Very interesting if CAC bean considers age of holders. I never thought about it but it makes a lot of sense from a liquidity and demand perspective.
While I agree with liquidity and demand increasing with a very old holder, I’d be shocked if J. A. takes that into account at all. I believe he looks ONLY at the coin to make a determination if it passes or not.
Steve
I’m not sure about it either way but @Crypto indicates it’s considered. It also provides a reason for the coin not beaning in a modern holder with the same grade.
CAC makes a market in CAC coins, considering the impact collectible holders have on liquidity/value and their mission statement is to grade the holder. It would be naïve to think it wasn't considered even if just at the eye appeal level.
I can’t imagine that CAC would look at an MS63 Indian quarter eagle and take its holder into consideration, when deciding whether to sticker the coin.
You don’t think a collectible holder increases the appeal of a coin? You think CAC doesn’t?
Even if subconsciously, I don’t see how they could ignore it. Can’t you see an equation where a honest but unremarkable coin gets a bump into “B coin” status due to its packaging.
Modern coin grading is about the total coin so much more there the classic technical wear levels. This concept is about factoring in the mint surface, luster, strike and eye appeal. It is already happened but the holder is now part of that total package with quantifiable degrees of desirability. There are A holders and D holders and everything in between.
Grades and eye appeal are just abstract concepts trying to peg value and liquidity, the holder plays a big a part now days and a CAC sticker means a good package. I simply don’t see a scenario where they don’t factor it in, heck they already don’t allow D & C holders for consideration. A rattler isn’t viewed the same as an early 2000s NGC by anybody, why would cac be blind to it?
Sure, a grader could subconsciously be affected by a holder. But I don’t think there would be a conscious decision to sticker a coin based on the type of holder in which it resided.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Very interesting if CAC bean considers age of holders. I never thought about it but it makes a lot of sense from a liquidity and demand perspective.
While I agree with liquidity and demand increasing with a very old holder, I’d be shocked if J. A. takes that into account at all. I believe he looks ONLY at the coin to make a determination if it passes or not.
Steve
I’m not sure about it either way but @Crypto indicates it’s considered. It also provides a reason for the coin not beaning in a modern holder with the same grade.
CAC makes a market in CAC coins, considering the impact collectible holders have on liquidity/value and their mission statement is to grade the holder. It would be naïve to think it wasn't considered even if just at the eye appeal level.
I can’t imagine that CAC would look at an MS63 Indian quarter eagle and take its holder into consideration, when deciding whether to sticker the coin.
You don’t think a collectible holder increases the appeal of a coin? You think CAC doesn’t?
Even if subconsciously, I don’t see how they could ignore it. Can’t you see an equation where a honest but unremarkable coin gets a bump into “B coin” status due to its packaging.
Modern coin grading is about the total coin so much more there the classic technical wear levels. This concept is about factoring in the mint surface, luster, strike and eye appeal. It is already happened but the holder is now part of that total package with quantifiable degrees of desirability. There are A holders and D holders and everything in between.
Grades and eye appeal are just abstract concepts trying to peg value and liquidity, the holder plays a big a part now days and a CAC sticker means a good package. I simply don’t see a scenario where they don’t factor it in, heck they already don’t allow D & C holders for consideration. A rattler isn’t viewed the same as an early 2000s NGC by anybody, why would cac be blind to it?
Sure, a grader could subconsciously be affected by a holder. But I don’t think there would be a conscious decision to sticker a coin based on the type of holder in which it resided.
Conscious or unconscious doesn’t really matter to effect but place 100 similar MS63 Indian Quarter eagles on a table with one rattler, which one sells the quickest most of the time? That effect is what I think influences CAC just like it does dealers and collectors alike. The ohhh cool most of us do before even analyzing the coin should bear out with statistical positive trends on success rates. Almost impossible not to
Anyone who believes these companies are only in for the love and well being of collectors come off as being blinded by the light. Now I am not saying they don't perform a much needed services to collectors because I have been around many years and seen so much misinformation as to grades and so many collectors getting ripped off prior to these grading firms coming on the scene. Yes they are needed but some of the fringe services like resubmit and resubmit only actually bring out the inconsistencies in there own abilities.
