CAC not taking regular tier submissions during March...

ScarsdaleCoin

Interesting CAC is too busy... they are not taking regular tier submission from March 1 til maybe April 1.... John's email was kinda nice... he suggests that this is better than raising rates

TurtleCat

What's intriguing to me is the volume that must be going through there right now. Probably far more than many expect.

giorgio11

I just sent 90 regular-tier coins this morning ... glad I got under the wire! (I called to check.)

messydesk

It sounded like their post office also hates them and has threatened to file grievances against them for making them too busy. He's suggesting using FedEx instead.

TurtleCat

@messydesk said:
It sounded like their post office also hates them and has threatened to file grievances against them for making them too busy. He's suggesting using FedEx instead.

It is a pretty lame excuse (if accurate) on the USPS's part. But I think the issue was not registered mail but first class/express packages with private insurance. That is/was probably a very large number of packages.

MsMorrisine

USPS wants less business. And it interferes with local businesses ability to grow.

The POs loss.

pointfivezero

@giorgio11 said:
I just sent 90 regular-tier coins this morning ... glad I got under the wire! (I called to check.)

Ditto here. I literally just walked in the door after a trip to my local Post Office. Whew.

Tim

ike126

I wonder if John will ever hire more workers or just keep pushing submissions back?? This could be the new normal IMHO

291fifth

It sounds like the market is so hot that now coins are going the way of sports card submissions.

ReadyFireAim

How will I know if my coins are dreck or not?
This is a catastrophe for coin collecting.
I expect panicked people to be running down the street at any moment.

jmlanzaf

@ReadyFireAim said:
How will I know if my coins are dreck or not?
This is a catastrophe for coin collecting.
I expect panicked people to be running down the street at any moment.

They are definitely dreck.

fathom

The old normal has been a bottlenecked grading marketplace. So welcome to the old normal.

mavs2583

How can USPS complain about too many packages? What am I missing here. They're a business and the postage is paid for.

RYK

@jmlanzaf said:

@ReadyFireAim said:
How will I know if my coins are dreck or not?
This is a catastrophe for coin collecting.
I expect panicked people to be running down the street at any moment.

They are definitely dreck.

If you have to ask...

@mavs2583 said:
How can USPS complain about too many packages? What am I missing here. They're a business and the postage is paid for.

Er, it's not exactly a business. It is a hybrid between a government service and a business. Lately, it has taken on more of the attributes of a government service, and that's not great for service, IMO.

mavs2583

@RYK said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@ReadyFireAim said:
How will I know if my coins are dreck or not?
This is a catastrophe for coin collecting.
I expect panicked people to be running down the street at any moment.

They are definitely dreck.

If you have to ask...

@mavs2583 said:
How can USPS complain about too many packages? What am I missing here. They're a business and the postage is paid for.

Er, it's not exactly a business. It is a hybrid between a government service and a business. Lately, it has taken on more of the attributes of a government service, and that's not great for service, IMO.

I meant that CAC is a business, so they're going to get packages regularly. To continue my line of thinking, what recourse does the USPS have? To not send packages to CAC that have already been paid for?

dollarfan

They can be sent before the first of March though correct?

Joey29

@dollarfan said:
They can be sent before the first of March though correct?

He said postmarked by March 1 so I am going to mail mine out tomorrow 2/23.

cameonut2011

Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

jmlanzaf

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

They are not "requiring" any such thing.

MasonG

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

It's not a requirement. It's an option.

cameonut2011

@MasonG said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

It's not a requirement. It's an option.

@jmlanzaf said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

They are not "requiring" any such thing.

You overlook the “to be evaluated” portion of my post. If you want a sticker it now costs $35 instead of $16. That sure sounds like a price hike to me.

Edited: The OP text also isn’t completely accurate. CAC does state those coins can be submitted under the $35 tier hence my comment. You want a sticker on a coin worth less than $10k, the price goes up (at least for a few weeks) to $35 per coin.

jmlanzaf

@cameonut2011 said:

@MasonG said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

It's not a requirement. It's an option.

