@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.
Yes…until your consignors get mad at you because you didn’t sticker enough of their coins. Lose a few consignments that way and watch what happens.
I saw them and like the griffin on the sticker. I do wonder if we are going to end up making slabs look like NASCAR jackets too soon though. Of course, the labels themselves are getting a little out of hand too with signatures, show commemoration, ... But if that is appealing to the general collecting public, no big deal.
@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.
Speaking for myself, I don’t necessarily have an issue with CMQ, It’s just the potential for an issue that might rub people the wrong way. I’m only slightly cynical, but I’m open minded and time will tell.
As to your last paragraph, my answer is “no”. From my limited experience in this hobby, my opinion is that JA has too much integrity to bend or relax his standards for his own personal gain. I know a few collectors and dealers that are quite close with JA and not once have I ever observed, or even heard a rumor of preferential treatment.
My answer may change if:
-JA had his own retail operation
-JA had any financial interest an auction house, In which he would benefit from both the sticker fee and the auction results
@asheland said:
I know stickers are a touchy subject. but I wish Doug Winter stickered original gold. I would value that highly!
The next best thing, at least for me, is knowing that only original gold is offered to collectors like me at the DWN website.
I may be misinterpreting, but are you implying that every coin Doug offers is original?
+1
Doug had a great eye. I've never bought from him. Does he make that guarantee?
No one, no matter how experienced and knowledgeable, could legitimately make such a guarantee. In many, if not most cases, there’s no way to know for certain whether a coin is truly “original”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@asheland said:
I know stickers are a touchy subject. but I wish Doug Winter stickered original gold. I would value that highly!
The next best thing, at least for me, is knowing that only original gold is offered to collectors like me at the DWN website.
I may be misinterpreting, but are you implying that every coin Doug offers is original?
+1
Doug had a great eye. I've never bought from him. Does he make that guarantee?
No one, no matter how experienced and knowledgeable, could legitimately make such a guarantee. In many, if not most cases, there’s no way to know for certain whether a coin is truly “original”.
I don't disagree. However, that doesn't mean that Mr. Winter hasn't said something along those lines. The original poster got that idea from somewhere. I was wondering if it was "urban legend" or something Mr. Winter said/wrote.
@asheland said:
I know stickers are a touchy subject. but I wish Doug Winter stickered original gold. I would value that highly!
The next best thing, at least for me, is knowing that only original gold is offered to collectors like me at the DWN website.
I may be misinterpreting, but are you implying that every coin Doug offers is original?
+1
Doug had a great eye. I've never bought from him. Does he make that guarantee?
No one, no matter how experienced and knowledgeable, could legitimately make such a guarantee. In many, if not most cases, there’s no way to know for certain whether a coin is truly “original”.
I don't disagree. However, that doesn't mean that Mr. Winter hasn't said something along those lines. The original poster got that idea from somewhere. I was wondering if it was "urban legend" or something Mr. Winter said/wrote.
Im not sure where the original poster got that Idea, however I have never heard Doug make a claim like that. While Doug is an expert on originality, he has always been very forthcoming with me and would tell me if he thought a coin had been lightly processed a long time ago. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for someone to offer nothing but virgin original coins. That said, a majority of the coins you can find on his website at any given time appear to be original.
Doug has never said that all of his coins are original. If you read his descriptions he will occasionally have a coin for sale that he describes as having been previously dipped or gently wiped. Most of Doug’s coin are close to “original” but it’s impossible to know the history of a 150-200 year old coin.
@skier07 said: it’s impossible to know the history of a 150-200 year old coin.
Back around 2003-4 when the "original surfaces" debate really started to ramp up at this forum an old-time member, @pmh1nic, used to say precisely that same thing and he was pretty much dismissed. Time has proven him to be correct although some will still claim to know "originality" when they really don't.
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
For the most part people buy the coins not the holders. There are; however, plenty of holder collectors and people assembling "OGH and rattler sets" out there that do drive these premiums. I've purchased plenty of coins in old holders without paying any notable premium, so an "old holder" does not guarantee any premium.
If people are buying coins and not holders and old holders are selling for more money than new holders at the same grade, then doesn’t that imply that older holders house better coins on average?
No. It implies that people THINK they do. After 30 years of breakouts, what are the odds?
It's at least possible that it's not "grade inflation" so much as the tendency of coins to be submitted and resubmitted until they max out. Grading isn't exact. The difference between a 65 and 66 can be a matter of opinion. If you had a coin that you submitted 100x and got 95 65s, 2 64s and 3 66s, that would mean scientifically that it is a 65 with some variance in the "measurement". But that coin will invariably end up in the 66 holder because people keep submitting until they get the result they want, even if it is an outlier.
Perception is reality. The perception of that old holders are more stringently graded has led to the reality of higher prices.
You gentlemen are arguing semantics and ignoring the issue of gradeflation. It doesn’t matter how it happened or why - whether through resubmissions, unintentional loosening of the application of standards or changes in the standards itself - it has happened and is a problem.
It’s a big reason CAC was founded and is so popular.
