Intelligent thinking and CAC

GiantsLover

I realize that intelligent self-thought and CAC don't really belong in the same sentence but I just have to say....

Let's say you have an 1881-S Morgan Dollar graded MS65. If CAC sells you a sucker sticker because they determine your coin is in the top 1/2, or 1/3, or whatever it is they claim they do, (assuming that was even humanly possible which it's not) that would require that CAC be looking at every single 1881-S Morgan dollar that's in a holder at that very moment to determine which are the lower 2/3 and which are the upper 1/3?

Okay....denial, yourrrrrr-up! LOL.

MasonG

You could have saved a few keystrokes by typing "I don't understand how CAC works" instead.

Protip- they have a website. If you're interested in educating yourself, you could check it out. Otherwise, you can just stay here and post some more.

MsMorrisine

Waiting 8 months to slam CAC won’t slow down the bam hammer

jmlanzaf

@MsMorrisine said:
Waiting 8 months to slam CAC won’t slow down the bam hammer

It delayed it 8 months...

Coinosaurus

JA has looked at enough 1881-S Morgans to know how they come.....probably thousands of them.

jmlanzaf

@Coinosaurus said:
JA has looked at enough 1881-S Morgans to know how they come.....probably thousands of them.

That's why teachers don't grade papers. I can't possibly determine an A grade if I haven't seen every paper ever written.

ReadyFireAim

You're making people who dislike CAC look dumb.
Please stop

MsMorrisine

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12919499/#Comment_12919499

jdimmick

people like JA, have seen enough coins to know what is in the upper range for the grade. I havent seen no where near the number of 81-s he has seen, but I seen enough to know what is sticker worthy and what isnt.

cameonut2011

I can look at an 1881-S Morgan (or any other Morgan) and tell you whether it is solid for the grade, high end, low end, or over graded. If I can do that, certainly someone who has been around as long as Albanese and crew could do it. It's not that hard.

pmh1nic

@jmlanzaf said:

@Coinosaurus said:
JA has looked at enough 1881-S Morgans to know how they come.....probably thousands of them.

That's why teachers don't grade papers. I can't possibly determine an A grade if I haven't seen every paper ever written.

That depends on whether or not you're grading on a curve and whether the criteria for a grade has remained constant.

jmlanzaf

@pmh1nic said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Coinosaurus said:
JA has looked at enough 1881-S Morgans to know how they come.....probably thousands of them.

That's why teachers don't grade papers. I can't possibly determine an A grade if I haven't seen every paper ever written.

That depends on whether or not you're grading on a curve and whether the criteria for a grade has remained constant.

Sarcasm wasted.

Aotearoa

@jmlanzaf said:

@pmh1nic said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Coinosaurus said:
JA has looked at enough 1881-S Morgans to know how they come.....probably thousands of them.

That's why teachers don't grade papers. I can't possibly determine an A grade if I haven't seen every paper ever written.

That depends on whether or not you're grading on a curve and whether the criteria for a grade has remained constant.

Sarcasm wasted.

But it was a good retort.

TurtleCat

I wonder if this is the same person yet again? Although the rhetoric is toned down some. Still, move on!

jmlanzaf

@Aotearoa said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@pmh1nic said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Coinosaurus said:
JA has looked at enough 1881-S Morgans to know how they come.....probably thousands of them.

That's why teachers don't grade papers. I can't possibly determine an A grade if I haven't seen every paper ever written.

That depends on whether or not you're grading on a curve and whether the criteria for a grade has remained constant.

Sarcasm wasted.

But it was a good retort.

It was superfluous if you understood the sarcasm.

MasonG

@jmlanzaf said:
It was superfluous...

But was it original?

pmh1nic

@jmlanzaf said:

@pmh1nic said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Coinosaurus said:
JA has looked at enough 1881-S Morgans to know how they come.....probably thousands of them.

That's why teachers don't grade papers. I can't possibly determine an A grade if I haven't seen every paper ever written.

That depends on whether or not you're grading on a curve and whether the criteria for a grade has remained constant.

