Ever since I can remember, this site has had talk about PCGS grading tight or loose, not awarding certain designations such as Cameo or Deep Cameo, not grading coins MS/PR70, etc. It has been discussed in terms which indicate that those posting believe it to be an intentional act, as if some word has come down from management to start grading tighter or to loosen things up. I simply can't believe that as it would essentially constitute fraud.
@Maywood said:
Ever since I can remember, this site has had talk about PCGS grading tight or loose, not awarding certain designations such as Cameo or Deep Cameo, not grading coins MS/PR70, etc. It has been discussed in terms which indicate that those posting believe it to be an intentional act, as if some word has come down from management to start grading tighter or to loosen things up. I simply can't believe that as it would essentially constitute fraud.
I think that there is a subconscious bias in graders minds to certain events in the coin hobby. For example, news about a new grading service that says that the way the graders are currently grading is incorrect will probably subconsciously affect graders to grade more tightly.
@Maywood said: @MFeld said: there’s no doubt that countless coins are graded higher now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago.
This is a valid point which we can know because of TPG imaging and auction archives. What can't be known is the opposite, "that countless coins are graded lower now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago". It follows logically that with the inconsistency in grading that if coins were cracked out/resubmitted that this would happen, but that isn't what collectors do, submit random coins to see if they'll grade lower. One thing we do know is that overall the upgrade on re-submissions is below 50%(generally speaking, based on forum members comments). That in itself isn't even good evidence because it may mean the coin is correctly graded or too high. Collectors just don't submit and hope for a down-grade.
My thinking on "grade-flation has changed over the years. Right now I think it would take more than the random impressions of collectors at a coin forum to prove/disprove any perception. I suggest those that feel strongly about it and are convinced of their position should undertake an experiment. I doubt anyone will.
As a former grader, do you think you still grade the same as you did 30 some years ago?? Were you grading more strictly while working for NGC??
I'd like to think I grade the same I did 30 years ago. However, seeing as how I believe that overall, grading is looser now, the large pool of coins I see, likely affects my grading.
Having said that, ideally, I do grade the same despite that, but at the same time, I'm aware of the overall looser standards. So for example, I might grade an ungraded coin X, but expect that it will be graded X+1. Or I examine a coin graded 67, but grade it 66. And so on.
If there were truly a looser standard of any significance, shouldn't virtually all old holders upgrade? If not - and they don't - doesn't that mean the looseness is half a grade or less?
I believe that a great many older-holder coins have already been upgraded, and that most of the ones still on the market have been picked over. Additionally, most of the nicer coins remaining in those holders are in private collections, not for sale. On the occasions when older-holder coins that have been off the market for long periods of time, surface, it's usually a feeding frenzy for coins that will easily upgrade by a point or more.
Long story, short, I don't think it's valid to look at older-holder coins on the market at a given time and try to use them as an indication that standards haven't loosened.
My argument is less about what's on the market as much as it is about the variance vs the standards.
Completely hypothetical:
In 1995, the standard was one grade tighter than today.
The variance in grade opinions on any one coin are +/- 0.5 grades.
Based on the variance, you'd expect a true 65 in 1995 to grade 65 half the time, 64+ (64 in1995) 25% of the time and 65+ (66 in 1985) 25% of the time.
Take the same coin into the future and it should grade 66 50% of the time, 66+ 25% of the time, 65+ 25% of the time.
With those numbers, 75% of 1995 coins should upgrade at least half a grade.
So, if less than 75% of old holders upgrade, either the standards have changed by less than a full grade or the variance is higher than half a grade.
A grade loosening of more than 1.5 grades would result in 100% of the coins upgrading.
So, I don't know how much is variance and how much is grade loosening and how much is variance, but it's not clear to me that there is a significant overall loosening.
I'm 100% sure that the tendency for expensive coins in my example is for the "25%" to end up half a grade too high.
[Obviously, you can change the distribution and the variances to get much different results. ]
@Maywood said:
Ever since I can remember, this site has had talk about PCGS grading tight or loose, not awarding certain designations such as Cameo or Deep Cameo, not grading coins MS/PR70, etc. It has been discussed in terms which indicate that those posting believe it to be an intentional act, as if some word has come down from management to start grading tighter or to loosen things up. I simply can't believe that as it would essentially constitute fraud.
Please don't use the word 'fraud'. There are many potential innocent explanations (as well as some less so) including explanations outside of the TPG's control. I don't think anyone in this thread is accusing any party/TPG of any nefarious activity.
Here is a thought experiment. For the sake of argument, let’s say that PCGS, NGC and ANACS have the same standards today as they had in 1986 and that these standards are applied in the same way.
We know that dealers and collectors crack coins out to try for upgrades - some dealers make a living doing it. If there is no change in standards over time, then the simple explanation is that crack outs are a result of inconsistency in grading coins on the bubble of being assigned the next grade up. Over time, as crack out practitioners arbitrage the inconsistencies, the average grade of coins moves up - all the A coins end up as C coins at the next higher grade. Sounds a lot like gradeflation to me! Inconsistency is one potential cause of gradeflation.
That is different than what most people consider grade inflation. They argue that the standards have changed not that the coins have been resubmitted until they max out in some kind of TPG version of the Peter Principle.