This isn’t enough of a sample size to come to any conclusions, but these were on display at Long Beach for an upcoming stacks auction. My premature impression is that @tradedollarnut’s prediction of them being looser than CAC is probably correct, it makes more sense than trying to be tighter. I imagine that we'll see a CAC coin here and there that they decline to sticker, I'm very curious to see how they handle seated dollars.
@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.
Speaking for myself, I don’t necessarily have an issue with CMQ, It’s just the potential for an issue that might rub people the wrong way. I’m only slightly cynical, but I’m open minded and time will tell.
As to your last paragraph, my answer is “no”. From my limited experience in this hobby, my opinion is that JA has too much integrity to bend or relax his standards for his own personal gain. I know a few collectors and dealers that are quite close with JA and not once have I ever observed, or even heard a rumor of preferential treatment.
My answer may change if:
-JA had his own retail operation
-JA had any financial interest an auction house, In which he would benefit from both the sticker fee and the auction results
-JA was no longer involved
I agree with everything you said, as usual! And for the record, I wasn't questioning JA's integrity for a nanosecond. I was questioning the unbiased nature of Laura's shilling, regardless of the level of her "true belief," if she had a financial stake in CAC, now or at any time in the past, and more than a rooting interest in its success.
And, as I said before, I'd have no problem with it either way, but full disclosures are the way to go, as Stack's and Hall are doing. If Hall winds up bending over to accommodate Stack's, that will soon become apparent and will destroy the value of what they are trying to create. Same as with JA and CAC, who very clearly established standards and stuck to them over the years to create what they have today.
@skier07 said:
Their logo is too big and it dominates the focal point of the label unlike a green sticker. I don’t like the look of a coin with a sticker and griff.
Yea, especially if the coin is already CAC then their sticker has to cover either the date, the gold shield, the coin number, or a combination of the 3. It also looks cattywampus when its tilted, as another poster had opined earlier.
@DeplorableDan said:
This isn’t enough of a sample size to come to any conclusions, but these were on display at Long Beach for an upcoming stacks auction. My premature impression is that @tradedollarnut’s prediction of them being looser than CAC is probably correct, it makes more sense than trying to be tighter. I imagine that we'll see a CAC coin here and there that they decline to sticker, I'm very curious to see how they handle seated dollars.
By their own admission, the stated bar is lower for CMQ.
Whereas CAC says that stickered coins are "solid for the grade" which in discussion would give the impression that it is roughly the top 2/3 of a grade spectrum, in reality I believe they run much tighter than that.
CMQ's stated bar is, "no marginally graded or negative eye appeal coins will ever exhibit a CMQ sticker" with the goal of facilitating sight unseen trade. So by that standard, if a coin is of a quality that if you bought it without seeing it and it showed up, you should theoretically have no complaints about it.
These are of course qualitative statements open to interpretation, and I do believe that in theory they should be almost equivalent but CAC's actual practice IMHO is much tighter.
I have a selection of CAC rejects going off to CMQ today. I will post the results.
@Maywood said: @skier07 said: it’s impossible to know the history of a 150-200 year old coin.
Back around 2003-4 when the "original surfaces" debate really started to ramp up at this forum an old-time member, @pmh1nic, used to say precisely that same thing and he was pretty much dismissed. Time has proven him to be correct although some will still claim to know "originality" when they really don't.
That member defines "original" differently than the rest of the numismatic community.
I participated extensively in those debates that involve original surfaces and suggested to PCGS, NGS and ANACs that they consider an original surfaces designation. The main thrust of the argument was quite obvious... too many type coins, No Motto Gold as well as earlier gold were enhanced in an effort to get the benefit of a higher grade. The end result was predictable- many original coins were processed and stripped to bring out luster which was present to begin with... but just not highlighted enough to get a deserving grade. Getting the bump of a higher grade at the expense of what really matters... the natural and undisturbed look of a coin that experienced the slightest amount of circulation took a significant toll as to what survived unmolested.
So what really has happened over the past 20 years? There are less original coins in the EF45 to AU58 range that exist for all the wrong reasons. And even to this day, there has been no real acknowledgement that the surviving population of original coins with "the look" has diminished at the expense of plastic. So there is no incentive to do much of anything. Stickers and plastic are simply not the cornerstones as to how this hobby should progress.
I have accepted that my view of what made sense to help preserve endangered coins will not make it to the main stream. The last poll I did in connection with an O/S designation here was likely 10-12 years ago. The concept was rejected by about a 60%-40% on the forum. Having this discussion does not create right or wrong answers, it merely outlines that there should be more options that reflects and acknowledges what the real DNA of a coin is that extends beyond the ownership history.
Quality of surfaces is more important than plastic, grades, stickers or prior ownership.
.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@coinkat said:
I participated extensively in those debates that involve original surfaces and suggested to PCGS, NGS and ANACs that they consider an original surfaces designation. The main thrust of the argument was quite obvious... too many type coins, No Motto Gold as well as earlier gold were enhanced in an effort to get the benefit of a higher grade. The end result was predictable- many original coins were processed and stripped to bring out luster which was present to begin with... but just not highlighted enough to get a deserving grade. Getting the bump of a higher grade at the expense of what really matters... the natural and undisturbed look of a coin that experienced the slightest amount of circulation took a significant toll as to what survived unmolested.
