@davewesen said:
if it was a reholder and same cert, they would not put another sticker on it?
It had a particular cardboard that could only be requested by the originator. I went through him. He submitted to PCGS to get same cardboard and upon getting it back sent it into CAC. I had bought this coin first. I bought a second one some time later and requested that he send it in for the cardboard and attribute.
When he got it back, he sent it to CAC and they applied the bean. Neither of us thought this was out of the ordinary so I asked if he would do the same with the previous coin I had bought. This is where the rub came in. No problem with PCGS but when it was sent into CAC they would not apply the bean because their standards had changed.
@Colombianito said:
The story is suspect or missing information. Most coins are restickered. But I don’t believe “ our standards have changed “ at all.
Coin may have changed in holder. Something . If poster didn’t have a high post count I’d question whether or not this was just a hit piece .
Nope, not a hit piece. There is a third party involved that is highly regarded in numismatics and I am keeping his name out of this. He was the person that went between CAC and myself.
About two hours ago I sent the following message to the OP (with the phone number which was included, X’d out here):
“ Hello Herb-T.
I spoke with John Albanese and he asked me to provide you with his cell phone number and to tell you to feel free to call him about your coin that failed to resticker. His number is (xxx xxx xxxx)
Sincerely,
Mark Feld”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jmlanzaf said:
I fail to see the problem without more details. Suppose the coin turned in the holder? Is CAC supposed to ignore that?
You can take my comments or not. I don’t really care. There are other forum members that can vouch for me and know I am a straight shooter.
You may be a straight shooter but so far we haven't seen any gun or bullets. Why no details on the coin?
It is nearly impossible to believe that any TPGS would EVER say that their "standards" changed. It would put them out of business because all of their plastic (or stickers) would now be suspect because no one would know which standard applied.
Either there is something wrong with the coin, either new or missed earlier, or it is a type they no longer sticker. Even IF they changed their internal standard, they would never state it externally.
@MFeld said:
About two hours ago I sent the following message to the OP (with the phone number which was included, X’d out here):
“ Hello Herb-T.
I spoke with John Albanese and he asked me to provide you with his cell phone number and to tell you to feel free to call him about your coin that failed to resticker. His number is (xxx xxx xxxx)
Sincerely,
Mark Feld”
Sorry, Mark, but it looks like JA gave you a fake phone number.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Regardless of anything, any grade/sticker service must, of necessity, have borderline cases. If you had a service, you would too. If you assume an "A" coin is a, say, MS 64.80 to MS 64.99 and a B coin is MS 64.50 to MS 64.79, any coin between MS 64.45 and 64.55, or 64.48 and 64.52 or whatever range is going to be solid for the grade some of the time and weak for the grade some of the time. Regardless of how tightly you grade, there will be coins that could go either way depending on various factors.
So CAC doesn't have to change a thing for borderline cases being decided differently at different times.
And this also explains "inflation". Because no one is as consistent as I suggested above. So in fact a MS 64.37 might fail 80% of the time and pass 20% of the time (and we can assume greater variation in non-binary services such as offered by PCGS, perhaps 10% MS 63+, 60% MS 64, 20% MS 64+, and 10% MS 65) the owner can submit the coin again and again until he gets the sticker/grade he wants. So my hypothetical coin always goes back to PCGS when its graded MS 63+ but never when it's graded MS 65.
So assuming no costs, all coins that could possibly be stickered will be stickered and all coins will be in the highest possible graded PCGS holder. It's inevitable, and if any of us were running a grading/approval service the exact same thing would happen.
@MFeld said:
About two hours ago I sent the following message to the OP (with the phone number which was included, X’d out here):
“ Hello Herb-T.
I spoke with John Albanese and he asked me to provide you with his cell phone number and to tell you to feel free to call him about your coin that failed to resticker. His number is (xxx xxx xxxx)
Sincerely,
Mark Feld”
Mark,
I am not a principal in this issue. Notwithstanding, I want to acknowledge the effort you made to enable direct communication between Herb and JA.
Hopefully, @Herb_T takes advantage of the opportunity, and subsequently considers posting any new information here.
@MFeld said:
About two hours ago I sent the following message to the OP (with the phone number which was included, X’d out here):
“ Hello Herb-T.
