@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).
@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?
I've also never said that I have no ownership in Legend. I've never told you that I'm not JA's puppetmaster. I have never denied having kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.... we're going to all be here for a while if we have to claim all the things we're not.
Has JA ever said or even implied he had financial partners in the original CAC, before the start of CACG? Has Legend ever said it had a financial interest in the old CAC before the start of CACG?
Is it just possible that Legend has touted PCGS coins that merit CAC stickers for the past decade or so as best for buyers because that’s what she truly believes, without any financial interest in CAC? Is it possible that some people share their thoughts on what they believe is best, without having a financial bias?
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?
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?
@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?
To your last question, yes. Auction houses have house bidders. Those bidders pay the premium but with house money. So, who cares if the house bidders lose money if the auction and the retail side make it up.
@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?
I've also never said that I have no ownership in Legend. I've never told you that I'm not Joe Biden's puppetmaster. I have never denied having kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.... we're going to all be here for a while if we have to claim all the things we're not.
Correct. But you're not a major dealer, so no one really cares about whether or not you have a conflict. For the record, you seem to have lots of conflicts, but we love you anyway. 😀
Plus, I'm saying vertical integration isn't inherently bad, and there is no conflict in what Stack's and Hall are doing. If CMQ is going to shill for Stack's by stickering crap, it will be a very short lived venture.
@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?
I've also never said that I have no ownership in Legend. I've never told you that I'm not Joe Biden's puppetmaster. I have never denied having kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.... we're going to all be here for a while if we have to claim all the things we're not.
Correct. But you're not a major dealer, so no one really cares about whether or not you have a conflict.
Plus, I'm saying vertical integration isn't inherently bad, and there is no conflict in what Stack's and Hall are doing. If CMQ is going to shill for Stack's by stickering crap, it will be a very short lived venture.
How do you know I'm not a major dealer? I didn't say I wasn't. I also didn't say that I wasn't a principal in PCGS. I didn't say I wasn't the majority owner of CAC.
@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?
I've also never said that I have no ownership in Legend. I've never told you that I'm not Joe Biden's puppetmaster. I have never denied having kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.... we're going to all be here for a while if we have to claim all the things we're not.
Correct. But you're not a major dealer, so no one really cares about whether or not you have a conflict.
Plus, I'm saying vertical integration isn't inherently bad, and there is no conflict in what Stack's and Hall are doing. If CMQ is going to shill for Stack's by stickering crap, it will be a very short lived venture.
How do you know I'm not a major dealer? I didn't say I wasn't. I also didn't say that I wasn't a principal in PCGS. I didn't say I wasn't the majority owner of CAC.
You again missed the whole point of my response.
No, I didn't miss your point. My point is no one cares about you and your relationships. You don't operate at the level of a Stack's, Legend, JA, Hall, GC, etc. Maybe if you had an interest in VB and you came on here shilling for them it would matter, but not with something as credible as, and with the scale of, CAC, PCGS or CMQ.
@winesteven said:
Has JA ever said or even implied he had financial partners in the original CAC, before the start of CACG? Has Legend ever said it had a financial interest in the old CAC before the start of CACG?
Is it just possible that Legend has touted PCGS coins that merit CAC stickers for the past decade or so as best for buyers because that’s what she truly believes, without any financial interest in CAC? Is it possible that some people share their thoughts on what they believe is best, without having a financial bias?
Steve
Per CAC website:
CAC was formed in 2007 by John Albanese, a respected authority on coin grading and the rare coin market, along with twenty-two leading members of the numismatic community. Because certified coins of the same grade...
@winesteven said:
Has JA ever said or even implied he had financial partners in the original CAC, before the start of CACG? Has Legend ever said it had a financial interest in the old CAC before the start of CACG?
I'm not sure it took much capital to start CAC. Stickers are not expensive. I reckon that if I had JA's reputation, I could start a CAC-equivalent with less than $100k.
@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?
@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?
To your last question, yes. Auction houses have house bidders. Those bidders pay the premium but with house money. So, who cares if the house bidders lose money if the auction and the retail side make it up.
Right. And I don't see the conflict if house bidders think they can make money at retail and want to take a cherry pick away from a retail bidder.
Nothing stops anyone from bidding more, and the house can lose if the house bidder is wrong and the coin sits unsold in inventory. All the auction houses do it, it is fully disclosed, and it doesn't stop big time players from both bidding and consigning.
@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?
I've also never said that I have no ownership in Legend. I've never told you that I'm not Joe Biden's puppetmaster. I have never denied having kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.... we're going to all be here for a while if we have to claim all the things we're not.
Correct. But you're not a major dealer, so no one really cares about whether or not you have a conflict.
Plus, I'm saying vertical integration isn't inherently bad, and there is no conflict in what Stack's and Hall are doing. If CMQ is going to shill for Stack's by stickering crap, it will be a very short lived venture.
How do you know I'm not a major dealer? I didn't say I wasn't. I also didn't say that I wasn't a principal in PCGS. I didn't say I wasn't the majority owner of CAC.
You again missed the whole point of my response.
No, I didn't miss your point. My point is no one cares about you and your relationships. You don't operate at the level of a Stack's, Legend, JA, Hall, GC, etc.