@Maywood said:
I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I am quite confident in saying that nobody should complain about. It is the "to be expected" result of two factors, greed and the inability of collectors to hone their grading/attribution skills over time while they gain confidence in themselves.
There's more, but I just want to adress the grading skill honing.
Honed WHEN ?
1910?
1950?
1960?
1970?
1989?....
etc etc etc... You probably get the picture.
@Cougar1978 said:
I welcome them entering the fray (especially David Hall) to give CAC competition.
Totally agree. Competition is always good for the coin consumer.
I don’t see what CMQ can offer that CAC hasn’t. CAC has a 15 year track record of the best graders and consistent criteria for stickering coins. What can CMQ offer that is better or different that will benefit the consumer. Why do we need an unproven copycat service with questionable industry ties.
@Cougar1978 said:
I welcome them entering the fray (especially David Hall) to give CAC competition.
Totally agree. Competition is always good for the coin consumer.
I don’t see what CMQ can offer that CAC hasn’t. CAC has a 15 year track record of the best graders and consistent criteria for stickering coins. What can CMQ offer that is better or different that will benefit the consumer. Why do we need an unproven copycat service with questionable industry ties.
David Hall is one of the few people who commands the respect that JA does.
@Maywood said: @MFeld said: there’s no doubt that countless coins are graded higher now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago.
This is a valid point which we can know because of TPG imaging and auction archives. What can't be known is the opposite, "that countless coins are graded lower now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago". It follows logically that with the inconsistency in grading that if coins were cracked out/resubmitted that this would happen, but that isn't what collectors do, submit random coins to see if they'll grade lower. One thing we do know is that overall the upgrade on re-submissions is below 50%(generally speaking, based on forum members comments). That in itself isn't even good evidence because it may mean the coin is correctly graded or too high. Collectors just don't submit and hope for a down-grade.
My thinking on "grade-flation has changed over the years. Right now I think it would take more than the random impressions of collectors at a coin forum to prove/disprove any perception. I suggest those that feel strongly about it and are convinced of their position should undertake an experiment. I doubt anyone will.
As a former grader, do you think you still grade the same as you did 30 some years ago?? Were you grading more strictly while working for NGC??
I'd like to think I grade the same I did 30 years ago. However, seeing as how I believe that overall, grading is looser now, the large pool of coins I see, likely affects my grading.
Having said that, ideally, I do grade the same despite that, but at the same time, I'm aware of the overall looser standards. So for example, I might grade an ungraded coin X, but expect that it will be graded X+1. Or I examine a coin graded 67, but grade it 66. And so on.
So, Mark, how soon can we expect to see the MFA stricker? Mark Feld Approved...that I would pay up for...
Thanks very much for the nice thought, but if you ever see such a sticker, it will be counterfeit.
But it will give us something new/more to collect.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
Here is a thought experiment. For the sake of argument, let’s say that PCGS, NGC and ANACS have the same standards today as they had in 1986 and that these standards are applied in the same way.
We know that dealers and collectors crack coins out to try for upgrades - some dealers make a living doing it. If there is no change in standards over time, then the simple explanation is that crack outs are a result of inconsistency in grading coins on the bubble of being assigned the next grade up. Over time, as crack out practitioners arbitrage the inconsistencies, the average grade of coins moves up - all the A coins end up as C coins at the next higher grade. Sounds a lot like gradeflation to me! Inconsistency is one potential cause of gradeflation.
That is different than what most people consider grade inflation. They argue that the standards have changed not that the coins have been resubmitted until they max out in some kind of TPG version of the Peter Principle.
Both are happening - changing standards and arbitrage of inherent inconsistencies in a subjective process.
The result is similar regardless of intentionality or precise mechanism.
Here is a thought experiment. For the sake of argument, let’s say that PCGS, NGC and ANACS have the same standards today as they had in 1986 and that these standards are applied in the same way.
We know that dealers and collectors crack coins out to try for upgrades - some dealers make a living doing it. If there is no change in standards over time, then the simple explanation is that crack outs are a result of inconsistency in grading coins on the bubble of being assigned the next grade up. Over time, as crack out practitioners arbitrage the inconsistencies, the average grade of coins moves up - all the A coins end up as C coins at the next higher grade. Sounds a lot like gradeflation to me! Inconsistency is one potential cause of gradeflation.
That is different than what most people consider grade inflation. They argue that the standards have changed not that the coins have been resubmitted until they max out in some kind of TPG version of the Peter Principle.
Both are happening - changing standards and arbitrage of inherent inconsistencies in a subjective process.
The result is similar regardless of intentionality or precise mechanism.
Perhaps. I'm sure at least one of them has always been happening.
@DeplorableDan said:
I'll withhold final judgement until I see the product, but I'll admit i'm rather disconnected from the idea of a sticker service backed by an AH/retail operation. With CAC I never saw a conflict because John only operates at wholesale levels, but are these stickers going to show up in disproportionate amounts on coins being offered in Stacks auctions?
I dunno......do you think that CAC stickers may show up in a disproportionate amount in Legend auctions?
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
It will be interesting to see what kind of CMQ stickers old holder gold bean coins will get. It seems it would be bad if your gold bean got a green CMQ. I'm not really understanding the criteria for the elite sticker. Kinda vague.