I spoke with John Albanese and he asked me to provide you with his cell phone number and to tell you to feel free to call him about your coin that failed to resticker. His number is (xxx xxx xxxx)
Sincerely,
Mark Feld”
Mark,
I am not a principal in this issue. Notwithstanding, I want to acknowledge the effort you made to enable direct communication between Herb and JA.
Hopefully, @Herb_T takes advantage of the opportunity, and subsequently considers posting any new information here.
Something doesn’t seem right here. No pictures of coin and controversial quote of CAC changing grading parameters. Doesn’t add up
@MFeld said:
About two hours ago I sent the following message to the OP (with the phone number which was included, X’d out here):
“ Hello Herb-T.
I spoke with John Albanese and he asked me to provide you with his cell phone number and to tell you to feel free to call him about your coin that failed to resticker. His number is (xxx xxx xxxx)
Sincerely,
Mark Feld”
Mark,
I am not a principal in this issue. Notwithstanding, I want to acknowledge the effort you made to enable direct communication between Herb and JA.
Hopefully, @Herb_T takes advantage of the opportunity, and subsequently considers posting any new information here.
I too was very impressed by this. I’ve always been a fanboy of MFeld, but this is over the top, in a good way.
@Herb_T said:
I bought a PCGS graded coin that had a green CAC sticker on it. Sent it into PCGS to have an attribute applied to it and then had the coin resubmitted to CAC to have the sticker reapplied. CAC denied the resticker request. They said that they have raised their standards and the coin no longer met the new standards.
Be aware!
Interesting. Is this in writing?
I wonder what this will mean for stickered/CACL coins.
I bet it’s not in writing and that the comment from CAC was quite different from what’s been stated.
Here is the letter I got from the third party. Because he strongly participates in the numismatic hobby I am not divulging his name.
Here is my letter from him….
Herb,
I hope that you’re doing well and that the winter hasn’t been too rough on you.
Hopefully you’re enjoying some place warm right now.
I’m sorry to reach out with something that’s not great news, but I wanted to put an end to an issue regarding a coin that I think we had reholdered for you with an added variety that we then sent to CAC.
This coin has become an issue as CAC has reviewed it freshly and they do not currently grade it as a MS62. There’s some friction on the cheek of the Bust which they cannot overcome to garner it with a sticker. I’ve discussed the coin with John Albanese at CAC several times and sent it to them to review again, but they just can’t get there. They view the cabinet friction there and would only grade the coin AU58+. Their process when they re-evaluate coins for a re-sticker is that they look at it with fresh eye and while 99% of the coins re-sticker, some do not.
As a result, we have a few options that they would like to offer due to the issue, but I really want to see what you’d like to do:
CAC would buy the coin back for what you paid originally ($1775)
CAC would pay you $500 as a courtesy for not being able to re-sticker it.
CAC actually was hoping that you’d sell it to them to be a part of their upcoming grading set as an AU58+, but that’s just an aside.
Once again, I’m sorry for the inconvenience, but if you have a preference (or a different solution) you’d like them to consider, I’m happy to pass it along.
@Herb_T said:
I bought a PCGS graded coin that had a green CAC sticker on it. Sent it into PCGS to have an attribute applied to it and then had the coin resubmitted to CAC to have the sticker reapplied. CAC denied the resticker request. They said that they have raised their standards and the coin no longer met the new standards.
Be aware!
Without more details on the above this seems more like sour grapes.
@Herb_T said:
I bought a PCGS graded coin that had a green CAC sticker on it. Sent it into PCGS to have an attribute applied to it and then had the coin resubmitted to CAC to have the sticker reapplied. CAC denied the resticker request. They said that they have raised their standards and the coin no longer met the new standards.
Be aware!
Interesting. Is this in writing?
I wonder what this will mean for stickered/CACL coins.
I bet it’s not in writing and that the comment from CAC was quite different from what’s been stated.
"We at CAC are humans, and occasionally make mistakes when viewing a coin. When we catch our mistakes, rather than just letting them go we will make them right."
They didn't say anything about changing standards, and actually offered you $500 just because they made a mistake. I'd take the $500, and sell the coin, making a good chunk of money on it.
