@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
Are you sure he hasn't just revealed the fallacy that underlies his opinion?
1879 Morgan MS-66 $1,750, MS-67 $45K
Shall I continue?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Yes, of course, but that’s not due to “one individual’s opinion on a grade”. It’s due to multiple opinions from graders, as well as what buyers determine they’re willing to pay. It sounds like I paid more attention to what you wrote than you did.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Yes, of course, but that’s not due to “one individual’s opinion on a grade”. It’s due to multiple opinions from graders, as well as what buyers determine they’re willing to pay. It sounds like I paid more attention to what you wrote than you did.😉
And how many graders review the coins at NGC and PGCS? I think it's four. JA's opinion trumps them all virtually 100% of the time.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Yes, of course, but that’s not due to “one individual’s opinion on a grade”. It’s due to multiple opinions from graders, as well as what buyers determine they’re willing to pay. It sounds like I paid more attention to what you wrote than you did.😉
Someone at one of the tpg services had the final say. Based on that person's opinion someone paid a 5x or higher premium. The buyer ultimately made the decision but would they have made the same decision had the coin been raw? My guess is 99 times out of 100 the answer would be no.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@BillJones said:
No takers on the grade quiz with the Monroe commemorative half dollars?
MS64?
Which one?
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Yes, of course, but that’s not due to “one individual’s opinion on a grade”. It’s due to multiple opinions from graders, as well as what buyers determine they’re willing to pay. It sounds like I paid more attention to what you wrote than you did.😉
And how many graders review the coins at NGC and PGCS? I think it's four. JA's opinion trumps them all virtually 100% of the time.
The conversation to which you just replied was about coins selling for 5x plus premiums. They don’t do that due to CAC stickers (or in your words “JA’s opinion”). Whatever tiny percentage of CAC coins do command such premiums do so because of other factors, such as a belief that the coin is under-graded or exhibits phenomenal color. You give CAC far too much credit and blame.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This sums up why I can't purchase expensive U.S. coins any more. You either kowtow to CAC, or you risk rejection from a significant number of coin buyers. That is just plain wrong.
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Yes, of course, but that’s not due to “one individual’s opinion on a grade”. It’s due to multiple opinions from graders, as well as what buyers determine they’re willing to pay. It sounds like I paid more attention to what you wrote than you did.😉
Someone at one of the tpg services had the final say. Based on that person's opinion someone paid a 5x or higher premium. The buyer ultimately made the decision but would they have made the same decision had the coin been raw? My guess is 99 times out of 100 the answer would be no.
If the combination of a consensus grade given by a grading company and buyers/bidders determining what they’re wiling to pay for a coin, constitutes your definition of “.. paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.”, we see things very differently.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Not based on CAC. Grading, including CAC is NEVER one person's opinion.
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
Are you sure he hasn't just revealed the fallacy that underlies his opinion?
1907 Saint, MS-66 $7,750, MS-67 $55K
That is not based on one person's opinion. That is the fallacy to which I'm referring.
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Yes, of course, but that’s not due to “one individual’s opinion on a grade”. It’s due to multiple opinions from graders, as well as what buyers determine they’re willing to pay. It sounds like I paid more attention to what you wrote than you did.😉
And how many graders review the coins at NGC and PGCS? I think it's four. JA's opinion trumps them all virtually 100% of the time.
He's the finalizer but not the sole opinion.
And the examples given all had nothing to do with CAC. Find me a green CAC coin that is 5x the identical coin with no CAC.
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Not based on CAC. Grading, including CAC is NEVER one person's opinion.
So you're essentially saying that JA has never been the sole person involved in the decision to bean a coin or not? I'll take that bet!
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Yes, of course, but that’s not due to “one individual’s opinion on a grade”. It’s due to multiple opinions from graders, as well as what buyers determine they’re willing to pay. It sounds like I paid more attention to what you wrote than you did.😉
Someone at one of the tpg services had the final say. Based on that person's opinion someone paid a 5x or higher premium. The buyer ultimately made the decision but would they have made the same decision had the coin been raw? My guess is 99 times out of 100 the answer would be no.
Not how it works. It's a consensus opinion. Again, you are now defending your fallacy with another fallacy.
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Not based on CAC. Grading, including CAC is NEVER one person's opinion.
So you're essentially saying that JA has never been the sole person involved in the decision to bean a coin or not? I'll take that bet!
He may or may not. I'm not aware of any example where he overruled a unanimous no vote of the evaluators.
If he ever overruled a unanimous vote, I bet he changed a yes to a no, not the other way around
I'm also not aware of any coin where a green CAC raises the price by a factor of 5.