So what really has happened over the past 20 years? There are less original coins in the EF45 to AU58 range that exist for all the wrong reasons. And even to this day, there has been no real acknowledgement that the surviving population of original coins with "the look" has diminished at the expense of plastic. So there is no incentive to do much of anything. Stickers and plastic are simply not the cornerstones as to how this hobby should progress.
I have accepted that my view of what made sense to help preserve endangered coins will not make it to the main stream. The last poll I did in connection with an O/S designation here was likely 10-12 years ago. The concept was rejected by about a 60%-40% on the forum. Having this discussion does not create right or wrong answers, it merely outlines that there should be more options that reflects and acknowledges what the real DNA of a coin is that extends beyond the ownership history.
Quality of surfaces is more important than plastic, grades, stickers or prior ownership.
Sounds to me like there's an opportunity for an OS sticker.
Yeah, world coins would be great.
But what I'd really love to see is grifs offered on vintage obsolete holders. Those from the early days of slabbing.
Sure, some TPGs from the wild west era of slabbing should be excluded. Feel free to discriminate.
C'mon CMQ. What are you afraid of? Grade the coin, not the holder, right?
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
Yes…until your consignors get mad at you because you didn’t sticker enough of their coins. Lose a few consignments that way and watch what happens.
Nuttin wrong with being the NGC of stickers.
TDN just hit on my first thought when I saw the news about this service. The awkward conversation that ensues when whale consignor asks Mr. Roberts why didn't you sticker six figure coin X or seven figure coin Y?
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@skier07 said: Their logo is too big and it dominates the focal point of the label unlike a green sticker. I don’t like the look of a coin with a sticker and griff.
I think the whole problem lies with PCGS/NGC. They clearly need to redesign their respective inserts and/or holders to leave room for these stickers..........................
@Maywood said: @skier07 said: Their logo is too big and it dominates the focal point of the label unlike a green sticker. I don’t like the look of a coin with a sticker and griff.
I think the whole problem lies with PCGS/NGC. They clearly need to redesign their respective inserts and/or holders to leave room for these stickers..........................
Partly we're used to the green sticker.
I measured the photo on my screen. The griff came in at 225 mm^2 and the CAC sticker was 173 mm^2.
Edited to add. I measured a different photo and got 100 mm^2 vs 70 mm^2. So there's some significant variance in my screen measurements
Either way, I have to admit that the bean shape and size is pretty much ideal. The CMQ sticker is a touch too big. I wonder if this will end up being a Gen 1.0 collectible sticker.
Just sent off my first submission to CMQ. I can say that they have a lot of bugs and kinks to work out. Here's my experience so far:
1. Tried calling the phone number at the bottom of the page twice. No answer. Didn't leave voicemail.
2. Tried emailing a few questions. The web page provides two emails: info@stacksbowers.com in the Contact Us link and cmq@stacksbowers.com at the bottom of one of the pages. That's OK, I'm pretty confident I knew the answers. 24 hours later, no responses.
3. FAQ talks about max USPS package value $50k, packing instructions say $25k and contact them before sending them more than $25k worth of coins and they'll insure the extra value at their expense (!?)
4. No explicit instructions on the address to send coins. I ended up sending them to the address on the invoice.
5. There is a manual form and a web-form. The web form did not allow me to enter NGC coins. I didn't try an CACG coins since I don't have any. The web form rejected a few PCGS coins that are on the accepted list (eg 1943/2 Nickel). The web form is slick that when you enter a PCGS number it auto-populates everything for you. However, the form auto selects the "Plus" box for + grades and you have to de-select it every time. The auto-population doesn't get the grade right though if the coin is has a + grade and you have to fix it.
6. You can't apparently select CIM for individual coins - it's all or nothing.
7. You can't request an offer on selected coins - apparently all or nothing. Curious to see if they only offer on CMQ approved coins.
8. Check or bank wire payment only.
9. Flexible shipping options
I am sending in a selection of coins that a) I have not sent to CAC b) coins that have been sent to CAC that I expected to sticker but were rejected and d) one coin that has been stickered by CAC but I'm not confident if CMQ will sticker it.
@ProofCollection said:
Just sent off my first submission to CMQ. I can say that they have a lot of bugs and kinks to work out. Here's my experience so far:
1. Tried calling the phone number at the bottom of the page twice. No answer. Didn't leave voicemail.
2. Tried emailing a few questions. The web page provides two emails: info@stacksbowers.com in the Contact Us link and cmq@stacksbowers.com at the bottom of one of the pages. That's OK, I'm pretty confident I knew the answers. 24 hours later, no responses.
3. FAQ talks about max USPS package value $50k, packing instructions say $25k and contact them before sending them more than $25k worth of coins and they'll insure the extra value at their expense (!?)
4. No explicit instructions on the address to send coins. I ended up sending them to the address on the invoice.
5. There is a manual form and a web-form. The web form did not allow me to enter NGC coins. I didn't try an CACG coins since I don't have any. The web form rejected a few PCGS coins that are on the accepted list (eg 1943/2 Nickel). The web form is slick that when you enter a PCGS number it auto-populates everything for you. However, the form auto selects the "Plus" box for + grades and you have to de-select it every time. The auto-population doesn't get the grade right though if the coin is has a + grade and you have to fix it.