Yes, you did miss my point. Completely and entirely. It had NOTHING to do with conflicts.
The SOLE point is that NO ONE TELLS YOU WHAT THEY ARE NOT.
Let's try non-numusmatic claims.
I have never said...
... that I'm not an Arab sheikh.
... that I'm not a serial killer.
... that I'm not a race car driver.
... that I'm not a 12 year old.
... that I'm not a licensed chiropractor.
Do you get it yet?
The fact that Laura hasn't denied something isn't proof of anything.
I have never said that this was not ghost-written by an AI.
@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?
I've also never said that I have no ownership in Legend. I've never told you that I'm not Joe Biden's puppetmaster. I have never denied having kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.... we're going to all be here for a while if we have to claim all the things we're not.
Correct. But you're not a major dealer, so no one really cares about whether or not you have a conflict.
Plus, I'm saying vertical integration isn't inherently bad, and there is no conflict in what Stack's and Hall are doing. If CMQ is going to shill for Stack's by stickering crap, it will be a very short lived venture.
How do you know I'm not a major dealer? I didn't say I wasn't. I also didn't say that I wasn't a principal in PCGS. I didn't say I wasn't the majority owner of CAC.
You again missed the whole point of my response.
No, I didn't miss your point. My point is no one cares about you and your relationships. You don't operate at the level of a Stack's, Legend, JA, Hall, GC, etc.
Yes, you did miss my point. Completely and entirely. It had NOTHING to do with conflicts.
The SOLE point is that NO ONE TELLS YOU WHAT THEY ARE NOT.
Let's try non-numusmatic claims.
I have never said...
... that I'm not your wife's lover.
... that I'm not an Arab sheikh.
... that I'm not a serial killer.
... that I'm not a race car driver.
... that I'm not a 12 year old.
... that I'm not a licensed chiropractor.
Do you get it yet?
The fact that Laura hasn't denied something isn't proof of anything.
I have never said that this was not ghost-written by an AI.
And I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I was just asking a question, to refute an allegation that what Stack's and Hall were doing represented a conflict. Again, no one is talking about you, and no one really cares what you are or are not.
@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?
I've also never said that I have no ownership in Legend. I've never told you that I'm not Joe Biden's puppetmaster. I have never denied having kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.... we're going to all be here for a while if we have to claim all the things we're not.
Correct. But you're not a major dealer, so no one really cares about whether or not you have a conflict.
Plus, I'm saying vertical integration isn't inherently bad, and there is no conflict in what Stack's and Hall are doing. If CMQ is going to shill for Stack's by stickering crap, it will be a very short lived venture.
How do you know I'm not a major dealer? I didn't say I wasn't. I also didn't say that I wasn't a principal in PCGS. I didn't say I wasn't the majority owner of CAC.
You again missed the whole point of my response.
No, I didn't miss your point. My point is no one cares about you and your relationships. You don't operate at the level of a Stack's, Legend, JA, Hall, GC, etc.
Yes, you did miss my point. Completely and entirely. It had NOTHING to do with conflicts.
The SOLE point is that NO ONE TELLS YOU WHAT THEY ARE NOT.
Let's try non-numusmatic claims.
I have never said...
... that I'm not your wife's lover.
... that I'm not an Arab sheikh.
... that I'm not a serial killer.
... that I'm not a race car driver.
... that I'm not a 12 year old.
... that I'm not a licensed chiropractor.
Do you get it yet?
The fact that Laura hasn't denied something isn't proof of anything.
I have never said that this was not ghost-written by an AI.
And I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I was just asking a question, to refute an allegation that what Stack's and Hall were doing represented a conflict. Again, no one is talking about you, and no one really cares what you are or are not.
Lmfao. The point is still NOTHING about me. But our of respect for your possible neurodiversity, I'll let it go.
@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?
I've also never said that I have no ownership in Legend. I've never told you that I'm not Joe Biden's puppetmaster. I have never denied having kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.... we're going to all be here for a while if we have to claim all the things we're not.
Correct. But you're not a major dealer, so no one really cares about whether or not you have a conflict.
Plus, I'm saying vertical integration isn't inherently bad, and there is no conflict in what Stack's and Hall are doing. If CMQ is going to shill for Stack's by stickering crap, it will be a very short lived venture.
How do you know I'm not a major dealer? I didn't say I wasn't. I also didn't say that I wasn't a principal in PCGS. I didn't say I wasn't the majority owner of CAC.
You again missed the whole point of my response.
No, I didn't miss your point. My point is no one cares about you and your relationships. You don't operate at the level of a Stack's, Legend, JA, Hall, GC, etc.
Yes, you did miss my point. Completely and entirely. It had NOTHING to do with conflicts.
The SOLE point is that NO ONE TELLS YOU WHAT THEY ARE NOT.
Let's try non-numusmatic claims.
I have never said...
... that I'm not your wife's lover.
... that I'm not an Arab sheikh.
... that I'm not a serial killer.
... that I'm not a race car driver.
... that I'm not a 12 year old.
... that I'm not a licensed chiropractor.
Do you get it yet?