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
Are you sure he hasn't just revealed the fallacy that underlies his opinion?
1907 Saint, MS-66 $7,750, MS-67 $55K
That is not based on one person's opinion. That is the fallacy to which I'm referring.
Is it best two out of three? And if AJ doesn't agree it that gets tossed? Or if it gets cracked, resubmitted and comes back with a different grade do we add them all together? None of that changes the fundamental point. Grading isn't rocket science.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
Are you sure he hasn't just revealed the fallacy that underlies his opinion?
1907 Saint, MS-66 $7,750, MS-67 $55K
That is not based on one person's opinion. That is the fallacy to which I'm referring.
Is it best two out of three? And if AJ doesn't agree it that gets tossed? Or if it gets cracked, resubmitted and comes back with a different grade do we add them all together? None of that changes the fundamental point. Grading isn't rocket science.
JA makes the final call based on the 3 opinions he's given and his evaluation.
Cracking is irrelevant. That would be 4 new opinions based on a different grade.
None of that results in one person raising the value. PCGS is a consensus as is CAC. It is a respected opinion and so it affects value.
Is it best two out of three? And if AJ doesn't agree it that gets tossed? Or if it gets cracked, resubmitted and comes back with a different grade do we add them all together? None of that changes the fundamental point. Grading isn't rocket science.
Agreed it is much more than rocket science in its own way and takes a different set of skillsets that are still developing 50 years later as one sees more coins.......... So your analogy with 'rocket science' is not appropriate - apples and oranges, etc.
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Yes, of course, but that’s not due to “one individual’s opinion on a grade”. It’s due to multiple opinions from graders, as well as what buyers determine they’re willing to pay. It sounds like I paid more attention to what you wrote than you did.😉
Someone at one of the tpg services had the final say. Based on that person's opinion someone paid a 5x or higher premium. The buyer ultimately made the decision but would they have made the same decision had the coin been raw? My guess is 99 times out of 100 the answer would be no.
If the combination of a consensus grade given by a grading company and buyers/bidders determining what they’re wiling to pay for a coin, constitutes your definition of “.. paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.”, we see things very differently.
As far as the grading at the company, how are disputes resolved? Is it best two out of three? If I've trained ten people to see and think alike am I getting ten independent views or one view trained into the thinking of ten people? As for the buyer back to the question, are they paying that 5x premium for a raw coin?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Is it best two out of three? And if AJ doesn't agree it that gets tossed? Or if it gets cracked, resubmitted and comes back with a different grade do we add them all together? None of that changes the fundamental point. Grading isn't rocket science.
Agreed it is much more than rocket science in its own way and takes a different set of skillsets that are still developing 50 years later as one sees more coins.......... So your analogy with 'rocket science' is not appropriate - apples and oranges, etc.
Exactly. Which is why the reputation of the evaluators is so important. I can grade. I may agree with JA 90% of the time. But no one is going to care, nor should they.
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individual's opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individual's opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
"...one 'individual's' opinion on a grade.” might be a slight exaggeration. I think the poster meant to say "TPG's. "
"5X and higher", not so. Compare the PCGS price guide values for some Barber Dimes in MS 67 vs. MS 66. Just looking at the PCGS expected cost of a complete DATE set in MS64, MS65, MS66 & 67 - 8,935 * 15,050 * 31,200 * 132,000. It really makes the average collector ask "What is the real value of that extra point to me?"
Is it best two out of three? And if AJ doesn't agree it that gets tossed? Or if it gets cracked, resubmitted and comes back with a different grade do we add them all together? None of that changes the fundamental point. Grading isn't rocket science.
Agreed it is much more than rocket science in its own way and takes a different set of skillsets that are still developing 50 years later as one sees more coins.......... So your analogy with 'rocket science' is not appropriate - apples and oranges, etc.
I'd argue they have degraded over the years. Look at the ANA grading standards from 20 years ago and compare them to the current PCGS standards. Which group of standards provide more detail in the description of what constitutes a grade?
And it's not apples and oranges. You make grading some nebulous, ethereal subject but it's not. The term "eye appeal" sounds nebulous but it really comes down to factors that are not that subjective. Judgements regarding strike, luster, size and placement of marks, even the color, depth and uniformity of toning are all easy to differentiate after viewing 100 coins with varying levels of surface preservation and feedback.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Yes, of course, but that’s not due to “one individual’s opinion on a grade”. It’s due to multiple opinions from graders, as well as what buyers determine they’re willing to pay. It sounds like I paid more attention to what you wrote than you did.😉
Someone at one of the tpg services had the final say. Based on that person's opinion someone paid a 5x or higher premium. The buyer ultimately made the decision but would they have made the same decision had the coin been raw? My guess is 99 times out of 100 the answer would be no.
