@JimTyler said:
Pretty clear the next gimmick. Stickers on CAC holders.
I can see PCGS offering a similar stickering service some day for coins in NGC or CACG slabs. Those coins that meet the strict PCGS standards would earn the PCGS sticker and those coins would then be allowed to be included in the PCGS registry sets. NGC could follow suit and offer a similar stickering service for PCGS and CAC slabs. It would be a popular service and would be an easy money maker.
Don't forget MACge stickering PCGS, NGC and CACG holders!
@Project Numismatics said:
I like having two grading opinions for coins outside my primary focus areas and I see a market for PCGS or NGC to sticker other service’s coins.
I don’t think it undermines PCGS business model to offer a sticker service for CACG or NGC coins. PCGS can charge the same price to sticker that they would charge for crossover.
A PCGS sticker would serve no purpose on a CAC slab.
CAC already has the strictest standards out of the 3, why do I need PCGS to approve of CAC’s 64+ grade, on a coin that PCGS graded 65?
Coins do not pass at CAC for four basic reasons
1. Over dipping (luster)
2. Artificial toning
3. PVC
4. Over graded
For PCGS to offer stickers, it would need to assemble a crack grading team to catch the errors PCGS originally missed.
While this thread has gotten off track, hardly unusual, and while I was not privy to the op's conversation, this whole thing sounds like a miscommunication issue.
@JimTyler said:
I’ll tell ya what frosts my hide with CAC they can get the coin back 10 times and know each time they’ve seen it already and didn’t sticker it. Taking $35 (now) each time. At least with PCGS or NGC you get it back in a detail holder if they didn’t like it. I know it can be cracked out but then it gets a clean shot at grading again and many times come back with a grade. CAC just keeps raking it in.
CAC doesn't charge collectors if the coin doesn't sticker, contrary to the other grading services that charge full fees whether your coin straight grades or not. Now dealer members have to pay every time, but that serves a purpose to prevent CAC from being inundated with low quality submissions. Dealers need to be more selective, not throwing anything at the wall to see if it sticks. Regardless, a $35 dollar investment is marginal if you're making high quality submissions, and just one sticker could easily return $1000 or more depending on the value of coin.
Edited to add- Also, your "details" comparison proves no point, either. CAC will tell you why the coin didn't sticker, and though its in their database, the coin is given a fresh look every time. Coins that have been rejected on the first go around have been known to sticker on a subsequent submission, occasionally. It's the same principle as getting a details grade from PCGS and re submitting the coin again raw, there is no difference.
The $16 dollar submission has ended just not removed from the website. Everyone pays $35 and collectors get 20 freebies or what would stop them from inundating CAC. Telling you why the coin didn’t sticker doesn’t help the next 9 guys who think it has a shot. I don’t care about a fresh look once they know it wasn’t snickered before there is bias.
To date, collector submissions only account for about 13% of CAC submissions. Any inundation or bottleneck is hardly because of collector members.
@JimTyler said:
I’ll tell ya what frosts my hide with CAC they can get the coin back 10 times and know each time they’ve seen it already and didn’t sticker it. Taking $35 (now) each time. At least with PCGS or NGC you get it back in a detail holder if they didn’t like it. I know it can be cracked out but then it gets a clean shot at grading again and many times come back with a grade. CAC just keeps raking it in.
Do you feel the same way about PCGS if they get the same NGC coin back 10 times for a crossover, know each time that they’ve seen it, that they didn't cross it, but take the the crossover submission fee each time? If not, why not?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@JimTyler said:
Pretty clear the next gimmick. Stickers on CAC holders.
I can see PCGS offering a similar stickering service some day for coins in NGC or CACG slabs. Those coins that meet the strict PCGS standards would earn the PCGS sticker and those coins would then be allowed to be included in the PCGS registry sets. NGC could follow suit and offer a similar stickering service for PCGS and CAC slabs. It would be a popular service and would be an easy money maker.
That sounds quite similar to their (already existent) crossover service.😉
Not even close. Take an NGC coin and try to enter it into a PCGS registry - not going to happen. The idea is a good one, PCGS agreeing on the grade, stickering it and then you could add it into a registry set. IMO nGC is the best since they will allow PCGS coins. I probably just got banned - sorry.
Likewise, if, under the currently existent PCGS crossover service, an NGC coin crosses to a PCGS holder, the coin can be entered into a PCGS registry. Please explain how that’s “not even close”?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@JimTyler said:
I’ll tell ya what frosts my hide with CAC they can get the coin back 10 times and know each time they’ve seen it already and didn’t sticker it. Taking $35 (now) each time. At least with PCGS or NGC you get it back in a detail holder if they didn’t like it. I know it can be cracked out but then it gets a clean shot at grading again and many times come back with a grade. CAC just keeps raking it in.
Do you feel the same way about PCGS if they get the same NGC coin back 10 times for a crossover, know each time that they’ve seen it, that they didn't cross it, but take the the crossover submission fee each time? If not, why not?
If 10 different people send it in for crossover it would be the same. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
@JimTyler said:
I’ll tell ya what frosts my hide with CAC they can get the coin back 10 times and know each time they’ve seen it already and didn’t sticker it. Taking $35 (now) each time. At least with PCGS or NGC you get it back in a detail holder if they didn’t like it. I know it can be cracked out but then it gets a clean shot at grading again and many times come back with a grade. CAC just keeps raking it in.