The fact that Laura hasn't denied something isn't proof of anything.
I have never said that this was not ghost-written by an AI.
And I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I was just asking a question, to refute an allegation that what Stack's and Hall were doing represented a conflict. Again, no one is talking about you, and no one really cares what you are or are not.
Lmfao. The point is still NOTHING about me. But our of respect for your possible neurodiversity, I'll let it go.
Mighty big of you. Make an uncalled for, obnoxious comment about neurodiversity, and then announce you are the bigger man. Charming. As someone who never saw a post he couldn't argue with, maybe invest in a mirror before slinging terms like neurodiversity around.
@jmlanzaf said:
CDNExchange does have different NGC and PCGS bids
Should they though? According to the sticker companies both coins should be equal,,,,,,,,,
I know it doesn't work that way.
For CAC coins possibly, but not for non-CAC coins. But at some point one has to acknowledge that there's a different market demand for NGC coins and PCGS coins and the difference in demand has resulted in differences in price. It does of course create an arbitrage opportunity.
@jmlanzaf said:
CDNExchange does have different NGC and PCGS bids
Should they though? According to the sticker companies both coins should be equal,,,,,,,,,
I know it doesn't work that way.
For CAC coins possibly, but not for non-CAC coins. But at some point one has to acknowledge that there's a different market demand for NGC coins and PCGS coins and the difference in demand has resulted in differences in price. It does of course create an arbitrage opportunity.
To be clear, these are BIDS not guide prices. If I want to only buy PCGS/CAC coins, you can't fill my order with NGC/CAC coins.
I might be out of touch from not being as active in the last 5-7 years or so.
I thought David Hall was retired from coins and living on his estate in Malibu.
I thought that SB's reputation is from two esteemed, accomplished numismatists (Stacks and Bowers) who are a combined age of about 180 years, and one of whom is deceased.
If the above are true (and I may be wrong on all counts), does the coin market really need the opinions of SB&H to make a market?
@shish said:
"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."
That's not what I said.
Correct, it's what I said, it's specific and relevant unlike your broad statement.
You didn't disagree with my statement.
You can be as much of an ass as you wish and pick as many nits as you like. My comment is as relevant and as specific as it needs to be in the context of a numismatic company.
JA and DH command tremendous respect. DH built PCGS to prominence AFTER JA left for NGC. PCGS, under DH, achieved GREATER respect than NGC under JA. The respect DH commands is equal to JA's and will transfer to CMQ. There are few other people, if any, that could stand in that same circle.
I might be out of touch from not being as active in the last 5-7 years or so.
I thought David Hall was retired from coins and living on his estate in Malibu.
I thought that SB's reputation is from two esteemed, accomplished numismatists (Stacks and Bowers) who are a combined age of about 180 years, and one of whom is deceased.
If the above are true (and I may be wrong on all counts), does the coin market really need the opinions of SB&H to make a market?
@MrEureka said:
And second, because they’re coin dealers, and the obvious conflicts of interest would seem to create an insurmountable marketing hurdle.
CAC seemed to overcome it.
Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.
@shish said:
"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."
That's not what I said.
Correct, it's what I said, it's specific and relevant unlike your broad statement.
You didn't disagree with my statement.
You can be as much of an ass as you wish and pick as many nits as you like. My comment is as relevant and as specific as it needs to be in the context of a numismatic company.
JA and DH command tremendous respect. DH built PCGS to prominence AFTER JA left for NGC. PCGS, under DH, achieved GREATER respect than NGC under JA. The respect DH commands is equal to JA's and will transfer to CMQ. There are few other people, if any, that could stand in that same circle.
Is David Hall an expert grader on the same level of JA and other world class graders or mainly a tremendous numismatist and a leader in the coin industry as founder of PCGS?
@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?
I've also never said that I have no ownership in Legend. I've never told you that I'm not Joe Biden's puppetmaster. I have never denied having kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.... we're going to all be here for a while if we have to claim all the things we're not.
Careful there JM mentioning the President's name. I did that a few months ago in a thread, only his last name, one word. And I received a 2 week vacation. We don't want to lose you.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@shish said:
"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."
That's not what I said.
Correct, it's what I said, it's specific and relevant unlike your broad statement.
You didn't disagree with my statement.
You can be as much of an ass as you wish and pick as many nits as you like. My comment is as relevant and as specific as it needs to be in the context of a numismatic company.
JA and DH command tremendous respect. DH built PCGS to prominence AFTER JA left for NGC. PCGS, under DH, achieved GREATER respect than NGC under JA. The respect DH commands is equal to JA's and will transfer to CMQ. There are few other people, if any, that could stand in that same circle.
Is David Hall an expert grader on the same level of JA and other world class graders or mainly a tremendous numismatist and a leader in the coin industry as founder of PCGS?
I think David Hall is a world class grader. I'm not exactly sure how to define that term. However, JA has generally been considered "the best eyes in the business". Quantifying the difference between eyes is rather tenuous.
You seem to enjoy name calling rather than respecting the opinions of others.
Your statement is an accurate reflection of your behavior.
"You can be as much of an ass as you wish and pick as many nits as you like."
