right "technical" answer should be.
The biggest thing I picked up was the spread discussion. If something is rare in CAC because it only has a $20 spread...it will appear rarer in CAC than it really is. That would not be the case with 19th century gold...lol.
@Stuart said:
One of the more interesting & enlightening aspects (for me) listening to the John Albanese Podcast Interview that enters into their Stickering decision, is that CAC considers the Commercial Market Value that in their expert opinion a coin should attain in the marketplace, in combination with its Technical Meritfor the Specified Grade.
After a million CAC and PCGS grading anomaly/gradeflation threads I have come to this conclusion:
Grading (as currently practiced) has little to do with technical grades. Its all about coin dealers pricing coins. Some things to think about: A price guide by grade - makes sense in a market grade world, not in a technical grade one. Popularity of toned coins go up, grades of toned coins go up.
If you read the million threads on these topics, you will note that a large percentage of the replies are driven by the writers conflicts between whats observed in the marke, and what the write beleives the right "technical" answer should be.
Just IMHO
I think there's some truth in this. As I always say, the Market is King, don't argue with the Market.
I will say that 20 years ago I remarked to a dealer friend that all the 68 Mercs I saw tended to be toned. Now, at the time, white was King. It seemed to me that the toning was masking defects and not getting a market boost. But, who knows, maybe that was a more innocent time in the grading biz.
To the extent that "eye appeal" is part of grading, there is a "market" component. Admittedly, eye appeal is not exactly the same as market, but it is the one admitted piece of both market price and grading that is in common.
I do hate to think that the slab grade is TOO commercially driven. That leaves open the possibility of all kinds of subjectivity. But, that's just my wishful naivete at work.
@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf posted: "The majority of my comments are on ebay threads (20 years and 70,000 transactions), CAC threads, and modern mint products. I'll throw my credentials in with anyone in those arenas."
LOL, I don't dislike ANYONE on CU. In fact, I just gave you a "like" for an informative post in another thread. But I see now that I did have you "pegged" correctly...a BIG fish in a pond.
I really really try to like you. I do enjoy listening to you. But then you pick a squabble like this, for what reason? The disagreement here wasn't between you and me. As you just pointed out, we were just having a friendly agreement on the Civil War tag thread. Then you come over here and don't make any points about the topic under discussion but just insert a general insult in my direction. It was gratuitous, to say the least.
When warranted, I always try to be an equal opportunity poster. Fortunately, CU is NOT a popularity contest. IMO, it is a source of usually excellent information. One of THE go-to place on the internet.
When warranted, I always try to be an equal opportunity poster. Fortunately, CU is NOT a popularity contest. IMO, it is a source of usually excellent information. One of THE go-to place on the internet.
Someone defended the need for 58s. JA clearly explains why he feels there is no need for so many AU grades.
He specifically addressed 53's.
CAC policy is that there is no upgrade from 53 to 55. The coin must 58 for gold, same as a 55. I'll remind myself to ask him about policy for gold on 50 to 53 and/or 55. Not a set of levels I've considered much for a while.
If JA were posed with the question "How do you defend the 58 grade?" the response might include "too many people have been overcharged for really nice coins that aren't unc." or "if you want AU, I can work with 50 and 58 and you can kiss my bean on the difference. ".
Someone defended the need for a 64. JA clearly explains why he feels there is no need for so many distinctions.
He has never questioned the utility of this grade, nor identified any disutility in its application. He was very clear on 60+ vs 61/62 and how that ship has sailed.
Someone mentioned "unintended consequences" and I (clumsily, admittedly) tried to suggest that the consequences had to have been intended. You don't sticker coins so that their value doesn't change.
You've shot yourself in the foot with your double negative. You sticker coins because their value does change. You sticker coins so that their value changes within a pricing architecture based on an unchanging stickered grade.
Logic alone dictates that if you are respected and if you sticker "A/high end/PQ coins" so they are recognized that those "A/high end/PQ coins" are going to sell for a premium. So, I still tend to think that the price increase itself was foreseen by JA, he's a smart man, but the degree of the move surprised him.
I also no longer really care Everyone is free to believe whatever they want. In the end, the CAC price is the CAC price.
There is surely more than one CAC price level. I can identify three.
JA isn't King, the Market is. Although if my interpretation is correct and JA really is smarter than the rest of us, it may mean CAC is due for a market reset to the downside.
A/high end/PQ coins is an unhappy conflation which grossly contorts the logic of the CAC stickering/pricing algorithm.
You have blown so much smoke up so many peoples' asses over self-created conundrums that I'm going to start a thread with the above title immediately. Or at least by dinner time.
Consider it an open invitation/challenge to come in and rip my theses apart.
Friends too. @MrEureka can sometimes do it in 25 words or less.
To the degree that there's math, statistics and logic involved, I love getting tuned up. That's why I play so much duplicate bridge. I'm playing against and getting my ass kicked less worse by increasingly better players, seeing a few more minor glitches in my reasoning, trusting a few more twitches from my intuition.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Someone defended the need for 58s. JA clearly explains why he feels there is no need for so many AU grades.
He specifically addressed 53's.
CAC policy is that there is no upgrade from 53 to 55. The coin must 58 for gold, same as a 55. I'll remind myself to ask him about policy for gold on 50 to 53 and/or 55. Not a set of levels I've considered much for a while.