@Herb_T said:
Here is the letter I got from the third party. Because he strongly participates in the numismatic hobby I am not divulging his name.
Here is my letter from him….
Herb,
I hope that you’re doing well and that the winter hasn’t been too rough on you.
Hopefully you’re enjoying some place warm right now.
I’m sorry to reach out with something that’s not great news, but I wanted to put an end to an issue regarding a coin that I think we had reholdered for you with an added variety that we then sent to CAC.
This coin has become an issue as CAC has reviewed it freshly and they do not currently grade it as a MS62. There’s some friction on the cheek of the Bust which they cannot overcome to garner it with a sticker. I’ve discussed the coin with John Albanese at CAC several times and sent it to them to review again, but they just can’t get there. They view the cabinet friction there and would only grade the coin AU58+. Their process when they re-evaluate coins for a re-sticker is that they look at it with fresh eye and while 99% of the coins re-sticker, some do not.
As a result, we have a few options that they would like to offer due to the issue, but I really want to see what you’d like to do:
CAC would buy the coin back for what you paid originally ($1775)
CAC would pay you $500 as a courtesy for not being able to re-sticker it.
CAC actually was hoping that you’d sell it to them to be a part of their upcoming grading set as an AU58+, but that’s just an aside.
Once again, I’m sorry for the inconvenience, but if you have a preference (or a different solution) you’d like them to consider, I’m happy to pass it along.
Thanks,
This sounds like the market acceptable AU62 issue which I brought up before since CACG won’t be grading market acceptable wear coins at 60+.
As the TPGs do this, I can see CAC going along with it until now, now that CACG is here with a different grading standard.
@Herb_T said:
I bought a PCGS graded coin that had a green CAC sticker on it. Sent it into PCGS to have an attribute applied to it and then had the coin resubmitted to CAC to have the sticker reapplied. CAC denied the resticker request. They said that they have raised their standards and the coin no longer met the new standards.
Be aware!
Can you post the old cac slab pics versus the new slab pic. Who said "they raised their standards"
My wife and I are in the process of moving our belongings to Maine. We are trying to empty the Ohio house so we can put it up for sale. Likewise our second home in Maine will also be going up for sale. We never expected to move from Ohio. But my wife got a super deal on 24 acres and I told her if we built a new home I would be willing to move there.
Here is the garage we built, 42’x48’. The new home will have a 2 car garage for my wife and a 41’x40’ for me and my toys.
I bring this up as we are now in Maine having spent the last 2 days driving 800 miles and my coins are back in Ohio in the bank vault. I will get the previous coin that they did bean.
@Catbert said:
So, if JA is to be believed, your coin fell into the 1% that fail to resticker. Guess one shouldn’t extrapolate that this is happens often.
I’d be careful with any MS stickered coin with cabinet friction or market acceptable wear. I’d extrapolate it to this level but not further.
I had raised this issue in theory before when I heard of CACG’s grading standard being different than existing TPGs and the ANA here and this seems to be a real world example.
Not that I want to be right, but it seems to be the natural result of having a different grading standard.
"We at CAC are humans, and occasionally make mistakes when viewing a coin. When we catch our mistakes, rather than just letting them go we will make them right."
I've watched JA step up and do the right thing many times. Just one of the reasons I have so much respect for him.
@Herb_T said:
I was so irritated by the outcome I just sold it for what I had in it. Case closed.
I’d be upset too and both disappointed and frustrated.
You kind of got your money back which is good but you incurred additional expenses with PCGS and CAC for grading, shipping, etc.
He was offered $500 “as a courtesy for not being able to re-sticker it.” Once a coin is cracked out of its holder and the applicable guarantee voided, what other company offers $500 when not agreeing with their original assessment?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@braddick said:
I've heard of this "the coin turned in the holder" and my first thought is for decades this classic coin was impervious to "turning" yet once it is in an inert PCGS slab it can then "turn in the holder"?
What the heck are these holders made of that can cause this to be even a possibility?
And why isn't that a bigger concern than it appears to be now?
Have you heard of coinage metals reacting to the atmosphere? This is a fact and no joke lol. I suggest you read the coin preservation handbook.
@Herb_T said:
I was so irritated by the outcome I just sold it for what I had in it. Case closed.