@DeplorableDan said:
I'll withhold final judgement until I see the product, but I'll admit i'm rather disconnected from the idea of a sticker service backed by an AH/retail operation. With CAC I never saw a conflict because John only operates at wholesale levels, but are these stickers going to show up in disproportionate amounts on coins being offered in Stacks auctions?
I dunno......do you think that CAC stickers may show up in a disproportionate amount in Legend auctions?
@DeplorableDan ’s point was that Stack’s has a financial interest in their CMQ stickers. Legend has no financial interest in CAC stickers. What Laura HAS done is TOUT loudly the merits of buying coins graded by PCGS that merit CAC stickers. That’s far from the apparent conflict of interest in the former case.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@DeplorableDan said:
I'll withhold final judgement until I see the product, but I'll admit i'm rather disconnected from the idea of a sticker service backed by an AH/retail operation. With CAC I never saw a conflict because John only operates at wholesale levels, but are these stickers going to show up in disproportionate amounts on coins being offered in Stacks auctions?
I dunno......do you think that CAC stickers may show up in a disproportionate amount in Legend auctions?
@DeplorableDan ’s point was that Stack’s has a financial interest in their CMQ stickers. Legend has no financial interest in CAC stickers. What Laura HAS done is TOUT loudly the merits of buying coins graded by PCGS that merit CAC stickers. That’s far from the apparent conflict of interest in the former case.
Steve
Another point. Unlike GC, Heritage, Stack’s and DLRC which apparently accept most all PCGS and NGC coins submitted for their auctions, Legend Auctions is a boutique firm that to a greater degree limits the size of their Regency Auctions, which occur roughly only once every two months or so. As such, I believe they stack it (no pun intended) with coins that in THEIR OPINION are better for their buyers to purchase —-coins graded by PCGS that merit CAC stickers (which is what Laura always says).
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
<<< @DeplorableDan ’s point was that Stack’s has a financial interest in their CMQ stickers. Legend has no financial interest in CAC stickers. What Laura HAS done is TOUT loudly the merits of buying coins graded by PCGS that merit CAC stickers. That’s far from the apparent conflict of interest in the former case. >>>
I knew exactly what he was getting at, and you can state with 100% certainty that neither Legend nor any other dealer/auctioneer/etc has any financial interest in CAC?
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
@Luxor said:
<<< @DeplorableDan ’s point was that Stack’s has a financial interest in their CMQ stickers. Legend has no financial interest in CAC stickers. What Laura HAS done is TOUT loudly the merits of buying coins graded by PCGS that merit CAC stickers. That’s far from the apparent conflict of interest in the former case. >>>
I knew exactly what he was getting at, and you can state with 100% certainty that neither Legend nor any other dealer/auctioneer/etc has any financial interest in CAC?
Regardless of if they do - it will be much less apparent than this proposed scenario.
As I see it Stacks is using this as a way to cherrypick the best coins for cheap prices, and then sell them for much more at public auction using their own auction house. The more I think about it, the more this scenario makes sense, and the more this whole project screams conflict of interest.
@Luxor said:
<<< @DeplorableDan ’s point was that Stack’s has a financial interest in their CMQ stickers. Legend has no financial interest in CAC stickers. What Laura HAS done is TOUT loudly the merits of buying coins graded by PCGS that merit CAC stickers. That’s far from the apparent conflict of interest in the former case. >>>
I knew exactly what he was getting at, and you can state with 100% certainty that neither Legend nor any other dealer/auctioneer/etc has any financial interest in CAC?
While I can’t speak about the NEW financial backers of CACG, I’d be willing to bet that for the past decade or so that Laura has been touting “Buy PCGS coins that merit CAC stickers” due to her belief that’s best for buyers, that she was not a part owner in CAC!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Luxor said:
<<< @DeplorableDan ’s point was that Stack’s has a financial interest in their CMQ stickers. Legend has no financial interest in CAC stickers. What Laura HAS done is TOUT loudly the merits of buying coins graded by PCGS that merit CAC stickers. That’s far from the apparent conflict of interest in the former case. >>>
I knew exactly what he was getting at, and you can state with 100% certainty that neither Legend nor any other dealer/auctioneer/etc has any financial interest in CAC?
What makes you think they do? Seems like an odd accusation to make without proof.
@Luxor said:
<<< @DeplorableDan ’s point was that Stack’s has a financial interest in their CMQ stickers. Legend has no financial interest in CAC stickers. What Laura HAS done is TOUT loudly the merits of buying coins graded by PCGS that merit CAC stickers. That’s far from the apparent conflict of interest in the former case. >>>
I knew exactly what he was getting at, and you can state with 100% certainty that neither Legend nor any other dealer/auctioneer/etc has any financial interest in CAC?
Regardless of if they do - it will be much less apparent than this proposed scenario.
As I see it Stacks is using this as a way to cherrypick the best coins for cheap prices, and then sell them for much more at public auction using their own auction house. The more I think about it, the more this scenario makes sense, and the more this whole project screams conflict of interest.
Stacks Bowers wants to partner with experts to establish another certification service recognizing high quality coins. Shame on them?
