@sfs2002usa said:
The long term effect is to de-emphasize the coin and
focus on labels & stickers - the hobby is slowly but surely
going through metamorphosis from coins to labels :
"I like the label / sticker, so I buy the coin." IMHO this is
nothing more than a new avenue of commerce in numismatics.
Given all the coins floating out in the market, one could easily
dream up and execute a variety of "unique" categories based on
creativity and imagination. Was it C*C who initiated this whole
regrading and recertification process because they made us
believe that coins previously examined were now subject to inaccuracy ?
I mean just how many times does a coin have to be regraded
and re-certified within layers of bureaucracy to convince the buyer
that it is unique and valuable ???
Additionally, I had them do a sample Coin-In-Motion for me for my 1893 MS61PL Morgan. These are delivered as an MP4 to a Dropbox link. it is a VERY large file (343MB). Unfortunately you have to do an entire order all or none, but in this case I was able to talk them into a sample. I believe it is a 4k video.
It's not the prettiest coin I own or submitted but these are extremely rare in PL and hard to find.
I put it on Youtube. It might take some time to process. https://youtu.be/Ubb4aY0Q0hU
Comparing the coins of CAC failures and the CAC passed one, with your expectations, and then the CMQ results, unfortunately it’s like throwing darts!
I fully recognize that grading is subjective, but these results, along with your results from the prior box of 20, indicates that even though these are small samples, either JA or David Hall don’t know much about grading. Admittedly, I know even less, but I can throw darts and end up with similar results. My belief is I’ll side with JA’s opinion, and place the CMQ opinion in the circular file!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
Comparing the coins of CAC failures and the CAC passed one, with your expectations, and then the CMQ results, unfortunately it’s like throwing darts!
I fully recognize that grading is subjective, but these results, along with your results from the prior box of 20, indicates that even though these are small samples, either JA or David Hall don’t know much about grading. Admittedly, I know even less, but I can throw darts and end up with similar results. My belief is I’ll side with JA’s opinion, and place the CMQ opinion in the circular file!
Well I do agree it is a little bit of a dart throwing exercise. I've had similar results at CAC vs my expectations. I think it shows that everyone looks at and evaluates coins differently. Plenty of experienced and respected dealers routinely make CAC submissions and are surprised by the results and from what I can tell, don't even try to guess what the results will be any more.
I think CMQ will effectively show the market that there are a lot more quality and accurately graded coins out there than CAC would have you believe. The post about the CACG grading results from SeatedDimeVariety guy (don't recall the exact name) where most of his coins came back Details shows what I expect the industry will start to take as a "too strict" of evaluation. I think there is a happy medium which I expect CMQ to provide. How the market accepts it is TBD.
@coinbuf said:
I think you might be their biggest customer so far.
I probably am! It's research for me really, as I have a pile of decent material for sale and I am very interested to see if the stickers affect sale price or sale speed like the CAC stickers did. I'm guessing it might not as the market is probably still skeptical but I didn't see the $10 evaluation and $10 success fee as unreasonable. Also for the CAC rejects that I own, I think the stickers will eventually bring at least a little more value than they would otherwise. Even if just a percent or two it will pay for the stickers easily and it is reassuring to have that validation, especially on pricier coins.
Can CMQ provide any feedback as to why they decline to sticker a coin? Although many of us can’t tell whether or not JA will like a coin before we send it, he will, and he has, provided specific feedback via stickers or phone call as to why the coin in question didn’t meet his standards.
With CMQs published standards, or lack thereof, the ambiguity leaves us all in the dark, with no clue about what they’re actually looking for. I’m really eager to see what other coins sport a Griff in the upcoming showcase auction at stacks for the Whitman show. I know there are some serious gold coins that are already griffed that they were showing off at Long Beach, and that would be a better data point for me personally. I’m surprised the auction isn’t catalogued yet considering that it’s (5 weeks?) away.