6. You can't apparently select CIM for individual coins - it's all or nothing.
7. You can't request an offer on selected coins - apparently all or nothing. Curious to see if they only offer on CMQ approved coins.
8. Check or bank wire payment only.
9. Flexible shipping options
I am sending in a selection of coins that a) I have not sent to CAC b) coins that have been sent to CAC that I expected to sticker but were rejected and d) one coin that has been stickered by CAC but I'm not confident if CMQ will sticker it.
Ugh!!!!! Thanks for conducting this experiment, and the way you chose the coins to submit may provide a tiny bit of insight, although obviously the sample size is small. Keep us posted.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@ProofCollection said:
Just sent off my first submission to CMQ. I can say that they have a lot of bugs and kinks to work out. Here's my experience so far:
1. Tried calling the phone number at the bottom of the page twice. No answer. Didn't leave voicemail.
2. Tried emailing a few questions. The web page provides two emails: info@stacksbowers.com in the Contact Us link and cmq@stacksbowers.com at the bottom of one of the pages. That's OK, I'm pretty confident I knew the answers. 24 hours later, no responses.
3. FAQ talks about max USPS package value $50k, packing instructions say $25k and contact them before sending them more than $25k worth of coins and they'll insure the extra value at their expense (!?)
4. No explicit instructions on the address to send coins. I ended up sending them to the address on the invoice.
5. There is a manual form and a web-form. The web form did not allow me to enter NGC coins. I didn't try an CACG coins since I don't have any. The web form rejected a few PCGS coins that are on the accepted list (eg 1943/2 Nickel). The web form is slick that when you enter a PCGS number it auto-populates everything for you. However, the form auto selects the "Plus" box for + grades and you have to de-select it every time. The auto-population doesn't get the grade right though if the coin is has a + grade and you have to fix it.
6. You can't apparently select CIM for individual coins - it's all or nothing.
7. You can't request an offer on selected coins - apparently all or nothing. Curious to see if they only offer on CMQ approved coins.
8. Check or bank wire payment only.
9. Flexible shipping options
I am sending in a selection of coins that a) I have not sent to CAC b) coins that have been sent to CAC that I expected to sticker but were rejected and d) one coin that has been stickered by CAC but I'm not confident if CMQ will sticker it.
@ProofCollection thanks for sharing your feedback. Most of these bugs are are on our list and in the process of being resolved.
NGC coins can be submitted but need to follow this format - "NGC Cert #’s / Grade", ex. 1234567001/65 - we are clarifying this online.
We are also building a robust checkout process that will allow for credit card, e-check, etc. and will be deployed soon.
Please let us know if you have any other suggestions, find any bugs or otherwise need assistance.
@ProofCollection said:
Just sent off my first submission to CMQ. I can say that they have a lot of bugs and kinks to work out. Here's my experience so far:
1. Tried calling the phone number at the bottom of the page twice. No answer. Didn't leave voicemail.
2. Tried emailing a few questions. The web page provides two emails: info@stacksbowers.com in the Contact Us link and cmq@stacksbowers.com at the bottom of one of the pages. That's OK, I'm pretty confident I knew the answers. 24 hours later, no responses.
3. FAQ talks about max USPS package value $50k, packing instructions say $25k and contact them before sending them more than $25k worth of coins and they'll insure the extra value at their expense (!?)
4. No explicit instructions on the address to send coins. I ended up sending them to the address on the invoice.
5. There is a manual form and a web-form. The web form did not allow me to enter NGC coins. I didn't try an CACG coins since I don't have any. The web form rejected a few PCGS coins that are on the accepted list (eg 1943/2 Nickel). The web form is slick that when you enter a PCGS number it auto-populates everything for you. However, the form auto selects the "Plus" box for + grades and you have to de-select it every time. The auto-population doesn't get the grade right though if the coin is has a + grade and you have to fix it.
6. You can't apparently select CIM for individual coins - it's all or nothing.
7. You can't request an offer on selected coins - apparently all or nothing. Curious to see if they only offer on CMQ approved coins.
8. Check or bank wire payment only.
9. Flexible shipping options
I am sending in a selection of coins that a) I have not sent to CAC b) coins that have been sent to CAC that I expected to sticker but were rejected and d) one coin that has been stickered by CAC but I'm not confident if CMQ will sticker it.
@ProofCollection thanks for sharing your feedback. Most of these bugs are are on our list and in the process of being resolved.
NGC coins can be submitted but need to follow this format - "NGC Cert #’s / Grade", ex. 1234567001/65 - we are clarifying this online.
We are also building a robust checkout process that will allow for credit card, e-check, etc. and will be deployed soon.
Please let us know if you have any other suggestions, find any bugs or otherwise need assistance.
Brian
Brian, a question was asked on another thread and I did not see a reply or any information on the SB website. Why has CMQ elected not to review coins in the ANACS holder, or any other holder except for PCGS and NGC. I understand why CAC does not but would love to hear why CMQ also choose to exclude them. This seems like a great opportunity to provide a service that many collectors would really like.