Sorry if this is a stupid question. You liked the coin before. It’s the same coin now. Why sell it? Couldn’t you take their $500, and keep the coin that you liked for your collection?
From my experience, this is completely wrong. Although I haven't sent any coins to pcgs in about 3 years, I have sent many in for variety attribution.
You do it under reholder and add on variety attribution on the paperwork. The only number that will change is the coin number. The cert. Number does not change.
Someone gave you bad information that probably cost more money as well.
I have submitted several coins for re-holder this year and every one of them came back with new cert numbers.
On another note, I had an NGC AU58 CAC Morgan that I reholdered and then submitted to CAC and was denied. The coin did not change. I did not send it for a re-sticker though, now I realize that this is what I should have done. I will be sending it back with documentation for a re-sticker to see what happens.
There is a risk in everything we do in this world. CAC went above and beyond offering any amount. If they gave it a gold bean because it was oh sooooo close last time it wouldn't have been a problem. Same scenario except going the other way. There are coins that are literally THE CUTOFF POINT. Is it unfortunate, YES. Does it hurt, YES. Are there coins that stickered that don't deserve it, YES. BUT is the percentage very very very small. I'd have to say YES.
@braddick said:
I've heard of this "the coin turned in the holder" and my first thought is for decades this classic coin was impervious to "turning" yet once it is in an inert PCGS slab it can then "turn in the holder"?
What the heck are these holders made of that can cause this to be even a possibility?
And why isn't that a bigger concern than it appears to be now?
Have you heard of coinage metals reacting to the atmosphere? This is a fact and no joke lol. I suggest you read the coin preservation handbook.
Then how does it come that so many copper coins maintained their red color so well after 50-150 years without being in a fairly airtight holder? Now all of a sudden we are to believe these coins are turning in a fairly tight PCGS holder. I think it does happen but once in a blue moon if stored in humid weather conditions
@braddick said:
I've heard of this "the coin turned in the holder" and my first thought is for decades this classic coin was impervious to "turning" yet once it is in an inert PCGS slab it can then "turn in the holder"?
What the heck are these holders made of that can cause this to be even a possibility?
And why isn't that a bigger concern than it appears to be now?
Have you heard of coinage metals reacting to the atmosphere? This is a fact and no joke lol. I suggest you read the coin preservation handbook.
Then how does it come that so many copper coins maintained their red color so well after 50-150 years without being in a fairly airtight holder? Now all of a sudden we are to believe these coins are turning in a fairly tight PCGS holder. I think it does happen but once in a blue moon if stored in humid weather conditions
I recently bought a PCGS coin (Roosevelt dime) that appeared to have been in a flood. There was dirt inside the holder and holder was very scratched. Coin appeared OK and unaffected but I don't know what really happened with slab. Got a great deal on it. I sent it in to PCGS for a re-holder. But my point is, if dirt got inside the slab, so can other things.
@Herb_T said:
I was so irritated by the outcome I just sold it for what I had in it. Case closed.
Sorry if this is a stupid question. You liked the coin before. It’s the same coin now. Why sell it? Couldn’t you take their $500, and keep the coin that you liked for your collection?
Because the value of the coin without the sticker may have gone down more than the $500 CAC offered him.
Please don’t misinterpret me, I think Herb was treated fairly by CAC, but I do understand how he might feel about everything.
"We at CAC are humans, and occasionally make mistakes when viewing a coin. When we catch our mistakes, rather than just letting them go we will make them right."
They didn't say anything about changing standards, and actually offered you $500 just because they made a mistake. I'd take the $500, and sell the coin, making a good chunk of money on it.
@Herb_T said:
I was so irritated by the outcome I just sold it for what I had in it. Case closed.
Sorry if this is a stupid question. You liked the coin before. It’s the same coin now. Why sell it? Couldn’t you take their $500, and keep the coin that you liked for your collection?
Because the value of the coin without the sticker may have gone down more than the $500 CAC offered him.
Please don’t misinterpret me, I think Herb was treated fairly by CAC, but I do understand how he might feel about everything.
But he sold it for what he had into it. So he'd still own it at what he had into it plus have $500 as a bonus...
At least CAC stood by its opinion and went above and beyond. There is no CAC guarantee, but it agreed to buy it and give you an extra $500 which is more than generous.
