Will CAC review CACG coins now?

cameonut2011

The grading teams will be different on any given day, and I thought JA was going to stay as the finalizer in NJ. We also learned that not all CACG coins are going to be PQ as there will even be details grading. As such, will CAC review CACG graded coins to identify the "A" and "B" coins from the rest?

coinbuf

No.

Edited to add: Per what has been said on the CAC forum there are no C coins in CACG slabs, only A or B coins for the grade.

cameonut2011

@coinbuf said:
No.

Edited to add: Per what has been said on the CAC forum there are no C coins in CACG slabs, only A or B coins for the grade.

Thanks, but that's the part that is confusing to me. For instance, in one of the recent threads there was an XF details quarter in a net grade VF20 holder. Does that mean the cleaned (or whatever the issue was) coin is held as on par with CAC's standards for an "A" or "B" VF 20? That seems odd.

coinbuf

@cameonut2011 said:

@coinbuf said:
No.

Edited to add: Per what has been said on the CAC forum there are no C coins in CACG slabs, only A or B coins for the grade.

Thanks, but that's the part that is confusing to me. For instance, in one of the recent threads there was an XF details quarter in a net grade VF20 holder. Does that mean the cleaned (or whatever the issue was) coin is held as on par with CAC's standards for an "A" or "B" VF 20? That seems odd.

I wish that CAC had not gone down the details rabbit hole, but I guess that detail grading is just such a large part of the grading landscape and they felt it necessary. Yes, my understanding is that the grade of VF20 is where CACG feels comfortable placing (pricing) this coin as what I am assuming would be considered a B coin for registry values. But I have not followed that entire discussion closely, so I may be wrong on that last part.

MFeld

@cameonut2011 said:

@coinbuf said:
No.

Edited to add: Per what has been said on the CAC forum there are no C coins in CACG slabs, only A or B coins for the grade.

Thanks, but that's the part that is confusing to me. For instance, in one of the recent threads there was an XF details quarter in a net grade VF20 holder. Does that mean the cleaned (or whatever the issue was) coin is held as on par with CAC's standards for an "A" or "B" VF 20? That seems odd.

The quarter you mentioned will supposedly be awarded registry points that correspond to a VF 20 coin. However, the assigned grade was “XF details”, not “net grade VF20”.

robec

It doesn’t get a net grade of VF20, I will only get the points of a VF20 for a registry. It will still be a problem coin in a Detail holder.

winesteven

CACG has announced a day or two ago that going forward they will NO LONGER put a net grade of a Detailed coin on the cert label, which is for their registry purposes only. That net grade for registry purposes can be found on their website, but as noted, will no longer be on the cert label!

Steve

Zoins

@winesteven said:
CACG has announced a day or two ago that going forward they will NO LONGER put a net grade of a Detailed coin on the cert label, which is for their registry purposes only. That net grade for registry purposes can be found on their website, but as noted, will no longer be on the cert label!

Steve

Good to know. The website is good enough to get the equivalent net grade.

cameonut2011

Thanks everyone. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around this. If CACG only slabs coins that are "A" or "B" for the assigned grading interval, what does it mean when a coin is graded as XF details? What does it mean to be an "A" or "B" XF details coin exactly? Does it mean it would be a solid XF but for the problems? Is it saying it would be higher end for the grade for the unofficial registry grade available online? I'm still struggling to reconcile these two ideas.

MFeld

@cameonut2011 said:
Thanks everyone. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around this. If CACG only slabs coins that are "A" or "B" for the assigned grading interval, what does it mean when a coin is graded as XF details? What does it mean to be an "A" or "B" XF details coin exactly? Does it mean it would be a solid XF but for the problems? Is it saying it would be higher end for the grade for the unofficial registry grade available online? I'm still struggling to reconcile these two ideas.

You’re making things unnecessarily complicated. A, B and C pertain to classifications of straight-grade coins and are mutually exclusive with details-grade coins. Forget about A, B and C with respect to details-grade coins.

gtstang

@coinbuf said:
No.

Edited to add: Per what has been said on the CAC forum there are no C coins in CACG slabs, only A or B coins for the grade.

Just like there are no "problem" coins straight graded in pcgs or ngc slabs.
I bet we will see what some consider C coins in cacg slabs.
Perfection is very desirable but rarely achieved.

skier07

@gtstang said:

@coinbuf said:
No.

Edited to add: Per what has been said on the CAC forum there are no C coins in CACG slabs, only A or B coins for the grade.

Just like there are no "problem" coins straight graded in pcgs or ngc slabs.
I bet we will see what some consider C coins in cacg slabs.
Perfection is very desirable but rarely achieved.

Since grading is subjective it’s impossible for that not to happen.

winesteven

Two points (MY opinion) from above.

1. I believe when CACG puts a Detailed coin in their holder (which they say they’ll do because of the demand for Detailed coins), the grade shown on the label represents the grade they would have given had it not been for the “Defect” they found.
2. While humans will occasionally make errors (including the humans at CACG), I believe that as a generalization only coins they deem “solid for the grade” will be in their holder for that grade - the majority as a whole grade, and a few with a plus. I’m under the impression (and I can be wrong, as I’m human too - and I make more than my fair share of errors) that defect free coins that would not normally sticker at CAC will be in holders of a lower grade - maybe a few with a plus - for the grade CACG feels is solid for THAT coin.