In adding to Coinbuf's comment, ANACS graded several variety coins well before NGC and PCGS- Including Morgan VAMs and various double dies among others- such as the 1946 WLH DDR. I see no compelling reason not to accept ANACS graded coins such as these if it is really is about the coin. Further, seems the decision making process as to what constitutes an acceptable submission can and should include a look at the coin instead of the plastic. The ANACS graded coin can still fail to sticker but should have the opportunity to at least be considered. Not accepting them makes no sense especially considering the history/progression of TPG and the role ANACS had with setting the trend for varieties to be graded. I have no idea what remains in ANACS holders that fall into this category.
Now having written that, submissions should really be consistent with the Mission- special coins with the look. I suspect they really are not that interested in generics at the 63-65 grade range.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The only thing I see all these new fangal coin-grading gaffes bringing to the hobby is DISTRUST!
CAC, 10 point system, 100 point system, QA, CACG? and now CMQ??? Let's not forget the W, *, pluses +++! And there are others I won't mention.
Good Gosh people.......GIVE IT A BREAK!!!
Leo lol
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
@coinkat said:
In adding to Coinbuf's comment, ANACS graded several variety coins well before NGC and PCGS- Including Morgan VAMs and various double dies among others- such as the 1946 WLH DDR. I see no compelling reason not to accept ANACS graded coins such as these if it is really is about the coin. Further, seems the decision making process as to what constitutes an acceptable submission can and should include a look at the coin instead of the plastic. The ANACS graded coin can still fail to sticker but should have the opportunity to at least be considered. Not accepting them makes no sense especially considering the history/progression of TPG and the role ANACS had with setting the trend for varieties to be graded. I have no idea what remains in ANACS holders that fall into this category.
Now having written that, submissions should really be consistent with the Mission- special coins with the look. I suspect they really are not that interested in generics at the 63-65 grade range.
I wonder if this is possibly a reason. They probably have data-sharing and data-access agreements with PCGS and NGC. I'm not entirely sure how the coin "catalog numbers" work among TPGs but if ANACS recognizes/attributes more coins than NGC and PCGS does, maybe that would create a headache for the software and databases?
@leothelyon said:
The only thing I see all these new fangal coin-grading gaffes bringing to the hobby is DISTRUST!
CAC, 10 point system, 100 point system, QA, CACG? and now CMQ??? Let's not forget the W, *, pluses +++! And there are others I won't mention.
Good Gosh people.......GIVE IT A BREAK!!!
@coinkat said:
In adding to Coinbuf's comment, ANACS graded several variety coins well before NGC and PCGS- Including Morgan VAMs and various double dies among others- such as the 1946 WLH DDR. I see no compelling reason not to accept ANACS graded coins such as these if it is really is about the coin. Further, seems the decision making process as to what constitutes an acceptable submission can and should include a look at the coin instead of the plastic. The ANACS graded coin can still fail to sticker but should have the opportunity to at least be considered. Not accepting them makes no sense especially considering the history/progression of TPG and the role ANACS had with setting the trend for varieties to be graded. I have no idea what remains in ANACS holders that fall into this category.
Now having written that, submissions should really be consistent with the Mission- special coins with the look. I suspect they really are not that interested in generics at the 63-65 grade range.
I wonder if this is possibly a reason. They probably have data-sharing and data-access agreements with PCGS and NGC. I'm not entirely sure how the coin "catalog numbers" work among TPGs but if ANACS recognizes/attributes more coins than NGC and PCGS does, maybe that would create a headache for the software and databases?
Didn't the early ANACS registration numbers get lost? Or was that PCI?
@ProofCollection said:
Just sent off my first submission to CMQ. I can say that they have a lot of bugs and kinks to work out. Here's my experience so far:
1. Tried calling the phone number at the bottom of the page twice. No answer. Didn't leave voicemail.
2. Tried emailing a few questions. The web page provides two emails: info@stacksbowers.com in the Contact Us link and cmq@stacksbowers.com at the bottom of one of the pages. That's OK, I'm pretty confident I knew the answers. 24 hours later, no responses.
3. FAQ talks about max USPS package value $50k, packing instructions say $25k and contact them before sending them more than $25k worth of coins and they'll insure the extra value at their expense (!?)
4. No explicit instructions on the address to send coins. I ended up sending them to the address on the invoice.
5. There is a manual form and a web-form. The web form did not allow me to enter NGC coins. I didn't try an CACG coins since I don't have any. The web form rejected a few PCGS coins that are on the accepted list (eg 1943/2 Nickel). The web form is slick that when you enter a PCGS number it auto-populates everything for you. However, the form auto selects the "Plus" box for + grades and you have to de-select it every time. The auto-population doesn't get the grade right though if the coin is has a + grade and you have to fix it.
6. You can't apparently select CIM for individual coins - it's all or nothing.
7. You can't request an offer on selected coins - apparently all or nothing. Curious to see if they only offer on CMQ approved coins.
8. Check or bank wire payment only.
9. Flexible shipping options
I am sending in a selection of coins that a) I have not sent to CAC b) coins that have been sent to CAC that I expected to sticker but were rejected and d) one coin that has been stickered by CAC but I'm not confident if CMQ will sticker it.
@ProofCollection thanks for sharing your feedback. Most of these bugs are are on our list and in the process of being resolved.