JMO
And I am not bashing any grading service as I use them on certain coins because of my on lack of ability to grade certain coins.
@al410 said:
Anyone who believes these companies are only in for the love and well being of collectors come off as being blinded by the light. Now I am not saying they don't perform a much needed services to collectors because I have been around many years and seen so much misinformation as to grades and so many collectors getting ripped off prior to these grading firms coming on the scene. Yes they are needed but some of the fringe services like resubmit and resubmit only actually bring out the inconsistencies in there own abilities.
JMO
And I am not bashing any grading service as I use them on certain coins because of my on lack of ability to grade certain coins.
As much as some people might like and praise companies such as NGC, PCGS and CAC, I don’t recall anyone saying that any of them are only in for the love and well being of collectors.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Crackout remorse? I have been there, but it is blame shifting to afterwards cry sour grapes at CAC (or PCGS if you get a lower grade). When you crack out, you know full well (or should) that you have the chance to lose your grade and lose your sticker. That's part of the risk/reward.
The coin could have been on the border between B and C for the grade and CAC was well within its rights to call it out on further review.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Sure, as expected the naysayers look to pick the exceptions in a subjective field. While I love and have full respect for both major TPG's, it's easy for anyone to find clear examples of their grading like the one shown above with CAC. Graders are not machines, but humans, and they do a phenomenal job with consistency, even though it's not perfect!
It's the worse feeling in the world to have your coin not sicker, sell it and learn someone else cracked it out, got a higher grade AND a sticker.
Professional judgment of all kinds - medicine, law, judicial sentencing, insurance underwriting, business appraisal, and, yes, coin grading has inherent noise. Read Kahneman's book, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment, and you will have greater appreciation for why your coin could be stickered in one setting and unstickered in another.
My favorite study was when they had radiologists (my profession) review body CT exams read by their colleagues, and there was a 25% disagreement rate among academic peers. Sounds awful, right? Well, a year later they showed the same cases to the same radiologists, and there was a similar disagreement rate with themselves a year earlier.
Sure, as expected the naysayers look to pick the exceptions in a subjective field. While I love and have full respect for both major TPG's, it's easy for anyone to find clear examples of their grading like the one shown above with CAC. Graders are not machines, but humans, and they do a phenomenal job with consistency, even though it's not perfect!
It's the worse feeling in the world to have your coin not sicker, sell it and learn someone else cracked it out, got a higher grade AND a sticker.
Absolutely true. But that’s my point. With subjectivity, there will always be bad examples. Not just with CAC, as another member tried to make, but it happens with the best TPG’s as well. That’s the nature of subjectivity with what they do.
But the good news is CAC and PCGS and NGC all have sterling reputations for being remarkably consistent enough to have earned their reputation, despite occasional discrepancies due to subjectivity!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Listing an inconsistency to try to disparage a firm just doesn’t work!
That wasn't my intention. My concern is the efforts so often made to gain financially by resubmitting coins instead of appreciating the fact the coin has been graded and accepting it for what it is. Worse are those who have their coins "improved" and get a higher grade and sticker. I've never bought a PCGS coin thinking it was undergraded.
I like the idea submitting coins to CAC to confirm the grade, not to prove that one is smarter than the person who sold it. I have no interest in gaining a gold sticker. Dealers have told me they sold an expensive coin that someone cracked out and got a higher grade. In those cases I always feel bad for the seller.
I'm not comfortable with the concept of changing standards. Yes, I like the idea of financially benefiting from my coins; but, I'm expecting that to be because of their increased popularity among collectors.