If the combination of a consensus grade given by a grading company and buyers/bidders determining what they’re wiling to pay for a coin, constitutes your definition of “.. paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.”, we see things very differently.
As far as the grading at the company, how are disputes resolved? Is it best two out of three? If I've trained ten people to see and think alike am I getting ten independent views or one view trained into the thinking of ten people? As for the buyer back to the question, are they paying that 5x premium for a raw coin?
I don’t feel like continuing on this merry-go-round. So I’ll just hop off and state that I don’t think there’s any basis, whatsoever, for your comment that any coins bring “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
Are you sure he hasn't just revealed the fallacy that underlies his opinion?
1907 Saint, MS-66 $7,750, MS-67 $55K
That is not based on one person's opinion. That is the fallacy to which I'm referring.
Is it best two out of three? And if AJ doesn't agree it that gets tossed? Or if it gets cracked, resubmitted and comes back with a different grade do we add them all together? None of that changes the fundamental point. Grading isn't rocket science.
JA makes the final call based on the 3 opinions he's given and his evaluation.
Cracking is irrelevant. That would be 4 new opinions based on a different grade.
None of that results in one person raising the value. PCGS is a consensus as is CAC. It is a respected opinion and so it affects value.
Yes, JA (one person) makes the FINAL call.Cracking is at issue. People crack coins because they believe they can resubmit and opinions will change.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@BillJones said:
It was a false title. You are still a CAC fanatic, and always will be because you have lot of money tied up in it. I thought that you might add something, like a line of caution about how you still need to know how to grade even with CAC. It is possible to get buried in a CAC approved coin because of grading issues.
But that was the wrong interpretation.
By the same logic one could conclude that you are not a fan of CAC because you have buried yourself in coins which will never CAC and have a lot of money tied up in coins which have fallen out of favor as a result.
Point being, I don’t think assigning motives to other people is at all helpful on either side of your personal views. Enjoy the hobby as you see fit.
He has never revealed the CAC status of his coins including whether the coins ever made it to CAC in the first instance.
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
Are you sure he hasn't just revealed the fallacy that underlies his opinion?
1907 Saint, MS-66 $7,750, MS-67 $55K
That is not based on one person's opinion. That is the fallacy to which I'm referring.
Is it best two out of three? And if AJ doesn't agree it that gets tossed? Or if it gets cracked, resubmitted and comes back with a different grade do we add them all together? None of that changes the fundamental point. Grading isn't rocket science.
JA makes the final call based on the 3 opinions he's given and his evaluation.
Cracking is irrelevant. That would be 4 new opinions based on a different grade.
None of that results in one person raising the value. PCGS is a consensus as is CAC. It is a respected opinion and so it affects value.
Yes, JA (one person) makes the FINAL call.Cracking is at issue. People crack coins because they believe they can resubmit and opinions will change.
Final call based on the consensus of opinions. That's like saying the jury foreman is the only vote in the trial. Quit while you're behind. You're statement is without merit.
I'll join @MFeld in getting off this Merry go round
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individual's opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individual's opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
"...one 'individual's' opinion on a grade.” might be a slight exaggeration. I think the poster meant to say "TPG's. "
"5X and higher", not so. Compare the PCGS price guide values for some Barber Dimes in MS 67 vs. MS 66. Just looking at the PCGS expected cost of a complete DATE set in MS64, MS65, MS66 & 67 - 8,935 * 15,050 * 31,200 * 132,000. It really makes the average collector ask "What is the real value of that extra point to me?"
No, if you read the rest of this thread, he clearly means one person. And originally we were talking about CAC, so I've yet to see a CAC coin sell for 5x a Beanless coin.
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Not based on CAC. Grading, including CAC is NEVER one person's opinion.
So you're essentially saying that JA has never been the sole person involved in the decision to bean a coin or not? I'll take that bet!
He may or may not. I'm not aware of any example where he overruled a unanimous no vote of the evaluators.
If he ever overruled a unanimous vote, I bet he changed a yes to a no, not the other way around
I'm also not aware of any coin where a green CAC raises the price by a factor of 5.
First, I never said a CAC sticker resulted in a 5x premium. But you're missing the point, the point being a one point difference in a grade (and whether it's one individual or a consensus of three is besides the point), and that one point is based on the insignificant issues thar separate a 66 from a 67 (and you can argue there significance until you're blue in the face, they are not) its still missing the forest for the trees.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@jmlanzaf said:
And originally we were talking about CAC, so I've yet to see a CAC coin sell for 5x a Beanless coin.