CAC doesn't charge collectors if the coin doesn't sticker, contrary to the other grading services that charge full fees whether your coin straight grades or not. Now dealer members have to pay every time, but that serves a purpose to prevent CAC from being inundated with low quality submissions. Dealers need to be more selective, not throwing anything at the wall to see if it sticks. Regardless, a $35 dollar investment is marginal if you're making high quality submissions, and just one sticker could easily return $1000 or more depending on the value of coin.
Edited to add- Also, your "details" comparison proves no point, either. CAC will tell you why the coin didn't sticker, and though its in their database, the coin is given a fresh look every time. Coins that have been rejected on the first go around have been known to sticker on a subsequent submission, occasionally. It's the same principle as getting a details grade from PCGS and re submitting the coin again raw, there is no difference.
The $16 dollar submission has ended just not removed from the website. Everyone pays $35 and collectors get 20 freebies or what would stop them from inundating CAC. Telling you why the coin didn’t sticker doesn’t help the next 9 guys who think it has a shot. I don’t care about a fresh look once they know it wasn’t snickered before there is bias.
To date, collector submissions only account for about 13% of CAC submissions. Any inundation or bottleneck is hardly because of collector members.
@JimTyler said:
I’ll tell ya what frosts my hide with CAC they can get the coin back 10 times and know each time they’ve seen it already and didn’t sticker it. Taking $35 (now) each time. At least with PCGS or NGC you get it back in a detail holder if they didn’t like it. I know it can be cracked out but then it gets a clean shot at grading again and many times come back with a grade. CAC just keeps raking it in.
CAC doesn't charge collectors if the coin doesn't sticker, contrary to the other grading services that charge full fees whether your coin straight grades or not. Now dealer members have to pay every time, but that serves a purpose to prevent CAC from being inundated with low quality submissions. Dealers need to be more selective, not throwing anything at the wall to see if it sticks. Regardless, a $35 dollar investment is marginal if you're making high quality submissions, and just one sticker could easily return $1000 or more depending on the value of coin.
Edited to add- Also, your "details" comparison proves no point, either. CAC will tell you why the coin didn't sticker, and though its in their database, the coin is given a fresh look every time. Coins that have been rejected on the first go around have been known to sticker on a subsequent submission, occasionally. It's the same principle as getting a details grade from PCGS and re submitting the coin again raw, there is no difference.
The $16 dollar submission has ended just not removed from the website. Everyone pays $35 and collectors get 20 freebies or what would stop them from inundating CAC. Telling you why the coin didn’t sticker doesn’t help the next 9 guys who think it has a shot. I don’t care about a fresh look once they know it wasn’t snickered before there is bias.
To date, collector submissions only account for about 13% of CAC submissions. Any inundation or bottleneck is hardly because of collector members.
I wonder how many collectors compared to dealers are allowed to submit.
@JimTyler said:
I’ll tell ya what frosts my hide with CAC they can get the coin back 10 times and know each time they’ve seen it already and didn’t sticker it. Taking $35 (now) each time. At least with PCGS or NGC you get it back in a detail holder if they didn’t like it. I know it can be cracked out but then it gets a clean shot at grading again and many times come back with a grade. CAC just keeps raking it in.
Do you feel the same way about PCGS if they get the same NGC coin back 10 times for a crossover, know each time that they’ve seen it, that they didn't cross it, but take the the crossover submission fee each time? If not, why not?
If 10 different people send it in for crossover it would be the same. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I don’t think it is wrong for a company to charge a fee for each submission, regardless of the coin’s previous history and how many different people have submitted it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@JimTyler said:
I’ll tell ya what frosts my hide with CAC they can get the coin back 10 times and know each time they’ve seen it already and didn’t sticker it. Taking $35 (now) each time. At least with PCGS or NGC you get it back in a detail holder if they didn’t like it. I know it can be cracked out but then it gets a clean shot at grading again and many times come back with a grade. CAC just keeps raking it in.
Do you feel the same way about PCGS if they get the same NGC coin back 10 times for a crossover, know each time that they’ve seen it, that they didn't cross it, but take the the crossover submission fee each time? If not, why not?
If 10 different people send it in for crossover it would be the same. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I don’t think it is wrong for a company to charge a fee for each submission, regardless of the coin’s previous history and how many different people have submitted it.
I suppose that’s why the info isn’t published. That’s a lot of repeat business from customers that don’t know it’s repeat business.
@Project Numismatics said:
I like having two grading opinions for coins outside my primary focus areas and I see a market for PCGS or NGC to sticker other service’s coins.
Collecting type is difficult - it’s simply too difficult for the average collector to become a grading expert in every series.
Having a second professional opinion on a major purchase decision has value.
I don’t think it undermines PCGS business model to offer a sticker service for CACG or NGC coins. PCGS can charge the same price to sticker that they would charge for crossover.
A PCGS sticker would serve no purpose on a CAC slab. A lot of the first CAC slabs are going to have “legacy” indicator in the serial number, meaning they’ve been crossed from either PCGS or NGC beaned slabs. You already have 2 opinions.
Many others that end up in CACG plastic are going to be coins that were downgraded from their current holders. CAC already has the strictest standards out of the 3, why do I need PCGS to approve of CAC’s 64+ grade, on a coin that PCGS graded 65?
Maybe you don't. For me, it has value in certain situations. There are many collectors who would argue that you shouldn't need a TPG opinion at all and that everyone should learn to be a grading expert before making a purchase.