@DisneyFan , I was not referring to you. While I chose not to name names, it was someone else in this thread who gave the example of a CAC inconsistency specifically for the purpose of knocking CAC. My apologies to you and to any others that thought it was you. I just edited my above comment to provide clarification.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@RYK said:
Professional judgment of all kinds - medicine, law, judicial sentencing, insurance underwriting, business appraisal, and, yes, coin grading has inherent noise. Read Kahneman's book, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment, and you will have greater appreciation for why your coin could be stickered in one setting and unstickered in another.
My favorite study was when they had radiologists (my profession) review body CT exams read by their colleagues, and there was a 25% disagreement rate among academic peers. Sounds awful, right? Well, a year later they showed the same cases to the same radiologists, and there was a similar disagreement rate with themselves a year earlier.
Radiography brings out the best in folks!!!!
Agreement on radiological images is tough, for sure. I am not surprised by the result above.
And yes, this is completely OT, but it is one I enjoy!
@RYK said:
Professional judgment of all kinds - medicine, law, judicial sentencing, insurance underwriting, business appraisal, and, yes, coin grading has inherent noise. Read Kahneman's book, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment, and you will have greater appreciation for why your coin could be stickered in one setting and unstickered in another.
My favorite study was when they had radiologists (my profession) review body CT exams read by their colleagues, and there was a 25% disagreement rate among academic peers. Sounds awful, right? Well, a year later they showed the same cases to the same radiologists, and there was a similar disagreement rate with themselves a year earlier.
This is exactly why I always get at least a third opinion and very often a fourth if I don't have any yard work that week..
It’s probably a borderline coin and was on the wrong side of the border that day.
I have had this happen to me too. If you share the image of the coin stickered with CAC, there’s a good chance it will get restickered. You could also ask for an explanation which might add to this learning experience.
Sure, as expected the naysayers look to pick the exceptions in a subjective field. While I love and have full respect for both major TPG's, it's easy for anyone to find clear examples of their grading like the one shown above with CAC. Graders are not machines, but humans, and they do a phenomenal job with consistency, even though it's not perfect!
It's the worse feeling in the world to have your coin not sicker, sell it and learn someone else cracked it out, got a higher grade AND a sticker.
I can certainly understand what you would feel. Experiences such as this can cause one to lose faith in the consistency and competency of CAC.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
It's the worst feeling in the world to have your coin not sticker, sell it and learn someone else cracked it out, got a higher grade AND a sticker.
I can certainly understand what you would feel. Experiences such as this can cause one to lose faith in the consistency and competency of CAC.
And as noted as half the point in the comment, based on it getting a higher grade after having sold it, you could/should have then also made your point that one can lose faith in the consistency and competency of the TPG! But as I said above, since those that evaluate coins for BOTH CAC and the TPG’s do a remarkably consistent job overall on these subjective matters is why the TPG’s and CAC have their sterling reputations.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Listing an inconsistency to try to disparage a firm just doesn’t work!
That wasn't my intention. My concern is the efforts so often made to gain financially by resubmitting coins instead of appreciating the fact the coin has been graded and accepting it for what it is. Worse are those who have their coins "improved" and get a higher grade and sticker. I've never bought a PCGS coin thinking it was undergraded.
I like the idea submitting coins to CAC to confirm the grade, not to prove that one is smarter than the person who sold it. I have no interest in gaining a gold sticker. Dealers have told me they sold an expensive coin that someone cracked out and got a higher grade. In those cases I always feel bad for the seller.
I'm not comfortable with the concept of changing standards. Yes, I like the idea of financially benefiting from my coins; but, I'm expecting that to be because of their increased popularity among collectors.
why begrudge someone for attempting to achieve a higher grade for their coin, or actually succeeding in getting an improved grade. and a sticker. Sometimes a collector legitimately feels a coin is undergraded, especially if it is an older holder. Your statement is illogical and petty
why begrudge someone for attempting to achieve a higher grade for their coin, or actually succeeding in getting an improved grade. and a sticker. Sometimes a collector legitimately feels a coin is undergraded, especially if it is an older holder. Your statement is illogical and petty
Yes, I can sell a stock and the next day find out it has been taken over at a significant premium. That happens. Is that the goal for the hobby of collecting coins?