@Walkerlover got my point and asks the following important question.
"Is David Hall an expert grader on the same level of JA and other world class graders or mainly a tremendous numismatist and a leader in the coin industry as founder of PCGS?"
You said "I think David Hall is a world class grader. I'm not exactly sure how to define that term. However, JA has generally been considered "the best eyes in the business". Quantifying the difference between eyes is rather tenuous."
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, however I disagree. The numismatists I've spoken with think JA and many other graders abilities are far above DH's. That doesn't change the fact that DH is a tremendous numismatist and leader in the coin industry.
@shish said:
You seem to enjoy name calling rather than respecting the opinions of others.
Your statement is an accurate reflection of your behavior.
"You can be as much of an ass as you wish and pick as many nits as you like."
@Walkerlover got my point and asks the following important question.
"Is David Hall an expert grader on the same level of JA and other world class graders or mainly a tremendous numismatist and a leader in the coin industry as founder of PCGS?"
You said "I think David Hall is a world class grader. I'm not exactly sure how to define that term. However, JA has generally been considered "the best eyes in the business". Quantifying the difference between eyes is rather tenuous."
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, however I disagree. The numismatists I've spoken with think JA and many other graders abilities are far above DH's. That doesn't change the fact that DH is a tremendous numismatist and leader in the coin industry.
I rarely call anyone names. My apologies. But you pushed my buttons.
I never stated that DH was equivalent to JA as a grader. That was never my point and still isn't. But you cannot start a stickering operation without a respected leader. DH fills the bill for the reason I've stated thrice. Whether DH is the 2nd best grader or 100th is irrelevant to the new operation. As is the question of whether JA is #1 or #66.
So you can try to change my point and declare it wrong, but you are changing the point. DH is as respected as JA, one of the few who is, which actually gives this operation a chance. I never framed it the way you are reframing it. I've never argued for equality in their eyes, nor do I think it is relevant.
How many times does JA overrule the consensus of the grading team? What people want 1st and foremost is a company that stands behind their opinions and guarantees. I doubt either one of them have eyes as good as they did 30 years ago. But both of them are trusted and respected.
@Maywood said: @winesteven said: Is it possible that some people share their thoughts on what they believe is best, without having a financial bias?
Based on my experience in the Hobby with coin dealers, no.
Really? You've never had a coin dealer give you a free opinion on a coin in an auction catalog or for sale at a different dealer? I have. Numerous times.
@Maywood said: @winesteven said: Is it possible that some people share their thoughts on what they believe is best, without having a financial bias?
Based on my experience in the Hobby with coin dealers, no.
Really? You've never had a coin dealer give you a few opinion on a coin in an auction catalog or for sale at a different dealer? I have. Numerous times.
Or what about a dealer who dissuades you from buying his own coin or one owned or being auctioned by the company he works for?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Maywood said: @winesteven said: Is it possible that some people share their thoughts on what they believe is best, without having a financial bias?
Based on my experience in the Hobby with coin dealers, no.
Really? You've never had a coin dealer give you a few opinion on a coin in an auction catalog or for sale at a different dealer? I have. Numerous times.
Or what about a dealer who dissuades you from buying his own coin or one owned or being auctioned by the company he works for?
That also happens. Thanks, Mark!
Or even just an auction house providing an honest assessment when asked. There's a local auction house here, not just coins, and if someone mentions a possible problem, they announce it when the lot comes up. One time, someone questioned the authenticity of an 1800 dollar they had for sale. They announced the concern before the lot and said that they would sell it with the option of the coin being sent to NGC immediately after the auction if the buyer wished. [It came back straight VF25, by the way. ]
Most long-time dealers and houses value their reputations and work to build them.
Thanks for the input, guys. You've both reminded me, again, that I should just stay quiet and not share my personal experiences. From here forward I'll PM you both and have you interpret what's happened to me.
@Maywood said:
Thanks for the input, guys. You've both reminded me, again, that I should just stay quiet and not share my personal experiences. From here forward I'll PM you both and have you interpret what's happened to me.
There’s no reason not to share your personal experiences. And I’m truly sorry that apparently, they’ve been bad ones, rather than good ones. As in most any profession, there are terrible dealers, great ones and everywhere in between.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Maywood said:
Thanks for the input, guys. You've both reminded me, again, that I should just stay quiet and not share my personal experiences. From here forward I'll PM you both and have you interpret what's happened to me.
I apologize if I came across as trying to argue against you. That wasn't my point. To your point, there are a lot of dealers who will do anything for a buck and nothing for free. Just not all, in my experience.
If you want a story of the bad behavior: there was a local coin shop that would never give a free assessment of value. He had a sign on the wall behind his counter that stated his opinion cost $50 per hour, one hour minimum (IIRC).
An older gentleman came in with a handful of silver dollars and asked what they were worth. The dealer quoted him $10 each and asked if he wanted to sell. The guy said he would keep them. The dealer pointed to the sign and said, "then that will be $50 for the appraisal ".
The guy said, "no way" and tried to leave. The dealer locked the door and it took the police to resolve it.
I went to that shop regularly for a couple months but then stopped after his nature became clear to me. I never went back.