And I can learn Medicine and Engineering too, lol.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@JimTyler said:
I’ll tell ya what frosts my hide with CAC they can get the coin back 10 times and know each time they’ve seen it already and didn’t sticker it. Taking $35 (now) each time. At least with PCGS or NGC you get it back in a detail holder if they didn’t like it. I know it can be cracked out but then it gets a clean shot at grading again and many times come back with a grade. CAC just keeps raking it in.
Do you feel the same way about PCGS if they get the same NGC coin back 10 times for a crossover, know each time that they’ve seen it, that they didn't cross it, but take the the crossover submission fee each time? If not, why not?
If 10 different people send it in for crossover it would be the same. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
What would be your suggestion then? Should the TPG’s all keep a public database of the coins that have failed to meet their standards for crossover or approval, and wear a scarlett letter for the duration they stay in that holder?
@JimTyler said:
I’ll tell ya what frosts my hide with CAC they can get the coin back 10 times and know each time they’ve seen it already and didn’t sticker it. Taking $35 (now) each time. At least with PCGS or NGC you get it back in a detail holder if they didn’t like it. I know it can be cracked out but then it gets a clean shot at grading again and many times come back with a grade. CAC just keeps raking it in.
Do you feel the same way about PCGS if they get the same NGC coin back 10 times for a crossover, know each time that they’ve seen it, that they didn't cross it, but take the the crossover submission fee each time? If not, why not?
If 10 different people send it in for crossover it would be the same. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I don’t think it is wrong for a company to charge a fee for each submission, regardless of the coin’s previous history and how many different people have submitted it.
I suppose that’s why the info isn’t published. That’s a lot of repeat business from customers that don’t know it’s repeat business.
It’s not publicized since that would then give the coin a “Scarlet” letter, making it even harder for the seller to dispose of the coin at a potentially fair price.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Project Numismatics said:
I like having two grading opinions for coins outside my primary focus areas and I see a market for PCGS or NGC to sticker other service’s coins.
I don’t think it undermines PCGS business model to offer a sticker service for CACG or NGC coins. PCGS can charge the same price to sticker that they would charge for crossover.
A PCGS sticker would serve no purpose on a CAC slab.
CAC already has the strictest standards out of the 3, why do I need PCGS to approve of CAC’s 64+ grade, on a coin that PCGS graded 65?
Coins do not pass at CAC for four basic reasons
1. Over dipping (luster)
2. Artificial toning
3. PVC
4. Over graded
For PCGS to offer stickers, it would need to assemble a crack grading team to catch the errors PCGS originally missed.
Actually, there’s a fifth reason that probably happens often. The coin can indeed be properly graded, but is deemed by CAC to be a “C” coin.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
When CACG goes online I would think CAC would stop the sticker service (business consistency) as now they are a TPG. But all that beyond my pay grade lol. Are you a CACG submitter now? Will buyers flock to the new CACG slabs vs the stickered coins?
Frankly have been very pleased with my pivot to mainly Paper Money and World Coins (graded and raw) so what CAC does not a concern for me. Any US over $300 I would have is graded 69 &70 Bullion or mod Commem Gold. So CAC subm not an issue for me (as have sold out any CAC I had). As a PCGS submitter no plan subm to CACG. I might buy CACG coins in market place like if offered to me at my table at a show and able buy them at my price. Otherwise no interest.
@JimTyler said:
I’ll tell ya what frosts my hide with CAC they can get the coin back 10 times and know each time they’ve seen it already and didn’t sticker it. Taking $35 (now) each time. At least with PCGS or NGC you get it back in a detail holder if they didn’t like it. I know it can be cracked out but then it gets a clean shot at grading again and many times come back with a grade. CAC just keeps raking it in.
Do you feel the same way about PCGS if they get the same NGC coin back 10 times for a crossover, know each time that they’ve seen it, that they didn't cross it, but take the the crossover submission fee each time? If not, why not?
If 10 different people send it in for crossover it would be the same. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
What would be your suggestion then? Should the TPG’s all keep a public database of the coins that have failed to meet their standards for crossover or approval, and wear a scarlett letter for the duration they stay in that holder?
Only CAC gets to know the coin wears a Scarlett letter.
@JimTyler said:
I’ll tell ya what frosts my hide with CAC they can get the coin back 10 times and know each time they’ve seen it already and didn’t sticker it. Taking $35 (now) each time. At least with PCGS or NGC you get it back in a detail holder if they didn’t like it. I know it can be cracked out but then it gets a clean shot at grading again and many times come back with a grade. CAC just keeps raking it in.
Do you feel the same way about PCGS if they get the same NGC coin back 10 times for a crossover, know each time that they’ve seen it, that they didn't cross it, but take the the crossover submission fee each time? If not, why not?
If 10 different people send it in for crossover it would be the same. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
What would be your suggestion then? Should the TPG’s all keep a public database of the coins that have failed to meet their standards for crossover or approval, and wear a scarlett letter for the duration they stay in that holder?
Only CAC gets to know the coin wears a Scarlett letter.
You previously speculated that the reason cert numbers of coins that failed to sticker are kept private is so CAC can claim multiple submission fees for that same coin. The Scarlet Letter comments were made to explain the actual reasoning of why that info should not be made public.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
How about CAC only keeps coins that passed in their data base NOT coins that failed. Then when coins are sent in 10 times each time there is a true and fair subsequent evaluation. Why do they need to keep track of failed coins anyway.