Steve

nexlevelnmx

So confused on why we need CACG since it will take time for a market to grow around them since PCGS has that on top and will, they are the best

nexlevelnmx

we will soon see i guess.

winesteven

@nexlevelnmx said:
So confused on why we need CACG since it will take time for a market to grow around them since PCGS has that on top and will, they are the best

Perhaps because CACG feels they can be more consistent, and also possibly slightly more conservative?

Unlike PCGS and NGC, CACG is spending millions of dollars putting grading sets together to help maintain that consistency. That should help, and lacking those sets MIGHT be one of the reasons for the lack of consistency over time at the other TPG’s? Those sets will at some point be brought to large shows for collectors and dealers to see, and learn. I think that’s good!

Steve

Mr_Spud

Just a comment about the a,b,c level coins. Not that it matters, but if you remove the c level ones there will still be some b level ones that are slightly better than other b level coins and those will now become the equivalent of c level coins.

It reminds me of the old biologist argument where the lumpers wanted to combine things and have fewer distinct species whereas the splitters wanted to separate things more and have more named distinct species. The lumpers and splitters could never agree but were willing to discuss the matter, trying to convince the others that their way was obviously the correct choice. It’s actually a common thing in many areas, not just biologists or coin graders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters

MtW124

@nexlevelnmx said:
we will soon see i guess.

That we will!

winesteven

@Mr_Spud said:
Just a comment about the a,b,c level coins. Not that it matters, but if you remove the c level ones there will still be some b level ones that are slightly better than other b level coins and those will now become the equivalent of c level coins.

It reminds me of the old biologist argument where the lumpers wanted to combine things and have fewer distinct species whereas the splitters wanted to separate things more and have more named distinct species. The lumpers and splitters could never agree but were willing to discuss the matter, trying to convince the others that their way was obviously the correct choice. It’s actually a common thing in many areas, not just biologists or coin graders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters

So what? As you note, there will always be coins within a grade nicer than others. But I think reducing the existing CURRENT coins not solid for that grade is good. What’s left, in theory, are coins that ARE solid for the grade, even though some of those are nicer than others. For me, as a collector, it gives me a degree of peace of mind knowing a coin is solid for the grade on a holder!

Steve

cameonut2011

@winesteven said:

@Mr_Spud said:
Just a comment about the a,b,c level coins. Not that it matters, but if you remove the c level ones there will still be some b level ones that are slightly better than other b level coins and those will now become the equivalent of c level coins.

It reminds me of the old biologist argument where the lumpers wanted to combine things and have fewer distinct species whereas the splitters wanted to separate things more and have more named distinct species. The lumpers and splitters could never agree but were willing to discuss the matter, trying to convince the others that their way was obviously the correct choice. It’s actually a common thing in many areas, not just biologists or coin graders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters

So what? As you note, there will always be coins within a grade nicer than others. But I think reducing the existing CURRENT coins not solid for that grade is good. What’s left, in theory, are coins that ARE solid for the grade, even though some of those are nicer than others.

Steve

By that logic, what was the point of CAC purportedly segregating out "A" and "B" that are allegedly a little nicer than the rest? In the old days, we just let the market sort out those things and sent a dealer to lot view.

Mr_Spud

@winesteven I agree with you. But the constant discussions about CAC distinctions often remind me of the old lumpers and splitters. I’m neutral to CAC, so I just like to read the discussions occasionally and I always end up seeing both sides and getting reminded of the lumpers versus splitters debates.

PeakRarities

There will always be “c” coins that aren’t as strong as their counterparts of the same grade, graded by the same company. The difference is CACG’s “C” coin will probably be stronger than an “C” coin from a different tpg. We don’t need to go down this semantic rabbit hole, again.

winesteven

@cameonut2011 said:

@winesteven said:

@Mr_Spud said:
Just a comment about the a,b,c level coins. Not that it matters, but if you remove the c level ones there will still be some b level ones that are slightly better than other b level coins and those will now become the equivalent of c level coins.

It reminds me of the old biologist argument where the lumpers wanted to combine things and have fewer distinct species whereas the splitters wanted to separate things more and have more named distinct species. The lumpers and splitters could never agree but were willing to discuss the matter, trying to convince the others that their way was obviously the correct choice. It’s actually a common thing in many areas, not just biologists or coin graders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters

So what? As you note, there will always be coins within a grade nicer than others. But I think reducing the existing CURRENT coins not solid for that grade is good. What’s left, in theory, are coins that ARE solid for the grade, even though some of those are nicer than others.

Steve

By that logic, what was the point of CAC purportedly segregating out "A" and "B" that are allegedly a little nicer than the rest? In the old days, we just let the market sort out those things and sent a dealer to lot view.

I’m confused by your question/point. CAC only stickers coins they deem are solid for the grade on the holder, and CACG will grade coins for their holders that they deem are solid for that grade!