@Maywood said: @winesteven said: Is it possible that some people share their thoughts on what they believe is best, without having a financial bias?
Based on my experience in the Hobby with coin dealers, no.
Really? You've never had a coin dealer give you a few opinion on a coin in an auction catalog or for sale at a different dealer? I have. Numerous times.
Or what about a dealer who dissuades you from buying his own coin or one owned or being auctioned by the company he works for?
Because they are trying to build goodwill for the future, with a financial incentive for doing so. Because they don't want to create an unhappy customer, again with a future financial incentive for doing so.
Not because their allegiance to a member of the public supersedes their fiduciary obligation to their employer, or because professional numismatists earn a living by giving away their expertise for free.
All of which has nothing to do with one particular dealer advocating at the top of her lungs for a particular third party service, consistently, over a long period of time. Admirable if there is not, and never was, a financial connection between herself, her company, and the third party company and its principals. Less impressive otherwise.
@Maywood said: @winesteven said: Is it possible that some people share their thoughts on what they believe is best, without having a financial bias?
Based on my experience in the Hobby with coin dealers, no.
Really? You've never had a coin dealer give you a few opinion on a coin in an auction catalog or for sale at a different dealer? I have. Numerous times.
Or what about a dealer who dissuades you from buying his own coin or one owned or being auctioned by the company he works for?
Because they are trying to build goodwill for the future, with a financial incentive for doing so. Because they don't want to create an unhappy customer, again with a future financial incentive for doing so.
Not because their allegiance to a member of the public supersedes their fiduciary obligation to their employer, or because professional numismatists earn a living by giving away their expertise for free.
All of which has nothing to do with one particular dealer advocating at the top of her lungs for a particular third party service, consistently, over a long period of time. Admirable if there is not, and never was, a financial connection between herself, her company, and the third party company and its principals. Less impressive otherwise.
Your cynicism cries out loud and clear. Call me naïve ("Steve, you're naïve". lol) but I truly believe there are a LOT more than a few people out there than you think, that even if there is a potential financial conflict, they will still give unbiased advice WITHOUT the purpose of a future benefit for themselves or their firm! I'm absolutely convinced of that, as I've seen it over and over in my limited exposure. For my business, which I started in 1982, countless times I've given unbiased advice to help people, knowing there would be no future benefit for me (other than where I may end up in the afterlife).
As humans, we're all different, and we go through life with different outlooks. While you present just a little part of yourself, it's possible that as a generalization you initially think the worst of people, and that is OK, as it offers protection. I tend to think that with a little filter, in general I tend to think the best of people. Admittedly, that can harm me at times. But I'm 72 years old, and that attitude has not hurt me much (yet).
Be well. and enjoy the rest of the weekend.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Maywood said: @winesteven said: Is it possible that some people share their thoughts on what they believe is best, without having a financial bias?
Based on my experience in the Hobby with coin dealers, no.
Really? You've never had a coin dealer give you a few opinion on a coin in an auction catalog or for sale at a different dealer? I have. Numerous times.
Or what about a dealer who dissuades you from buying his own coin or one owned or being auctioned by the company he works for?
Because they are trying to build goodwill for the future, with a financial incentive for doing so. Because they don't want to create an unhappy customer, again with a future financial incentive for doing so.
Not because their allegiance to a member of the public supersedes their fiduciary obligation to their employer, or because professional numismatists earn a living by giving away their expertise for free.
All of which has nothing to do with one particular dealer advocating at the top of her lungs for a particular third party service, consistently, over a long period of time. Admirable if there is not, and never was, a financial connection between herself, her company, and the third party company and its principals. Less impressive otherwise.
Why can’t it be both? Why can’t a dealer advocate for CAC in both the interest of customers and self-interest? Isn’t it conceivable (and likely) that Legend truly believes CAC coins are the best long-term coins for her customers to hold and that she benefits from selling and marketing these coins as well?
All industries and companies advocate for their self-interest and, to more or less degrees, in the interest of their customers and the public.
I’ve certainly worked for companies that truly felt their interests and their customers were aligned and worked hard toward a win-win.
You may disagree (and many do) about whether the type of coins that Legend markets are the best choice for collectors, but I see no reason to doubt Legend’s motives or integrity. Reasonable people can disagree and there are dealers serving all segments of the hobby.
I warned laura that CAC would actually hurt her business because it removed her expertise from the equation in picking coins for customers to buy. She supported the venture anyway (as did I) because she felt that grade inflation and inability to reject some types of coin doctoring was harming Numismatics
Just like the Pcgs,and NGC, interplay, this new CMQ will have to choose whether it is tighter or looser than CAC. I predict if it is tighter that it will fail, which leaves looser as the remaining option. In that instance, it is irrelevant to me personally, but I can see some advantage to consignors who will hopefully play a lesser fee for quicker service and receive a commensurate uptick in their price realized.
@Maywood said: @winesteven said: Is it possible that some people share their thoughts on what they believe is best, without having a financial bias?
Based on my experience in the Hobby with coin dealers, no.
Really? You've never had a coin dealer give you a few opinion on a coin in an auction catalog or for sale at a different dealer? I have. Numerous times.