I think they are being very transparent. They will have to establish an excellent reputation, otherwise it will not be successful.
That is really all that needs to be said at this point.
<<< What makes you think they do? Seems like an odd accusation to make without proof. >>>
An accusation???? How laughable. I didn't accuse ANYONE of ANYTHING, nor did I even infer anything. I was simply asking someone if they had any actual knowledge regarding the remarks they were making, and apparently they do not.
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
@Luxor said:
<<< What makes you think they do? Seems like an odd accusation to make without proof. >>>
An accusation???? How laughable. I didn't accuse ANYONE of ANYTHING, nor did I even infer anything. I was simply asking someone if they had any actual knowledge regarding the remarks they were making, and apparently they do not.
You did imply such an accusation earlier when stating that CAC appears disproportionately in Legend auctions.
It's rather hard to have proof of a negative. Could you show me the proof that you've never been arrested?
@Luxor said:
<<< What makes you think they do? Seems like an odd accusation to make without proof. >>>
An accusation???? How laughable. I didn't accuse ANYONE of ANYTHING, nor did I even infer anything. I was simply asking someone if they had any actual knowledge regarding the remarks they were making, and apparently they do not.
It wasn’t laughable to me. Even if wholly unintentionally so, your question could easily be taken as an inference.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It appears they will sticker coins in holders other than PCGS or NGC. Thats a plus.
They also will sticker coins that CAC won't even consider like 46 to 64 Roosevelt dimes. Thats another plus.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
@gumby1234 said:
It appears they will sticker coins in holders other than PCGS or NGC. Thats a plus.
They also will sticker coins that CAC won't even consider like 46 to 64 Roosevelt dimes. Thats another plus.
I can see this a a big plus for the market, and the other two second tier tpgs. IMO CAC should have been verifying ANACS and ICG coins all along. There are so many people who disregard nice coins all together because they aren't in a PCGS or NGC holder. More and more collectors and dealers are submitting coins to ANACS and ICG because of wait times, fees etc. But this still only works if people accept the expert opinion. Many will probably see this as a downside. Only the elite grading of PCGS should be verified. When in reality, it's better for collectors all together if this service can open some eyes to coins in other company slabs.
I may add one of these to the collection just because so many here are against it . It has worked out with my CAC only gold in PCGS holders (many are against that as well).
@MetroD i must have missed that, but they are taking coins that CAC won't. I dont know what the sticker companies have against other slab services. I could understand if they weren't accepting any off the charts slabs, but the big 4 should be considered.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
@gumby1234 said: @MetroD i must have missed that, but they are taking coins that CAC won't. I dont know what the sticker companies have against other slab services. I could understand if they weren't accepting any off the charts slabs, but the big 4 should be considered.
Maybe they are only doing the major companies to limit the amount of submissions
@Cougar1978 said:
I welcome them entering the fray (especially David Hall) to give CAC competition.
Totally agree. Competition is always good for the coin consumer.
I don’t see what CMQ can offer that CAC hasn’t. CAC has a 15 year track record of the best graders and consistent criteria for stickering coins. What can CMQ offer that is better or different that will benefit the consumer. Why do we need an unproven copycat service with questionable industry ties.
Well for one, CAC hasn't accepted new members in over a year, maybe two, and there's no indication this will change any time soon. And IMO, CAC rejects many coins that are "solid for the grade." CMQ doesn't have to better or different, just have to be a viable alternative.
@Cougar1978 said:
I welcome them entering the fray (especially David Hall) to give CAC competition.
Totally agree. Competition is always good for the coin consumer.
I don’t see what CMQ can offer that CAC hasn’t. CAC has a 15 year track record of the best graders and consistent criteria for stickering coins. What can CMQ offer that is better or different that will benefit the consumer. Why do we need an unproven copycat service with questionable industry ties.
Well for one, CAC hasn't accepted new members in over a year, maybe two, and there's no indication this will change any time soon. And IMO, CAC rejects many coins that are "solid for the grade." CMQ doesn't have to better or different, just have to be a viable alternative.
(The line above was made bold by me). So apparently in your opinion, your grading skills are close to, at, or above JA and those in the NJ office. If indeed that's true, I have a lot more respect for you now than before.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@U1chicago said:
I am disappointed that my nice Anacs and ICG slabs won't be eligible for a griffing.
WHY don't the sticker companies evaluate ANACS and ICG Coins? The coins have a grade on the holder. The sticker says the coin is solid for the grade SO why not evaluate all major 3rd party grading companies? If the coin is sub-parr just don't sticker it.
@Cougar1978 said:
I welcome them entering the fray (especially David Hall) to give CAC competition.
Totally agree. Competition is always good for the coin consumer.
I don’t see what CMQ can offer that CAC hasn’t. CAC has a 15 year track record of the best graders and consistent criteria for stickering coins. What can CMQ offer that is better or different that will benefit the consumer. Why do we need an unproven copycat service with questionable industry ties.
Well for one, CAC hasn't accepted new members in over a year, maybe two, and there's no indication this will change any time soon. And IMO, CAC rejects many coins that are "solid for the grade." CMQ doesn't have to better or different, just have to be a viable alternative.