Steve

coinbuf

@nexlevelnmx said:
So confused on why we need CACG since it will take time for a market to grow around them since PCGS has that on top and will, they are the best

If you are new to coin collecting, or do not understand the problem(s) that gradflation has brought to the hobby, then yes I can see why you could be confused. But there is a need for consistent grading that doesn't change with the wind, we don't have that in the current TPG area.

coinbuf

@skier07 said:

@gtstang said:

@coinbuf said:
No.

Edited to add: Per what has been said on the CAC forum there are no C coins in CACG slabs, only A or B coins for the grade.

Just like there are no "problem" coins straight graded in pcgs or ngc slabs.
I bet we will see what some consider C coins in cacg slabs.
Perfection is very desirable but rarely achieved.

Since grading is subjective it’s impossible for that not to happen.

I agree with both of you skier07 and gtstang, as long as there are humans in the process there will be some level of inconsistency and mistakes. I think the proponents of CACG are hoping to see reductions in those areas over the current options, perfection never, better than current, I hope so.

skier07

@nexlevelnmx said:
So confused on why we need CACG since it will take time for a market to grow around them since PCGS has that on top and will, they are the best

The more viable options we (consumers, both dealers and collectors) have the better off we are.

jmlanzaf

@nexlevelnmx said:
So confused on why we need CACG since it will take time for a market to grow around them since PCGS has that on top and will, they are the best

Why do we need Pepsi? We had Coke.

cameonut2011

@DeplorableDan said:
There will always be “c” coins that aren’t as strong as their counterparts of the same grade, graded by the same company.

Of course. The further we subdivide intervals the more arbitrary and capricious the results. JA has himself postulated that having too many grading intervals has been part of the problem both in terms of consistency and in making the market needlessly complicated, yet he effectively subdivided all mint state grades into at least three sub grades.

The difference is CACG’s “C” coin will probably be stronger than an “C” coin from a different tpg. We don’t need to go down this semantic rabbit hole, again.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Edited: The purpose of the thread was not to debate the existence and utility of CAC or CACG. I was curious whether it was a wholesale withdrawal from the "we only holder "A" and "B" coins nonsense" (i.e. deliberately undergrade C coins and pretend they don't exist) or whether details grading was considered its own little world. It seems like we're leaning toward the latter at the moment.

skier07

@cameonut2011 said:

@winesteven said:

@Mr_Spud said:
Just a comment about the a,b,c level coins. Not that it matters, but if you remove the c level ones there will still be some b level ones that are slightly better than other b level coins and those will now become the equivalent of c level coins.

It reminds me of the old biologist argument where the lumpers wanted to combine things and have fewer distinct species whereas the splitters wanted to separate things more and have more named distinct species. The lumpers and splitters could never agree but were willing to discuss the matter, trying to convince the others that their way was obviously the correct choice. It’s actually a common thing in many areas, not just biologists or coin graders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters

So what? As you note, there will always be coins within a grade nicer than others. But I think reducing the existing CURRENT coins not solid for that grade is good. What’s left, in theory, are coins that ARE solid for the grade, even though some of those are nicer than others.

Steve

By that logic, what was the point of CAC purportedly segregating out "A" and "B" that are allegedly a little nicer than the rest? In the old days, we just let the market sort out those things and sent a dealer to lot view.

I think we’re in agreement that all A coins are not equal just like all B coins are not equal. CAC is nothing more then another set of eyes to hopefully help you make better decisions.

If I’m going to make a significant purchase I’m still going to have a dealer or someone I trust look at the coin besides myself.

nexlevelnmx

we'll see if it is a hit

coinbuf

@cameonut2011 said:
By that logic, what was the point of CAC purportedly segregating out "A" and "B" that are allegedly a little nicer than the rest? In the old days, we just let the market sort out those things and sent a dealer to lot view.

I'm sure that you are aware of why CAC exists, the stickers were a way for JA to prescreen coins and identify those coins that he would like to buy when, or if, those coins came to auction or were offered for direct sale. It started as a mechanism for JA to buy and sell those coins he felt fit into the top of pile. The market for CAC beans then grew (much more so that anyone might have expected) into something larger as other collectors realized that it could be important.

Walkerfan

@jmlanzaf said:

@nexlevelnmx said:
So confused on why we need CACG since it will take time for a market to grow around them since PCGS has that on top and will, they are the best

Why do we need Pepsi? We had Coke.

Yes, it’s called free market capitalism.

gtstang

One thing I'll say cac has done a fine job at is making the consumer believe any coin you own without cac or soon in a cacg slab is not worthy of owning because something must be wrong with it.
This simply is not the case.
They've done a great job at marketing their products and showing ways of keeping money flowing within the numismatic industry.

gtstang

@coinbuf said:

@cameonut2011 said:
By that logic, what was the point of CAC purportedly segregating out "A" and "B" that are allegedly a little nicer than the rest? In the old days, we just let the market sort out those things and sent a dealer to lot view.

I'm sure that you are aware of why CAC exists, the stickers were a way for JA to prescreen coins and identify those coins that he would like to buy when, or if, those coins came to auction or were offered for direct sale. It started as a mechanism for JA to buy and sell those coins he felt fit into the top of pile. The market for CAC beans then grew (much more so that anyone might have expected) into something larger as other collectors realized that it could be important.