Sarcasm wasted.

No, I understood the sarcasm and it didn't make much sense. Teacher do grade papers before having seen them all. They have some concept in mind regarding what merits an A grade versus a B grade when it comes to a paper. Does that concept remain a constant from year to year or even at the start of grading 50 term papers to the end? You would hope so as a student hoping for a fairly graded paper but knowing human beings that's probably not the case. So much for your poor attempt at sarcasm.

PCGS has graded close to 150K 1881-S Morgan dollars in 64 and 65. I imagine NGC has graded as many. I seriously doubt any one person has seen 10% of those coins so whatever judgement is being made about what constitutes the top 25% of 64 coins is making a guesstimate. It may be an educated guesstimate but it's a guesstimate based on viewing a small percentage of those coins.

That said the 1881-S example is an extreme as far as population numbers. There are coins that are far more rare where one person has seen a significant percentage of the coins that have been graded. Beyond that the statement that a particular coin is in the top 25% for the grade should be modified to add the top 25% of the coins I have seen.

jmlanzaf

@pmh1nic said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@pmh1nic said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Coinosaurus said:
JA has looked at enough 1881-S Morgans to know how they come.....probably thousands of them.

That's why teachers don't grade papers. I can't possibly determine an A grade if I haven't seen every paper ever written.

That depends on whether or not you're grading on a curve and whether the criteria for a grade has remained constant.

Sarcasm wasted.

No, I understood the sarcasm and it didn't make much sense. Teacher do grade papers before having seen them all. They have some concept in mind regarding what merits an A grade versus a B grade when it comes to a paper. Does that concept remain a constant from year to year or even at the start of grading 50 term papers to the end? You would hope so as a student hoping for a fairly graded paper but knowing human beings that's probably not the case. So much for your poor attempt at sarcasm.

PCGS has graded close to 150K 1881-S Morgan dollars in 64 and 65. I imagine NGC has graded as many. I seriously doubt any one person has seen 10% of those coins so whatever judgement is being made about what constitutes the top 25% of 64 coins is making a guesstimate. It may be an educated guesstimate but it's a guesstimate based on viewing a small percentage of those coins.

That said the 1881-S example is an extreme as far as population numbers. There are coins that are far more rare where one person has seen a significant percentage of the coins that have been graded. Beyond that the statement that a particular coin is in the top 25% for the grade should be modified to add the top 25% of the coins I have seen.

Teacher=CAC

You clearly did NOT understand the sarcasm.

jmlanzaf

@MasonG said:

@jmlanzaf said:
It was superfluous...

But was it original?

Lustrous superfluity.

privatecoin

Poof or boom?

MasonG

@jmlanzaf said:

@MasonG said:

@jmlanzaf said:
It was superfluous...

But was it original?

Lustrous superfluity.

Will it sticker?

pmh1nic

@jmlanzaf said:

@pmh1nic said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@pmh1nic said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Coinosaurus said:
JA has looked at enough 1881-S Morgans to know how they come.....probably thousands of them.

That's why teachers don't grade papers. I can't possibly determine an A grade if I haven't seen every paper ever written.

That depends on whether or not you're grading on a curve and whether the criteria for a grade has remained constant.

Sarcasm wasted.

No, I understood the sarcasm and it didn't make much sense. Teacher do grade papers before having seen them all. They have some concept in mind regarding what merits an A grade versus a B grade when it comes to a paper. Does that concept remain a constant from year to year or even at the start of grading 50 term papers to the end? You would hope so as a student hoping for a fairly graded paper but knowing human beings that's probably not the case. So much for your poor attempt at sarcasm.

PCGS has graded close to 150K 1881-S Morgan dollars in 64 and 65. I imagine NGC has graded as many. I seriously doubt any one person has seen 10% of those coins so whatever judgement is being made about what constitutes the top 25% of 64 coins is making a guesstimate. It may be an educated guesstimate but it's a guesstimate based on viewing a small percentage of those coins.