If you can't fix it with duct tape or WD-40, you can't fix it. My opinion of a sticker or plastic is not swayed by the coin inside, neither is my opinion of the coin swayed by the sticker or plastic on the outside. If the major grading companies can't grade (with consistency), oh well.
Time, and money lost, won't be gained by losing more, in search of a validating opinion.
@JimTyler said:
How about CAC only keeps coins that passed in their data base NOT coins that failed. Then when coins are sent in 10 times each time there is a true and fair subsequent evaluation. Why do they need to keep track of failed coins anyway.
Good point. Does PCGS keep a list of NGC coins that fail to cross so that when the next owner sends it in they don't have to look at it and just keep the submission fee?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
@Project Numismatics said:
I like having two grading opinions for coins outside my primary focus areas and I see a market for PCGS or NGC to sticker other service’s coins.
Collecting type is difficult - it’s simply too difficult for the average collector to become a grading expert in every series.
Having a second professional opinion on a major purchase decision has value.
I don’t think it undermines PCGS business model to offer a sticker service for CACG or NGC coins. PCGS can charge the same price to sticker that they would charge for crossover.
A PCGS sticker would serve no purpose on a CAC slab. A lot of the first CAC slabs are going to have “legacy” indicator in the serial number, meaning they’ve been crossed from either PCGS or NGC beaned slabs. You already have 2 opinions.
Many others that end up in CACG plastic are going to be coins that were downgraded from their current holders. CAC already has the strictest standards out of the 3, why do I need PCGS to approve of CAC’s 64+ grade, on a coin that PCGS graded 65?
Maybe you don't. For me, it has value in certain situations. There are many collectors who would argue that you shouldn't need a TPG opinion at all and that everyone should learn to be a grading expert before making a purchase.
And I can learn Medicine and Engineering too, lol.
Steve
Yes - Many of us happily pay for second opinions in medicine or solicit multiple proposals when undertaking an engineering project and it's considered prudent. For whatever reason, soliciting a second grading opinion (i.e. CAC) seems to upset some folks. Seeking multiple professional opinions is simply good risk management.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
If you can't fix it with duct tape or WD-40, you can't fix it. My opinion of a sticker or plastic is not swayed by the coin inside, neither is my opinion of the coin swayed by the sticker or plastic on the outside. If the major grading companies can't grade (with consistency), oh well.
Time, and money lost, won't be gained by losing more, in search of a validating opinion.
@JimTyler said:
How about CAC only keeps coins that passed in their data base NOT coins that failed. Then when coins are sent in 10 times each time there is a true and fair subsequent evaluation. Why do they need to keep track of failed coins anyway.
You choose to ignore any of the counterpoints presented to your arguments. The fact that a previously failed coin can bean on a subsequent submission invalidates your point that coins don’t get a fresh look.
@JimTyler said:
I’ll tell ya what frosts my hide with CAC they can get the coin back 10 times and know each time they’ve seen it already and didn’t sticker it. Taking $35 (now) each time. At least with PCGS or NGC you get it back in a detail holder if they didn’t like it. I know it can be cracked out but then it gets a clean shot at grading again and many times come back with a grade. CAC just keeps raking it in.
Do you feel the same way about PCGS if they get the same NGC coin back 10 times for a crossover, know each time that they’ve seen it, that they didn't cross it, but take the the crossover submission fee each time? If not, why not?
If 10 different people send it in for crossover it would be the same. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
What would be your suggestion then? Should the TPG’s all keep a public database of the coins that have failed to meet their standards for crossover or approval, and wear a scarlett letter for the duration they stay in that holder?
If they published that data and Jim's coins suddenly had a scarlet letter, he'd want the data purged.
@JimTyler said:
How about CAC only keeps coins that passed in their data base NOT coins that failed. Then when coins are sent in 10 times each time there is a true and fair subsequent evaluation. Why do they need to keep track of failed coins anyway.
You choose to ignore any of the counterpoints presented to your arguments. The fact that a previously failed coin can bean on a subsequent submission invalidates your point that coins don’t get a fresh look.
You sure do like telling me my thoughts are invalidated or I prove no point. This isn’t the first thread you’ve done that. Are you a numismatic guru? I submit that your argument is naive if you believe that someone is 100% objective knowing the failed history. You also pointed out CAC will tell you why a coin failed as if that solves the problem for every potential submitter down the road.
@BillJones said:
People here know that I am not a CAC fan. I will thank them for one thing. They discouraged me from collecting U.S. coins which got me into British and Roman Imperial numismatics. Thank you CAC. I’ve had a fun ride, and look forward to continuing it.
I also want to thank CAC for not touching super eye appealing major error coinage.
It is soooo nice not having to deal with all the bs extra charges, time, shipping, perceptions, etc ....
@JimTyler said:
How about CAC only keeps coins that passed in their data base NOT coins that failed. Then when coins are sent in 10 times each time there is a true and fair subsequent evaluation. Why do they need to keep track of failed coins anyway.
You choose to ignore any of the counterpoints presented to your arguments. The fact that a previously failed coin can bean on a subsequent submission invalidates your point that coins don’t get a fresh look.