I don't believe this is the true origins but I could be wrong or maybe a combination of this and what I seem to recall.
Laura Sperber was a true advocate on starting a service to rid the community of coin doctors and thus put together a team to combat against the bad seeds in the industry.
I'm sure we all know she had a lot to do with the birth of cac.

winesteven

@skier07 said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@winesteven said:

@Mr_Spud said:
Just a comment about the a,b,c level coins. Not that it matters, but if you remove the c level ones there will still be some b level ones that are slightly better than other b level coins and those will now become the equivalent of c level coins.

It reminds me of the old biologist argument where the lumpers wanted to combine things and have fewer distinct species whereas the splitters wanted to separate things more and have more named distinct species. The lumpers and splitters could never agree but were willing to discuss the matter, trying to convince the others that their way was obviously the correct choice. It’s actually a common thing in many areas, not just biologists or coin graders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters

So what? As you note, there will always be coins within a grade nicer than others. But I think reducing the existing CURRENT coins not solid for that grade is good. What’s left, in theory, are coins that ARE solid for the grade, even though some of those are nicer than others.

Steve

By that logic, what was the point of CAC purportedly segregating out "A" and "B" that are allegedly a little nicer than the rest? In the old days, we just let the market sort out those things and sent a dealer to lot view.

I think we’re in agreement that all A coins are not equal just like all B coins are not equal. CAC is nothing more then another set of eyes to hopefully help you make better decisions.

If I’m going to make a significant purchase I’m still going to have a dealer or someone I trust look at the coin besides myself.

While I’m a big CAC fan, I’m not blind. I fully agree with you. Just because CAC says a coin is solid for the grade does NOT mean I’ll like the eye appeal of that coin. As I’ve shared for years on this forum, despite todays high resolution photo technology, nothing beats looking at a coin in hand. When I find a coin I like based on the photos, like you, I have a knowledgeable trustworthy numismatist look at the con in hand. Even though they are employees of auction houses, more often than not they have me pass on that CAC stickered coin, feeling that with patience I can do better for that grade. That unbiased advice is invaluable!

Steve

MFeld

@gtstang said:
One thing I'll say cac has done a fine job at is making the consumer believe any coin you own without cac or soon in a cacg slab is not worthy of owning because something must be wrong with it.
This simply is not the case.
They've done a great job at marketing their products and showing ways of keeping money flowing within the numismatic industry.

I don’t think CAC has made the consumer believe that. On the other hand, a very small number of sellers might have and some potential buyers have assumed it.

coinbuf

@gtstang said:
One thing I'll say cac has done a fine job at is making the consumer believe any coin you own without cac or soon in a cacg slab is not worthy of owning because something must be wrong with it.

Can you please point to any marketing or advertisement to back up this claim? I cannot recall seeing any such promotion or claims of this type by CAC, however, I can and do see this type of promotion by PCGS only dealers and collectors.

winesteven

@gtstang said:
One thing I'll say cac has done a fine job at is making the consumer believe any coin you own without cac or soon in a cacg slab is not worthy of owning because something must be wrong with it.
This simply is not the case.
They've done a great job at marketing their products and showing ways of keeping money flowing within the numismatic industry.

Forget marketing. If you’re looking to buy a coin above a certain value where chances are many or most at that price point have been sent to CAC prior to being sold, and this coin has no sticker, there’s nothing wrong with thinking that this coin is likely to have failed CAC, either for not being solid for the grade, or possibly having had something done with the surface (such as with Gold coins) that CAC is concerned about, but not the other TPG’s. Some collectors are disturbed by that, but admittedly, some collectors don’t mind having coins in their collection that could be considered not solid for the grade, or with surface issues.

Steve

coinbuf

@gtstang said:

@coinbuf said:

@cameonut2011 said:
By that logic, what was the point of CAC purportedly segregating out "A" and "B" that are allegedly a little nicer than the rest? In the old days, we just let the market sort out those things and sent a dealer to lot view.

I'm sure that you are aware of why CAC exists, the stickers were a way for JA to prescreen coins and identify those coins that he would like to buy when, or if, those coins came to auction or were offered for direct sale. It started as a mechanism for JA to buy and sell those coins he felt fit into the top of pile. The market for CAC beans then grew (much more so that anyone might have expected) into something larger as other collectors realized that it could be important.

I don't believe this is the true origins but I could be wrong or maybe a combination of this and what I seem to recall.
Laura Sperber was a true advocate on starting a service to rid the community of coin doctors and thus put together a team to combat against the bad seeds in the industry.
I'm sure we all know she had a lot to do with the birth of cac.

Can you explain in detail just how CAC has combatted coin doctoring, I have seen no legal battles between CAC and any alleged coin doctors. Nor have I seen CAC make any press releases on any doctored coins that they have reviewed or doctors that have been shut down because of no sticker. In order for that to be true CAC would have to identify those coins that they review which are doctored and then link those coins to a person or group, have you seen any evidence of that. CAC doesn't provide a list of failed coins regardless of the reason.