(The line above was made bold by me). So apparently in your opinion, your grading skills are close to, at, or above JA and those in the NJ office. If indeed that's true, I have a lot more respect for you now than before.
Steve
If it's true, I'm going to have to give an even greater premium to CAC for having even higher standards.
@U1chicago said:
I am disappointed that my nice Anacs and ICG slabs won't be eligible for a griffing.
WHY don't the sticker companies evaluate ANACS and ICG Coins? The coins have a grade on the holder. The sticker says the coin is solid for the grade SO why not evaluate all major 3rd party grading companies? If the coin is sub-parr just don't sticker it.
@U1chicago said:
I am disappointed that my nice Anacs and ICG slabs won't be eligible for a griffing.
WHY don't the sticker companies evaluate ANACS and ICG Coins? The coins have a grade on the holder. The sticker says the coin is solid for the grade SO why not evaluate all major 3rd party grading companies? If the coin is sub-parr just don't sticker it.
I have wondered that myself. I can imagine that back when CAC evaluated all coins for free and only charged for successful stickers, perhaps they thought there would be too many rejects to even bother with and it was a good way to reduce workload and not waste their time. However, now that they charge for every evaluation, I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't. Surely there would be a portion of those coins graded to their standards. I suppose another issue might be coin valuations. For insurance reasons, every coin has to have an established value and since coins in those other holders generally) sell for far below guide price they don't want to argue with collectors about value if and when problems arise.
@Cougar1978 said:
I welcome them entering the fray (especially David Hall) to give CAC competition.
Totally agree. Competition is always good for the coin consumer.
I don’t see what CMQ can offer that CAC hasn’t. CAC has a 15 year track record of the best graders and consistent criteria for stickering coins. What can CMQ offer that is better or different that will benefit the consumer. Why do we need an unproven copycat service with questionable industry ties.
Well for one, CAC hasn't accepted new members in over a year, maybe two, and there's no indication this will change any time soon. And IMO, CAC rejects many coins that are "solid for the grade." CMQ doesn't have to better or different, just have to be a viable alternative.
(The line above was made bold by me). So apparently in your opinion, your grading skills are close to, at, or above JA and those in the NJ office. If indeed that's true, I have a lot more respect for you now than before.
Steve
JA is but one man. While many worship at his alter, grading is still subjective and he readily admits to making mistake and having to buy coins that he shouldn't have stickered. In fact I have resubmitted previously CAC stickered coins to CAC after re-holdering and had them come back No CAC (and no, the condition of the coin didn't change). If you could identify the world's top 10 graders and put them together it is still unlikely that you would get unanimous results on every coin. This is where CMQ comes in. I am sure in time we will see coins that one company will sticker that the other will not that we will all look at slack-jawed trying to figure out why.
While I never said anything about my grading abilities, I do feel that there are certain coins and grade spectrums where I feel particularly confident. I increasingly feel that JA's term "solid for the grade" actually means "spectacular for the grade."
@U1chicago said:
I am disappointed that my nice Anacs and ICG slabs won't be eligible for a griffing.
WHY don't the sticker companies evaluate ANACS and ICG Coins? The coins have a grade on the holder. The sticker says the coin is solid for the grade SO why not evaluate all major 3rd party grading companies? If the coin is sub-parr just don't sticker it.
I think it’s a combination of thinking that many would not sticker, that people would complain too much when these don’t sticker (NGC tried to use that reasoning for eliminating crossovers from companies other than PCGS), and the difference in prices when selling (if the idea is to have a bid behind the coin, it could get messy with having one bid for Anacs/ICG and another for PCGS/NGC…but then you could argue that the bid should be the same since the sticker confirms that the coin is solid for the grade regardless of holder).
It’s a replacement tax on coins consigned to SB Auctions. Rather than send them out to CAC to get stickered, they’ll send them to their own service. Time will tell how warmly that is received by the market.
@DeplorableDan said:
I'll withhold final judgement until I see the product, but I'll admit i'm rather disconnected from the idea of a sticker service backed by an AH/retail operation. With CAC I never saw a conflict because John only operates at wholesale levels, but are these stickers going to show up in disproportionate amounts on coins being offered in Stacks auctions?
I dunno......do you think that CAC stickers may show up in a disproportionate amount in Legend auctions?
@DeplorableDan said:
I'll withhold final judgement until I see the product, but I'll admit i'm rather disconnected from the idea of a sticker service backed by an AH/retail operation. With CAC I never saw a conflict because John only operates at wholesale levels, but are these stickers going to show up in disproportionate amounts on coins being offered in Stacks auctions?
I dunno......do you think that CAC stickers may show up in a disproportionate amount in Legend auctions?
@DeplorableDan ’s point was that Stack’s has a financial interest in their CMQ stickers. Legend has no financial interest in CAC stickers. What Laura HAS done is TOUT loudly the merits of buying coins graded by PCGS that merit CAC stickers. That’s far from the apparent conflict of interest in the former case.
Steve
Is that 1,000% true? I thought I read that Legend was an investor in CACG. Are we all sure they have no interest in CAC? Plus, just how separate are CACG and CAC, given the use on one's intellectual property right on the label of the other?