NGC coins can be submitted but need to follow this format - "NGC Cert #’s / Grade", ex. 1234567001/65 - we are clarifying this online.
We are also building a robust checkout process that will allow for credit card, e-check, etc. and will be deployed soon.
Please let us know if you have any other suggestions, find any bugs or otherwise need assistance.
Brian
Brian, a question was asked on another thread and I did not see a reply or any information on the SB website. Why has CMQ elected not to review coins in the ANACS holder, or any other holder except for PCGS and NGC. I understand why CAC does not but would love to hear why CMQ also choose to exclude them. This seems like a great opportunity to provide a service that many collectors would really like.
CMQ reviews coins graded by Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS), Numismatic Guaranty Service (NGC) and Certified Acceptance Corporation (CAC). These services and their grading standards are widely accepted as industry standard. Furthermore, these three services account for 96% of the US coins which have been offered at Stack’s Bowers Galleries auctions this year. Lastly, we have data sharing arrangements with these services enabling us to efficiently handle their coins.
@leothelyon said:
The only thing I see all these new fangal coin-grading gaffes bringing to the hobby is DISTRUST!
CAC, 10 point system, 100 point system, QA, CACG? and now CMQ??? Let's not forget the W, *, pluses +++! And there are others I won't mention.
Good Gosh people.......GIVE IT A BREAK!!!
Leo lol
Maybe you could collect wine?
.
It seems that when I try to collect wine that it disappears; the bottle ends up empty.
I've been lurking the whole time. I guess I have no real issue with the service and will let the market decide.
I do think the sticker size/shape needs improvement. The size and shape seems to disrupt the label information. The size and orientation of the CAC sticker lends itself to stealthy placement, the CMQ sticker....not so much. Images could be deceiving, but it looks 30-50% larger than a CAC sticker. Having more horizontal size vs. vertical size seems to be a better call. Looking at those slabs, I just want to peel the CMQ sticker off as it just seems to take up too much valuable space.
Collector of Original Early Gold with beginnings in Proof Morgan collecting.
@StacksBowersGalleries said:
CMQ reviews coins graded by Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS), Numismatic Guaranty Service (NGC) and Certified Acceptance Corporation (CAC). These services and their grading standards are widely accepted as industry standard. Furthermore, these three services account for 96% of the US coins which have been offered at Stack’s Bowers Galleries auctions this year. Lastly, we have data sharing arrangements with these services enabling us to efficiently handle their coins.
Comments
Yes…until your consignors get mad at you because you didn’t sticker enough of their coins. Lose a few consignments that way and watch what happens.
Nuttin wrong with being the NGC of stickers.
Apology accepted.
I understand your point and I never tried to change it or declare it wrong.
My point is simple, the graders skills are critically important.
Like everything, I am sure it will have it's fans. I am not one. I only collect coins.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
I saw them and like the griffin on the sticker. I do wonder if we are going to end up making slabs look like NASCAR jackets too soon though. Of course, the labels themselves are getting a little out of hand too with signatures, show commemoration, ... But if that is appealing to the general collecting public, no big deal.
Speaking for myself, I don’t necessarily have an issue with CMQ, It’s just the potential for an issue that might rub people the wrong way. I’m only slightly cynical, but I’m open minded and time will tell.
As to your last paragraph, my answer is “no”. From my limited experience in this hobby, my opinion is that JA has too much integrity to bend or relax his standards for his own personal gain. I know a few collectors and dealers that are quite close with JA and not once have I ever observed, or even heard a rumor of preferential treatment.
My answer may change if:
-JA had his own retail operation
-JA had any financial interest an auction house, In which he would benefit from both the sticker fee and the auction results
-JA was no longer involved
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
The next best thing, at least for me, is knowing that only original gold is offered to collectors like me at the DWN website.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
I may be misinterpreting, but are you implying that every coin Doug offers is original?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
+1
Doug had a great eye. I've never bought from him. Does he make that guarantee?
No one, no matter how experienced and knowledgeable, could legitimately make such a guarantee. In many, if not most cases, there’s no way to know for certain whether a coin is truly “original”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don't disagree. However, that doesn't mean that Mr. Winter hasn't said something along those lines. The original poster got that idea from somewhere. I was wondering if it was "urban legend" or something Mr. Winter said/wrote.
Im not sure where the original poster got that Idea, however I have never heard Doug make a claim like that. While Doug is an expert on originality, he has always been very forthcoming with me and would tell me if he thought a coin had been lightly processed a long time ago. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for someone to offer nothing but virgin original coins. That said, a majority of the coins you can find on his website at any given time appear to be original.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Doug has never said that all of his coins are original. If you read his descriptions he will occasionally have a coin for sale that he describes as having been previously dipped or gently wiped. Most of Doug’s coin are close to “original” but it’s impossible to know the history of a 150-200 year old coin.
@skier07 said: it’s impossible to know the history of a 150-200 year old coin.
Back around 2003-4 when the "original surfaces" debate really started to ramp up at this forum an old-time member, @pmh1nic, used to say precisely that same thing and he was pretty much dismissed. Time has proven him to be correct although some will still claim to know "originality" when they really don't.