I do believe that you are correct that Legend was an investor in CAC, just as Legend is an investor in CACG, but I see no correlation to that and combating coin doctoring.

gtstang

@coinbuf said:

@gtstang said:
One thing I'll say cac has done a fine job at is making the consumer believe any coin you own without cac or soon in a cacg slab is not worthy of owning because something must be wrong with it.

Can you please point to any marketing or advertisement to back up this claim? I cannot recall seeing any such promotion or claims of this type by CAC, however, I can and do see this type of promotion by PCGS only dealers and collectors.

There are plenty of things out there that tell why there product is the better option.
I'm not a cac hater at all, I just think collectors should learn about how a coin got the grade it did. Of course it's their money and can spend it any way they want.

gtstang

@coinbuf said:

@gtstang said:

@coinbuf said:

@cameonut2011 said:
By that logic, what was the point of CAC purportedly segregating out "A" and "B" that are allegedly a little nicer than the rest? In the old days, we just let the market sort out those things and sent a dealer to lot view.

I'm sure that you are aware of why CAC exists, the stickers were a way for JA to prescreen coins and identify those coins that he would like to buy when, or if, those coins came to auction or were offered for direct sale. It started as a mechanism for JA to buy and sell those coins he felt fit into the top of pile. The market for CAC beans then grew (much more so that anyone might have expected) into something larger as other collectors realized that it could be important.

I don't believe this is the true origins but I could be wrong or maybe a combination of this and what I seem to recall.
Laura Sperber was a true advocate on starting a service to rid the community of coin doctors and thus put together a team to combat against the bad seeds in the industry.
I'm sure we all know she had a lot to do with the birth of cac.

Can you explain in detail just how CAC has combatted coin doctoring, I have seen no legal battles between CAC and any alleged coin doctors. Nor have I seen CAC make any press releases on any doctored coins that they have reviewed or doctors that have been shut down because of no sticker. In order for that to be true CAC would have to identify those coins that they review which are doctored and then link those coins to a person or group, have you seen any evidence of that. CAC doesn't provide a list of failed coins regardless of the reason.

I do believe that you are correct that Legend was an investor in CAC, just as Legend is an investor in CACG, but I see no correlation to that and combating coin doctoring.

You can do some research here to very old threads about discussions on combatting coin doctors.
I'm certainly not going to spend extra time looking.

coinbuf

@gtstang said:

@coinbuf said:

@gtstang said:

@coinbuf said:

@cameonut2011 said:
By that logic, what was the point of CAC purportedly segregating out "A" and "B" that are allegedly a little nicer than the rest? In the old days, we just let the market sort out those things and sent a dealer to lot view.

I'm sure that you are aware of why CAC exists, the stickers were a way for JA to prescreen coins and identify those coins that he would like to buy when, or if, those coins came to auction or were offered for direct sale. It started as a mechanism for JA to buy and sell those coins he felt fit into the top of pile. The market for CAC beans then grew (much more so that anyone might have expected) into something larger as other collectors realized that it could be important.

I don't believe this is the true origins but I could be wrong or maybe a combination of this and what I seem to recall.
Laura Sperber was a true advocate on starting a service to rid the community of coin doctors and thus put together a team to combat against the bad seeds in the industry.
I'm sure we all know she had a lot to do with the birth of cac.

Can you explain in detail just how CAC has combatted coin doctoring, I have seen no legal battles between CAC and any alleged coin doctors. Nor have I seen CAC make any press releases on any doctored coins that they have reviewed or doctors that have been shut down because of no sticker. In order for that to be true CAC would have to identify those coins that they review which are doctored and then link those coins to a person or group, have you seen any evidence of that. CAC doesn't provide a list of failed coins regardless of the reason.

I do believe that you are correct that Legend was an investor in CAC, just as Legend is an investor in CACG, but I see no correlation to that and combating coin doctoring.

You can do some research here to very old threads about discussions on combatting coin doctors.
I'm certainly not going to spend extra time looking.

Got it, you are making a statement to support a position you want to believe but cannot provide any facts to support that. I've been a member here about the same amount of time you have, I've read many of those old threads in past years and do not recall any such link between CAC and battling coin doctors. I have no plans to do any research for you to support such a wild claim.

jmlanzaf

@coinbuf said:

@gtstang said:

@coinbuf said:

@gtstang said:

@coinbuf said:

@cameonut2011 said:
By that logic, what was the point of CAC purportedly segregating out "A" and "B" that are allegedly a little nicer than the rest? In the old days, we just let the market sort out those things and sent a dealer to lot view.

I'm sure that you are aware of why CAC exists, the stickers were a way for JA to prescreen coins and identify those coins that he would like to buy when, or if, those coins came to auction or were offered for direct sale. It started as a mechanism for JA to buy and sell those coins he felt fit into the top of pile. The market for CAC beans then grew (much more so that anyone might have expected) into something larger as other collectors realized that it could be important.

I don't believe this is the true origins but I could be wrong or maybe a combination of this and what I seem to recall.
Laura Sperber was a true advocate on starting a service to rid the community of coin doctors and thus put together a team to combat against the bad seeds in the industry.
I'm sure we all know she had a lot to do with the birth of cac.