@al410 said:
consistency is no more or less then grading companies. Submit resubmit until you get what you want or not. These companies are obviously for money making and resubmissions are part of that. I don't know much about CAC but grading companies do not discourage resubmissions. Who is looking at your coin matters as much as grading guidelines in my opinion.
Al
CAC doesn't charge for evaluation. If they wanted to make money, they'd sticker everything. So you might want to try again.
CAC does charge its dealer customers for every evaluation. I would think because they expect a dealer to be able to effectively pre-screen submissions.
@coinbuf said:
I cringe when I read stories like this, it is rather sad to lose a rattler. And yet at the same time I also rejoice just a little as I also know that every rattler just got a tiny bit more valuable, including the ones I own.
@al410 said:
consistency is no more or less then grading companies. Submit resubmit until you get what you want or not. These companies are obviously for money making and resubmissions are part of that. I don't know much about CAC but grading companies do not discourage resubmissions. Who is looking at your coin matters as much as grading guidelines in my opinion.
Al
CAC doesn't charge for evaluation. If they wanted to make money, they'd sticker everything. So you might want to try again.
CAC does charge its dealer customers for every evaluation. I would think because they expect a dealer to be able to effectively pre-screen submissions.
@coinbuf said:
I cringe when I read stories like this, it is rather sad to lose a rattler. And yet at the same time I also rejoice just a little as I also know that every rattler just got a tiny bit more valuable, including the ones I own.
I focus on the coin---not the plastic
You are on record as saying that you will only buy PCGS/CAC. You focus on the plastic and sticker more than almost everyone here combined.
When I buy coins for my collection, whether the slab is CACd or not is only a small factor as I just don't care that much about the opinion of one man. It is much more important to me that the coin reside in a PCGS no problem holder.
I'm sure I'll be flamed for this, but my opinion is that CAC is only marginally more consistent than the grading services whose grades it reviews. I've seen far too many coins green sticker at grade X only to green sticker again at X+1 or X+2 or see a coin fail only to sticker later or vice versa. I've seen coins that I deemed problem coins (with scratches) adorned with a green bean. Even one of its initial backers, TDN, has endorsed the concept of sticker inflation.
On the other forum, CAC replied, and indicated their process in determining if a coin merits a sticker for being solid for the grade is not different for old holders compared to new holders. However, they acknowledged the obvious, which is beyond human control, that there could potentially be a subconscious influence.
The issue we’ve been debating for part of this thread is whether or not there’s officially a different standard used by CAC in determining if a coin merits a sticker based on the age of the holder, and that issue has now been put to bed.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
On the other forum, CAC replied, and indicated their process in determining if a coin merits a sticker for being solid for the grade is not different for old holders compared to new holders. However, they acknowledged the obvious, which is beyond human control, that there could potentially be a subconscious influence.
The issue we’ve been debating for part of this thread is whether or not there’s officially a different standard used by CAC in determining if a coin merits a sticker based on the age of the holder, and that issue has now been put to bed.
Steve
Not true
That isn’t exactly what they said, they said what I have been saying. They didn’t use the words potentially, they said there absolutely is an increase in the ratios of old holders because like everyone else they think they are cool.
Conscious or subconscious matters not to statistical outcomes. You’re debating why it happens I was stating that it does happen. Fact- older holders are more likely to sticker per CAC team. They just didn’t prescribe why that was
You’re implying it isn’t considered while acknowledging it is a factor and skews outcomes. If it skews outcomes it simply is a factor. Any other rationalization is over thinking it
Do CAC graders favor older holders when considering whether or not to certify a coin? No, not consciously. Retrospectively, however, there does appear to be a real correlation between stickered coins and older holders, however small. So as CAC goes, the holder does matter slightly. This is not intentional, however. Where this small bias comes from is anyone's guess.