P.S. Was this a bust half? It is not uncommon for AU58 or AU58+ coins to outperform lower MS graded pieces.
@cameonut2011 said:
At least CAC stood by its opinion and went above and beyond. There is no CAC guarantee, but it agreed to buy it and give you an extra $500 which is more than generous.
P.S. Was this a bust half? It is not uncommon for AU58 or AU58+ coins to outperform lower MS graded pieces.
.
There are a lot of Bust Half guys that would PREFER a 58+ over a 61 or 62
.
Well, now that the rest of the story has come out and I can try to understand the whole story better ... kudo's to JA for making Herb an offer to buy the coin, or pay him $500. to keep it. Pretty rare customer service there.
And also kudo's to CAC for not bending to a mistake from earlier and basically saying "No, we won't change our opinion now just because we missed it earlier." I have a lot of respect for this because I have personally seen a pretty expensive Capped Bust Half with a bean that I would love to show JA, and ask him if he missed something. Spoiler; 99.9% sure he did
Finally, no where do I see that CAC's standards changed. At all. That to me is a deceitful statement. I believe JA has always stood by not stickering Unc' coins with cabinet friction, ESPECIALLY Bust material.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Wow! What a stand up move by CAC. The original post should have described how great CAC is for how they handled this issue. That is way above the service standards for any other TPG.
Collector of Original Early Gold with beginnings in Proof Morgan collecting.
@ricko said:
That is very surprising. Could very well be interpreted as invalidating ALL CAC stickers until resubmitted.... If standards change, then previously graded coins are in question. Should even warrant a change in the sticker to assure the new standards were applied. Something of this magnitude certainly warrants official confirmation from CAC. Cheers, RickO
NO CAC FOR YOU.......
all grading is subjective folks just chasing $$$$$$$$$$
Glad the issue was resolved and if cac let you come out $500 to the good that was a big positive in your favor, though you had shipping and reslabbing or attribution costs.
Some years ago I had a long drama with a previously graded PCGS coin that cac said had been tooled and PCGS offered me a couple choices, one of which buying the coin would have left me way behind, so I took their offer to slab as a details coin with a check for the wholesale loss of the better date $20 in an MS63 holder. I ended up sending the coin to NGC which also straight graded it. Cac clearly saw something to raise a red flag that the two grading services did not.
@cameonut2011 said:
At least CAC stood by its opinion and went above and beyond. There is no CAC guarantee, but it agreed to buy it and give you an extra $500 which is more than generous.
P.S. Was this a bust half? It is not uncommon for AU58 or AU58+ coins to outperform lower MS graded pieces.
I'm not saying JA's offer was not generous under the circumstances, because, quite frankly, any offer would be, but I did not read it as being nearly as generous as you are.
I saw JA taking OP out of it by buying it for what OP had in it, OR giving him $500 for the inconvenience. Not both, and not a CAC bid for a green beaned MS 62.
So, CAC absolutely did not stand behind its original opinion, but merely offered to either unwind everything for OP, or give him $500 as partial compensation for the issue.
I agree that JA does not owe OP anything on account of his failure to leave well enough alone, and pursuing the attribution that led to the loss of the CAC premium due to the required reevaluation of the coin. OP has no entitlement to JA's opinion never changing, and is not entitled to compensation if it does.
Particularly in a case like this, where OP did not pay the CAC premium when he acquired the coin, but was merely granted it by JA through the initial submission. JA made OP whole, but did not give him a windfall by paying him a premium for a bean he did not pay for (other than the nominal submission fee), and which JA no longer feels the coin deserves.
If you want to pursue a registry with Overton numbers, the only way you get credit for a particular number is to have the attribute applied. This was the second coin in this pedigree that I wanted to do. The first one with a CAC sailed through. If CAC thought the second coin was originally worthy, they should have applied it a second time. None of this crap that the coin was damaged during the attribution application. His “rub” was the rub on the cheek that was there before when CAC applied the first bean. Hence their standards have changed.
Comments
No. Just asked for the attribute, nothing more.
Was this a colonial coin where CAC's policy changed a few years ago?
If I missed the coin information in the post, sorry.