Based on your results, I DON’T see CMQ showing us there are a lot more quality and accurately graded coins out there than CAC would have you believe.Based on your sampling, my interpretation is it’s the very opposite - they sticker coins that JA would not, and they refuse to sticker coins that JA does! As I indicated, grading is subjective, but CMQ is polar opposite!
One can choose to vote for their candidate, and I strongly vote for JA. These results reflect a much worse image of CMQ than I would have guessed in my wildest dreams!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@DeplorableDan said:
With CMQs published standards, or lack thereof, the ambiguity leaves us all in the dark, with no clue about what they’re actually looking for.
Can you point me to CAC's published standards? I don't recall seeing them anywhere.
@winesteven said:
Based on your results, I DON’T see CMQ showing us there are a lot more quality and accurately graded coins out there than CAC would have you believe.Based on your sampling, my interpretation is it’s the very opposite - they sticker coins that JA would not, and they refuse to sticker coins that JA does! As I indicated, grading is subjective, but CMQ is polar opposite!
Steve
I don't think that's completely fair. I've sent 2 CAC coins to CMQ. One stickered and one did not. We do not have enough sample size to draw the conclusions that they are the opposite. But CMQ is certainly stickering a lot of coins that JA did not. I've posted many of the trueviews of those coins and I can post more. I'd like to see any authoritative or definitive comments about problems with the coins or grades that CMQ stickered but CAC did not. I would even venture to say that JA's decision may even be a little arbitrary designed to keep the sticker population low to maintain exclusivity.
One can choose to vote for their candidate, and I strongly vote for JA. These results reflect a much worse image of CMQ than I would have guessed in my wildest dreams!
Well that certainly is the safe and easy vote to make given the CMQ is a month old and CAC has been around for over a decade.
@DeplorableDan said:
With CMQs published standards, or lack thereof, the ambiguity leaves us all in the dark, with no clue about what they’re actually looking for.
Can you point me to CAC's published standards? I don't recall seeing them anywhere.
You missed my point. I started my comment asking about if cmq would provide feedback. Though neither cmq or CAC have concrete standards written in stone, you can kind of get a feel for what JA is looking for based on his feedback.
@DeplorableDan said:
With CMQs published standards, or lack thereof, the ambiguity leaves us all in the dark, with no clue about what they’re actually looking for.
Can you point me to CAC's published standards? I don't recall seeing them anywhere.
You missed my point. I started my comment asking about if cmq would provide feedback. Though neither cmq or CAC have concrete standards written in stone, you can kind of get a feel for what JA is looking for based on his feedback.
I was just on the phone with a rep and asked this question but he was unable to provide an answer. He said he would ask for me. If I get an answer I'll let you know.
One other tidbit. CMQ images all of the coins that come through whether they sticker or not. It appears they just image the front of the slab. However, if it doesn't sticker it will not show up in the Coin look-up. It's only visible on the submission results screen.
In all seriousness, you should be commended for having sent in 40 coins to CMQ. It’s obvious to me that this was not done for your personal benefit, but you selected specific coins so that we can all learn and gain insights. THANK YOU!
No doubt having professional photos taken by the CMQ stickering service is a big advantage over the CAC stickering service.
As best as I know, CAC stickering does not have a written published set of grading standards. However, what I do believe is:
a. CAC grades similarly to the grading standards in place 3+ decades ago before gradeflation took place.
b. CAC is much less tolerant of physical rubs on high points of MS coins than the two main TPG’s.
c. CAC is much less tolerant of surface treatments, especially on gold coins, than the two main TPG’s.
So CAC not having detailed written standards is absolutely no excuse for CMQ stickering such a high percentage of CAC failures. From your two submissions, you submitted 18 CAC failures, and of those, a whopping 8 got stickered by CMQ. That’s almost half! (Are they using the “Coin Toss” method, lol?) Unbelievably, one got the rare CMQ-X on a CAC failed coin.
It is the result of #4 that leads me to easily conclude that CMQ is not using 3a, 3b, and 3c. As a collector, I choose to have coins in my collection that are conservatively graded “like in the old days”, where my MS coins don’t have physical rubs on their high points, and where “objectionable” surface treatments (according to CAC) have not been applied to the coins in my collection.