So while they’ve observed that older holders have a small tendency to lead in stickering, THEY cannot say why, as they INTENTIONALLY and consciously don’t favor older holders. Could the reason be though, that OGH’s as a generalization might be undergraded as compared to todays grading standards, and undergraded coins tend to have a higher rate of getting stickers (which is the reason OGH’s tend to sell for higher prices)?
Here’s what you said earlier in this thread above, in bold:
CAC makes a market in CAC coins, considering the impact collectible holders have on liquidity/value and their mission statement is to grade the holder. It would be naïve to think it wasn't considered even if just at the eye appeal level.
They clearly said they intentionally don’t consider the holder. Their mission statement is NOT to grade the holder!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
I suspect older holders are more likely to sticker because they are generally more conservatively graded. This may lead to their being cool (and would definitely lead to stickering at a higher rate) but it’s likely the proper direction of causation.
Let’s look at a simple example. Assume 40% of rattler coins merit a sticker while only 20% of new holdered coins do. If a coin comes to CAC and they cover it, the chances that it will sticker are obviously twice as great for the rattler. This is not a bias. It is a reflection of an underlying fact. Now, uncover the coin. The odds that a marginal B coin will sticker are probably higher than that same coin in a new holder due to subconscious bias. It likely has nothing directly to do with the value of the holder itself but what the holder indicates about the distribution of coins within.
As you said, this has the same result, but I think this is the more probable cause of the bias and it is consistent with CAC’s philosophy and their answer to this specific question.
If there were a very valuable holder (because it was rare but coins in them were more loosely graded) then my hypothesis is that marginal coins would be less likely to sticker, not more. If money were the issue, it would go the other way.
I can hear your drums beating all the way down here!
@winesteven said:
OK, here’s CAC’s exact quote in bold:
Do CAC graders favor older holders when considering whether or not to certify a coin? No, not consciously. Retrospectively, however, there does appear to be a real correlation between stickered coins and older holders, however small. So as CAC goes, the holder does matter slightly. This is not intentional, however. Where this small bias comes from is anyone's guess.
So while they’ve observed that older holders have a small tendency to lead in stickering, THEY cannot say why, as they INTENTIONALLY and consciously don’t favor older holders. Could the reason be though, that OGH’s as a generalization might be undergraded as compared to todays grading standards, and undergraded coins tend to have a higher rate of getting stickers (which is the reason OGH’s tend to sell for higher prices)?
Here’s what you said earlier in this thread above, in bold:
CAC makes a market in CAC coins, considering the impact collectible holders have on liquidity/value and their mission statement is to grade the holder. It would be naïve to think it wasn't considered even if just at the eye appeal level.
They clearly said they intentionally don’t consider the holder. Their mission statement is NOT to grade the holder!
I can certainly understand what you would feel. Experiences such as this can cause one to lose faith in the consistency and competency of CAC.
I disagree, as many posts here have pointed out there is a level of subjectivity in any type of human decision making including grading. Thinking otherwise is a bit naive of what grading is about.
@winesteven said: Do CAC graders favor older holders when considering whether or not to certify a coin? No, not consciously. Retrospectively, however, there does appear to be a real correlation between stickered coins and older holders, however small. So as CAC goes, the holder does matter slightly. This is not intentional, however. Where this small bias comes from is anyone's guess.
I have had this conversation with some high level graders about the old holder bias and they don't think it is the case. You have to still have the right coin in the old holder to get the bean. I just had my first old holder coin denied by CAC, it is a nice looking coin for the grade but I was 50/50 on it getting the bean once I saw it and was correct on the down side. So they did not bean it just because of the OGH. My feeling is that there is some truth to the idea of grading standards changing over the last few decades so alot of the coins in old holders now meet or beat the high standards CAC expects for a given grade. So many old holders bean because of that.