@Luxor said:
<<< @DeplorableDan ’s point was that Stack’s has a financial interest in their CMQ stickers. Legend has no financial interest in CAC stickers. What Laura HAS done is TOUT loudly the merits of buying coins graded by PCGS that merit CAC stickers. That’s far from the apparent conflict of interest in the former case. >>>
I knew exactly what he was getting at, and you can state with 100% certainty that neither Legend nor any other dealer/auctioneer/etc has any financial interest in CAC?
Regardless of if they do - it will be much less apparent than this proposed scenario.
As I see it Stacks is using this as a way to cherrypick the best coins for cheap prices, and then sell them for much more at public auction using their own auction house. The more I think about it, the more this scenario makes sense, and the more this whole project screams conflict of interest.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. All the auction houses send coins they think are worthy to CAC today to try to goose what they will sell for at auction. If CMQ stickers coins that don't warrant it, they will quickly lose whatever credibility they will have out of the box, and the venture will fail.
As far as cherry picking coins and trying to sell them for more, either after a regrade, sticker, or both, isn't that a time honored tradition? Where is the conflict, and what's the difference whether the coin is retailed via eBay, a B&M store, online, at a third party auction house, or an affiliated one?
Vertical integration is not inherently a conflict of interest. All the auction houses maintain an inventory today, and retail it. Is that also a conflict?
@DeplorableDan said:
I'll withhold final judgement until I see the product, but I'll admit i'm rather disconnected from the idea of a sticker service backed by an AH/retail operation. With CAC I never saw a conflict because John only operates at wholesale levels, but are these stickers going to show up in disproportionate amounts on coins being offered in Stacks auctions?
I dunno......do you think that CAC stickers may show up in a disproportionate amount in Legend auctions?
@DeplorableDan ’s point was that Stack’s has a financial interest in their CMQ stickers. Legend has no financial interest in CAC stickers. What Laura HAS done is TOUT loudly the merits of buying coins graded by PCGS that merit CAC stickers. That’s far from the apparent conflict of interest in the former case.
Steve
Is that 1,000% true? I thought I read that Legend was an investor in CACG. Are we all sure they have no interest in CAC? Plus, just how separate are CACG and CAC, given the use on one's intellectual property right on the label of the other?
As I said above, on this page:
While I can’t speak about the NEW financial backers of CACG, I’d be willing to bet that for the past decade or so that Laura has been touting “Buy PCGS coins that merit CAC stickers” due to her belief that’s best for buyers, that she was not a part owner in CAC!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@DeplorableDan said:
I'll withhold final judgement until I see the product, but I'll admit i'm rather disconnected from the idea of a sticker service backed by an AH/retail operation. With CAC I never saw a conflict because John only operates at wholesale levels, but are these stickers going to show up in disproportionate amounts on coins being offered in Stacks auctions?
I dunno......do you think that CAC stickers may show up in a disproportionate amount in Legend auctions?
@DeplorableDan ’s point was that Stack’s has a financial interest in their CMQ stickers. Legend has no financial interest in CAC stickers. What Laura HAS done is TOUT loudly the merits of buying coins graded by PCGS that merit CAC stickers. That’s far from the apparent conflict of interest in the former case.
Steve
Is that 1,000% true? I thought I read that Legend was an investor in CACG. Are we all sure they have no interest in CAC? Plus, just how separate are CACG and CAC, given the use on one's intellectual property right on the label of the other?
As I said above, on this page:
While I can’t speak about the NEW financial backers of CACG, I’d be willing to bet that for the past decade or so that Laura has been touting “Buy PCGS coins that merit CAC stickers” due to her belief that’s best for buyers, that she was not a part owner in CAC!
Steve
Based on her vociferousness, and the fact that we know she is backing the new venture, I might take that bet. Has JA ever said that he doesn't have partners or investors in CAC, and has Legend ever said it has no financial interest in it?
Comments
Ever since I can remember, this site has had talk about PCGS grading tight or loose, not awarding certain designations such as Cameo or Deep Cameo, not grading coins MS/PR70, etc. It has been discussed in terms which indicate that those posting believe it to be an intentional act, as if some word has come down from management to start grading tighter or to loosen things up. I simply can't believe that as it would essentially constitute fraud.
I think that there is a subconscious bias in graders minds to certain events in the coin hobby. For example, news about a new grading service that says that the way the graders are currently grading is incorrect will probably subconsciously affect graders to grade more tightly.
Coin Photographer.
My argument is less about what's on the market as much as it is about the variance vs the standards.
Completely hypothetical:
Based on the variance, you'd expect a true 65 in 1995 to grade 65 half the time, 64+ (64 in1995) 25% of the time and 65+ (66 in 1985) 25% of the time.
Take the same coin into the future and it should grade 66 50% of the time, 66+ 25% of the time, 65+ 25% of the time.
With those numbers, 75% of 1995 coins should upgrade at least half a grade.
So, if less than 75% of old holders upgrade, either the standards have changed by less than a full grade or the variance is higher than half a grade.
A grade loosening of more than 1.5 grades would result in 100% of the coins upgrading.
So, I don't know how much is variance and how much is grade loosening and how much is variance, but it's not clear to me that there is a significant overall loosening.
I'm 100% sure that the tendency for expensive coins in my example is for the "25%" to end up half a grade too high.