@jmlanzaf said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

They are not "requiring" any such thing.

You overlook the “to be evaluated” portion of my post. If you want a sticker it now costs $35 instead of $16. That sure sounds like a price hike to me.

You are also allowed to wait in the queue. You can send it today for $16 and wait.

cameonut2011

@jmlanzaf said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@MasonG said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

It's not a requirement. It's an option.

@jmlanzaf said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

They are not "requiring" any such thing.

You overlook the “to be evaluated” portion of my post. If you want a sticker it now costs $35 instead of $16. That sure sounds like a price hike to me.

You are also allowed to wait in the queue. You can send it today for $16 and wait.

That would imply a wait list. No such list exists effectively March 1, 2022 to a date TBD.

MFeld

@cameonut2011 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@MasonG said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

It's not a requirement. It's an option.

@jmlanzaf said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

They are not "requiring" any such thing.

You overlook the “to be evaluated” portion of my post. If you want a sticker it now costs $35 instead of $16. That sure sounds like a price hike to me.

You are also allowed to wait in the queue. You can send it today for $16 and wait.

That would imply a wait list. No such list exists effectively March 1, 2022 to a date TBD.

It sounds like a temporary rate increase to me.

ianrussell

CAC's post office does sound like one that should be made an example of. Each year, when USPS's financial report comes out, it's front page news about how much business they are losing to FedEx, UPS and Amazon's own delivery service. But then there's CAC's local post office, who doesn't seem to want more business.

• Ian

oldrattler

I was waiting for them to open the walk thru service again. I called last month and was advised it was going to be taken under consideration this month . I hate sending valuable coins thru the mail so many times. Oh well guess that isn't happening any time soon

JBN

The way their Post Office is treating them is un-American. Having a Box Number 1776 should include all-American service.

cameonut2011

@MFeld said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@MasonG said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

It's not a requirement. It's an option.

@jmlanzaf said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

They are not "requiring" any such thing.

You overlook the “to be evaluated” portion of my post. If you want a sticker it now costs $35 instead of $16. That sure sounds like a price hike to me.

You are also allowed to wait in the queue. You can send it today for $16 and wait.

That would imply a wait list. No such list exists effectively March 1, 2022 to a date TBD.

It sounds like a temporary rate increase to me.

I hope it’s temporary. That appears to be the intent.

oldrattler

Does FedEx insurance cover coins? If not then they are assuming everyone has private insurance.

jmlanzaf

@cameonut2011 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@MasonG said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

It's not a requirement. It's an option.

@jmlanzaf said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

They are not "requiring" any such thing.

You overlook the “to be evaluated” portion of my post. If you want a sticker it now costs $35 instead of $16. That sure sounds like a price hike to me.

You are also allowed to wait in the queue. You can send it today for $16 and wait.

That would imply a wait list. No such list exists effectively March 1, 2022 to a date TBD.

You have until March 1st to send it in.

jmlanzaf

@oldrattler said:
Does FedEx insurance cover coins? If not then they are assuming everyone has private insurance.

FedEx has very low limits on insuring coins.

FranklinHalfAddict

@messydesk said:
It sounded like their post office also hates them and has threatened to file grievances against them for making them too busy. He's suggesting using FedEx instead.

Oof, FedEx is garbage.
UPS is the way to go.

FranklinHalfAddict

@mavs2583 said:
How can USPS complain about too many packages? What am I missing here. They're a business and the postage is paid for.

It’s a government entity. They like to do nothing and still get paid.

pcgscacgold

@FranklinHalfAddict said:

@messydesk said:
It sounded like their post office also hates them and has threatened to file grievances against them for making them too busy. He's suggesting using FedEx instead.

Oof, FedEx is garbage.
UPS is the way to go.

Just hope the same UPS employee that decided to steal my 9 coins coming back from ANACS doesn’t touch your package.