Spot-on.
This isn’t enough of a sample size to come to any conclusions, but these were on display at Long Beach for an upcoming stacks auction. My premature impression is that @tradedollarnut’s prediction of them being looser than CAC is probably correct, it makes more sense than trying to be tighter. I imagine that we'll see a CAC coin here and there that they decline to sticker, I'm very curious to see how they handle seated dollars.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I agree with everything you said, as usual! And for the record, I wasn't questioning JA's integrity for a nanosecond. I was questioning the unbiased nature of Laura's shilling, regardless of the level of her "true belief," if she had a financial stake in CAC, now or at any time in the past, and more than a rooting interest in its success.
And, as I said before, I'd have no problem with it either way, but full disclosures are the way to go, as Stack's and Hall are doing. If Hall winds up bending over to accommodate Stack's, that will soon become apparent and will destroy the value of what they are trying to create. Same as with JA and CAC, who very clearly established standards and stuck to them over the years to create what they have today.
Their logo is too big and it dominates the focal point of the label unlike a green sticker. I don’t like the look of a coin with a sticker and griff.
I'm starting to wonder if I should just skip the slab grading and have the sticker applied directly to the raw coin!
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Yea, especially if the coin is already CAC then their sticker has to cover either the date, the gold shield, the coin number, or a combination of the 3. It also looks cattywampus when its tilted, as another poster had opined earlier.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
By their own admission, the stated bar is lower for CMQ.
Whereas CAC says that stickered coins are "solid for the grade" which in discussion would give the impression that it is roughly the top 2/3 of a grade spectrum, in reality I believe they run much tighter than that.
CMQ's stated bar is, "no marginally graded or negative eye appeal coins will ever exhibit a CMQ sticker" with the goal of facilitating sight unseen trade. So by that standard, if a coin is of a quality that if you bought it without seeing it and it showed up, you should theoretically have no complaints about it.
These are of course qualitative statements open to interpretation, and I do believe that in theory they should be almost equivalent but CAC's actual practice IMHO is much tighter.
I have a selection of CAC rejects going off to CMQ today. I will post the results.
Any bets on when the Hufflepuff sticker is coming, for coins that are nice to a fault?
The grif is obtrusive.
That member defines "original" differently than the rest of the numismatic community.
I participated extensively in those debates that involve original surfaces and suggested to PCGS, NGS and ANACs that they consider an original surfaces designation. The main thrust of the argument was quite obvious... too many type coins, No Motto Gold as well as earlier gold were enhanced in an effort to get the benefit of a higher grade. The end result was predictable- many original coins were processed and stripped to bring out luster which was present to begin with... but just not highlighted enough to get a deserving grade. Getting the bump of a higher grade at the expense of what really matters... the natural and undisturbed look of a coin that experienced the slightest amount of circulation took a significant toll as to what survived unmolested.
So what really has happened over the past 20 years? There are less original coins in the EF45 to AU58 range that exist for all the wrong reasons. And even to this day, there has been no real acknowledgement that the surviving population of original coins with "the look" has diminished at the expense of plastic. So there is no incentive to do much of anything. Stickers and plastic are simply not the cornerstones as to how this hobby should progress.
I have accepted that my view of what made sense to help preserve endangered coins will not make it to the main stream. The last poll I did in connection with an O/S designation here was likely 10-12 years ago. The concept was rejected by about a 60%-40% on the forum. Having this discussion does not create right or wrong answers, it merely outlines that there should be more options that reflects and acknowledges what the real DNA of a coin is that extends beyond the ownership history.
Quality of surfaces is more important than plastic, grades, stickers or prior ownership.
.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Sounds to me like there's an opportunity for an OS sticker.
1727 Shilling- worthy of an original surfaces designation if one existed
Edited to add- This is the only one of this date type graded by out host. Sort of adds a rarity and condition rarity to the discussion
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Yeah, world coins would be great.
But what I'd really love to see is grifs offered on vintage obsolete holders. Those from the early days of slabbing.
Sure, some TPGs from the wild west era of slabbing should be excluded. Feel free to discriminate.
C'mon CMQ. What are you afraid of? Grade the coin, not the holder, right?
--Severian the Lame
Nice one. This too:
My YouTube Channel
TDN just hit on my first thought when I saw the news about this service. The awkward conversation that ensues when whale consignor asks Mr. Roberts why didn't you sticker six figure coin X or seven figure coin Y?
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@skier07 said: Their logo is too big and it dominates the focal point of the label unlike a green sticker. I don’t like the look of a coin with a sticker and griff.
I think the whole problem lies with PCGS/NGC. They clearly need to redesign their respective inserts and/or holders to leave room for these stickers..........................
Partly we're used to the green sticker.
I measured the photo on my screen. The griff came in at 225 mm^2 and the CAC sticker was 173 mm^2.
Edited to add. I measured a different photo and got 100 mm^2 vs 70 mm^2. So there's some significant variance in my screen measurements
Either way, I have to admit that the bean shape and size is pretty much ideal. The CMQ sticker is a touch too big. I wonder if this will end up being a Gen 1.0 collectible sticker.