Can you explain in detail just how CAC has combatted coin doctoring, I have seen no legal battles between CAC and any alleged coin doctors. Nor have I seen CAC make any press releases on any doctored coins that they have reviewed or doctors that have been shut down because of no sticker. In order for that to be true CAC would have to identify those coins that they review which are doctored and then link those coins to a person or group, have you seen any evidence of that. CAC doesn't provide a list of failed coins regardless of the reason.

I do believe that you are correct that Legend was an investor in CAC, just as Legend is an investor in CACG, but I see no correlation to that and combating coin doctoring.

You can do some research here to very old threads about discussions on combatting coin doctors.
I'm certainly not going to spend extra time looking.

Got it, you are making a statement to support a position you want to believe but cannot provide any facts to support that. I've been a member here about the same amount of time you have, I've read many of those old threads in past years and do not recall any such link between CAC and battling coin doctors. I have no plans to do any research for you to support such a wild claim.

I think you're being too literal about the combat. The "battle" was more about separating the "original" coins with a sticker reward. They didn't ever go after individual doctors.

cameonut2011

@jmlanzaf said:

@coinbuf said:

@gtstang said:

@coinbuf said:

@gtstang said:

@coinbuf said:

@cameonut2011 said:
By that logic, what was the point of CAC purportedly segregating out "A" and "B" that are allegedly a little nicer than the rest? In the old days, we just let the market sort out those things and sent a dealer to lot view.

I'm sure that you are aware of why CAC exists, the stickers were a way for JA to prescreen coins and identify those coins that he would like to buy when, or if, those coins came to auction or were offered for direct sale. It started as a mechanism for JA to buy and sell those coins he felt fit into the top of pile. The market for CAC beans then grew (much more so that anyone might have expected) into something larger as other collectors realized that it could be important.

I don't believe this is the true origins but I could be wrong or maybe a combination of this and what I seem to recall.
Laura Sperber was a true advocate on starting a service to rid the community of coin doctors and thus put together a team to combat against the bad seeds in the industry.
I'm sure we all know she had a lot to do with the birth of cac.

Can you explain in detail just how CAC has combatted coin doctoring, I have seen no legal battles between CAC and any alleged coin doctors. Nor have I seen CAC make any press releases on any doctored coins that they have reviewed or doctors that have been shut down because of no sticker. In order for that to be true CAC would have to identify those coins that they review which are doctored and then link those coins to a person or group, have you seen any evidence of that. CAC doesn't provide a list of failed coins regardless of the reason.

I do believe that you are correct that Legend was an investor in CAC, just as Legend is an investor in CACG, but I see no correlation to that and combating coin doctoring.

You can do some research here to very old threads about discussions on combatting coin doctors.
I'm certainly not going to spend extra time looking.

Got it, you are making a statement to support a position you want to believe but cannot provide any facts to support that. I've been a member here about the same amount of time you have, I've read many of those old threads in past years and do not recall any such link between CAC and battling coin doctors. I have no plans to do any research for you to support such a wild claim.

I think you're being too literal about the combat. The "battle" was more about separating the "original" coins with a sticker reward. They didn't ever go after individual doctors.

So it’s all marketing and bluster by CAC proponents and investors. Just like Laura claiming to want to fight grade inflation while admitting she helped lobby PCGS to take down duplicate True Views so you couldn’t see all the upgrades. That was a major blow to collectors in fighting grade inflation and potentially doctoring as well.

winesteven

No. Just because CAC statements and ads are “Marketing”, does NOT mean what they say is “Bluster”. Newsflash! What is said in marketing can indeed be true, believe it or not.

As I indicated above, some collectors don’t mind having coins in their collection that could be considered not solid for the grade, or with surface issues. Be my guest, and have at it!

Collectors that believe as you do provide less competition for the coins that I seek. Additionally, when the time comes for you to sell your non-stickered coins in holders of the other TPG’s, it’s a FACT that a growing group of collectors will not bid on those coins. Good luck to you (or your heirs) at the time of sale!

Steve

jmlanzaf

@cameonut2011 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@coinbuf said:

@gtstang said:

@coinbuf said:

@gtstang said:

@coinbuf said:

@cameonut2011 said:
By that logic, what was the point of CAC purportedly segregating out "A" and "B" that are allegedly a little nicer than the rest? In the old days, we just let the market sort out those things and sent a dealer to lot view.

I'm sure that you are aware of why CAC exists, the stickers were a way for JA to prescreen coins and identify those coins that he would like to buy when, or if, those coins came to auction or were offered for direct sale. It started as a mechanism for JA to buy and sell those coins he felt fit into the top of pile. The market for CAC beans then grew (much more so that anyone might have expected) into something larger as other collectors realized that it could be important.

I don't believe this is the true origins but I could be wrong or maybe a combination of this and what I seem to recall.
Laura Sperber was a true advocate on starting a service to rid the community of coin doctors and thus put together a team to combat against the bad seeds in the industry.
I'm sure we all know she had a lot to do with the birth of cac.

Can you explain in detail just how CAC has combatted coin doctoring, I have seen no legal battles between CAC and any alleged coin doctors. Nor have I seen CAC make any press releases on any doctored coins that they have reviewed or doctors that have been shut down because of no sticker. In order for that to be true CAC would have to identify those coins that they review which are doctored and then link those coins to a person or group, have you seen any evidence of that. CAC doesn't provide a list of failed coins regardless of the reason.