You sure do like telling me my thoughts are invalidated or I prove no point. This isn’t the first thread you’ve done that. Are you a numismatic guru? I submit that your argument is naive if you believe that someone is 100% objective knowing the failed history. You also pointed out CAC will tell you why a coin failed as if that solves the problem for every potential submitter down the road.
I try to be objective to the best of my ability. There are plenty of times when I reflect on someone’s argument and can concede that they make some fair points, but you’re not giving me an opportunity to do so. Is CAC 100% objective when reviewing previously failed coins? I can’t confirm that, but I’d like to believe that they are based on what I’ve seen.
@MFeld asked you the question but you never answered directly, are you as upset about PCGS not revealing which coins failed for crossover, as you are about CAC? I can agree that every TPG might operate in some ways that I disagree with, but it’s unfair to harshly criticize CAC for doing something that is widely accepted by the other TPGs. From where I’m standing, it appears to me that you and a few other members here just have an intense disdain towards CAC, and are unwilling to consider anyone else’s point of view, but will make sure to put your .02 criticism in whenever you get the chance.
@jayPem said:
🤯
What would happen if collectors wised up and lost interest in this circus?
What would happen if collectors wised up and realized that they’re leaving money on the table when they (or their heirs) sell coins that probably merit CAC stickers but they chose not to spend the few dollars needed to find out?
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@JimTyler said:
How about CAC only keeps coins that passed in their data base NOT coins that failed. Then when coins are sent in 10 times each time there is a true and fair subsequent evaluation. Why do they need to keep track of failed coins anyway.
You choose to ignore any of the counterpoints presented to your arguments. The fact that a previously failed coin can bean on a subsequent submission invalidates your point that coins don’t get a fresh look.
You sure do like telling me my thoughts are invalidated or I prove no point. This isn’t the first thread you’ve done that. Are you a numismatic guru? I submit that your argument is naive if you believe that someone is 100% objective knowing the failed history. You also pointed out CAC will tell you why a coin failed as if that solves the problem for every potential submitter down the road.
I try to be objective to the best of my ability. There are plenty of times when I reflect on someone’s argument and can concede that they make some fair points, but you’re not giving me an opportunity to do so. Is CAC 100% objective when reviewing previously failed coins? I can’t confirm that, but I’d like to believe that they are based on what I’ve seen.
@MFeld asked you the question but you never answered directly, are you as upset about PCGS not revealing which coins failed for crossover, as you are about CAC? I can agree that every TPG might operate in some ways that I disagree with, but it’s unfair to harshly criticize CAC for doing something that is widely accepted by the other TPGs. From where I’m standing, it appears to me that you and a few other members here just have an intense disdain towards CAC, and are unwilling to consider anyone else’s point of view, but will make sure to put your .02 criticism in whenever you get the chance.
My criticism is my point of view and I’m entitled. You have not been around here very long so a lot you don’t know like many dealers were against CAC at first almost like they were insulted that someone else needed to give an opinion, theirs wasn’t good enough. They wrote about it on their websites then they jumped on board when they saw the $ signs. I just never jumped on board. You were probably in diapers when I started collecting back when everything was raw. PCGS was a good idea a second option and protective holders. I did response to Felds question by the way.
By the way, many dealers were against PCGS and NGC when they started in the mid ‘80’s, and were also against ANACS photo certificates when they started about a decade earlier. You and I know their reasons why. Eventually, they came on board.
When Columbus discovered the world was round, there were naysayers back then too (no, I’m not that old, lol). As I go through life, I often realize that The Flat Earth Society is still alive and well.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
By the way, many dealers were against PCGS and NGC when they started in the mid ‘80’s, and were also against ANACS photo certificates when they started about a decade earlier. You and I know their reasons why. Eventually, they came on board.
When Columbus discovered the world was round, there were naysayers back then too (no, I’m not that old, lol). As I go through life, I often realize that The Flat Earth Society is still alive and well.
Steve
And they did such a great job through the years that many feel CAC is needed to check their work…. You know what they say about instincts and first impressions.
I didn’t read through the thread, but it’s my understanding they are opening up the lower tier sticker service again when they start holdering coins. They’re not discontinuing it until sometime later.
Someone please explain this to me. How is CAC going to pretend that problem free C coins don’t exist or is it going to undergrade them? If the former as I suspect, how is CACG any different from PCGS or NGC, both of which JA also had a hand in forming? If it is just another grading service then why wouldn’t a sticker designating the “A” and “B” coins still be relevant unless that was all a marketing gimmick from the beginning? I’m so confused.
@JimTyler said:
How about CAC only keeps coins that passed in their data base NOT coins that failed. Then when coins are sent in 10 times each time there is a true and fair subsequent evaluation. Why do they need to keep track of failed coins anyway.
You choose to ignore any of the counterpoints presented to your arguments. The fact that a previously failed coin can bean on a subsequent submission invalidates your point that coins don’t get a fresh look.
You sure do like telling me my thoughts are invalidated or I prove no point. This isn’t the first thread you’ve done that. Are you a numismatic guru? I submit that your argument is naive if you believe that someone is 100% objective knowing the failed history. You also pointed out CAC will tell you why a coin failed as if that solves the problem for every potential submitter down the road.
I try to be objective to the best of my ability. There are plenty of times when I reflect on someone’s argument and can concede that they make some fair points, but you’re not giving me an opportunity to do so. Is CAC 100% objective when reviewing previously failed coins? I can’t confirm that, but I’d like to believe that they are based on what I’ve seen.