MasonG

UPS? They destroyed a steel rim for my car. And tossed another delivery over my patio fence, crushing a potted plant.

But I'm sure your package will be fine, probably.

messydesk

An anecdotal horror story about any given shipping service is one thing, but a post office that has outwardly expressed contempt and hostility toward one of their box holders should be avoided.

MasonG

@messydesk said:
An anecdotal horror story about any given shipping service is one thing, but a post office that has outwardly expressed contempt and hostility toward one of their box holders should be avoided.

Makes sense, but if all you have is a PO Box address to ship to, there's not much you can do to avoid it aside from not shipping at all.

winesteven

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

In effect, the $35 is the fee for the month of March if you want “Rush” service. Otherwise, just wait to submit the $16 fee coins until around April 1st.

This is no different than submitting a coin valued at less than $2,500 to PCGS using $65 “Express” service, which currently has an estimated 3 week turnaround time, instead of their $38 “Regular” service, which has a current estimated turnaround time of 10 weeks or so. It’s your choice. If you want your decision and coins back sooner, pay extra. Or pay the regular fee, NO PRICE HIKE, but understand it’ll take longer.

You’re complaining because they gave you a choice. Had they not offered the choice, the fee would be $16, no raise, but you’d have to wait to submit. I think it’s good they gave us a choice, just like PCGS gives us a choice in my example above!

Steve

coinbuf

I wonder if the CAC registry sets has had an unexpected/unintended side affect of a large influx of lower value coins with the owners trying fill the common dates for those sets.

cameonut2011

@winesteven said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

In effect, the $35 is the fee for the month of March if you want “Rush” service. Otherwise, just wait to submit the $16 fee coins until around April 1st.

This is no different than submitting a coin valued at less than $2,500 to PCGS using $65 “Express” service, which currently has an estimated 3 week turnaround time, instead of their $38 “Regular” service, which has a current estimated turnaround time of 10 weeks or so. It’s your choice. If you want your decision and coins back sooner, pay extra. Or pay the regular fee, NO PRICE HIKE, but understand it’ll take longer.

You’re complaining because they gave you a choice. Had they not offered the choice, the fee would be $16, no raise, but you’d have to wait to submit. I think it’s good they gave us a choice, just like PCGS gives us a choice in my example above!

Steve

1. You're making an apples and oranges comparison. The increased fee isn't merely to expedite the service; the lower level service is being suspended all together until a yet to be determined date. The abeyance may end on April 1, 2022 or it could continue. Time will tell. The language used makes it clear that JA isn't making a firm commitment as to when the service will resume.
2. The "choice" argument doesn't make any sense whatsoever. By your logic, if I was in a hurry, I could have just as easily sent the coin under the $35 tier prior to the new policy like I would using the express tier for a PCGS submission now or wait. The idea that eliminating a tier provides "choice" is logically contradictory. It is a price hike, even if temporary. There is nothing wrong with that.
3. You're reading too much into this. I'm not actually complaining about the policy per se. It might be refreshing to see fewer of the "will my widget sticker?" threads. My point of interest was in the wording. JA says he is avoiding a rate hike, but the new shift is in effect a rate hike at least temporarily. CAC has every right to set its own prices. I just prefer straight forward wording rather than double talk. ("We're not hiking prices, but we're hiking prices for at least a month on sub $10 k coins if we're going to review them at all.")
4. Sloppy wording or vaguely worded policy statements are not new to CAC, and it generates much confusion (like the lack of details about how CAC views certain designations, "obvious mechanical errors," treating various grades as superfluous like treating AU50/53 the same, etc.). If the people drafting CAC communications and its website would think things through to the logical conclusion and focus on accuracy and clarity of its prose, the hobby would be better off.

Bigtree

Over the past year, I’ve observed a lot of vest pocket/part-time dealers, usually younger guys and in many cases YNs, become CAC collector-members and submit high volumes of (mostly) widgets to CAC. And why wouldn’t they? It is all upside since they don’t pay for coins that don’t bean, and more folks are recognizing this and taking advantage of it.