I do believe that you are correct that Legend was an investor in CAC, just as Legend is an investor in CACG, but I see no correlation to that and combating coin doctoring.

You can do some research here to very old threads about discussions on combatting coin doctors.
I'm certainly not going to spend extra time looking.

Got it, you are making a statement to support a position you want to believe but cannot provide any facts to support that. I've been a member here about the same amount of time you have, I've read many of those old threads in past years and do not recall any such link between CAC and battling coin doctors. I have no plans to do any research for you to support such a wild claim.

I think you're being too literal about the combat. The "battle" was more about separating the "original" coins with a sticker reward. They didn't ever go after individual doctors.

So it’s all marketing and bluster by CAC proponents and investors. Just like Laura claiming to want to fight grade inflation while admitting she helped lobby PCGS to take down duplicate True Views so you couldn’t see all the upgrades. That was a major blow to collectors in fighting grade inflation and potentially doctoring as well.

That's not what I said at all.

Treat CAC like VaultBox. Just don't play. There is no need to try to either justify your hatred or spread it.

cameonut2011

@jmlanzaf said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@coinbuf said:

@gtstang said:

@coinbuf said:

@gtstang said:

@coinbuf said:

@cameonut2011 said:
By that logic, what was the point of CAC purportedly segregating out "A" and "B" that are allegedly a little nicer than the rest? In the old days, we just let the market sort out those things and sent a dealer to lot view.

I'm sure that you are aware of why CAC exists, the stickers were a way for JA to prescreen coins and identify those coins that he would like to buy when, or if, those coins came to auction or were offered for direct sale. It started as a mechanism for JA to buy and sell those coins he felt fit into the top of pile. The market for CAC beans then grew (much more so that anyone might have expected) into something larger as other collectors realized that it could be important.

I don't believe this is the true origins but I could be wrong or maybe a combination of this and what I seem to recall.
Laura Sperber was a true advocate on starting a service to rid the community of coin doctors and thus put together a team to combat against the bad seeds in the industry.
I'm sure we all know she had a lot to do with the birth of cac.

Can you explain in detail just how CAC has combatted coin doctoring, I have seen no legal battles between CAC and any alleged coin doctors. Nor have I seen CAC make any press releases on any doctored coins that they have reviewed or doctors that have been shut down because of no sticker. In order for that to be true CAC would have to identify those coins that they review which are doctored and then link those coins to a person or group, have you seen any evidence of that. CAC doesn't provide a list of failed coins regardless of the reason.

I do believe that you are correct that Legend was an investor in CAC, just as Legend is an investor in CACG, but I see no correlation to that and combating coin doctoring.

You can do some research here to very old threads about discussions on combatting coin doctors.
I'm certainly not going to spend extra time looking.

Got it, you are making a statement to support a position you want to believe but cannot provide any facts to support that. I've been a member here about the same amount of time you have, I've read many of those old threads in past years and do not recall any such link between CAC and battling coin doctors. I have no plans to do any research for you to support such a wild claim.

I think you're being too literal about the combat. The "battle" was more about separating the "original" coins with a sticker reward. They didn't ever go after individual doctors.

So it’s all marketing and bluster by CAC proponents and investors. Just like Laura claiming to want to fight grade inflation while admitting she helped lobby PCGS to take down duplicate True Views so you couldn’t see all the upgrades. That was a major blow to collectors in fighting grade inflation and potentially doctoring as well.

That's not what I said at all.

Treat CAC like VaultBox. Just don't play. There is no need to try to either justify your hatred or spread it.

I never said that is what you said. I am just applying basic logical reasoning to arrive at my own conclusion (conclusions which others may not necessarily share).

cameonut2011

@winesteven said:
No. Just because CAC statements and ads are “Marketing”, does NOT mean what they say is “Bluster”. Newsflash! What is said in marketing can indeed be true, believe it or not.

As I indicated above, some collectors don’t mind having coins in their collection that could be considered not solid for the grade, or with surface issues. Be my guest, and have at it!

Collectors that believe as you do provide less competition for the coins that I seek. Additionally, when the time comes for you to sell your non-stickered coins in holders of the other TPG’s, it’s a FACT that a growing group of collectors will not bid on those coins. Good luck to you (or your heirs) at the time of sale!

Steve

But apparently it is not. No one could cite a single instance of where CAC took affirmative action that resulted in deterring any would be coin doctors. In fairness, it has no moral or legal obligation to do so either. This is, however, in stark contrast to the quixotic image that some proponents (okay maybe really one specific vocal one) portray.

And for the record, I do bid on CAC coins and practice what I preach that the coin is what matters most to me. And while we can disagree about some of the effects of CAC (many of them unintended), I am also not an idiot and don't leave money on the table. Most of my coins have CAC stickers and the majority that do not shed them in crossovers. A few are waiting regrades/reholdering first.

cameonut2011

Also it will probably baffle most of you to learn that I am not anti-CACG either. I posted years ago that I wished JA would stop with the arbitrary "A" and "B" labels because collectors were using them improperly as a grading service, resulting in a number of accurately graded coins being treated as presumptive problem coins/numismatic lepers. At that time, I expressed my wish that he would start a conservative grading service that would hold the line against grade inflation. My frustration is that this ""A" and "B" coins only concept" is being carried over and it ignores the reality that actively graded C coins do exist and CACG, if it does what was suggested earlier in this thread, would intentionally under grade those coins resulting in even more ambiguity in grades and confuse the market even more so.