If JA were posed with the question "How do you defend the 58 grade?" the response might include "too many people have been overcharged for really nice coins that aren't unc." or "if you want AU, I can work with 50 and 58 and you can kiss my bean on the difference. ".
Someone defended the need for a 64. JA clearly explains why he feels there is no need for so many distinctions.
He has never questioned the utility of this grade, nor identified any disutility in its application. He was very clear on 60+ vs 61/62 and how that ship has sailed.
Someone mentioned "unintended consequences" and I (clumsily, admittedly) tried to suggest that the consequences had to have been intended. You don't sticker coins so that their value doesn't change.
You've shot yourself in the foot with your double negative. You sticker coins because their value does change. You sticker coins so that their value changes within a pricing architecture based on an unchanging stickered grade.
Logic alone dictates that if you are respected and if you sticker "A/high end/PQ coins" so they are recognized that those "A/high end/PQ coins" are going to sell for a premium. So, I still tend to think that the price increase itself was foreseen by JA, he's a smart man, but the degree of the move surprised him.
I also no longer really care Everyone is free to believe whatever they want. In the end, the CAC price is the CAC price.
There is surely more than one CAC price level. I can identify three.
JA isn't King, the Market is. Although if my interpretation is correct and JA really is smarter than the rest of us, it may mean CAC is due for a market reset to the downside.
A/high end/PQ coins is an unhappy conflation which grossly contorts the logic of the CAC stickering/pricing algorithm.
You have blown so much smoke up so many peoples' asses over self-created conundrums that I'm going to start a thread with the above title immediately. Or at least by dinner time.
Consider it an open invitation/challenge to come in and rip my theses apart.
Friends too. @MrEureka can sometimes do it in 25 words or less.
To the degree that there's math, statistics and logic involved, I love getting tuned up. That's why I play so much duplicate bridge. I'm playing against and getting my ass kicked less worse by increasingly better players, seeing a few more minor glitches in my reasoning, trusting a few more twitches from my intuition.
The A coin, high end, PQ conflation is JAs, not mine. See stuart's post fron the CAC website and go listen to the podcast at 3:20. Call then whatever you want, the point stands. Smoke free.
Someone defended the need for 58s. JA clearly explains why he feels there is no need for so many AU grades.
He specifically addressed 53's.
CAC policy is that there is no upgrade from 53 to 55. The coin must 58 for gold, same as a 55. I'll remind myself to ask him about policy for gold on 50 to 53 and/or 55. Not a set of levels I've considered much for a while.
If JA were posed with the question "How do you defend the 58 grade?" the response might include "too many people have been overcharged for really nice coins that aren't unc." or "if you want AU, I can work with 50 and 58 and you can kiss my bean on the difference. ".
Someone defended the need for a 64. JA clearly explains why he feels there is no need for so many distinctions.
He has never questioned the utility of this grade, nor identified any disutility in its application. He was very clear on 60+ vs 61/62 and how that ship has sailed.
Someone mentioned "unintended consequences" and I (clumsily, admittedly) tried to suggest that the consequences had to have been intended. You don't sticker coins so that their value doesn't change.
You've shot yourself in the foot with your double negative. You sticker coins because their value does change. You sticker coins so that their value changes within a pricing architecture based on an unchanging stickered grade.
Logic alone dictates that if you are respected and if you sticker "A/high end/PQ coins" so they are recognized that those "A/high end/PQ coins" are going to sell for a premium. So, I still tend to think that the price increase itself was foreseen by JA, he's a smart man, but the degree of the move surprised him.
I also no longer really care Everyone is free to believe whatever they want. In the end, the CAC price is the CAC price.
There is surely more than one CAC price level. I can identify three.
JA isn't King, the Market is. Although if my interpretation is correct and JA really is smarter than the rest of us, it may mean CAC is due for a market reset to the downside.
A/high end/PQ coins is an unhappy conflation which grossly contorts the logic of the CAC stickering/pricing algorithm.
You have blown so much smoke up so many peoples' asses over self-created conundrums that I'm going to start a thread with the above title immediately. Or at least by dinner time.
Consider it an open invitation/challenge to come in and rip my theses apart.
Friends too. @MrEureka can sometimes do it in 25 words or less.
To the degree that there's math, statistics and logic involved, I love getting tuned up. That's why I play so much duplicate bridge. I'm playing against and getting my ass kicked less worse by increasingly better players, seeing a few more minor glitches in my reasoning, trusting a few more twitches from my intuition.
The A coin, high end, PQ conflation is JAs, not mine. See stuart's post fron the CAC website and go listen to the podcast at 3:20. Call then whatever you want, the point stands. Smoke free.
JA also conflates "+ coin". So, if you really want to blow a gasket, make it A coin/high end/PQ/ plus coin.
Very good podcast. I think the biggest single comment is about the future of grading. The future is with less grades, and more verbal grades, as opposed to the advancement of more numbers and "+". I started using Typical, Average, Choice, Gem Superb a few years ago for my PDS grading system and last year changed my pricing guide eliminating numerical grading altogether. 50 years from now, we will all be saying something like this: "This is a Choice Unc coin, it was graded MS65 over 60 years ago." The "Choice" grade will carry more weight than the grade on the holder.
I liked his opinions and how explained his opinions on the grades of 25, 53, 61 & 62.
It made perfect sense to me.
I think his intentions, model and rationale are very simple. Especially when you hear him explain them.