It make me wonder if the current fee/membership structure is sustainable. (I also can’t imagine that JA and his team are thrilled with seeing a growing preponderance of widgets.) I suspect substantial fee increases, including charging for non-beaned coins, is in the works. Or perhaps the $16 tier will become like an “economy” tier that is much slower, which could reduce the incentive for vest pocket dealers/flippers to submit en masse.

jmlanzaf

@cameonut2011 said:

@winesteven said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

In effect, the $35 is the fee for the month of March if you want “Rush” service. Otherwise, just wait to submit the $16 fee coins until around April 1st.

This is no different than submitting a coin valued at less than $2,500 to PCGS using $65 “Express” service, which currently has an estimated 3 week turnaround time, instead of their $38 “Regular” service, which has a current estimated turnaround time of 10 weeks or so. It’s your choice. If you want your decision and coins back sooner, pay extra. Or pay the regular fee, NO PRICE HIKE, but understand it’ll take longer.

You’re complaining because they gave you a choice. Had they not offered the choice, the fee would be $16, no raise, but you’d have to wait to submit. I think it’s good they gave us a choice, just like PCGS gives us a choice in my example above!

Steve

1. You're making an apples and oranges comparison. The increased fee isn't merely to expedite the service; the lower level service is being suspended all together until a yet to be determined date. The abeyance may end on April 1, 2022 or it could continue. Time will tell. The language used makes it clear that JA isn't making a firm commitment as to when the service will resume.
2. The "choice" argument doesn't make any sense whatsoever. By your logic, if I was in a hurry, I could have just as easily sent the coin under the $35 tier prior to the new policy like I would using the express tier for a PCGS submission now or wait. The idea that eliminating a tier provides "choice" is logically contradictory. It is a price hike, even if temporary. There is nothing wrong with that.
3. You're reading too much into this. I'm not actually complaining about the policy per se. It might be refreshing to see fewer of the "will my widget sticker?" threads. My point of interest was in the wording. JA says he is avoiding a rate hike, but the new shift is in effect a rate hike at least temporarily. CAC has every right to set its own prices. I just prefer straight forward wording rather than double talk. ("We're not hiking prices, but we're hiking prices for at least a month on sub $10 k coins if we're going to review them at all.")
4. Sloppy wording or vaguely worded policy statements are not new to CAC, and it generates much confusion (like the lack of details about how CAC views certain designations, "obvious mechanical errors," treating various grades as superfluous like treating AU50/53 the same, etc.). If the people drafting CAC communications and its website would think things through to the logical conclusion and focus on accuracy and clarity of its prose, the hobby would be better off.

Still "no". You simply have a one month wait period for $16 submissions.

cameonut2011

@jmlanzaf said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@winesteven said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Can you explain to me how requiring coins that normally qualify for the $16 level tier be submitted under the $35 tier to be evaluated isn’t a price hike?

In effect, the $35 is the fee for the month of March if you want “Rush” service. Otherwise, just wait to submit the $16 fee coins until around April 1st.

This is no different than submitting a coin valued at less than $2,500 to PCGS using $65 “Express” service, which currently has an estimated 3 week turnaround time, instead of their $38 “Regular” service, which has a current estimated turnaround time of 10 weeks or so. It’s your choice. If you want your decision and coins back sooner, pay extra. Or pay the regular fee, NO PRICE HIKE, but understand it’ll take longer.

You’re complaining because they gave you a choice. Had they not offered the choice, the fee would be $16, no raise, but you’d have to wait to submit. I think it’s good they gave us a choice, just like PCGS gives us a choice in my example above!