@MFeld asked you the question but you never answered directly, are you as upset about PCGS not revealing which coins failed for crossover, as you are about CAC? I can agree that every TPG might operate in some ways that I disagree with, but it’s unfair to harshly criticize CAC for doing something that is widely accepted by the other TPGs. From where I’m standing, it appears to me that you and a few other members here just have an intense disdain towards CAC, and are unwilling to consider anyone else’s point of view, but will make sure to put your .02 criticism in whenever you get the chance.
My criticism is my point of view and I’m entitled. You have not been around here very long so a lot you don’t know like many dealers were against CAC at first almost like they were insulted that someone else needed to give an opinion, theirs wasn’t good enough. They wrote about it on their websites then they jumped on board when they saw the $ signs. I just never jumped on board. You were probably in diapers when I started collecting back when everything was raw. PCGS was a good idea a second option and protective holders. I did response to Felds question by the way.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and for the record I’m not attacking you, just your argument. In real life, we might actually agree on more than you think and even be buddies. It’s just that I grow tired of being insulted on every CAC thread. I'm one of the collectors that choose to spend their money on coins with CAC approval, and that is my choice. It is also your choice not to patronize CAC, and that doesn’t bother me at all. I don't know what you collect, but I don’t go into coin roll hunting threads and make comments that those collectors need to “wise up”, or tell the FS Jefferson nickel collectors they shouldn’t waste their money on a “silly designation”. (Those are not my opinions by the way, just examples for context).
You are 100% right, I have not been around for long. I can certainly understand how dealers weren't happy when CAC first started. The same dealers were probably pissed about the advent of TPG grading, but here we are 40 years later and it's an industry standard any coin of significant value. CAC has been in business for 15 years, and they're not going anywhere. There comes a time that the haters will have to let it go and move on, just like they did when it became apparent that TPG grading was becoming a staple of the industry. The contempt towards CAC on this forum is astounding, and the disparagement of both the organization and the collectors who patronize them contributes nothing to the discussion. If your criticisms were aimed towards the entire industry instead of CAC and CAC only, we'd be having a completely different discussion.
@cameonut2011 said:
Someone please explain this to me. How is CAC going to pretend that problem free C coins don’t exist or is it going to undergrade them? If the former as I suspect, how is CACG any different from PCGS or NGC, both of which JA also had a hand in forming? If it is just another grading service then why wouldn’t a sticker designating the “A” and “B” coins still be relevant unless that was all a marketing gimmick from the beginning? I’m so confused.
Right or wrong, I believe JA has indicated they’ll cross defect-free “C” coins at one grade lower, but with a plus. For example, most defect-free 65 “C” coins would likely get graded in a new CACG holder as 64+, but SOME would get graded lower. Submission forms for crossing would allow submitters to specify the lowest grade they would accept, including saying only to cross at a higher grade, or to cross at any grade.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@DeplorableDan said:
I can certainly understand how dealers weren't happy when CAC first started.
Not just dealers. Plenty of collectors were pissed when CAC started identifying (in their opinion) the better coins since it increased competition (and prices) for these coins. People often don't respond positively to losing out on cherrypicking opportunities.
As a collector I think a lot of issues could be resolved if TPGs took away the ability to specify minimum grades. In other words - every coin that comes through gets a fresh look, including the possibility of a downgrade. Gradeflation exists because you can try a coin 100 times and if 1 time it gets a bump the bump is permanent, with no downside risk (other than the fee). If every crossover or reconsideration had the potential to downgrade your coin then there would be a lot less activity. I would like to see the new CACG operate in this way, including for all currently cac'd coins submitted for the new holders.
@DeplorableDan said:
I can certainly understand how dealers weren't happy when CAC first started.
Not just dealers. Plenty of collectors were pissed when CAC started identifying (in their opinion) the better coins since it increased competition (and prices) for these coins. People often don't respond positively to losing out on cherrypicking opportunities.
And, as you can see, many still are angry. It comes out in every CAC thread. It borders on the pathological. I really don't get it.
I'm not interested in VAMs. The existence of VAMs inflates the price of some coins I might otherwise want. I don't go on to every VAM thread and yell about how VAMs are ruining the hobby.
@DeplorableDan said:
I can certainly understand how dealers weren't happy when CAC first started.
Not just dealers. Plenty of collectors were pissed when CAC started identifying (in their opinion) the better coins since it increased competition (and prices) for these coins. People often don't respond positively to losing out on cherrypicking opportunities.
And, as you can see, many still are angry. It comes out in every CAC thread. It borders on the pathological. I really don't get it.
I'm not interested in VAMs. The existence of VAMs inflates the price of some coins I might otherwise want. I don't go on to every VAM thread and yell about how VAMs are ruining the hobby.
Perhaps you should try it, then - you might like it.😀
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I would like TPGs to operate in a way that is in the best interest of collectors.
No "upgrade only" submissions would keep gradeflation under control by allowing them to correct past errors, and maintain current standards across all submissions. Over time this would lessen the need for stickers and drive consistency across the industry.
@JimTyler said:
You have not been around here very long
A somewhat ironic comment as you only joined in 2018.
Actually I’ve been here longer than you. Joined first part of 2001. Name agentjim007 (look that up) When I joined back then I used a luckymail email address. I took a couple years off around 2015 medical issues then forgot my password. Couldn’t retrieve it back to a non existent email so I started over. Thanks for looking that up Sherlock to me you’re also a new guy.