The only bias I've noticed with old holders is they trust the color more which I suppose is fair to do. Something that might be slightly questionable probably is more believable if slabbed 30 years ago vs today.
Still can be frustrating when one fails cause of the color and it's identical to a stickered OGH you own. But again understandable as we all know how much of a gray area QC is in general.
Does CAC offer a cert lookup so you can see if the coin has been sent in before? Granted, they don't charge you if you it doesn't sticker, but you are still paying postage and insurance both ways.
Need a Barber Half with ANACS photo certificate. If you have one for sale please PM me. Current Ebay auctions
@relicsncoins said:
Does CAC offer a cert lookup so you can see if the coin has been sent in before? Granted, they don't charge you if you it doesn't sticker, but you are still paying postage and insurance both ways.
No.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@relicsncoins said:
Does CAC offer a cert lookup so you can see if the coin has been sent in before? Granted, they don't charge you if you it doesn't sticker, but you are still paying postage and insurance both ways.
The only Cert Lookup function CAC offers is to plug in a cert number and they’ll then indicate if that cert has a CAC. As @MFeld correctly stated, they do not make public which coins have been submitted and failed. Many reasons for this that have been discussed several times in other threads.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Comments
Sure, a grader could subconsciously be affected by a holder. But I don’t think there would be a conscious decision to sticker a coin based on the type of holder in which it resided.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Conscious or unconscious doesn’t really matter to effect but place 100 similar MS63 Indian Quarter eagles on a table with one rattler, which one sells the quickest most of the time? That effect is what I think influences CAC just like it does dealers and collectors alike. The ohhh cool most of us do before even analyzing the coin should bear out with statistical positive trends on success rates. Almost impossible not to
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Anyone who believes these companies are only in for the love and well being of collectors come off as being blinded by the light. Now I am not saying they don't perform a much needed services to collectors because I have been around many years and seen so much misinformation as to grades and so many collectors getting ripped off prior to these grading firms coming on the scene. Yes they are needed but some of the fringe services like resubmit and resubmit only actually bring out the inconsistencies in there own abilities.
JMO
And I am not bashing any grading service as I use them on certain coins because of my on lack of ability to grade certain coins.
As much as some people might like and praise companies such as NGC, PCGS and CAC, I don’t recall anyone saying that any of them are only in for the love and well being of collectors.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This is a sad story but there is a moral to it - if only we can figure it out.
I think you meant to say
Crackout remorse? I have been there, but it is blame shifting to afterwards cry sour grapes at CAC (or PCGS if you get a lower grade). When you crack out, you know full well (or should) that you have the chance to lose your grade and lose your sticker. That's part of the risk/reward.
The coin could have been on the border between B and C for the grade and CAC was well within its rights to call it out on further review.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
It's the worse feeling in the world to have your coin not sicker, sell it and learn someone else cracked it out, got a higher grade AND a sticker.
Professional judgment of all kinds - medicine, law, judicial sentencing, insurance underwriting, business appraisal, and, yes, coin grading has inherent noise. Read Kahneman's book, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment, and you will have greater appreciation for why your coin could be stickered in one setting and unstickered in another.
My favorite study was when they had radiologists (my profession) review body CT exams read by their colleagues, and there was a 25% disagreement rate among academic peers. Sounds awful, right? Well, a year later they showed the same cases to the same radiologists, and there was a similar disagreement rate with themselves a year earlier.
Absolutely true. But that’s my point. With subjectivity, there will always be bad examples. Not just with CAC, as another member tried to make, but it happens with the best TPG’s as well. That’s the nature of subjectivity with what they do.
But the good news is CAC and PCGS and NGC all have sterling reputations for being remarkably consistent enough to have earned their reputation, despite occasional discrepancies due to subjectivity!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Listing an inconsistency to try to disparage a firm just doesn’t work!
That wasn't my intention. My concern is the efforts so often made to gain financially by resubmitting coins instead of appreciating the fact the coin has been graded and accepting it for what it is. Worse are those who have their coins "improved" and get a higher grade and sticker. I've never bought a PCGS coin thinking it was undergraded.