Or what about a dealer who dissuades you from buying his own coin or one owned or being auctioned by the company he works for?
Because they are trying to build goodwill for the future, with a financial incentive for doing so. Because they don't want to create an unhappy customer, again with a future financial incentive for doing so.
Not because their allegiance to a member of the public supersedes their fiduciary obligation to their employer, or because professional numismatists earn a living by giving away their expertise for free.
All of which has nothing to do with one particular dealer advocating at the top of her lungs for a particular third party service, consistently, over a long period of time. Admirable if there is not, and never was, a financial connection between herself, her company, and the third party company and its principals. Less impressive otherwise.
Why can’t it be both? Why can’t a dealer advocate for CAC in both the interest of customers and self-interest? Isn’t it conceivable (and likely) that Legend truly believes CAC coins are the best long-term coins for her customers to hold and that she benefits from selling and marketing these coins as well?
All industries and companies advocate for their self-interest and, to more or less degrees, in the interest of their customers and the public.
I’ve certainly worked for companies that truly felt their interests and their customers were aligned and worked hard toward a win-win.
You may disagree (and many do) about whether the type of coins that Legend markets are the best choice for collectors, but I see no reason to doubt Legend’s motives or integrity. Reasonable people can disagree and there are dealers serving all segments of the hobby.
It certainly can both. Nothing wrong with being a true believer, and nothing wrong with self interest.
After all, I'm the one who, in an earlier post, found nothing wrong with vertical integration. Full disclosure is the key. Stack's and Hall are providing that.
Someone else brought CAC and Legend into the conversation. Absolutely nothing wrong with anything Legend is doing, and they are clearly very successful at it.
That said, would the folks who have an issue with what Stack's and Hall are doing having the same issue with Legend and CAC if there is, or ever was, a financial relationship between them? It's just a question. I have no issue either way, although I will admit that an undisclosed financial relationship would absolutely call into question the unbiased nature of the advocacy.
@tradedollarnut said:
I warned laura that CAC would actually hurt her business because it removed her expertise from the equation in picking coins for customers to buy. She supported the venture anyway (as did I) because she felt that grade inflation and inability to reject some types of coin doctoring was harming Numismatics
Just like the Pcgs,and NGC, interplay, this new CMQ will have to choose whether it is tighter or looser than CAC. I predict if it is tighter that it will fail, which leaves looser as the remaining option. In that instance, it is irrelevant to me personally, but I can see some advantage to consignors who will hopefully play a lesser fee for quicker service and receive a commensurate uptick in their price realized.
Couldn't they also just compete on price and service? CAC has not helped themselves with being closed to be members while raising prices.
Comments
CDNExchange does have different NGC and PCGS bids
I've also never said that I have no ownership in Legend. I've never told you that I'm not JA's puppetmaster. I have never denied having kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.... we're going to all be here for a while if we have to claim all the things we're not.
Has JA ever said or even implied he had financial partners in the original CAC, before the start of CACG? Has Legend ever said it had a financial interest in the old CAC before the start of CACG?
Is it just possible that Legend has touted PCGS coins that merit CAC stickers for the past decade or so as best for buyers because that’s what she truly believes, without any financial interest in CAC? Is it possible that some people share their thoughts on what they believe is best, without having a financial bias?
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
To your last question, yes. Auction houses have house bidders. Those bidders pay the premium but with house money. So, who cares if the house bidders lose money if the auction and the retail side make it up.
Correct. But you're not a major dealer, so no one really cares about whether or not you have a conflict. For the record, you seem to have lots of conflicts, but we love you anyway. 😀
Plus, I'm saying vertical integration isn't inherently bad, and there is no conflict in what Stack's and Hall are doing. If CMQ is going to shill for Stack's by stickering crap, it will be a very short lived venture.
Don't we need to scrape off the CAC sticker to get an unbiased opinion?
How do you know I'm not a major dealer? I didn't say I wasn't. I also didn't say that I wasn't a principal in PCGS. I didn't say I wasn't the majority owner of CAC.
You again missed the whole point of my response.
No, I didn't miss your point. My point is no one cares about you and your relationships. You don't operate at the level of a Stack's, Legend, JA, Hall, GC, etc. Maybe if you had an interest in VB and you came on here shilling for them it would matter, but not with something as credible as, and with the scale of, CAC, PCGS or CMQ.
Per CAC website:
CAC was formed in 2007 by John Albanese, a respected authority on coin grading and the rare coin market, along with twenty-two leading members of the numismatic community. Because certified coins of the same grade...
I'm not sure it took much capital to start CAC. Stickers are not expensive. I reckon that if I had JA's reputation, I could start a CAC-equivalent with less than $100k.
But my point is I believe Laura has been touting PCGS graded coins that merit CAC stickers because that’s what she believes is best for buyers.
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
Right. And I don't see the conflict if house bidders think they can make money at retail and want to take a cherry pick away from a retail bidder.
Nothing stops anyone from bidding more, and the house can lose if the house bidder is wrong and the coin sits unsold in inventory. All the auction houses do it, it is fully disclosed, and it doesn't stop big time players from both bidding and consigning.