[Obviously, you can change the distribution and the variances to get much different results. ]
Please don't use the word 'fraud'. There are many potential innocent explanations (as well as some less so) including explanations outside of the TPG's control. I don't think anyone in this thread is accusing any party/TPG of any nefarious activity.
That is different than what most people consider grade inflation. They argue that the standards have changed not that the coins have been resubmitted until they max out in some kind of TPG version of the Peter Principle.
There's more, but I just want to adress the grading skill honing.
Honed WHEN ?
1910?
1950?
1960?
1970?
1989?....
etc etc etc... You probably get the picture.
To my thinking, it HAS gotten ridiculous.
Stickers were a flash of brilliance.
possibly,
@Project Numismatics said: I don't think anyone in this thread is accusing any party/TPG of any nefarious activity.
My reference was to threads dating as long as 20+ years ago and, yes, members clearly believed and stated that it was intentional.
I don’t see what CMQ can offer that CAC hasn’t. CAC has a 15 year track record of the best graders and consistent criteria for stickering coins. What can CMQ offer that is better or different that will benefit the consumer. Why do we need an unproven copycat service with questionable industry ties.
David Hall is one of the few people who commands the respect that JA does.
But it will give us something new/more to collect.
Both are happening - changing standards and arbitrage of inherent inconsistencies in a subjective process.
The result is similar regardless of intentionality or precise mechanism.
Perhaps. I'm sure at least one of them has always been happening.
"David Hall is one of the few people who commands the respect that JA does."
Perhaps in some areas but not for his grading skills.
I dunno......do you think that CAC stickers may show up in a disproportionate amount in Legend auctions?
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
It will be interesting to see what kind of CMQ stickers old holder gold bean coins will get. It seems it would be bad if your gold bean got a green CMQ. I'm not really understanding the criteria for the elite sticker. Kinda vague.
@DeplorableDan ’s point was that Stack’s has a financial interest in their CMQ stickers. Legend has no financial interest in CAC stickers. What Laura HAS done is TOUT loudly the merits of buying coins graded by PCGS that merit CAC stickers. That’s far from the apparent conflict of interest in the former case.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
I’m waiting for the No BS! sticker.
Another point. Unlike GC, Heritage, Stack’s and DLRC which apparently accept most all PCGS and NGC coins submitted for their auctions, Legend Auctions is a boutique firm that to a greater degree limits the size of their Regency Auctions, which occur roughly only once every two months or so. As such, I believe they stack it (no pun intended) with coins that in THEIR OPINION are better for their buyers to purchase —-coins graded by PCGS that merit CAC stickers (which is what Laura always says).
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
@AlanSki
Ask and you shall receive! Probably big enough to cover all other sticker placements and still see the coin
“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
<<< @DeplorableDan ’s point was that Stack’s has a financial interest in their CMQ stickers. Legend has no financial interest in CAC stickers. What Laura HAS done is TOUT loudly the merits of buying coins graded by PCGS that merit CAC stickers. That’s far from the apparent conflict of interest in the former case. >>>
I knew exactly what he was getting at, and you can state with 100% certainty that neither Legend nor any other dealer/auctioneer/etc has any financial interest in CAC?
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
Regardless of if they do - it will be much less apparent than this proposed scenario.
As I see it Stacks is using this as a way to cherrypick the best coins for cheap prices, and then sell them for much more at public auction using their own auction house. The more I think about it, the more this scenario makes sense, and the more this whole project screams conflict of interest.
Coin Photographer.
While I can’t speak about the NEW financial backers of CACG, I’d be willing to bet that for the past decade or so that Laura has been touting “Buy PCGS coins that merit CAC stickers” due to her belief that’s best for buyers, that she was not a part owner in CAC!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
That's not what I said.
What makes you think they do? Seems like an odd accusation to make without proof.
Stacks Bowers wants to partner with experts to establish another certification service recognizing high quality coins. Shame on them?
I think they are being very transparent. They will have to establish an excellent reputation, otherwise it will not be successful.
That is really all that needs to be said at this point.
<<< What makes you think they do? Seems like an odd accusation to make without proof. >>>
An accusation???? How laughable. I didn't accuse ANYONE of ANYTHING, nor did I even infer anything. I was simply asking someone if they had any actual knowledge regarding the remarks they were making, and apparently they do not.
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
You did imply such an accusation earlier when stating that CAC appears disproportionately in Legend auctions.
It's rather hard to have proof of a negative. Could you show me the proof that you've never been arrested?
It wasn’t laughable to me. Even if wholly unintentionally so, your question could easily be taken as an inference.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It appears they will sticker coins in holders other than PCGS or NGC. Thats a plus.
They also will sticker coins that CAC won't even consider like 46 to 64 Roosevelt dimes. Thats another plus.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
I can see this a a big plus for the market, and the other two second tier tpgs. IMO CAC should have been verifying ANACS and ICG coins all along. There are so many people who disregard nice coins all together because they aren't in a PCGS or NGC holder. More and more collectors and dealers are submitting coins to ANACS and ICG because of wait times, fees etc. But this still only works if people accept the expert opinion. Many will probably see this as a downside. Only the elite grading of PCGS should be verified. When in reality, it's better for collectors all together if this service can open some eyes to coins in other company slabs.