Owner/Founder GreatCollections
GreatCollections Coin Auctions - Certified Coin Auctions Every Week - Rare Coins & Coin Values
It had a particular cardboard that could only be requested by the originator. I went through him. He submitted to PCGS to get same cardboard and upon getting it back sent it into CAC. I had bought this coin first. I bought a second one some time later and requested that he send it in for the cardboard and attribute.
When he got it back, he sent it to CAC and they applied the bean. Neither of us thought this was out of the ordinary so I asked if he would do the same with the previous coin I had bought. This is where the rub came in. No problem with PCGS but when it was sent into CAC they would not apply the bean because their standards had changed.
That’s not how this went down.
You can take my comments or not. I don’t really care. There are other forum members that can vouch for me and know I am a straight shooter.
Nope, not a hit piece. There is a third party involved that is highly regarded in numismatics and I am keeping his name out of this. He was the person that went between CAC and myself.
About two hours ago I sent the following message to the OP (with the phone number which was included, X’d out here):
“ Hello Herb-T.
I spoke with John Albanese and he asked me to provide you with his cell phone number and to tell you to feel free to call him about your coin that failed to resticker. His number is (xxx xxx xxxx)
Sincerely,
Mark Feld”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You may be a straight shooter but so far we haven't seen any gun or bullets. Why no details on the coin?
It is nearly impossible to believe that any TPGS would EVER say that their "standards" changed. It would put them out of business because all of their plastic (or stickers) would now be suspect because no one would know which standard applied.
Either there is something wrong with the coin, either new or missed earlier, or it is a type they no longer sticker. Even IF they changed their internal standard, they would never state it externally.
Sorry, Mark, but it looks like JA gave you a fake phone number.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Regardless of anything, any grade/sticker service must, of necessity, have borderline cases. If you had a service, you would too. If you assume an "A" coin is a, say, MS 64.80 to MS 64.99 and a B coin is MS 64.50 to MS 64.79, any coin between MS 64.45 and 64.55, or 64.48 and 64.52 or whatever range is going to be solid for the grade some of the time and weak for the grade some of the time. Regardless of how tightly you grade, there will be coins that could go either way depending on various factors.
So CAC doesn't have to change a thing for borderline cases being decided differently at different times.
And this also explains "inflation". Because no one is as consistent as I suggested above. So in fact a MS 64.37 might fail 80% of the time and pass 20% of the time (and we can assume greater variation in non-binary services such as offered by PCGS, perhaps 10% MS 63+, 60% MS 64, 20% MS 64+, and 10% MS 65) the owner can submit the coin again and again until he gets the sticker/grade he wants. So my hypothetical coin always goes back to PCGS when its graded MS 63+ but never when it's graded MS 65.
So assuming no costs, all coins that could possibly be stickered will be stickered and all coins will be in the highest possible graded PCGS holder. It's inevitable, and if any of us were running a grading/approval service the exact same thing would happen.
Mark,
I am not a principal in this issue. Notwithstanding, I want to acknowledge the effort you made to enable direct communication between Herb and JA.
Hopefully, @Herb_T takes advantage of the opportunity, and subsequently considers posting any new information here.
what is 'cardboard', is that a special label?
Something doesn’t seem right here. No pictures of coin and controversial quote of CAC changing grading parameters. Doesn’t add up
It sounded like a ‘pedigree’ label to me.
I might be wrong, though.
I too was very impressed by this. I’ve always been a fanboy of MFeld, but this is over the top, in a good way.
See below…
And the gauntlet has been thrown.....
There's a reason I always sit on the sidelines for these types of posts. Better to let them play out than rush to judgement.
Tim
Here is the letter I got from the third party. Because he strongly participates in the numismatic hobby I am not divulging his name.
Here is my letter from him….
Herb,
I hope that you’re doing well and that the winter hasn’t been too rough on you.
Hopefully you’re enjoying some place warm right now.
I’m sorry to reach out with something that’s not great news, but I wanted to put an end to an issue regarding a coin that I think we had reholdered for you with an added variety that we then sent to CAC.