Yes, you did miss my point. Completely and entirely. It had NOTHING to do with conflicts.
The SOLE point is that NO ONE TELLS YOU WHAT THEY ARE NOT.
Let's try non-numusmatic claims.
I have never said...
... that I'm not an Arab sheikh.
... that I'm not a serial killer.
... that I'm not a race car driver.
... that I'm not a 12 year old.
... that I'm not a licensed chiropractor.
Do you get it yet?
The fact that Laura hasn't denied something isn't proof of anything.
I have never said that this was not ghost-written by an AI.
And I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I was just asking a question, to refute an allegation that what Stack's and Hall were doing represented a conflict. Again, no one is talking about you, and no one really cares what you are or are not.
Lmfao. The point is still NOTHING about me. But our of respect for your possible neurodiversity, I'll let it go.
Should they though? According to the sticker companies both coins should be equal,,,,,,,,,
I know it doesn't work that way.
Mighty big of you. Make an uncalled for, obnoxious comment about neurodiversity, and then announce you are the bigger man. Charming. As someone who never saw a post he couldn't argue with, maybe invest in a mirror before slinging terms like neurodiversity around.
For CAC coins possibly, but not for non-CAC coins. But at some point one has to acknowledge that there's a different market demand for NGC coins and PCGS coins and the difference in demand has resulted in differences in price. It does of course create an arbitrage opportunity.
Yes. The bids are offers to buy. You can't order me to pay the same if I don't want to.
To be clear, these are BIDS not guide prices. If I want to only buy PCGS/CAC coins, you can't fill my order with NGC/CAC coins.
NASCARization
"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."
That's not what I said.
Correct, it's what I said, it's specific and relevant unlike your broad statement.
You didn't disagree with my statement.
I have not read the entire thread.
I might be out of touch from not being as active in the last 5-7 years or so.
I thought David Hall was retired from coins and living on his estate in Malibu.
I thought that SB's reputation is from two esteemed, accomplished numismatists (Stacks and Bowers) who are a combined age of about 180 years, and one of whom is deceased.
If the above are true (and I may be wrong on all counts), does the coin market really need the opinions of SB&H to make a market?
I am just trying to see if they are on the same page as CAC concerning a gold sticker
You can be as much of an ass as you wish and pick as many nits as you like. My comment is as relevant and as specific as it needs to be in the context of a numismatic company.
JA and DH command tremendous respect. DH built PCGS to prominence AFTER JA left for NGC. PCGS, under DH, achieved GREATER respect than NGC under JA. The respect DH commands is equal to JA's and will transfer to CMQ. There are few other people, if any, that could stand in that same circle.
The only constant is change.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
CAC seemed to overcome it.
*%!, Where's the Ibuprofen?
Mark
Is David Hall an expert grader on the same level of JA and other world class graders or mainly a tremendous numismatist and a leader in the coin industry as founder of PCGS?
Careful there JM mentioning the President's name. I did that a few months ago in a thread, only his last name, one word. And I received a 2 week vacation. We don't want to lose you.
Tried to add a smiley
at the end of my post. So here it is. 
Meh.. at this point I need a 2 week vacation. But point taken.
I'm helping my daughter with her homework. Does anyone know what an egomaniac narcissist is?
I think David Hall is a world class grader. I'm not exactly sure how to define that term. However, JA has generally been considered "the best eyes in the business". Quantifying the difference between eyes is rather tenuous.
Check the dictionary next to "ad hominem".
You seem to enjoy name calling rather than respecting the opinions of others.
Your statement is an accurate reflection of your behavior.
"You can be as much of an ass as you wish and pick as many nits as you like."
@Walkerlover got my point and asks the following important question.
"Is David Hall an expert grader on the same level of JA and other world class graders or mainly a tremendous numismatist and a leader in the coin industry as founder of PCGS?"
You said "I think David Hall is a world class grader. I'm not exactly sure how to define that term. However, JA has generally been considered "the best eyes in the business". Quantifying the difference between eyes is rather tenuous."
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, however I disagree. The numismatists I've spoken with think JA and many other graders abilities are far above DH's. That doesn't change the fact that DH is a tremendous numismatist and leader in the coin industry.
@winesteven said: Is it possible that some people share their thoughts on what they believe is best, without having a financial bias?
Based on my experience in the Hobby with coin dealers, no.
I rarely call anyone names. My apologies. But you pushed my buttons.
I never stated that DH was equivalent to JA as a grader. That was never my point and still isn't. But you cannot start a stickering operation without a respected leader. DH fills the bill for the reason I've stated thrice. Whether DH is the 2nd best grader or 100th is irrelevant to the new operation. As is the question of whether JA is #1 or #66.
So you can try to change my point and declare it wrong, but you are changing the point. DH is as respected as JA, one of the few who is, which actually gives this operation a chance. I never framed it the way you are reframing it. I've never argued for equality in their eyes, nor do I think it is relevant.
How many times does JA overrule the consensus of the grading team? What people want 1st and foremost is a company that stands behind their opinions and guarantees. I doubt either one of them have eyes as good as they did 30 years ago. But both of them are trusted and respected.