Bottom line, I wish he would drop the gimmick and have a normal grading service. He could identify C coins with a minus if he wishes but it makes no sense to under grade a coin any more than it does to over grade a coin. If JA would simply create a grading service that would apply traditional standards with a conservative approach and would hold the line against grade inflation, I would be a huge fan. Instead, it appears for now that we are still stuck with an insane system where a 65C is treated as worse or same as a 64 B coin which doesn't make much sense (assuming eye appeal and all other factors are equal). Put another way, it makes far more sense to have a system like {64-, 64, 64+, 65-, 65, 65+} that provides more information to the consumer than one where 64 through 65- are all labeled as 64s. The latter opens up the possibility of yet another sticker to separate 64++(65-) from 64+ and 64 coins.

coinbuf

@jmlanzaf said:

@coinbuf said:

@gtstang said:

@coinbuf said:

@gtstang said:

@coinbuf said:

@cameonut2011 said:
By that logic, what was the point of CAC purportedly segregating out "A" and "B" that are allegedly a little nicer than the rest? In the old days, we just let the market sort out those things and sent a dealer to lot view.

I'm sure that you are aware of why CAC exists, the stickers were a way for JA to prescreen coins and identify those coins that he would like to buy when, or if, those coins came to auction or were offered for direct sale. It started as a mechanism for JA to buy and sell those coins he felt fit into the top of pile. The market for CAC beans then grew (much more so that anyone might have expected) into something larger as other collectors realized that it could be important.

I don't believe this is the true origins but I could be wrong or maybe a combination of this and what I seem to recall.
Laura Sperber was a true advocate on starting a service to rid the community of coin doctors and thus put together a team to combat against the bad seeds in the industry.
I'm sure we all know she had a lot to do with the birth of cac.

Can you explain in detail just how CAC has combatted coin doctoring, I have seen no legal battles between CAC and any alleged coin doctors. Nor have I seen CAC make any press releases on any doctored coins that they have reviewed or doctors that have been shut down because of no sticker. In order for that to be true CAC would have to identify those coins that they review which are doctored and then link those coins to a person or group, have you seen any evidence of that. CAC doesn't provide a list of failed coins regardless of the reason.

I do believe that you are correct that Legend was an investor in CAC, just as Legend is an investor in CACG, but I see no correlation to that and combating coin doctoring.

You can do some research here to very old threads about discussions on combatting coin doctors.
I'm certainly not going to spend extra time looking.

Got it, you are making a statement to support a position you want to believe but cannot provide any facts to support that. I've been a member here about the same amount of time you have, I've read many of those old threads in past years and do not recall any such link between CAC and battling coin doctors. I have no plans to do any research for you to support such a wild claim.

I think you're being too literal about the combat. The "battle" was more about separating the "original" coins with a sticker reward. They didn't ever go after individual doctors.

I really cannot say that I agree with this, but even if we agree that what you wrote is correct, that is more of a collateral effect and not part of the "mission" or reason that CAC was created as gtstang alluded to when he said that Laura was a part of the financial backing of CAC. After all JA can only sticker (or not sticker) the coins that are sent to him, what about all those doctored coins that have never been sent in for review, how has CAC had any impact on all those coins still out in the market.

jmlanzaf

@cameonut2011 said:
Also it will probably baffle most of you to learn that I am not anti-CACG either. I posted years ago that I wished JA would stop with the arbitrary "A" and "B" labels because collectors were using them improperly as a grading service, resulting in a number of accurately graded coins being treated as presumptive problem coins/numismatic lepers. At that time, I expressed my wish that he would start a conservative grading service that would hold the line against grade inflation. My frustration is that this ""A" and "B" coins only concept" is being carried over and it ignores the reality that actively graded C coins do exist and CACG, if it does what was suggested earlier in this thread, would intentionally under grade those coins resulting in even more ambiguity in grades and confuse the market even more so.

Bottom line, I wish he would drop the gimmick and have a normal grading service. He could identify C coins with a minus if he wishes but it makes no sense to under grade a coin any more than it does to over grade a coin. If JA would simply create a grading service that would apply traditional standards with a conservative approach and would hold the line against grade inflation, I would be a huge fan. Instead, it appears for now that we are still stuck with an insane system where a 65C is treated as worse or same as a 64 B coin which doesn't make much sense (assuming eye appeal and all other factors are equal). Put another way, it makes far more sense to have a system like {64-, 64, 64+, 65-, 65, 65+} that provides more information to the consumer than one where 64 through 65- are all labeled as 64s. The latter opens up the possibility of yet another sticker to separate 64++(65-) from 64+ and 64 coins.

If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.

A 65C is not treated worse than a 64B is the 65C gets a 64+. I don't know where you're getting the idea that a 65C ends up lower than a 64B. It would not.