And even if it did, so what? Aren't buyers allowed to decide how much to pay for a coin? There are an awful lot of people who seem to think that coins are worth what they think they are and if anybody disagrees by valuing them differently, well- they're just wrong.
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Not based on CAC. Grading, including CAC is NEVER one person's opinion.
So you're essentially saying that JA has never been the sole person involved in the decision to bean a coin or not? I'll take that bet!
He may or may not. I'm not aware of any example where he overruled a unanimous no vote of the evaluators.
If he ever overruled a unanimous vote, I bet he changed a yes to a no, not the other way around
In other words, you are speculating in the guise of making declarations. The finalizer (and owner of the enterprise) will have the last word, and I'll go double or nothing on the bet I just won that JA has beaned a coin where there was a unanimous "no" vote, since I would also bet that many, if not most, coins are only looked at by one other person (or zero, in some cases) besides JA. All you really have to know is that CAC has been asked to reconsider previously rejected coins, and has subsequently beaned them. JA has overruled himself in those cases.
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Yes, of course, but that’s not due to “one individual’s opinion on a grade”. It’s due to multiple opinions from graders, as well as what buyers determine they’re willing to pay. It sounds like I paid more attention to what you wrote than you did.😉
Someone at one of the tpg services had the final say. Based on that person's opinion someone paid a 5x or higher premium. The buyer ultimately made the decision but would they have made the same decision had the coin been raw? My guess is 99 times out of 100 the answer would be no.
If the combination of a consensus grade given by a grading company and buyers/bidders determining what they’re wiling to pay for a coin, constitutes your definition of “.. paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.”, we see things very differently.
As far as the grading at the company, how are disputes resolved? Is it best two out of three? If I've trained ten people to see and think alike am I getting ten independent views or one view trained into the thinking of ten people? As for the buyer back to the question, are they paying that 5x premium for a raw coin?
I don’t feel like continuing on this merry-go-round. So I’ll just hop off and state that I don’t think there’s any basis, whatsoever, for your comment that any coins bring “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.”
With all due respect you'd be wrong. I listed three or four examples of 5x and more premiums for coins with a one point difference in grade. Someone or a consensus of three made a decision about a coin, stuck it on a label and a buyer who would not make a decision to pay a 5x or more premium for a raw coin (you didn't counter so I assume you agree) does if you're willing to believe the PCGS price guide is anything close to reality.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Not based on CAC. Grading, including CAC is NEVER one person's opinion.
So you're essentially saying that JA has never been the sole person involved in the decision to bean a coin or not? I'll take that bet!
He may or may not. I'm not aware of any example where he overruled a unanimous no vote of the evaluators.
If he ever overruled a unanimous vote, I bet he changed a yes to a no, not the other way around
In other words, you are speculating in the guise of making declarations. The finalizer (and owner of the enterprise) will have the last word, and I'll go double or nothing on the bet I just won that JA has beaned a coin where there was a unanimous "no" vote, since I would also bet that many, if not most, coins are only looked at by one other person (or zero, in some cases) besides JA. All you really have to know is that CAC has been asked to reconsider previously rejected coins, and has subsequently beaned them. JA has overruled himself in those cases.
Case closed. I accept PayPal and gold bullion.
You are the one who made the positive declaration. I said that TPGS and CAC both represent consensus viewpoints and not one person's view. You declared that JA must have overruled a unanimous committee at some point. Show me an example and you win. Until then, we still have no evidence that it has ever happened.
@jmlanzaf said:
And originally we were talking about CAC, so I've yet to see a CAC coin sell for 5x a Beanless coin.
And even if it did, so what? Aren't buyers allowed to decide how much to pay for a coin? There are an awful lot of people who seem to think that coins are worth what they think they are and if anybody disagrees by valuing them differently, well- they're just wrong.
According to @jmlanzaf , they are not if it has a bean. In that case, they are forbidden to bury themselves by divine law.
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Not based on CAC. Grading, including CAC is NEVER one person's opinion.
So you're essentially saying that JA has never been the sole person involved in the decision to bean a coin or not? I'll take that bet!
He may or may not. I'm not aware of any example where he overruled a unanimous no vote of the evaluators.
If he ever overruled a unanimous vote, I bet he changed a yes to a no, not the other way around
I'm also not aware of any coin where a green CAC raises the price by a factor of 5.
First, I never said a CAC sticker resulted in a 5x premium. But you're missing the point, the point being a one point difference in a grade (and whether it's one individual or a consensus of three is besides the point), and that one point is based on the insignificant issues thar separate a 66 from a 67 (and you can argue there significance until you're blue in the face, they are not) its still missing the forest for the trees.