Really? You've never had a coin dealer give you a free opinion on a coin in an auction catalog or for sale at a different dealer? I have. Numerous times.
Or what about a dealer who dissuades you from buying his own coin or one owned or being auctioned by the company he works for?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That also happens. Thanks, Mark!
Or even just an auction house providing an honest assessment when asked. There's a local auction house here, not just coins, and if someone mentions a possible problem, they announce it when the lot comes up. One time, someone questioned the authenticity of an 1800 dollar they had for sale. They announced the concern before the lot and said that they would sell it with the option of the coin being sent to NGC immediately after the auction if the buyer wished. [It came back straight VF25, by the way. ]
Most long-time dealers and houses value their reputations and work to build them.
Thanks for the input, guys. You've both reminded me, again, that I should just stay quiet and not share my personal experiences. From here forward I'll PM you both and have you interpret what's happened to me.
There’s no reason not to share your personal experiences. And I’m truly sorry that apparently, they’ve been bad ones, rather than good ones. As in most any profession, there are terrible dealers, great ones and everywhere in between.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I apologize if I came across as trying to argue against you. That wasn't my point. To your point, there are a lot of dealers who will do anything for a buck and nothing for free. Just not all, in my experience.
If you want a story of the bad behavior: there was a local coin shop that would never give a free assessment of value. He had a sign on the wall behind his counter that stated his opinion cost $50 per hour, one hour minimum (IIRC).
An older gentleman came in with a handful of silver dollars and asked what they were worth. The dealer quoted him $10 each and asked if he wanted to sell. The guy said he would keep them. The dealer pointed to the sign and said, "then that will be $50 for the appraisal ".
The guy said, "no way" and tried to leave. The dealer locked the door and it took the police to resolve it.
I went to that shop regularly for a couple months but then stopped after his nature became clear to me. I never went back.
Because they are trying to build goodwill for the future, with a financial incentive for doing so. Because they don't want to create an unhappy customer, again with a future financial incentive for doing so.
Not because their allegiance to a member of the public supersedes their fiduciary obligation to their employer, or because professional numismatists earn a living by giving away their expertise for free.
All of which has nothing to do with one particular dealer advocating at the top of her lungs for a particular third party service, consistently, over a long period of time. Admirable if there is not, and never was, a financial connection between herself, her company, and the third party company and its principals. Less impressive otherwise.
Your cynicism cries out loud and clear. Call me naïve ("Steve, you're naïve". lol) but I truly believe there are a LOT more than a few people out there than you think, that even if there is a potential financial conflict, they will still give unbiased advice WITHOUT the purpose of a future benefit for themselves or their firm! I'm absolutely convinced of that, as I've seen it over and over in my limited exposure. For my business, which I started in 1982, countless times I've given unbiased advice to help people, knowing there would be no future benefit for me (other than where I may end up in the afterlife).
As humans, we're all different, and we go through life with different outlooks. While you present just a little part of yourself, it's possible that as a generalization you initially think the worst of people, and that is OK, as it offers protection. I tend to think that with a little filter, in general I tend to think the best of people. Admittedly, that can harm me at times. But I'm 72 years old, and that attitude has not hurt me much (yet).
Be well. and enjoy the rest of the weekend.
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 can’t it be both? Why can’t a dealer advocate for CAC in both the interest of customers and self-interest? Isn’t it conceivable (and likely) that Legend truly believes CAC coins are the best long-term coins for her customers to hold and that she benefits from selling and marketing these coins as well?
All industries and companies advocate for their self-interest and, to more or less degrees, in the interest of their customers and the public.
I’ve certainly worked for companies that truly felt their interests and their customers were aligned and worked hard toward a win-win.
You may disagree (and many do) about whether the type of coins that Legend markets are the best choice for collectors, but I see no reason to doubt Legend’s motives or integrity. Reasonable people can disagree and there are dealers serving all segments of the hobby.
I warned laura that CAC would actually hurt her business because it removed her expertise from the equation in picking coins for customers to buy. She supported the venture anyway (as did I) because she felt that grade inflation and inability to reject some types of coin doctoring was harming Numismatics
Just like the Pcgs,and NGC, interplay, this new CMQ will have to choose whether it is tighter or looser than CAC. I predict if it is tighter that it will fail, which leaves looser as the remaining option. In that instance, it is irrelevant to me personally, but I can see some advantage to consignors who will hopefully play a lesser fee for quicker service and receive a commensurate uptick in their price realized.
It certainly can both. Nothing wrong with being a true believer, and nothing wrong with self interest.
After all, I'm the one who, in an earlier post, found nothing wrong with vertical integration. Full disclosure is the key. Stack's and Hall are providing that.
Someone else brought CAC and Legend into the conversation. Absolutely nothing wrong with anything Legend is doing, and they are clearly very successful at it.
That said, would the folks who have an issue with what Stack's and Hall are doing having the same issue with Legend and CAC if there is, or ever was, a financial relationship between them? It's just a question. I have no issue either way, although I will admit that an undisclosed financial relationship would absolutely call into question the unbiased nature of the advocacy.
Couldn't they also just compete on price and service? CAC has not helped themselves with being closed to be members while raising prices.