That said the 1881-S example is an extreme as far as population numbers. There are coins that are far more rare where one person has seen a significant percentage of the coins that have been graded. Beyond that the statement that a particular coin is in the top 25% for the grade should be modified to add the top 25% of the coins I have seen.

Teacher=CAC

You clearly did NOT understand the sarcasm.

I understood teacher=CAC and I understood your attempt at sarcasm. You don't understand the inconsistencies in what you wrote as they relate to the discussion at hand.

crazyhounddog

@GiantsLover said:
I realize that intelligent self-thought and CAC don't really belong in the same sentence but I just have to say....

Let's say you have an 1881-S Morgan Dollar graded MS65. If CAC sells you a sucker sticker because they determine your coin is in the top 1/2, or 1/3, or whatever it is they claim they do, (assuming that was even humanly possible which it's not) that would require that CAC be looking at every single 1881-S Morgan dollar that's in a holder at that very moment to determine which are the lower 2/3 and which are the upper 1/3?

Okay....denial, yourrrrrr-up! LOL.

So, what you are saying in short is you only collect CAC stickered coins. Got it👌

jmlanzaf

...

jmlanzaf

@pmh1nic said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@pmh1nic said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@pmh1nic said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Coinosaurus said:
JA has looked at enough 1881-S Morgans to know how they come.....probably thousands of them.

That's why teachers don't grade papers. I can't possibly determine an A grade if I haven't seen every paper ever written.

That depends on whether or not you're grading on a curve and whether the criteria for a grade has remained constant.

Sarcasm wasted.

No, I understood the sarcasm and it didn't make much sense. Teacher do grade papers before having seen them all. They have some concept in mind regarding what merits an A grade versus a B grade when it comes to a paper. Does that concept remain a constant from year to year or even at the start of grading 50 term papers to the end? You would hope so as a student hoping for a fairly graded paper but knowing human beings that's probably not the case. So much for your poor attempt at sarcasm.

PCGS has graded close to 150K 1881-S Morgan dollars in 64 and 65. I imagine NGC has graded as many. I seriously doubt any one person has seen 10% of those coins so whatever judgement is being made about what constitutes the top 25% of 64 coins is making a guesstimate. It may be an educated guesstimate but it's a guesstimate based on viewing a small percentage of those coins.

That said the 1881-S example is an extreme as far as population numbers. There are coins that are far more rare where one person has seen a significant percentage of the coins that have been graded. Beyond that the statement that a particular coin is in the

Teacher=CAC

You clearly did NOT understand the sarcasm.

I understood teacher=CAC and I understood your attempt at sarcasm. You don't understand the inconsistencies in what you wrote as they relate to the discussion at hand.

Teacher=CAC
Papers=coins
Standards=standards

Sarcasm.

ms70

The Giants suck.

jmlanzaf

@ms70 said:
The Giants suck.

They didn't sticker.

Off_Cent_er

@ms70 said:
The Giants suck.

I'll second that.

Coinosaurus

PCGS has graded close to 150K 1881-S Morgan dollars in 64 and 65. I imagine NGC has graded as many. I seriously doubt > any one person has seen 10% of those coins so whatever judgement is being made about what constitutes the top 25% of > 64 coins is making a guesstimate. It may be an educated guesstimate but it's a guesstimate based on viewing a small
percentage of those coins.

You don't have to see 10%, when even 1% is a statistically significant sample. Check out a sample size calculator.

Mgarmy

Yawn…irony in thread title

BryceM

@Mgarmy said:
Yawn

Beat me to it.

Justacommeman

*troll. They are everywhere

m

messydesk

This is a dumb thread.

pmh1nic

@Coinosaurus said:

PCGS has graded close to 150K 1881-S Morgan dollars in 64 and 65. I imagine NGC has graded as many. I seriously doubt > any one person has seen 10% of those coins so whatever judgement is being made about what constitutes the top 25% of > 64 coins is making a guesstimate. It may be an educated guesstimate but it's a guesstimate based on viewing a small
percentage of those coins.