Beyond that, it seems some people look for hidden messages or try to read between the lines and thereby chase their own tails down rabbit holes and make things more complicated than they need to be.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
I Still need to read this thread. For now, I'll agree with JA that many times, less is more! More, in this case, means easier to make a determination for everyone and more precision!
At the first TPGS (INSAB) in DC, there was only Uncirculated (MS-60) and Choice Uncirculated (MS-65). That was the state of the grading system back then. No other MS grades were in use except for adding a "+" to the coins that almost made the next grade. There were no 70's.
Examine a coin. any slight friction = AU. Full Mint State with virtually no detracting marks = Choice Unc. The only thing added to the grades were qualifiers (weak strike, +, etc). We were able to grade a coin exactly the same even if a year passed. I would be surprised if any knowledgeable poster here could not grade a coin either Unc or Choice Unc after seeing just a few examples.
Gradually, mid-grades of MS were added until over time all the #'s from 60 to 70 came into use.
I learned a lot from the podcast and a lot from the comments here...thanks!!!
Personally I pretty much ignore technical grades already. I usually buy either XF or lower AU coins because they are less likely to have been messed with. To me eye appeal and originality are the most important factors.
@Insider2 said:
I Still need to read this thread. For now, I'll agree with JA that many times, less is more! More, in this case, means easier to make a determination for everyone and more precision!
At the first TPGS (INSAB) in DC, there was only Uncirculated (MS-60) and Choice Uncirculated (MS-65). That was the state of the grading system back then. No other MS grades were in use except for adding a "+" to the coins that almost made the next grade. There were no 70's.
Examine a coin. any slight friction = AU. Full Mint State with virtually no detracting marks = Choice Unc. The only thing added to the grades were qualifiers (weak strike, +, etc). We were able to grade a coin exactly the same even if a year passed. I would be surprised if any knowledgeable poster here could not grade a coin either Unc or Choice Unc after seeing just a few examples.
Gradually, mid-grades of MS were added until over time all the #'s from 60 to 70 came into use.
I think there's some merit to the system ATS uses for ancients, maybe adapted to moderns. They use the simplified ancient letter system G, VG, F, VF, XF, AU, MS - no other breakdown. They also then add 2 numbers 0 to 5 for strike and 0 to 5 for surface.
Now "surface" for more modern coins isn't really an issue like it is with curated ancients. But you could use 0 to 5 for strike and 0 to 5 for "surface preservation" (marks) and maybe 0 to 5 for originality (color?). That would give you a far more descriptive grade for all coins, but would also minimize the need to differentiate a VF 20 from a VF 25. A coin would be something like VF (5, 4, 2) meaning VF on wear, 5 for strike, 4 for surface preservation and 2 for "originality" (old dip or something).
In lower grades, maybe you leave the strike grade blank. IDK. I haven't put out my shingle yet, so the system is still under development. Maybe "eye appeal" instead of originality? In addition?
[You may simply disagree without explanation. I know how busy you are.]
The A coin, high end, PQ conflation is JAs, not mine. See stuart's post fron the CAC website and go listen to the podcast at 3:20. Call then whatever you want, the point stands. Smoke free.
JA also conflates "+ coin". So, if you really want to blow a gasket, make it A coin/high end/PQ/ plus coin.
You win again.
My definition of a loser. Anyone who imagines a dialogue in which your primary goal is some formulation of the truth. Accordingly, in this thread, me.
I'm scratching my idea for that thread. I'm going to credit my audience, whatever that is, to have enough intelligence to see through you. My pity is edged with contempt, but I listen to you and it saddens me that someone with your intellectual capacity is so socially blind.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
LOL, giving you a deserved "LIKE" saves lots of time.
Actually, I like the amount of information that can be conveyed in a short string of numbers. Eventually, it may all be compressed into a "string" as a Bitcoin. These suggestions and many more have been proposed in the past as there is nothing new under the sun including the ATS grading system for ancients. Some of the pre-1977 ideas are published in Grading Coin: A collection of Readings. Since then proposals have been published in numismatic magazines and newspapers. Rich Snow has a more recent proposal.
What folks don't know is the way all coins were graded using the "In-Depth" grading option at the first TPGS covered EVERYTHING that went into a coin's assigned numeric grade. The ANA Grading Guide has a useful chart too although it is not followed by a large number of commercial dealers. I don't have a copy of an "In-Depth" form handy but as an example, a coin's strike was divided into strong (for the type/date), normal, weak, and flat. If numbers were assigned to all the points of grading (strike, marks, luster, eye appeal, and amount of wear, then you would end up with a simple string of numbers, letters, or both starting with a grade: 55503480B. Let the dealers price it.
The A coin, high end, PQ conflation is JAs, not mine. See stuart's post fron the CAC website and go listen to the podcast at 3:20. Call then whatever you want, the point stands. Smoke free.
JA also conflates "+ coin". So, if you really want to blow a gasket, make it A coin/high end/PQ/ plus coin.
You win again.
My definition of a loser. Anyone who imagines a dialogue in which your primary goal is some formulation of the truth. Accordingly, in this thread, me.
I'm scratching my idea for that thread. I'm going to credit my audience, whatever that is, to have enough intelligence to see through you. My pity is edged with contempt, but I listen to you and it saddens me that someone with your intellectual capacity is so socially blind.