Comments
Eagle Eye and others
Well, it certainly can't be said that they are rushing into their slabs.
From all I read, a lot of the submissions will be "tactical." i.e. Trying to outguess what a currently slabbed coin will slab into.
It still amazes me that they have decided that a ten-for-a-penny spot of celluloid service should be replaced by a full factory assembly facility.
Time will prove whatever, I guess.
Coins do not pass at CAC for four basic reasons
1. Over dipping (luster)
2. Artificial toning
3. PVC
4. Over graded
For PCGS to offer stickers, it would need to assemble a crack grading team to catch the errors PCGS originally missed.
While this thread has gotten off track, hardly unusual, and while I was not privy to the op's conversation, this whole thing sounds like a miscommunication issue.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
To date, collector submissions only account for about 13% of CAC submissions. Any inundation or bottleneck is hardly because of collector members.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
Do you feel the same way about PCGS if they get the same NGC coin back 10 times for a crossover, know each time that they’ve seen it, that they didn't cross it, but take the the crossover submission fee each time? If not, why not?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Right. No one's forcing collectors to resubmit a particular coin over and over again, and no one should expect someone else to work for free.
Likewise, if, under the currently existent PCGS crossover service, an NGC coin crosses to a PCGS holder, the coin can be entered into a PCGS registry. Please explain how that’s “not even close”?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If 10 different people send it in for crossover it would be the same. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I wonder how many collectors compared to dealers are allowed to submit.
It's more that dealers have an endless supply of coins. Collectors do not.
I don’t think it is wrong for a company to charge a fee for each submission, regardless of the coin’s previous history and how many different people have submitted it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I suppose that’s why the info isn’t published. That’s a lot of repeat business from customers that don’t know it’s repeat business.
And I can learn Medicine and Engineering too, lol.
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
What would be your suggestion then? Should the TPG’s all keep a public database of the coins that have failed to meet their standards for crossover or approval, and wear a scarlett letter for the duration they stay in that holder?
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
It’s not publicized since that would then give the coin a “Scarlet” letter, making it even harder for the seller to dispose of the coin at a potentially fair price.
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
Actually, there’s a fifth reason that probably happens often. The coin can indeed be properly graded, but is deemed by CAC to be a “C” coin.
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
When CACG goes online I would think CAC would stop the sticker service (business consistency) as now they are a TPG. But all that beyond my pay grade lol. Are you a CACG submitter now? Will buyers flock to the new CACG slabs vs the stickered coins?
Frankly have been very pleased with my pivot to mainly Paper Money and World Coins (graded and raw) so what CAC does not a concern for me. Any US over $300 I would have is graded 69 &70 Bullion or mod Commem Gold. So CAC subm not an issue for me (as have sold out any CAC I had). As a PCGS submitter no plan subm to CACG. I might buy CACG coins in market place like if offered to me at my table at a show and able buy them at my price. Otherwise no interest.
I don’t have answers I just think it stinks.
Only CAC gets to know the coin wears a Scarlett letter.
You previously speculated that the reason cert numbers of coins that failed to sticker are kept private is so CAC can claim multiple submission fees for that same coin. The Scarlet Letter comments were made to explain the actual reasoning of why that info should not be made public.
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
🤯
What would happen if collectors wised up and lost interest in this circus?
How about CAC only keeps coins that passed in their data base NOT coins that failed. Then when coins are sent in 10 times each time there is a true and fair subsequent evaluation. Why do they need to keep track of failed coins anyway.
If you can't fix it with duct tape or WD-40, you can't fix it. My opinion of a sticker or plastic is not swayed by the coin inside, neither is my opinion of the coin swayed by the sticker or plastic on the outside. If the major grading companies can't grade (with consistency), oh well.
Time, and money lost, won't be gained by losing more, in search of a validating opinion.
Good point. Does PCGS keep a list of NGC coins that fail to cross so that when the next owner sends it in they don't have to look at it and just keep the submission fee?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Yes - Many of us happily pay for second opinions in medicine or solicit multiple proposals when undertaking an engineering project and it's considered prudent. For whatever reason, soliciting a second grading opinion (i.e. CAC) seems to upset some folks. Seeking multiple professional opinions is simply good risk management.
That’s actually really good.
You choose to ignore any of the counterpoints presented to your arguments. The fact that a previously failed coin can bean on a subsequent submission invalidates your point that coins don’t get a fresh look.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
Yes it will be interesting see how it all shakes out. Yet to see a CACG coin on eBay. Wonder what kind of bid war one would need win get one.
If they published that data and Jim's coins suddenly had a scarlet letter, he'd want the data purged.
You sure do like telling me my thoughts are invalidated or I prove no point. This isn’t the first thread you’ve done that. Are you a numismatic guru? I submit that your argument is naive if you believe that someone is 100% objective knowing the failed history. You also pointed out CAC will tell you why a coin failed as if that solves the problem for every potential submitter down the road.
I also want to thank CAC for not touching super eye appealing major error coinage.
It is soooo nice not having to deal with all the bs extra charges, time, shipping, perceptions, etc ....
I try to be objective to the best of my ability. There are plenty of times when I reflect on someone’s argument and can concede that they make some fair points, but you’re not giving me an opportunity to do so. Is CAC 100% objective when reviewing previously failed coins? I can’t confirm that, but I’d like to believe that they are based on what I’ve seen.