I like the idea submitting coins to CAC to confirm the grade, not to prove that one is smarter than the person who sold it. I have no interest in gaining a gold sticker. Dealers have told me they sold an expensive coin that someone cracked out and got a higher grade. In those cases I always feel bad for the seller.
I'm not comfortable with the concept of changing standards. Yes, I like the idea of financially benefiting from my coins; but, I'm expecting that to be because of their increased popularity among collectors.
@DisneyFan , I was not referring to you. While I chose not to name names, it was someone else in this thread who gave the example of a CAC inconsistency specifically for the purpose of knocking CAC. My apologies to you and to any others that thought it was you. I just edited my above comment to provide clarification.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Radiography brings out the best in folks!!!!
Agreement on radiological images is tough, for sure. I am not surprised by the result above.
And yes, this is completely OT, but it is one I enjoy!
This is exactly why I always get at least a third opinion and very often a fourth if I don't have any yard work that week..
It’s probably a borderline coin and was on the wrong side of the border that day.
I have had this happen to me too. If you share the image of the coin stickered with CAC, there’s a good chance it will get restickered. You could also ask for an explanation which might add to this learning experience.
I can certainly understand what you would feel. Experiences such as this can cause one to lose faith in the consistency and competency of CAC.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
And as noted as half the point in the comment, based on it getting a higher grade after having sold it, you could/should have then also made your point that one can lose faith in the consistency and competency of the TPG! But as I said above, since those that evaluate coins for BOTH CAC and the TPG’s do a remarkably consistent job overall on these subjective matters is why the TPG’s and CAC have their sterling reputations.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
why begrudge someone for attempting to achieve a higher grade for their coin, or actually succeeding in getting an improved grade. and a sticker. Sometimes a collector legitimately feels a coin is undergraded, especially if it is an older holder. Your statement is illogical and petty
Yes, I can sell a stock and the next day find out it has been taken over at a significant premium. That happens. Is that the goal for the hobby of collecting coins?
Delete
Coinlearner, Ahrensdad, Nolawyer, RG, coinlieutenant, Yorkshireman, lordmarcovan, Soldi, masscrew, JimTyler, Relaxn, jclovescoins
Now listen boy, I'm tryin' to teach you sumthin' . . . . that ain't an optical illusion, it only looks like an optical illusion.
My mind reader refuses to charge me....
CAC does charge its dealer customers for every evaluation. I would think because they expect a dealer to be able to effectively pre-screen submissions.
Collector, occasional seller
I focus on the coin---not the plastic
That is correct, of course.
You are on record as saying that you will only buy PCGS/CAC. You focus on the plastic and sticker more than almost everyone here combined.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
When I buy coins for my collection, whether the slab is CACd or not is only a small factor as I just don't care that much about the opinion of one man. It is much more important to me that the coin reside in a PCGS no problem holder.
I'm sure I'll be flamed for this, but my opinion is that CAC is only marginally more consistent than the grading services whose grades it reviews. I've seen far too many coins green sticker at grade X only to green sticker again at X+1 or X+2 or see a coin fail only to sticker later or vice versa. I've seen coins that I deemed problem coins (with scratches) adorned with a green bean. Even one of its initial backers, TDN, has endorsed the concept of sticker inflation.
On the other forum, CAC replied, and indicated their process in determining if a coin merits a sticker for being solid for the grade is not different for old holders compared to new holders. However, they acknowledged the obvious, which is beyond human control, that there could potentially be a subconscious influence.
The issue we’ve been debating for part of this thread is whether or not there’s officially a different standard used by CAC in determining if a coin merits a sticker based on the age of the holder, and that issue has now been put to bed.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Thank you for inquiring on the CAC Forum and for keeping us apprised @winesteven
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Not true
That isn’t exactly what they said, they said what I have been saying. They didn’t use the words potentially, they said there absolutely is an increase in the ratios of old holders because like everyone else they think they are cool.