You came after me including today's diatribe. You might reflect on your own social blindness. You have picked more nits than I in this thread including the A coin conflation which was mostly my attempt to try and avoid getting any more nits picked by using all variants.
Whatever my sin in misattributing the original JA quote has been buried by your avalanche of verbiage. And i'm not sure to what end? It makes both of us look the fool. Your gentle readers can decide which ofus is the bigger fool. Undoubtedly me, since i'm not one of the cool kids.
You might also consider as we both pause for self reflection that my social clumsiness may be organic and not intentional misbehavior. We're both old dogs with few new tricks.
@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.
I agree but you need a 58. When used "correctly" back when...it was a coin that looked to be a Choice Unc-65 but had a loss of luster on its high points. A typical example was a $20 Saint in a FTC trial. Professionals graded the same coin 58 and 65! For decades, that amount of luster loss has been ignored and these coins are commonly found graded all the way up to 64. That's because they are valued in those ranges.
@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.
Nothing wrong with this. A true "liner" is a coin that a knowledgeable professional calls "X" one day and "Y" on another. Both grades are correct at the time! Remember an "A" is the top. A "B" is solid and virtually unchanging. The best "C's" may one day become a "B" and there will be times that a low "B" while solid for its grade will be rejected for some reason even if it "stickered" once before.
Grading is very subjective when there are lots of "pigeon holes" to choose. I've been QC'ing a slabbed coin before and thought "No Way!" Guess who was the first "blind" monkey to grade that box?
@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?
To my mind, the only differences (besides price) between a 64 and 65 is either a weakly struck 65 = 64 but this distinction is in the process of being eroded (because that's the way they come) OR the number, severity, and location of marks. Additionally, a gem or better coin (65...) will usually be knocked down to 64 because of obvious hairlines on the obverse design. So, I'm OK with keeping MS-64. Dumping everything between 60 and 63 into 60+ makes more sense to me.
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?
To my mind, the only differences (besides price) between a 64 and 65 is either a weakly struck 65 = 64 but this distinction is in the process of being eroded (because that's the way they come) OR the number, severity, and location of marks. Additionally, a gem or better coin (65...) will usually be knocked down to 64 because of obvious hairlines on the obverse design. So, I'm OK with keeping MS-64. Dumping everything between 60 and 63 into 60+ makes more sense to me.
I don't care that much. JA I believe referred back to when there were only 3 UNC grades. Not sure if that was his idea here or not. He mentioned the 10 point scale used for other collectibles. On a 10 grade scale, I don't think you'd have room for more than 3 UNC grades. Maybe something like:
Of course, a 10 point scale would end up as a 20 point scale once people put the halves in between, so maybe we might as well keep what we have. Although we currently have (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 53, 55, 58, 60 to 70) 30 grades with + or stars making it more like 50 to 60 grades, so even 20 would be simpler.
@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 TrulyBorderline 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.
O M G! Previously, you asked me to provide an example of utter nonsense and an extreme case of posting misinformation. Well here is one: THE COINS WOULD LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME.
Note to anyone reading this thread who didn't learn this as a YN: AU-58 coins DO NOT look like AU-55 coins. They are not even close in appearance or description in universally published definitions!
I think if you were to describe the characteristics of an AU-55 and an AU-58 in your next post, it would allow everyone who disagrees with you to help. In fact, nevermind. I'm going to start a new discussion.
@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 TrulyBorderline 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.
O M G! Previously, you asked me to provide an example of utter nonsense and an extreme case of posting misinformation. Well here is one: THE COINS WOULD LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME.
Note to anyone reading this thread who didn't learn this as a YN: AU-58 coins DO NOT look like AU-55 coins. They are not even close in appearance or description in universally published definitions!
I think if you were to describe the characteristics of an AU-55 and an AU-58 in your next post, it would allow everyone who disagrees with you to help. In fact, nevermind. I'm going to start a new discussion.
I must apologize. Clearly my verbiage is not clear. I was not trying to say that a CURRENT 55 looks like a CURRENT 58. I'm saying if you struck out the middle AU grades so it was just say 50 and 55, the CURRENT 58 coin (call it Fred) would look exactly the same when Fred has a 55 on his jersey. Cuz it is still Fred.
Inevitably, if you are going to have fewer grades you are going to have to lump some coins together. So why not comine 50/53 and 55/58 and only have 2 AU grades?
I would like to issue a blanket call for everyone to either put me on ignore or get ready for 1000 word posts. Clearly, I need to use more words of explanation to avoid confusion in meaning.
@jmlanzaf said: "I must apologize. Clearly my verbiage is not clear. I was not trying to say that a CURRENT 55 looks like a CURRENT 58. I'm saying if you struck out the middle AU grades so it was just say 50 and 55, the CURRENT 58 coin (call it Fred) would look exactly the same when Fred has a 55 on his jersey. Cuz it is still Fred.
Inevitably, if you are going to have fewer grades you are going to have to lump some coins together. So why not comine 50/53 and 55/58 and only have 2 AU grades?
NO APOLOGY NEEDED but accepted. Words mean something to me. I often type crap before I think. THEN I GO BACK AND MAKE CORRECTIONS using (EDIT) in my crappy post.
As to this: "So why not comine 50/53 and 55/58 and only have 2 AU grades?" IMO, it is a very silly and UNWORKABLE suggestion. In my experience, I cannot ever recall anyone who had difficulty determining those three AU grades.