@MFeld asked you the question but you never answered directly, are you as upset about PCGS not revealing which coins failed for crossover, as you are about CAC? I can agree that every TPG might operate in some ways that I disagree with, but it’s unfair to harshly criticize CAC for doing something that is widely accepted by the other TPGs. From where I’m standing, it appears to me that you and a few other members here just have an intense disdain towards CAC, and are unwilling to consider anyone else’s point of view, but will make sure to put your .02 criticism in whenever you get the chance.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
What would happen if collectors wised up and realized that they’re leaving money on the table when they (or their heirs) sell coins that probably merit CAC stickers but they chose not to spend the few dollars needed to find out?
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
My criticism is my point of view and I’m entitled. You have not been around here very long so a lot you don’t know like many dealers were against CAC at first almost like they were insulted that someone else needed to give an opinion, theirs wasn’t good enough. They wrote about it on their websites then they jumped on board when they saw the $ signs. I just never jumped on board. You were probably in diapers when I started collecting back when everything was raw. PCGS was a good idea a second option and protective holders. I did response to Felds question by the way.
By the way, many dealers were against PCGS and NGC when they started in the mid ‘80’s, and were also against ANACS photo certificates when they started about a decade earlier. You and I know their reasons why. Eventually, they came on board.
When Columbus discovered the world was round, there were naysayers back then too (no, I’m not that old, lol). As I go through life, I often realize that The Flat Earth Society is still alive and well.
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
And they did such a great job through the years that many feel CAC is needed to check their work…. You know what they say about instincts and first impressions.
I didn’t read through the thread, but it’s my understanding they are opening up the lower tier sticker service again when they start holdering coins. They’re not discontinuing it until sometime later.
BHNC #248 … 108 and counting.
My YouTube Channel
Someone please explain this to me. How is CAC going to pretend that problem free C coins don’t exist or is it going to undergrade them? If the former as I suspect, how is CACG any different from PCGS or NGC, both of which JA also had a hand in forming? If it is just another grading service then why wouldn’t a sticker designating the “A” and “B” coins still be relevant unless that was all a marketing gimmick from the beginning? I’m so confused.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and for the record I’m not attacking you, just your argument. In real life, we might actually agree on more than you think and even be buddies. It’s just that I grow tired of being insulted on every CAC thread. I'm one of the collectors that choose to spend their money on coins with CAC approval, and that is my choice. It is also your choice not to patronize CAC, and that doesn’t bother me at all. I don't know what you collect, but I don’t go into coin roll hunting threads and make comments that those collectors need to “wise up”, or tell the FS Jefferson nickel collectors they shouldn’t waste their money on a “silly designation”. (Those are not my opinions by the way, just examples for context).
You are 100% right, I have not been around for long. I can certainly understand how dealers weren't happy when CAC first started. The same dealers were probably pissed about the advent of TPG grading, but here we are 40 years later and it's an industry standard any coin of significant value. CAC has been in business for 15 years, and they're not going anywhere. There comes a time that the haters will have to let it go and move on, just like they did when it became apparent that TPG grading was becoming a staple of the industry. The contempt towards CAC on this forum is astounding, and the disparagement of both the organization and the collectors who patronize them contributes nothing to the discussion. If your criticisms were aimed towards the entire industry instead of CAC and CAC only, we'd be having a completely different discussion.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
Right or wrong, I believe JA has indicated they’ll cross defect-free “C” coins at one grade lower, but with a plus. For example, most defect-free 65 “C” coins would likely get graded in a new CACG holder as 64+, but SOME would get graded lower. Submission forms for crossing would allow submitters to specify the lowest grade they would accept, including saying only to cross at a higher grade, or to cross at any grade.
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
A somewhat ironic comment as you only joined in 2018.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Not just dealers. Plenty of collectors were pissed when CAC started identifying (in their opinion) the better coins since it increased competition (and prices) for these coins. People often don't respond positively to losing out on cherrypicking opportunities.
As a collector I think a lot of issues could be resolved if TPGs took away the ability to specify minimum grades. In other words - every coin that comes through gets a fresh look, including the possibility of a downgrade. Gradeflation exists because you can try a coin 100 times and if 1 time it gets a bump the bump is permanent, with no downside risk (other than the fee). If every crossover or reconsideration had the potential to downgrade your coin then there would be a lot less activity. I would like to see the new CACG operate in this way, including for all currently cac'd coins submitted for the new holders.
My Gold Type Set
Do you think grading companies prefer more or less activity?
And, as you can see, many still are angry. It comes out in every CAC thread. It borders on the pathological. I really don't get it.
I'm not interested in VAMs. The existence of VAMs inflates the price of some coins I might otherwise want. I don't go on to every VAM thread and yell about how VAMs are ruining the hobby.
Perhaps you should try it, then - you might like it.😀
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I would like TPGs to operate in a way that is in the best interest of collectors.
No "upgrade only" submissions would keep gradeflation under control by allowing them to correct past errors, and maintain current standards across all submissions. Over time this would lessen the need for stickers and drive consistency across the industry.
My Gold Type Set
Actually I’ve been here longer than you. Joined first part of 2001. Name agentjim007 (look that up) When I joined back then I used a luckymail email address. I took a couple years off around 2015 medical issues then forgot my password. Couldn’t retrieve it back to a non existent email so I started over. Thanks for looking that up Sherlock to me you’re also a new guy.