You're on a CAC thread and then you came out with the 5x on one man's opinion. Whether you meant CAC or PCGS, you are still completely incorrect.
And if you want to debate 1 point price spreads, either pull up one of the hundreds of threads on that or start your own. This is a CAC thread
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Not based on CAC. Grading, including CAC is NEVER one person's opinion.
So you're essentially saying that JA has never been the sole person involved in the decision to bean a coin or not? I'll take that bet!
He may or may not. I'm not aware of any example where he overruled a unanimous no vote of the evaluators.
If he ever overruled a unanimous vote, I bet he changed a yes to a no, not the other way around
In other words, you are speculating in the guise of making declarations. The finalizer (and owner of the enterprise) will have the last word, and I'll go double or nothing on the bet I just won that JA has beaned a coin where there was a unanimous "no" vote, since I would also bet that many, if not most, coins are only looked at by one other person (or zero, in some cases) besides JA. All you really have to know is that CAC has been asked to reconsider previously rejected coins, and has subsequently beaned them. JA has overruled himself in those cases.
Case closed. I accept PayPal and gold bullion.
You are the one who made the positive declaration. I said that TPGS and CAC both represent consensus viewpoints and not one person's view. You declared that JA must have overruled a unanimous committee at some point. Show me an example and you win. Until then, we still have no evidence that it has ever happened.
I made positive declarations that one person makes the final decision. I never said the sticker results in a 5x premium. That was your strawman argument. I gave you multiple examples where a 5x or more premium was reflected in the pricing for a one point difference in grade.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Not based on CAC. Grading, including CAC is NEVER one person's opinion.
So you're essentially saying that JA has never been the sole person involved in the decision to bean a coin or not? I'll take that bet!
He may or may not. I'm not aware of any example where he overruled a unanimous no vote of the evaluators.
If he ever overruled a unanimous vote, I bet he changed a yes to a no, not the other way around
In other words, you are speculating in the guise of making declarations. The finalizer (and owner of the enterprise) will have the last word, and I'll go double or nothing on the bet I just won that JA has beaned a coin where there was a unanimous "no" vote, since I would also bet that many, if not most, coins are only looked at by one other person (or zero, in some cases) besides JA. All you really have to know is that CAC has been asked to reconsider previously rejected coins, and has subsequently beaned them. JA has overruled himself in those cases.
Case closed. I accept PayPal and gold bullion.
You are the one who made the positive declaration. I said that TPGS and CAC both represent consensus viewpoints and not one person's view. You declared that JA must have overruled a unanimous committee at some point. Show me an example and you win. Until then, we still have no evidence that it has ever happened.
READ WHAT I WROTE. Do you deny that people have posted on THIS FORUM that they sent previously rejected coins back to CAC, and subsequently got a bean??? Some of those previously rejected coins were surely by "unanimous" decision, no? You owe me double again for making me spell it out TWICE.
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Not based on CAC. Grading, including CAC is NEVER one person's opinion.
So you're essentially saying that JA has never been the sole person involved in the decision to bean a coin or not? I'll take that bet!
He may or may not. I'm not aware of any example where he overruled a unanimous no vote of the evaluators.
If he ever overruled a unanimous vote, I bet he changed a yes to a no, not the other way around
I'm also not aware of any coin where a green CAC raises the price by a factor of 5.
First, I never said a CAC sticker resulted in a 5x premium. But you're missing the point, the point being a one point difference in a grade (and whether it's one individual or a consensus of three is besides the point), and that one point is based on the insignificant issues thar separate a 66 from a 67 (and you can argue there significance until you're blue in the face, they are not) its still missing the forest for the trees.
You're on a CAC thread and then you came out with the 5x on one man's opinion. Whether you meant CAC or PCGS, you are still completely incorrect.
And if you want to debate 1 point price spreads, either pull up one of the hundreds of threads on that or start your own. This is a CAC thread
Take the "L", buddy.
Don't start with this is a CAC thread. What I wrote about 5x premiums was specific to one point differences in grade. Don't conflate the two.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@CoinJunkie said:
According to @jmlanzaf , they are not if it has a bean. In that case, they are forbidden to bury themselves by divine law.
He said that? Can you link to it? Thanks!
I said it is hard to bury yourself in CAC because you have 2 companies standing behind it. Apparently, because I didn't say "harder" I committed a faux pas.
I forgot to acknowledge that it is possible to overpay for anything if you are stupid.
Maybe we should argue the difference between "hard" and "impossible".
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Not based on CAC. Grading, including CAC is NEVER one person's opinion.