Most of the controversy with grading takes place at the 58 on up levels where much of the value is often centered. Eliminating many of the intermediate grades of circulated coins may be more helpful.
Comments
So, since you were wrong on your challenge of my summary of JA [Go to about 3:20 and hear him say "A which is very very high end or PQ"], are you retracting your "please shut up"?
Apparently a growing number of people are recognizing the hostility with which you treat so many. "Snide" covers it well.
JA is "silly" for not foreseeing himself priced out of his own market. How magnanimous you are in your condescension!
I haven't gone back to see if you deleted your "glib". I deleted "despicable" on good faith. But your gormlessness is quintessentially pathetic.
You are so bad at this that I won't even call @Laurie by her current Forum name to invoke a comparison. She deserves the weekend off. Shall I point out that you, the second biggest defender of CAC here, have done more than anyone else on this thread to disrupt it via interjections about minutiae which do little to inform but much to document your need for attention?
Comparing our relative familiarity with JA's grading, I'll leave the rest of this thread to you.
I deleted glib quite a while ago. As I said, it was an unintentional word slip which comes from being very tired and typing on my phone while walking the dogs.
And, yes, in my ever humble opinion JA should have foreseen CAC prices increasing. Think about it, Faux Colonel G:
You start a sticker service to identify "PQ" coins or "high end for the grade" or whatever you want to call them. You do it in large measure because you think "C coins" are hurting the market.
One of two things will happen:
So, either CAC fails as an endeavor and he can keep buying coins at auction using his very skilled eyes or CAC succeeds as an endeavor because everyone is seeing through his eyes and auction prices reflect his judgment.
yawn...deleted
To be sure. It has created artificial "sticker rarity" by decreasing the available supply of CAC coins for the PCGS/CAC only crowd.
Perhaps it is because many things you post are, shall we say, uninformed? That's the only time I go after you. I usually give you an "agree" or a "like" when warranted.
This was a good podcast. I made some notes and will check out this discussion tomorrow.
PS if it ever came down to a vote about who should put away the keyboard...LOL.
Could you provide an example? Since you insist that disagrees require specifics.
I made 3 comments on this thread in explication of the JA podcast:
I may have parsed too fine a point in #3, but I'm in complete agreement with JA on points 1 and 2.
Thank you @Stuart. An excellent listen. Your briefest editorial comments made it clear how much was to be learned by both the careful and the casual listener.
I'll tell you what. If you insist, I'll go through my comments to discussions and find a few replies to your misinformation. It would have been much easier if we still had the disagree button.
You know what. I just changed my mind. I should be much easier for you to look back through your comments and find the times I called you out.
PS There will be more in the future and I'll be sure to make them bold and easy to see.
I should also add that I don't consider you to be "going after me". We've had a few discussions, but while you can be a bit arrogant, I don't find you demeaning or insulting - usually. I also tend to agree with you far more than disagree so if I'm "uninformed", I guess you are also.
I don't pretend to be always right.
This bothers me, more than the Colonel's direct insults.
You are the one who insists on evidence, yet...
I don't think of us disagreeing that much, at least since the original 4T's blow-up last year. The fact that you do is an oddly low opinion of me.
Then again, compared to @ColonelJessup 's direct insults, I suppose your low opinion of me is tolerable.
I have not read the entire thread. I don't know what you or anyone said. You asked a question that was easy to answer. You are playing in the major league with all-stars. You are not on their level in any respect. You and I belong in the minors yet even I jump on your PAST (not in this thread) comments when I disagree. That's why I wrote that I took notes of the JA interview and I will see if there is anything I can add tomorrow.
I just answered your question: Perhaps it is because many things you post are, shall we say, uninformed? That's the only time I go after you. I usually give you an "agree" or a "like" when warranted. Clear???
This bothers me, more than the Colonel's direct insults.
You are the one who insists on evidence, yet...
I don't think of us disagreeing that much, at least since the original 4T's blow-up last year. The fact that you do is an oddly low opinion of me.
Then again, compared to @ColonelJessup 's direct insults, I suppose your low opinion of me is
Disagree lol
You might want to check your scorecard.
The majority of my comments are on ebay threads (20 years and 70,000 transactions), CAC threads, and modern mint products. I'll throw my credentials in with anyone in those arenas.
I will do some GTG and is it real threads, but I usually defer to the experts there.
@jmlanzaf posted: "The majority of my comments are on ebay threads (20 years and 70,000 transactions), CAC threads, and modern mint products. I'll throw my credentials in with anyone in those arenas."
LOL, I don't dislike ANYONE on CU. In fact, I just gave you a "like" for an informative post in another thread.
But I see now that I did have you "pegged" correctly...a BIG fish in a pond. 
I always stay neutral or far away from the CAC threads here
I immensely enjoyed that interview.
I liked his take in certain instances on a coins value with little regard to the grade.
I liked the fact that he does buy coins that wont sticker in certain situations.
I was thrilled to hear him talk about how he understands that many collectors have become disenfranchised due to how complex things have become.
I could have used less of the interviewers opinions.
Thanks for posting the interview.
I wouldn't have heard it otherwise.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
One of the more interesting & enlightening aspects (for me) listening to the John Albanese Podcast Interview that enters into their Stickering decision, is that CAC considers the Commercial Market Value that in their expert opinion a coin should attain in the marketplace, in combination with its Technical Merit for the Specified Grade.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
I really really try to like you. I do enjoy listening to you. But then you pick a squabble like this, for what reason? The disagreement here wasn't between you and me. As you just pointed out, we were just having a friendly agreement on the Civil War tag thread. Then you come over here and don't make any points about the topic under discussion but just insert a general insult in my direction. It was gratuitous, to say the least.