You don't have to see 10%, when even 1% is a statistically significant sample. Check out a sample size calculator.

Really? Not when you have two grading companies that over the last 30 years have had shifting grading "standards". For 1% or 10% to be statistically significant you would have to start with a real standard that did change every five or ten years.

Along

@messydesk said:
This is a dumb thread.

So far this is the only comment of any value

PerryHall

Can this thread be moved to the CAC forum?

JBK

This thread didn't go downhill, it started at the bottom of the hill and went underground.

(Just wanted to post before the big red Closed sign gets hung).

Aercus

Let's make this thread slightly more educational. This is actually a common problem in industry. How can we estimate the proportion of an attribute in a population based on a sample. I will spare the detailed math, but the number is surprisingly small. If I wanted to estimate that I had 33% plus or minus 5%, with high confidence, I could sample 340 pieces and be confident in my benchmark. Is that less or more than you would think? Keep in mind this is for attribute (success/failure). I might need substantially less for a quantitative measure.

jmlanzaf

@Aercus said:
Let's make this thread slightly more educational. This is actually a common problem in industry. How can we estimate the proportion of an attribute in a population based on a sample. I will spare the detailed math, but the number is surprisingly small. If I wanted to estimate that I had 33% plus or minus 5%, with high confidence, I could sample 340 pieces and be confident in my benchmark. Is that less or more than you would think? Keep in mind this is for attribute (success/failure). I might need substantially less for a quantitative measure.

Ah, statistics. Underappreciated. You hear it all the time around elections when people want to doubt the polling. I've literally heard people say, "but who are they asking? I don't know anyone who was asked." Smh...

Mgarmy

Is 340 large enough to be a representative sample? Even if all the same year

Oldhoopster

Did you try posting here?

https://www.caccoin.com/forums/discussions

CoinJunkie

@jmlanzaf said:

@Aercus said:
Let's make this thread slightly more educational. This is actually a common problem in industry. How can we estimate the proportion of an attribute in a population based on a sample. I will spare the detailed math, but the number is surprisingly small. If I wanted to estimate that I had 33% plus or minus 5%, with high confidence, I could sample 340 pieces and be confident in my benchmark. Is that less or more than you would think? Keep in mind this is for attribute (success/failure). I might need substantially less for a quantitative measure.

Ah, statistics. Underappreciated. You hear it all the time around elections when people want to doubt the polling. I've literally heard people say, "but who are they asking? I don't know anyone who was asked." Smh...

Irrelevant.

ElmerFusterpuck

Yikes, a 3 post troll comes in here and makes me forget how to tie my own shoes! And these are ones with the Velcro straps, mind you.

"Intelligent self-thought"? More like pissing in a vat of ice tea then wondering why people are complaining about the bitter taste, instead praising the great mouthfeel and edgy fusion flavor.

jmlanzaf

@CoinJunkie said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Aercus said:
Let's make this thread slightly more educational. This is actually a common problem in industry. How can we estimate the proportion of an attribute in a population based on a sample. I will spare the detailed math, but the number is surprisingly small. If I wanted to estimate that I had 33% plus or minus 5%, with high confidence, I could sample 340 pieces and be confident in my benchmark. Is that less or more than you would think? Keep in mind this is for attribute (success/failure). I might need substantially less for a quantitative measure.

Ah, statistics. Underappreciated. You hear it all the time around elections when people want to doubt the polling. I've literally heard people say, "but who are they asking? I don't know anyone who was asked." Smh...

Irrelevant.

Not really. It's the same fallacy that the OP introduced in the original screed. You don't have to sample 100% of the population to establish the norms for the population.

jmlanzaf

@Mgarmy said:
Is 340 large enough to be a representative sample? Even if all the same year

Depends on how the sampling was done. If completely random, depending on the required tolerance, yes.

https://www.qualtrics.com/experience-management/research/determine-sample-size/

jmlanzaf

What is a "self-thought"? Can you have a thought that doesn't emanate from one's self?