This coin has become an issue as CAC has reviewed it freshly and they do not currently grade it as a MS62. There’s some friction on the cheek of the Bust which they cannot overcome to garner it with a sticker. I’ve discussed the coin with John Albanese at CAC several times and sent it to them to review again, but they just can’t get there. They view the cabinet friction there and would only grade the coin AU58+. Their process when they re-evaluate coins for a re-sticker is that they look at it with fresh eye and while 99% of the coins re-sticker, some do not.
As a result, we have a few options that they would like to offer due to the issue, but I really want to see what you’d like to do:
CAC would buy the coin back for what you paid originally ($1775)
CAC would pay you $500 as a courtesy for not being able to re-sticker it.
CAC actually was hoping that you’d sell it to them to be a part of their upcoming grading set as an AU58+, but that’s just an aside.
Once again, I’m sorry for the inconvenience, but if you have a preference (or a different solution) you’d like them to consider, I’m happy to pass it along.
Thanks,
Without more details on the above this seems more like sour grapes.
DOG acolyte
???
I was so irritated by the outcome I just sold it for what I had in it. Case closed.
So, if JA is to be believed, your coin fell into the 1% that fail to resticker. Guess one shouldn’t extrapolate that this is happens often.
How I read it is:
"We at CAC are humans, and occasionally make mistakes when viewing a coin. When we catch our mistakes, rather than just letting them go we will make them right."
They didn't say anything about changing standards, and actually offered you $500 just because they made a mistake. I'd take the $500, and sell the coin, making a good chunk of money on it.
Coin Photographer.
Just curious, did you sell it to CAC for their offer or to someone/somewhere else?
This sounds like the market acceptable AU62 issue which I brought up before since CACG won’t be grading market acceptable wear coins at 60+.
As the TPGs do this, I can see CAC going along with it until now, now that CACG is here with a different grading standard.
My wife and I are in the process of moving our belongings to Maine. We are trying to empty the Ohio house so we can put it up for sale. Likewise our second home in Maine will also be going up for sale. We never expected to move from Ohio. But my wife got a super deal on 24 acres and I told her if we built a new home I would be willing to move there.
Here is the garage we built, 42’x48’. The new home will have a 2 car garage for my wife and a 41’x40’ for me and my toys.
I bring this up as we are now in Maine having spent the last 2 days driving 800 miles and my coins are back in Ohio in the bank vault. I will get the previous coin that they did bean.
I’d be careful with any MS stickered coin with cabinet friction or market acceptable wear. I’d extrapolate it to this level but not further.
I had raised this issue in theory before when I heard of CACG’s grading standard being different than existing TPGs and the ANA here and this seems to be a real world example.
Not that I want to be right, but it seems to be the natural result of having a different grading standard.
I’d be upset too and both disappointed and frustrated.
You kind of got your money back which is good but you incurred additional expenses with PCGS and CAC for grading, shipping, etc.
Bingo!
"We at CAC are humans, and occasionally make mistakes when viewing a coin. When we catch our mistakes, rather than just letting them go we will make them right."
I've watched JA step up and do the right thing many times. Just one of the reasons I have so much respect for him.
He was offered $500 “as a courtesy for not being able to re-sticker it.” Once a coin is cracked out of its holder and the applicable guarantee voided, what other company offers $500 when not agreeing with their original assessment?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Have you heard of coinage metals reacting to the atmosphere? This is a fact and no joke lol. I suggest you read the coin preservation handbook.
Sorry if this is a stupid question. You liked the coin before. It’s the same coin now. Why sell it? Couldn’t you take their $500, and keep the coin that you liked for your collection?
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
I have submitted several coins for re-holder this year and every one of them came back with new cert numbers.
On another note, I had an NGC AU58 CAC Morgan that I reholdered and then submitted to CAC and was denied. The coin did not change. I did not send it for a re-sticker though, now I realize that this is what I should have done. I will be sending it back with documentation for a re-sticker to see what happens.
There is a risk in everything we do in this world. CAC went above and beyond offering any amount. If they gave it a gold bean because it was oh sooooo close last time it wouldn't have been a problem. Same scenario except going the other way. There are coins that are literally THE CUTOFF POINT. Is it unfortunate, YES. Does it hurt, YES. Are there coins that stickered that don't deserve it, YES. BUT is the percentage very very very small. I'd have to say YES.