And, to flog a dead horse, he oddly claims he didn't expect CAC auction prices to rise...???? I don't think he meant to say that. In the same section he claims in the 1st 5 years of CAC he could continue to buy coins at auctions and mentions that, during that period, the market was uncertain about the value of CAC.
In the end, it sounds like the whole point of CAC was to fix the Market more than coin grading. He thinks the C coins were dragging down Mr. Market and so he moved to discriminate the A/B from the C.
It does seem like he's suggesting the best way to view CAC is as a Market Opinion.
[All thoughts expressed here represent my own opinions and are not meant to supercede or contradict the opinions expressed by others.]
At the risk of inflaming...I would also offer the following humble question: Is it a good idea to include Market Value in the sticker?
The Market changes over time. [We can argue separately whether technical grading does.] If part of the CAC sticker is Market perception, what happens if that changes?
For example, toners are all the rage now. 20 years ago, most people preferred blast white. If JA includes "original skin" as part of the CAC certification and the Market 20 years from now prefers blast white...???
[All opinions expressed here are humbly mine and are not meant to contradict or supersede those of any other poster.]
As for your third comment, JA states that he used the stickers originally to help him buy coins he liked. I don't think he "intended" to change their value. Why would he intentionally create a higher price for himself? I think that is why he didn't foresee the degree that prices would rise on CAC coins.
I don't know. I don't really want to argue with you. This whole thread got derailed, partly my fault. My "short answers" clearly trigger some people. But, really, who wants to listen to my "long answer".
If you listen to the entirety of that section, he seems to imply that it was expected. He talks about being able to buy a lot of coins in the 1st 5 years. He then mentions that during those 5 years the market had mixed feelings about CAC. That seems to imply some causal relationship between the market uncertainty and the lack of a price change. He goes on to talk about not being able to buy coins now and market acceptance of CAC, again at least implying a causal relationship.
I also go back to the other 1000 words I've written on it here. It makes no sense to sticker coins and include marketability as part of the stickering (see Stuart's comment) and then to think there is no market implication to the stickering.
JA has said elsewhere that he thinks the CAC premium has gotten excessive. Maybe he was referring to the degree of the market move more than the actual market move itself when he says "unforeseen".
Logic alone dictates that if you are respected and if you sticker "A/high end/PQ coins" so they are recognized that those "A/high end/PQ coins" are going to sell for a premium. So, I still tend to think that the price increase itself was foreseen by JA, he's a smart man, but the degree of the move surprised him.
I also no longer really care. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want. In the end, the CAC price is the CAC price. JA isn't King, the Market is. Although if my interpretation is correct and JA really is smarter than the rest of us, it may mean CAC is due for a market reset to the downside.
If instead of looking at CAC coins trading at a premium and instead see non-stickered coins trading at a discount, then you could just as easily argue that the discount needs to “reset” to something less severe. That Could easily happen if the market gets a big influx of unsophisticated investor money. Otherwise, not very likely.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
True. Though it's really equivalent, in some sense, that may be the better way to look at it. JA wasn't really trying to get a premium. He was just trying to prevent the A coins from getting the C coin "discount".
Edited to add:
You know, I wonder if that is why JA was surprised. Maybe he really thought CAC coins would trade at roughly the same price as before and the C coins would just drop off.
Someone should ask him.
Honestly one of the best things about the OP was having JA talk about CAC himself. We hear so much about CAC but not so much directly from JA.
Could be as simple as "I should have foreseen it, but didnt." or " I didnt know that CAC would grow to such a force"- it might have remained a small fish in a big pond, and be ignored by most of the market.
Hindsight is always 20/20
After a million CAC and PCGS grading anomaly/gradeflation threads I have come to this conclusion:
Grading (as currently practiced) has little to do with technical grades. Its all about coin dealers pricing coins. Some things to think about: A price guide by grade - makes sense in a market grade world, not in a technical grade one. Popularity of toned coins go up, grades of toned coins go up.
If you read the million threads on these topics, you will note that a large percentage of the replies are driven by the writers conflicts between whats observed in the marke, and what the write beleives the right "technical" answer should be.
Just IMHO
The biggest thing I picked up was the spread discussion. If something is rare in CAC because it only has a $20 spread...it will appear rarer in CAC than it really is. That would not be the case with 19th century gold...lol.
I think there's some truth in this. As I always say, the Market is King, don't argue with the Market.
I will say that 20 years ago I remarked to a dealer friend that all the 68 Mercs I saw tended to be toned. Now, at the time, white was King. It seemed to me that the toning was masking defects and not getting a market boost. But, who knows, maybe that was a more innocent time in the grading biz.
To the extent that "eye appeal" is part of grading, there is a "market" component. Admittedly, eye appeal is not exactly the same as market, but it is the one admitted piece of both market price and grading that is in common.
I do hate to think that the slab grade is TOO commercially driven. That leaves open the possibility of all kinds of subjectivity. But, that's just my wishful naivete at work.
When warranted, I always try to be an equal opportunity poster. Fortunately, CU is NOT a popularity contest. IMO, it is a source of usually excellent information. One of THE go-to place on the internet.