Conscious or subconscious matters not to statistical outcomes. You’re debating why it happens I was stating that it does happen. Fact- older holders are more likely to sticker per CAC team. They just didn’t prescribe why that was
You’re implying it isn’t considered while acknowledging it is a factor and skews outcomes. If it skews outcomes it simply is a factor. Any other rationalization is over thinking it
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
OK, here’s CAC’s exact quote in bold:
Do CAC graders favor older holders when considering whether or not to certify a coin? No, not consciously. Retrospectively, however, there does appear to be a real correlation between stickered coins and older holders, however small. So as CAC goes, the holder does matter slightly. This is not intentional, however. Where this small bias comes from is anyone's guess.
So while they’ve observed that older holders have a small tendency to lead in stickering, THEY cannot say why, as they INTENTIONALLY and consciously don’t favor older holders. Could the reason be though, that OGH’s as a generalization might be undergraded as compared to todays grading standards, and undergraded coins tend to have a higher rate of getting stickers (which is the reason OGH’s tend to sell for higher prices)?
Here’s what you said earlier in this thread above, in bold:
CAC makes a market in CAC coins, considering the impact collectible holders have on liquidity/value and their mission statement is to grade the holder. It would be naïve to think it wasn't considered even if just at the eye appeal level.
They clearly said they intentionally don’t consider the holder. Their mission statement is NOT to grade the holder!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
I suspect older holders are more likely to sticker because they are generally more conservatively graded. This may lead to their being cool (and would definitely lead to stickering at a higher rate) but it’s likely the proper direction of causation.
Let’s look at a simple example. Assume 40% of rattler coins merit a sticker while only 20% of new holdered coins do. If a coin comes to CAC and they cover it, the chances that it will sticker are obviously twice as great for the rattler. This is not a bias. It is a reflection of an underlying fact. Now, uncover the coin. The odds that a marginal B coin will sticker are probably higher than that same coin in a new holder due to subconscious bias. It likely has nothing directly to do with the value of the holder itself but what the holder indicates about the distribution of coins within.
As you said, this has the same result, but I think this is the more probable cause of the bias and it is consistent with CAC’s philosophy and their answer to this specific question.
If there were a very valuable holder (because it was rare but coins in them were more loosely graded) then my hypothesis is that marginal coins would be less likely to sticker, not more. If money were the issue, it would go the other way.
I can hear your drums beating all the way down here!
I disagree, as many posts here have pointed out there is a level of subjectivity in any type of human decision making including grading. Thinking otherwise is a bit naive of what grading is about.
Best, SH
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
I have had this conversation with some high level graders about the old holder bias and they don't think it is the case. You have to still have the right coin in the old holder to get the bean. I just had my first old holder coin denied by CAC, it is a nice looking coin for the grade but I was 50/50 on it getting the bean once I saw it and was correct on the down side. So they did not bean it just because of the OGH. My feeling is that there is some truth to the idea of grading standards changing over the last few decades so alot of the coins in old holders now meet or beat the high standards CAC expects for a given grade. So many old holders bean because of that.
Best, SH
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
The only bias I've noticed with old holders is they trust the color more which I suppose is fair to do. Something that might be slightly questionable probably is more believable if slabbed 30 years ago vs today.
Still can be frustrating when one fails cause of the color and it's identical to a stickered OGH you own. But again understandable as we all know how much of a gray area QC is in general.
NO CAC FOR YOU!
Pete
Does CAC offer a cert lookup so you can see if the coin has been sent in before? Granted, they don't charge you if you it doesn't sticker, but you are still paying postage and insurance both ways.
No.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The only Cert Lookup function CAC offers is to plug in a cert number and they’ll then indicate if that cert has a CAC. As @MFeld correctly stated, they do not make public which coins have been submitted and failed. Many reasons for this that have been discussed several times in other threads.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996