My Ebay Store
Per the CMQ website:
Source: https://cmq.stacksbowers.com/faqs.php
I certainly could have missed something, especially since this is so new. Where does it say that CMQ will accept anything but PCGS, NGC, and CACG?
Edited for 'content/clarity'.
I may add one of these to the collection just because so many here are against it
. It has worked out with my CAC only gold in PCGS holders (many are against that as well).
Successful BST with BustDMs , Pnies20, lkeigwin, pursuitofliberty, Bullsitter, felinfoel, SPalladino (CBH's - 37 Die Marriage's)
$5 Type Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/type-sets/half-eagle-type-set-circulation-strikes-1795-1929/album/344192
CBH Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/everyman-collections/everyman-half-dollars/everyman-capped-bust-half-dollars-1807-1839/album/345572
@MetroD i must have missed that, but they are taking coins that CAC won't. I dont know what the sticker companies have against other slab services. I could understand if they weren't accepting any off the charts slabs, but the big 4 should be considered.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Maybe they are only doing the major companies to limit the amount of submissions
Well for one, CAC hasn't accepted new members in over a year, maybe two, and there's no indication this will change any time soon. And IMO, CAC rejects many coins that are "solid for the grade." CMQ doesn't have to better or different, just have to be a viable alternative.
(The line above was made bold by me). So apparently in your opinion, your grading skills are close to, at, or above JA and those in the NJ office. If indeed that's true, I have a lot more respect for you now than before.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
WHY don't the sticker companies evaluate ANACS and ICG Coins? The coins have a grade on the holder. The sticker says the coin is solid for the grade SO why not evaluate all major 3rd party grading companies? If the coin is sub-parr just don't sticker it.
If it's true, I'm going to have to give an even greater premium to CAC for having even higher standards.
It could be an attempt to limit submissions.
I have wondered that myself. I can imagine that back when CAC evaluated all coins for free and only charged for successful stickers, perhaps they thought there would be too many rejects to even bother with and it was a good way to reduce workload and not waste their time. However, now that they charge for every evaluation, I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't. Surely there would be a portion of those coins graded to their standards. I suppose another issue might be coin valuations. For insurance reasons, every coin has to have an established value and since coins in those other holders generally) sell for far below guide price they don't want to argue with collectors about value if and when problems arise.
JA is but one man. While many worship at his alter, grading is still subjective and he readily admits to making mistake and having to buy coins that he shouldn't have stickered. In fact I have resubmitted previously CAC stickered coins to CAC after re-holdering and had them come back No CAC (and no, the condition of the coin didn't change). If you could identify the world's top 10 graders and put them together it is still unlikely that you would get unanimous results on every coin. This is where CMQ comes in. I am sure in time we will see coins that one company will sticker that the other will not that we will all look at slack-jawed trying to figure out why.
While I never said anything about my grading abilities, I do feel that there are certain coins and grade spectrums where I feel particularly confident. I increasingly feel that JA's term "solid for the grade" actually means "spectacular for the grade."
I think it’s a combination of thinking that many would not sticker, that people would complain too much when these don’t sticker (NGC tried to use that reasoning for eliminating crossovers from companies other than PCGS), and the difference in prices when selling (if the idea is to have a bid behind the coin, it could get messy with having one bid for Anacs/ICG and another for PCGS/NGC…but then you could argue that the bid should be the same since the sticker confirms that the coin is solid for the grade regardless of holder).
It’s a replacement tax on coins consigned to SB Auctions. Rather than send them out to CAC to get stickered, they’ll send them to their own service. Time will tell how warmly that is received by the market.
BTW, I am preparing a box of 20 to go to CMQ this weekend. I will include some CAC coins and will post the results.
Do you have a gold sticker eye appealing coin to submit so we can see if that earns a gold sticker from CMQ?
Not to mention their retail website.
Is that 1,000% true? I thought I read that Legend was an investor in CACG. Are we all sure they have no interest in CAC? Plus, just how separate are CACG and CAC, given the use on one's intellectual property right on the label of the other?
I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. All the auction houses send coins they think are worthy to CAC today to try to goose what they will sell for at auction. If CMQ stickers coins that don't warrant it, they will quickly lose whatever credibility they will have out of the box, and the venture will fail.
As far as cherry picking coins and trying to sell them for more, either after a regrade, sticker, or both, isn't that a time honored tradition? Where is the conflict, and what's the difference whether the coin is retailed via eBay, a B&M store, online, at a third party auction house, or an affiliated one?
Vertical integration is not inherently a conflict of interest. All the auction houses maintain an inventory today, and retail it. Is that also a conflict?
Think that things won't change? Just look back over the past 30 years. Difficult to settle in with a secure feeling going forward.
As I said above, on this page:
While I can’t speak about the NEW financial backers of CACG, I’d be willing to bet that for the past decade or so that Laura has been touting “Buy PCGS coins that merit CAC stickers” due to her belief that’s best for buyers, that she was not a part owner in CAC!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Based on her vociferousness, and the fact that we know she is backing the new venture, I might take that bet. Has JA ever said that he doesn't have partners or investors in CAC, and has Legend ever said it has no financial interest in it?