Disagree on 2 out of 4 points.
@jmlanzaf said:
He specifically addressed 53's.
CAC policy is that there is no upgrade from 53 to 55. The coin must 58 for gold, same as a 55. I'll remind myself to ask him about policy for gold on 50 to 53 and/or 55. Not a set of levels I've considered much for a while.
If JA were posed with the question "How do you defend the 58 grade?" the response might include "too many people have been overcharged for really nice coins that aren't unc." or "if you want AU, I can work with 50 and 58 and you can kiss my bean on the difference. ".
He has never questioned the utility of this grade, nor identified any disutility in its application. He was very clear on 60+ vs 61/62 and how that ship has sailed.
You've shot yourself in the foot with your double negative. You sticker coins because their value does change. You sticker coins so that their value changes within a pricing architecture based on an unchanging stickered grade.
There is surely more than one CAC price level. I can identify three.
A/high end/PQ coins is an unhappy conflation which grossly contorts the logic of the CAC stickering/pricing algorithm.
You have blown so much smoke up so many peoples' asses over self-created conundrums that I'm going to start a thread with the above title immediately. Or at least by dinner time.
Consider it an open invitation/challenge to come in and rip my theses apart.
Friends too. @MrEureka can sometimes do it in 25 words or less.
To the degree that there's math, statistics and logic involved, I love getting tuned up. That's why I play so much duplicate bridge. I'm playing against and getting my ass kicked less worse by increasingly better players, seeing a few more minor glitches in my reasoning, trusting a few more twitches from my intuition.
The A coin, high end, PQ conflation is JAs, not mine. See stuart's post fron the CAC website and go listen to the podcast at 3:20. Call then whatever you want, the point stands. Smoke free.
JA also conflates "+ coin". So, if you really want to blow a gasket, make it A coin/high end/PQ/ plus coin.
Very good podcast. I think the biggest single comment is about the future of grading. The future is with less grades, and more verbal grades, as opposed to the advancement of more numbers and "+". I started using Typical, Average, Choice, Gem Superb a few years ago for my PDS grading system and last year changed my pricing guide eliminating numerical grading altogether. 50 years from now, we will all be saying something like this: "This is a Choice Unc coin, it was graded MS65 over 60 years ago." The "Choice" grade will carry more weight than the grade on the holder.
I liked his opinions and how explained his opinions on the grades of 25, 53, 61 & 62.
It made perfect sense to me.
I think his intentions, model and rationale are very simple. Especially when you hear him explain them.
Beyond that, it seems some people look for hidden messages or try to read between the lines and thereby chase their own tails down rabbit holes and make things more complicated than they need to be.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
Clapton was once god for guitarists. What is JA?
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I Still need to read this thread. For now, I'll agree with JA that many times, less is more! More, in this case, means easier to make a determination for everyone and more precision!
At the first TPGS (INSAB) in DC, there was only Uncirculated (MS-60) and Choice Uncirculated (MS-65). That was the state of the grading system back then. No other MS grades were in use except for adding a "+" to the coins that almost made the next grade. There were no 70's.
Examine a coin. any slight friction = AU. Full Mint State with virtually no detracting marks = Choice Unc. The only thing added to the grades were qualifiers (weak strike, +, etc). We were able to grade a coin exactly the same even if a year passed. I would be surprised if any knowledgeable poster here could not grade a coin either Unc or Choice Unc after seeing just a few examples.
Gradually, mid-grades of MS were added until over time all the #'s from 60 to 70 came into use.
I learned a lot from the podcast and a lot from the comments here...thanks!!!
Personally I pretty much ignore technical grades already. I usually buy either XF or lower AU coins because they are less likely to have been messed with. To me eye appeal and originality are the most important factors.
I think there's some merit to the system ATS uses for ancients, maybe adapted to moderns. They use the simplified ancient letter system G, VG, F, VF, XF, AU, MS - no other breakdown. They also then add 2 numbers 0 to 5 for strike and 0 to 5 for surface.
Now "surface" for more modern coins isn't really an issue like it is with curated ancients. But you could use 0 to 5 for strike and 0 to 5 for "surface preservation" (marks) and maybe 0 to 5 for originality (color?). That would give you a far more descriptive grade for all coins, but would also minimize the need to differentiate a VF 20 from a VF 25. A coin would be something like VF (5, 4, 2) meaning VF on wear, 5 for strike, 4 for surface preservation and 2 for "originality" (old dip or something).
In lower grades, maybe you leave the strike grade blank. IDK. I haven't put out my shingle yet, so the system is still under development. Maybe "eye appeal" instead of originality? In addition?
[You may simply disagree without explanation. I know how busy you are.]
You are absolutely correct. You win.
You win again.
My definition of a loser. Anyone who imagines a dialogue in which your primary goal is some formulation of the truth. Accordingly, in this thread, me.
I'm scratching my idea for that thread. I'm going to credit my audience, whatever that is, to have enough intelligence to see through you. My pity is edged with contempt, but I listen to you and it saddens me that someone with your intellectual capacity is so socially blind.
LOL, giving you a deserved "LIKE" saves lots of time.
Actually, I like the amount of information that can be conveyed in a short string of numbers. Eventually, it may all be compressed into a "string" as a Bitcoin. These suggestions and many more have been proposed in the past as there is nothing new under the sun including the ATS grading system for ancients. Some of the pre-1977 ideas are published in Grading Coin: A collection of Readings. Since then proposals have been published in numismatic magazines and newspapers. Rich Snow has a more recent proposal.