So you're essentially saying that JA has never been the sole person involved in the decision to bean a coin or not? I'll take that bet!
He may or may not. I'm not aware of any example where he overruled a unanimous no vote of the evaluators.
If he ever overruled a unanimous vote, I bet he changed a yes to a no, not the other way around
In other words, you are speculating in the guise of making declarations. The finalizer (and owner of the enterprise) will have the last word, and I'll go double or nothing on the bet I just won that JA has beaned a coin where there was a unanimous "no" vote, since I would also bet that many, if not most, coins are only looked at by one other person (or zero, in some cases) besides JA. All you really have to know is that CAC has been asked to reconsider previously rejected coins, and has subsequently beaned them. JA has overruled himself in those cases.
Case closed. I accept PayPal and gold bullion.
You are the one who made the positive declaration. I said that TPGS and CAC both represent consensus viewpoints and not one person's view. You declared that JA must have overruled a unanimous committee at some point. Show me an example and you win. Until then, we still have no evidence that it has ever happened.
I made positive declarations that one person makes the final decision. I never said the sticker results in a 5x premium. That was your strawman argument. I gave you multiple examples where a 5x or more premium was reflected in the pricing for a one point difference in grade.
That wasn't directed at you, it was directed @coinjunkie
And when you are on a CAC thread and say "one man" everyone who isn't a total newbie assumes you are talking about JA.
@pmh1nic said:
With all due respect you'd be wrong. I listed three or four examples of 5x and more premiums for coins with a one point difference in grade.
The above (a one point difference in grade) is not the same thing as this:
@pmh1nic said:
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
CAC's opinion cannot (and does not) change the grade of the coin. If you want to prove your "5x" claim, you'd need to find a stickered MS66 that sold for 5x an unstickered 66. Are any out there? I don't know, but no examples have been provided as of yet.
@pmh1nic said:
Grading isn't rocket science. I don't think the issue is really grading but name recognition. I think just about anyone could learn to grade very accurately after getting familiar with the standards for each grade, viewing 100 examples of a particular coin in various stages of preservation and given accurate feedback. I don't think you really learn that much more after viewing the next 100 or 1000 coins but I'd be interest in hearing what others think.
Quite a few very reputable and highly qualified dealers have had coins they think would CAC but don't!
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
I don’t know of any coins that are bought for “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.” No need to exaggerate to try to make your point.
You don't know of any coins where a one point difference in grade results in a 5x premium?
Not based on CAC. Grading, including CAC is NEVER one person's opinion.
So you're essentially saying that JA has never been the sole person involved in the decision to bean a coin or not? I'll take that bet!
He may or may not. I'm not aware of any example where he overruled a unanimous no vote of the evaluators.
If he ever overruled a unanimous vote, I bet he changed a yes to a no, not the other way around
In other words, you are speculating in the guise of making declarations. The finalizer (and owner of the enterprise) will have the last word, and I'll go double or nothing on the bet I just won that JA has beaned a coin where there was a unanimous "no" vote, since I would also bet that many, if not most, coins are only looked at by one other person (or zero, in some cases) besides JA. All you really have to know is that CAC has been asked to reconsider previously rejected coins, and has subsequently beaned them. JA has overruled himself in those cases.
Case closed. I accept PayPal and gold bullion.
You are the one who made the positive declaration. I said that TPGS and CAC both represent consensus viewpoints and not one person's view. You declared that JA must have overruled a unanimous committee at some point. Show me an example and you win. Until then, we still have no evidence that it has ever happened.
READ WHAT I WROTE. Do you deny that people have posted on THIS FORUM that they sent previously rejected coins back to CAC, and subsequently got a bean??? Some of those previously rejected coins were surely by "unanimous" decision, no? You owe me double again for making me spell it out TWICE.
No, why do they have to be unanimous? I would expect that the vast majority of close calls are split votes not unanimously incorrect.
I'm rather surprised that such a stickler as yourself wants us to accept a premise with no evidence.
@pmh1nic said:
With all due respect you'd be wrong. I listed three or four examples of 5x and more premiums for coins with a one point difference in grade.
The above (a one point difference in grade) is not the same thing as this:
@pmh1nic said:
That just further demonstrates the ridiculous nature of so called grading "standards" and the insanity in paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.
CAC's opinion cannot (and does not) change the grade of the coin. If you want to prove your "5x" claim, you'd need to find a stickered MS66 that sold for 5x an unstickered 66. Are any out there? I don't know, but no examples have been provided as of yet.
Just sayin'.