Steve

1. You're making an apples and oranges comparison. The increased fee isn't merely to expedite the service; the lower level service is being suspended all together until a yet to be determined date. The abeyance may end on April 1, 2022 or it could continue. Time will tell. The language used makes it clear that JA isn't making a firm commitment as to when the service will resume.
2. The "choice" argument doesn't make any sense whatsoever. By your logic, if I was in a hurry, I could have just as easily sent the coin under the $35 tier prior to the new policy like I would using the express tier for a PCGS submission now or wait. The idea that eliminating a tier provides "choice" is logically contradictory. It is a price hike, even if temporary. There is nothing wrong with that.
3. You're reading too much into this. I'm not actually complaining about the policy per se. It might be refreshing to see fewer of the "will my widget sticker?" threads. My point of interest was in the wording. JA says he is avoiding a rate hike, but the new shift is in effect a rate hike at least temporarily. CAC has every right to set its own prices. I just prefer straight forward wording rather than double talk. ("We're not hiking prices, but we're hiking prices for at least a month on sub $10 k coins if we're going to review them at all.")
4. Sloppy wording or vaguely worded policy statements are not new to CAC, and it generates much confusion (like the lack of details about how CAC views certain designations, "obvious mechanical errors," treating various grades as superfluous like treating AU50/53 the same, etc.). If the people drafting CAC communications and its website would think things through to the logical conclusion and focus on accuracy and clarity of its prose, the hobby would be better off.

Still "no". You simply have a one month wait period for $16 submissions.

That would still constitute a temporary rate hike. If the price of milk goes up to $7 a gallon for a month secondary to supply chain issues and then drops to $3, it was still a price/rate increase even if transitory. Obviously you can stop drinking milk (or wait to drink to parallel the syntactical structure of your post) and resume later. A de facto price increase is still an increase. Your argument makes no sense. Of course, it need not make sense to the words-have-no-meaning and CAC-is-always-right crowd. And contrary to your assertion, the hike is for at least one month. There is no set end period. "We hope" isn't a commitment to anything. Again, CAC absolutely has the right to set its own prices but call it for what it is: A price hike. I have no problem with a rate increase. Everything else is increasing, but let's stop playing semantic games. FWIW, if I were JA, I would capitalize on the CAC frenzy and raise prices significantly to generate more revenue. If you wanted me to review low grade blast white Morgan Dollars all day submitted in hopes of a gold sticker or waste my time with uber common coins regardless of quality, I'd make you pay a strong premium for wasting my time so I could focus on coins where CAC is more useful.

cameonut2011

@Bigtree said:
Over the past year, I’ve observed a lot of vest pocket/part-time dealers, usually younger guys and in many cases YNs, become CAC collector-members and submit high volumes of (mostly) widgets to CAC. And why wouldn’t they? It is all upside since they don’t pay for coins that don’t bean, and more folks are recognizing this and taking advantage of it.

It make me wonder if the current fee/membership structure is sustainable. (I also can’t imagine that JA and his team are thrilled with seeing a growing preponderance of widgets.) I suspect substantial fee increases, including charging for non-beaned coins, is in the works. Or perhaps the $16 tier will become like an “economy” tier that is much slower, which could reduce the incentive for vest pocket dealers/flippers to submit en masse.

This would be another way for CAC to cut back on submissions of coins that are clearly not meritorious by collectors; it could start charging for rejects.

winesteven

I completely disagree.

As noted, the price is expected to be around $16 once they start resuming accepting coins at that pricing around April 1st, AND up until next Tuesday. If you PREFER "Rush" service during March, then you can pay for that at $35. Your example makes no sense, assuming one always needs milk and cannot wait. With CAC that's NOT the case at all. Without taking the time, your points above are also off base. Sending lower/"normal" priced coins in March is for those that choose not to wait until we are allowed to submit at the normal pricing, which should be in about a month. We have choices that retain the $16 or so pricing!

DelawareDoons

@Bigtree said:
Over the past year, I’ve observed a lot of vest pocket/part-time dealers, usually younger guys and in many cases YNs, become CAC collector-members and submit high volumes of (mostly) widgets to CAC. And why wouldn’t they? It is all upside since they don’t pay for coins that don’t bean, and more folks are recognizing this and taking advantage of it.