What folks don't know is the way all coins were graded using the "In-Depth" grading option at the first TPGS covered EVERYTHING that went into a coin's assigned numeric grade. The ANA Grading Guide has a useful chart too although it is not followed by a large number of commercial dealers. I don't have a copy of an "In-Depth" form handy but as an example, a coin's strike was divided into strong (for the type/date), normal, weak, and flat. If numbers were assigned to all the points of grading (strike, marks, luster, eye appeal, and amount of wear, then you would end up with a simple string of numbers, letters, or both starting with a grade: 55503480B. Let the dealers price it.
You came after me including today's diatribe. You might reflect on your own social blindness. You have picked more nits than I in this thread including the A coin conflation which was mostly my attempt to try and avoid getting any more nits picked by using all variants.
Whatever my sin in misattributing the original JA quote has been buried by your avalanche of verbiage. And i'm not sure to what end? It makes both of us look the fool. Your gentle readers can decide which ofus is the bigger fool. Undoubtedly me, since i'm not one of the cool kids.
You might also consider as we both pause for self reflection that my social clumsiness may be organic and not intentional misbehavior. We're both old dogs with few new tricks.
I agree but you need a 58. When used "correctly" back when...it was a coin that looked to be a Choice Unc-65 but had a loss of luster on its high points. A typical example was a $20 Saint in a FTC trial. Professionals graded the same coin 58 and 65! For decades, that amount of luster loss has been ignored and these coins are commonly found graded all the way up to 64. That's because they are valued in those ranges.
Nothing wrong with this. A true "liner" is a coin that a knowledgeable professional calls "X" one day and "Y" on another. Both grades are correct at the time! Remember an "A" is the top. A "B" is solid and virtually unchanging. The best "C's" may one day become a "B" and there will be times that a low "B" while solid for its grade will be rejected for some reason even if it "stickered" once before.
Grading is very subjective when there are lots of "pigeon holes" to choose. I've been QC'ing a slabbed coin before and thought "No Way!" Guess who was the first "blind" monkey to grade that box?
To my mind, the only differences (besides price) between a 64 and 65 is either a weakly struck 65 = 64 but this distinction is in the process of being eroded (because that's the way they come) OR the number, severity, and location of marks. Additionally, a gem or better coin (65...) will usually be knocked down to 64 because of obvious hairlines on the obverse design. So, I'm OK with keeping MS-64. Dumping everything between 60 and 63 into 60+ makes more sense to me.
I don't care that much. JA I believe referred back to when there were only 3 UNC grades. Not sure if that was his idea here or not. He mentioned the 10 point scale used for other collectibles. On a 10 grade scale, I don't think you'd have room for more than 3 UNC grades. Maybe something like:
1- Fair
2-Good
3-VG
4-F
5-VF
6-XF
7-AU
8-Unc (60-63ish)
9 - Gem Unc (64ish-66ish)
10 - Super Unc (67 up)
Of course, a 10 point scale would end up as a 20 point scale once people put the halves in between, so maybe we might as well keep what we have. Although we currently have (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 53, 55, 58, 60 to 70) 30 grades with + or stars making it more like 50 to 60 grades, so even 20 would be simpler.
O M G! Previously, you asked me to provide an example of utter nonsense and an extreme case of posting misinformation. Well here is one: THE COINS WOULD LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME.
Note to anyone reading this thread who didn't learn this as a YN: AU-58 coins DO NOT look like AU-55 coins. They are not even close in appearance or description in universally published definitions!
I think if you were to describe the characteristics of an AU-55 and an AU-58 in your next post, it would allow everyone who disagrees with you to help. In fact, nevermind. I'm going to start a new discussion.
I must apologize. Clearly my verbiage is not clear. I was not trying to say that a CURRENT 55 looks like a CURRENT 58. I'm saying if you struck out the middle AU grades so it was just say 50 and 55, the CURRENT 58 coin (call it Fred) would look exactly the same when Fred has a 55 on his jersey. Cuz it is still Fred.
Inevitably, if you are going to have fewer grades you are going to have to lump some coins together. So why not comine 50/53 and 55/58 and only have 2 AU grades?
I would like to issue a blanket call for everyone to either put me on ignore or get ready for 1000 word posts. Clearly, I need to use more words of explanation to avoid confusion in meaning.
@jmlanzaf said: "I must apologize. Clearly my verbiage is not clear. I was not trying to say that a CURRENT 55 looks like a CURRENT 58. I'm saying if you struck out the middle AU grades so it was just say 50 and 55, the CURRENT 58 coin (call it Fred) would look exactly the same when Fred has a 55 on his jersey. Cuz it is still Fred.
NO APOLOGY NEEDED but accepted. Words mean something to me. I often type crap before I think.
THEN I GO BACK AND MAKE CORRECTIONS using (EDIT) in my crappy post.
As to this: "So why not comine 50/53 and 55/58 and only have 2 AU grades?" IMO, it is a very silly and UNWORKABLE suggestion. In my experience, I cannot ever recall anyone who had difficulty determining those three AU grades.
Most of the controversy with grading takes place at the 58 on up levels where much of the value is often centered. Eliminating many of the intermediate grades of circulated coins may be more helpful.