I see your point and I hope I clarified my point that the 5x premium was referring to one point difference in grade not the sticker. As to whether in the minds of some the sticker constitutes a point in grade, I don't know. I've heard the sticker represents solid for the grade or top level for the grade.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Comments
1879 Morgan MS-66 $1,750, MS-67 $45K
Shall I continue?
Yes, of course, but that’s not due to “one individual’s opinion on a grade”. It’s due to multiple opinions from graders, as well as what buyers determine they’re willing to pay. It sounds like I paid more attention to what you wrote than you did.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
And how many graders review the coins at NGC and PGCS? I think it's four. JA's opinion trumps them all virtually 100% of the time.
MS64?
My YouTube Channel
Someone at one of the tpg services had the final say. Based on that person's opinion someone paid a 5x or higher premium. The buyer ultimately made the decision but would they have made the same decision had the coin been raw? My guess is 99 times out of 100 the answer would be no.
Which one?
The top one.
My YouTube Channel
And 65 on your example...
My YouTube Channel
Thanks!
I do the reveal tomorrow.
Cool coins, but I'm not that experienced on commems...
My YouTube Channel
The conversation to which you just replied was about coins selling for 5x plus premiums. They don’t do that due to CAC stickers (or in your words “JA’s opinion”). Whatever tiny percentage of CAC coins do command such premiums do so because of other factors, such as a belief that the coin is under-graded or exhibits phenomenal color. You give CAC far too much credit and blame.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
True, but then how many people like their boss?
If the combination of a consensus grade given by a grading company and buyers/bidders determining what they’re wiling to pay for a coin, constitutes your definition of “.. paying 5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.”, we see things very differently.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
And just maybe, that is you?
I am going 67 on top and 66 on bottom.
Not based on CAC. Grading, including CAC is NEVER one person's opinion.
That is not based on one person's opinion. That is the fallacy to which I'm referring.
He's the finalizer but not the sole opinion.
And the examples given all had nothing to do with CAC. Find me a green CAC coin that is 5x the identical coin with no CAC.
So you're essentially saying that JA has never been the sole person involved in the decision to bean a coin or not? I'll take that bet!
Not how it works. It's a consensus opinion. Again, you are now defending your fallacy with another fallacy.
He may or may not. I'm not aware of any example where he overruled a unanimous no vote of the evaluators.
If he ever overruled a unanimous vote, I bet he changed a yes to a no, not the other way around
I'm also not aware of any coin where a green CAC raises the price by a factor of 5.
NGC and PCGS grade coins into discrete numerical buckets that include:
1) lower 1/3 for the grade
2) middle 1/3 for the grade
3) top 1/3 for the grade
JA identifies what he considers the middle and top thirds. Please explain how his review trumps that of NGC/PCGS. Thanks.
Is it best two out of three? And if AJ doesn't agree it that gets tossed? Or if it gets cracked, resubmitted and comes back with a different grade do we add them all together? None of that changes the fundamental point. Grading isn't rocket science.
JA makes the final call based on the 3 opinions he's given and his evaluation.
Cracking is irrelevant. That would be 4 new opinions based on a different grade.
None of that results in one person raising the value. PCGS is a consensus as is CAC. It is a respected opinion and so it affects value.
Agreed it is much more than rocket science in its own way and takes a different set of skillsets that are still developing 50 years later as one sees more coins.......... So your analogy with 'rocket science' is not appropriate - apples and oranges, etc.
As far as the grading at the company, how are disputes resolved? Is it best two out of three? If I've trained ten people to see and think alike am I getting ten independent views or one view trained into the thinking of ten people? As for the buyer back to the question, are they paying that 5x premium for a raw coin?
Exactly. Which is why the reputation of the evaluators is so important. I can grade. I may agree with JA 90% of the time. But no one is going to care, nor should they.
"...one 'individual's' opinion on a grade.” might be a slight exaggeration. I think the poster meant to say "TPG's. "
"5X and higher", not so. Compare the PCGS price guide values for some Barber Dimes in MS 67 vs. MS 66. Just looking at the PCGS expected cost of a complete DATE set in MS64, MS65, MS66 & 67 - 8,935 * 15,050 * 31,200 * 132,000. It really makes the average collector ask "What is the real value of that extra point to me?"
I'd argue they have degraded over the years. Look at the ANA grading standards from 20 years ago and compare them to the current PCGS standards. Which group of standards provide more detail in the description of what constitutes a grade?
And it's not apples and oranges. You make grading some nebulous, ethereal subject but it's not. The term "eye appeal" sounds nebulous but it really comes down to factors that are not that subjective. Judgements regarding strike, luster, size and placement of marks, even the color, depth and uniformity of toning are all easy to differentiate after viewing 100 coins with varying levels of surface preservation and feedback.