It make me wonder if the current fee/membership structure is sustainable. (I also can’t imagine that JA and his team are thrilled with seeing a growing preponderance of widgets.) I suspect substantial fee increases, including charging for non-beaned coins, is in the works. Or perhaps the $16 tier will become like an “economy” tier that is much slower, which could reduce the incentive for vest pocket dealers/flippers to submit en masse.

I was probably one of the first people to really do this... and yes, I still do it. The value of a gold bean is such that chasing them is almost always worth it on the items I select. Also, on certain sets, my actual goal is to build it out with gold CAC. That takes a lotta submitting to find the coins that'll gold bean.

The non-dealer-y part for me is that I don't actually sell my gold CAC coins. But I do love them, and chase them all the time.

Further, I've got no mentor in coins. You could say, in a way, that JA is my mentor. My eye is attuned to what CAC likes, since most of what I've learned has been from reading various forums, seeing the results of my own CAC subs, and on rare occasions, talking to JA about the stuff I've submitted. Being mostly self-educated and making it in numismatics is tough, but I'm almost there... and that is in a large part due to the service CAC provides.

To get where I am now, I did send in thousands of coins to CAC. I'll admit that I have probably taken advantage of their offerings, but my reality is that I have no truly viable alternative that provides the same level of experience in terms of assessing my coins. It would be a shame if this completely disappeared.

My suggestion to CAC would be to continue to not charge for coins that don't sticker until you cross 100 coins submitted in a year. Then charge for every coin. Force the submitters to be more selective, but still provide leeway for learning experiences.

amwldcoin

Brainwashed!

@DelawareDoons said:

@Bigtree said:
Over the past year, I’ve observed a lot of vest pocket/part-time dealers, usually younger guys and in many cases YNs, become CAC collector-members and submit high volumes of (mostly) widgets to CAC. And why wouldn’t they? It is all upside since they don’t pay for coins that don’t bean, and more folks are recognizing this and taking advantage of it.

It make me wonder if the current fee/membership structure is sustainable. (I also can’t imagine that JA and his team are thrilled with seeing a growing preponderance of widgets.) I suspect substantial fee increases, including charging for non-beaned coins, is in the works. Or perhaps the $16 tier will become like an “economy” tier that is much slower, which could reduce the incentive for vest pocket dealers/flippers to submit en masse.

I was probably one of the first people to really do this... and yes, I still do it. The value of a gold bean is such that chasing them is almost always worth it on the items I select. Also, on certain sets, my actual goal is to build it out with gold CAC. That takes a lotta submitting to find the coins that'll gold bean.

The non-dealer-y part for me is that I don't actually sell my gold CAC coins. But I do love them, and chase them all the time.

Further, I've got no mentor in coins. You could say, in a way, that JA is my mentor. My eye is attuned to what CAC likes, since most of what I've learned has been from reading various forums, seeing the results of my own CAC subs, and on rare occasions, talking to JA about the stuff I've submitted. Being mostly self-educated and making it in numismatics is tough, but I'm almost there... and that is in a large part due to the service CAC provides.

To get where I am now, I did send in thousands of coins to CAC. I'll admit that I have probably taken advantage of their offerings, but my reality is that I have no truly viable alternative that provides the same level of experience in terms of assessing my coins. It would be a shame if this completely disappeared.

My suggestion to CAC would be to continue to not charge for coins that don't sticker until you cross 100 coins submitted in a year. Then charge for every coin. Force the submitters to be more selective, but still provide leeway for learning experiences.

sparky64

I received this email about shipping a week or so ago requesting that submissions be shipped to their physical address.

Did anyone else get this?

DelawareDoons

@amwldcoin said:
Brainwashed!

Got a half you might like, but unfortunately, it has a bean now.

skier07

Here’s a nice Bust half that is now tainted by the green sticker not shown.

DelawareDoons

@sparky64 said:
I received this email about shipping a week or so ago requesting that submissions be shipped to their physical address.

Did anyone else get this?

Yes. Note that is Registered and Express mail, not standard priority.