Then how does it come that so many copper coins maintained their red color so well after 50-150 years without being in a fairly airtight holder? Now all of a sudden we are to believe these coins are turning in a fairly tight PCGS holder. I think it does happen but once in a blue moon if stored in humid weather conditions
I recently bought a PCGS coin (Roosevelt dime) that appeared to have been in a flood. There was dirt inside the holder and holder was very scratched. Coin appeared OK and unaffected but I don't know what really happened with slab. Got a great deal on it. I sent it in to PCGS for a re-holder. But my point is, if dirt got inside the slab, so can other things.
Because the value of the coin without the sticker may have gone down more than the $500 CAC offered him.
Please don’t misinterpret me, I think Herb was treated fairly by CAC, but I do understand how he might feel about everything.
Agree 100%.
I now officially love CAC more...
But he sold it for what he had into it. So he'd still own it at what he had into it plus have $500 as a bonus...
He didn’t disclose the letter initially so he made us believe that CAC changed standards and he was treated unfairly. A big misinterpretation
They bought it.
I wonder if we will get this much participation the next time PCGS downgrades a coin.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
At least CAC stood by its opinion and went above and beyond. There is no CAC guarantee, but it agreed to buy it and give you an extra $500 which is more than generous.
P.S. Was this a bust half? It is not uncommon for AU58 or AU58+ coins to outperform lower MS graded pieces.
.
There are a lot of Bust Half guys that would PREFER a 58+ over a 61 or 62
.
Well, now that the rest of the story has come out and I can try to understand the whole story better ... kudo's to JA for making Herb an offer to buy the coin, or pay him $500. to keep it. Pretty rare customer service there.
And also kudo's to CAC for not bending to a mistake from earlier and basically saying "No, we won't change our opinion now just because we missed it earlier." I have a lot of respect for this because I have personally seen a pretty expensive Capped Bust Half with a bean that I would love to show JA, and ask him if he missed something. Spoiler; 99.9% sure he did
Finally, no where do I see that CAC's standards changed. At all. That to me is a deceitful statement. I believe JA has always stood by not stickering Unc' coins with cabinet friction, ESPECIALLY Bust material.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
Wow! What a stand up move by CAC. The original post should have described how great CAC is for how they handled this issue. That is way above the service standards for any other TPG.
NO CAC FOR YOU.......
all grading is subjective folks just chasing $$$$$$$$$$
Glad the issue was resolved and if cac let you come out $500 to the good that was a big positive in your favor, though you had shipping and reslabbing or attribution costs.
Some years ago I had a long drama with a previously graded PCGS coin that cac said had been tooled and PCGS offered me a couple choices, one of which buying the coin would have left me way behind, so I took their offer to slab as a details coin with a check for the wholesale loss of the better date $20 in an MS63 holder. I ended up sending the coin to NGC which also straight graded it. Cac clearly saw something to raise a red flag that the two grading services did not.
I'm not saying JA's offer was not generous under the circumstances, because, quite frankly, any offer would be, but I did not read it as being nearly as generous as you are.
I saw JA taking OP out of it by buying it for what OP had in it, OR giving him $500 for the inconvenience. Not both, and not a CAC bid for a green beaned MS 62.
So, CAC absolutely did not stand behind its original opinion, but merely offered to either unwind everything for OP, or give him $500 as partial compensation for the issue.
I agree that JA does not owe OP anything on account of his failure to leave well enough alone, and pursuing the attribution that led to the loss of the CAC premium due to the required reevaluation of the coin. OP has no entitlement to JA's opinion never changing, and is not entitled to compensation if it does.
Particularly in a case like this, where OP did not pay the CAC premium when he acquired the coin, but was merely granted it by JA through the initial submission. JA made OP whole, but did not give him a windfall by paying him a premium for a bean he did not pay for (other than the nominal submission fee), and which JA no longer feels the coin deserves.
“ his failure to leave well enough alone”
If you want to pursue a registry with Overton numbers, the only way you get credit for a particular number is to have the attribute applied. This was the second coin in this pedigree that I wanted to do. The first one with a CAC sailed through. If CAC thought the second coin was originally worthy, they should have applied it a second time. None of this crap that the coin was damaged during the attribution application. His “rub” was the rub on the cheek that was there before when CAC applied the first bean. Hence their standards have changed.