I don’t feel like continuing on this merry-go-round. So I’ll just hop off and state that I don’t think there’s any basis, whatsoever, for your comment that any coins bring “5x and higher premiums for one individuals opinion on a grade.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Yes, JA (one person) makes the FINAL call.Cracking is at issue. People crack coins because they believe they can resubmit and opinions will change.
He has never revealed the CAC status of his coins including whether the coins ever made it to CAC in the first instance.
Final call based on the consensus of opinions. That's like saying the jury foreman is the only vote in the trial. Quit while you're behind. You're statement is without merit.
I'll join @MFeld in getting off this Merry go round
No, if you read the rest of this thread, he clearly means one person. And originally we were talking about CAC, so I've yet to see a CAC coin sell for 5x a Beanless coin.
First, I never said a CAC sticker resulted in a 5x premium. But you're missing the point, the point being a one point difference in a grade (and whether it's one individual or a consensus of three is besides the point), and that one point is based on the insignificant issues thar separate a 66 from a 67 (and you can argue there significance until you're blue in the face, they are not) its still missing the forest for the trees.
And even if it did, so what? Aren't buyers allowed to decide how much to pay for a coin? There are an awful lot of people who seem to think that coins are worth what they think they are and if anybody disagrees by valuing them differently, well- they're just wrong.
In other words, you are speculating in the guise of making declarations. The finalizer (and owner of the enterprise) will have the last word, and I'll go double or nothing on the bet I just won that JA has beaned a coin where there was a unanimous "no" vote, since I would also bet that many, if not most, coins are only looked at by one other person (or zero, in some cases) besides JA. All you really have to know is that CAC has been asked to reconsider previously rejected coins, and has subsequently beaned them. JA has overruled himself in those cases.
Case closed. I accept PayPal and gold bullion.
With all due respect you'd be wrong. I listed three or four examples of 5x and more premiums for coins with a one point difference in grade. Someone or a consensus of three made a decision about a coin, stuck it on a label and a buyer who would not make a decision to pay a 5x or more premium for a raw coin (you didn't counter so I assume you agree) does if you're willing to believe the PCGS price guide is anything close to reality.
You are the one who made the positive declaration. I said that TPGS and CAC both represent consensus viewpoints and not one person's view. You declared that JA must have overruled a unanimous committee at some point. Show me an example and you win. Until then, we still have no evidence that it has ever happened.
According to @jmlanzaf , they are not if it has a bean. In that case, they are forbidden to bury themselves by divine law.
You're on a CAC thread and then you came out with the 5x on one man's opinion. Whether you meant CAC or PCGS, you are still completely incorrect.
And if you want to debate 1 point price spreads, either pull up one of the hundreds of threads on that or start your own. This is a CAC thread
Take the "L", buddy.
He said that? Can you link to it? Thanks!
I made positive declarations that one person makes the final decision. I never said the sticker results in a 5x premium. That was your strawman argument. I gave you multiple examples where a 5x or more premium was reflected in the pricing for a one point difference in grade.
READ WHAT I WROTE. Do you deny that people have posted on THIS FORUM that they sent previously rejected coins back to CAC, and subsequently got a bean??? Some of those previously rejected coins were surely by "unanimous" decision, no? You owe me double again for making me spell it out TWICE.
Don't start with this is a CAC thread. What I wrote about 5x premiums was specific to one point differences in grade. Don't conflate the two.
I said it is hard to bury yourself in CAC because you have 2 companies standing behind it. Apparently, because I didn't say "harder" I committed a faux pas.
I forgot to acknowledge that it is possible to overpay for anything if you are stupid.
Maybe we should argue the difference between "hard" and "impossible".
That wasn't directed at you, it was directed @coinjunkie
And when you are on a CAC thread and say "one man" everyone who isn't a total newbie assumes you are talking about JA.
Take both L's.
The above (a one point difference in grade) is not the same thing as this:
CAC's opinion cannot (and does not) change the grade of the coin. If you want to prove your "5x" claim, you'd need to find a stickered MS66 that sold for 5x an unstickered 66. Are any out there? I don't know, but no examples have been provided as of yet.
Just sayin'.
No, why do they have to be unanimous? I would expect that the vast majority of close calls are split votes not unanimously incorrect.
I'm rather surprised that such a stickler as yourself wants us to accept a premise with no evidence.
I see your point and I hope I clarified my point that the 5x premium was referring to one point difference in grade not the sticker. As to whether in the minds of some the sticker constitutes a point in grade, I don't know. I've heard the sticker represents solid for the grade or top level for the grade.