Just sent off my first submission to CMQ. I can say that they have a lot of bugs and kinks to work out. Here's my experience so far:
1. Tried calling the phone number at the bottom of the page twice. No answer. Didn't leave voicemail.
2. Tried emailing a few questions. The web page provides two emails: info@stacksbowers.com in the Contact Us link and cmq@stacksbowers.com at the bottom of one of the pages. That's OK, I'm pretty confident I knew the answers. 24 hours later, no responses.
3. FAQ talks about max USPS package value $50k, packing instructions say $25k and contact them before sending them more than $25k worth of coins and they'll insure the extra value at their expense (!?)
4. No explicit instructions on the address to send coins. I ended up sending them to the address on the invoice.
5. There is a manual form and a web-form. The web form did not allow me to enter NGC coins. I didn't try an CACG coins since I don't have any. The web form rejected a few PCGS coins that are on the accepted list (eg 1943/2 Nickel). The web form is slick that when you enter a PCGS number it auto-populates everything for you. However, the form auto selects the "Plus" box for + grades and you have to de-select it every time. The auto-population doesn't get the grade right though if the coin is has a + grade and you have to fix it.
6. You can't apparently select CIM for individual coins - it's all or nothing.
7. You can't request an offer on selected coins - apparently all or nothing. Curious to see if they only offer on CMQ approved coins.
8. Check or bank wire payment only.
9. Flexible shipping options
I am sending in a selection of coins that a) I have not sent to CAC b) coins that have been sent to CAC that I expected to sticker but were rejected and d) one coin that has been stickered by CAC but I'm not confident if CMQ will sticker it.
Ugh!!!!! Thanks for conducting this experiment, and the way you chose the coins to submit may provide a tiny bit of insight, although obviously the sample size is small. Keep us posted.
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
@ProofCollection thanks for sharing your feedback. Most of these bugs are are on our list and in the process of being resolved.
NGC coins can be submitted but need to follow this format - "NGC Cert #’s / Grade", ex. 1234567001/65 - we are clarifying this online.
We are also building a robust checkout process that will allow for credit card, e-check, etc. and will be deployed soon.
Please let us know if you have any other suggestions, find any bugs or otherwise need assistance.
Brian
Brian, a question was asked on another thread and I did not see a reply or any information on the SB website. Why has CMQ elected not to review coins in the ANACS holder, or any other holder except for PCGS and NGC. I understand why CAC does not but would love to hear why CMQ also choose to exclude them. This seems like a great opportunity to provide a service that many collectors would really like.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
In adding to Coinbuf's comment, ANACS graded several variety coins well before NGC and PCGS- Including Morgan VAMs and various double dies among others- such as the 1946 WLH DDR. I see no compelling reason not to accept ANACS graded coins such as these if it is really is about the coin. Further, seems the decision making process as to what constitutes an acceptable submission can and should include a look at the coin instead of the plastic. The ANACS graded coin can still fail to sticker but should have the opportunity to at least be considered. Not accepting them makes no sense especially considering the history/progression of TPG and the role ANACS had with setting the trend for varieties to be graded. I have no idea what remains in ANACS holders that fall into this category.
Now having written that, submissions should really be consistent with the Mission- special coins with the look. I suspect they really are not that interested in generics at the 63-65 grade range.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The only thing I see all these new fangal coin-grading gaffes bringing to the hobby is DISTRUST!
CAC, 10 point system, 100 point system, QA, CACG? and now CMQ??? Let's not forget the W, *, pluses +++! And there are others I won't mention.
Good Gosh people.......GIVE IT A BREAK!!!
Leo lol
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I wonder if this is possibly a reason. They probably have data-sharing and data-access agreements with PCGS and NGC. I'm not entirely sure how the coin "catalog numbers" work among TPGs but if ANACS recognizes/attributes more coins than NGC and PCGS does, maybe that would create a headache for the software and databases?
Maybe you could collect wine?
Didn't the early ANACS registration numbers get lost? Or was that PCI?
CMQ reviews coins graded by Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS), Numismatic Guaranty Service (NGC) and Certified Acceptance Corporation (CAC). These services and their grading standards are widely accepted as industry standard. Furthermore, these three services account for 96% of the US coins which have been offered at Stack’s Bowers Galleries auctions this year. Lastly, we have data sharing arrangements with these services enabling us to efficiently handle their coins.
.
It seems that when I try to collect wine that it disappears; the bottle ends up empty.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_KWVk0XeB9o - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Piece Of My Heart
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
I've been lurking the whole time. I guess I have no real issue with the service and will let the market decide.
I do think the sticker size/shape needs improvement. The size and shape seems to disrupt the label information. The size and orientation of the CAC sticker lends itself to stealthy placement, the CMQ sticker....not so much. Images could be deceiving, but it looks 30-50% larger than a CAC sticker. Having more horizontal size vs. vertical size seems to be a better call. Looking at those slabs, I just want to peel the CMQ sticker off as it just seems to take up too much valuable space.
@StacksBowersGalleries
Where can we view the standards CMQ is using?
Coin Photographer.
Interesting, thank you for the reply.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
CAC doesn't charge collectors on the first 20 coins that don't sticker each year. Does CMQ also intend to follow that practice?
300
HRH w/ Stacks&Bowers.