You may laugh, but a high percentage of my coins have been dipped, so I agree they are clearly not “original”. But apparently they were dipped gently enough where EVERY coin of mine eligible for a CAC sticker has a CAC sticker. For me, that very gentle dipping is far better than the type of surface treatments applied to coins that CAC rejects.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
"CAC grades similarly to the grading standards in place 3+ decades ago before gradeflation took place.
CAC is much less tolerant of physical rubs on high points of MS coins than the two main TPG’s.
CAC is much less tolerant of surface treatments, especially on gold coins, than the two main TPG’s."
"CAC grades similarly to the grading standards in place 3+ decades ago before gradeflation took place.
CAC is much less tolerant of physical rubs on high points of MS coins than the two main TPG’s.
CAC is much less tolerant of surface treatments, especially on gold coins, than the two main TPG’s."
I would add.
CAC provides vastly superior customer service.
Ok - perhaps. My following questions are directed to @winesteven as well.
But have we considered that this may not be true?
1) What were the standards 3+ decades ago - and how do we know CAC follows them? I personally think CAC goes off of "feel" while grading, and as such their standards have varied over the years. I will address my main point here below.
2) This I will agree on.
3) I agree with you on this, but playing devil's advocate - how are we sure of this too? Perhaps CAC is just far too strict on gold, and the TPGs got it right? Why aren't the same standards used for silver?
The big problem with CAC was there weren't any datasets to back up what they were claiming to do - separate coins into A, B, and C and then sticker the A and B coins. There was no way to prove their consistency. There was no way to prove their standards didn't change. That was the smartest thing CAC could do - limit who knew what coins failed to just the submitter.
Now we see a different set of standards from CAC in CMQ, while both provide the same service.
Steve said:
"So CAC not having detailed written standards is absolutely no excuse for CMQ stickering such a high percentage of CAC failures. From your two submissions, you submitted 18 CAC failures, and of those, a whopping 8 got stickered by CMQ. That’s almost half! (Are they using the “Coin Toss” method, lol?) Unbelievably, one got the rare CMQ-X on a CAC failed coin."
But how do we know that CMQ didn't get it right and CAC did? Maybe CAC is the one who is 50% off here! This can go both ways - perhaps CMQ is much more in tune with what the market expects. I can always start a stickering service and never sticker any coins - just say they failed. Does that make me better than CAC?
Please know I am not attacking you guys or your views - I just don't think it's fair to look at CMQ under a different light than CAC when they provide the same service- stickering coins they think are "premium" in some fashion - in what fashion - that we don't know. Therefore CAC can be just as wrong as CMQ, and CMQ can be just as right as CAC.
I don’t consider cac a formalized grading process. It’s a “written” dealer opinion, as is CMQ.
How strongly you rate each of them depends on your feeling about the dealers in question and whether their aesthetic matches your own. I’d expect more agreement than disagreement between them, but that’s about it.
The dealers whos opinions I value highest don’t even do stickers. I wish they did. Maybe we could chip in and buy ‘em all a roll or two. We could have the CRO, DK, AL, TB, DMcC and MF stickers. You wouldn’t see many of them around though.
@FlyingAl , yes, none of us KNOWS as a FACT the issues you ask about above. We each can choose to believe what we believe, since we are not in the heads of JA and Hall.
Separately, when we see that CMQ stickered 8 of 18 CAC failures and in addition gave their highly coveted CMQ-X to another CAC failure, something is not right. While the issuance of stickers (and grading) is subjective, this limited “test” demonstrates to me the standards they each use to sticker apparently is VERY different. As I indicated above, when differences are this great, my faith for the collectors goal is met by JA, and completely not met by Hall, for MY purposes!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said: @FlyingAl , yes, none of us KNOWS as a FACT the issues you ask about above. We each can choose to believe what we believe, since we are not in the heads of JA and Hall.
Separately, when we see that CMQ stickered 8 of 18 CAC failures and in addition gave their highly coveted CMQ-X to another CAC failure, something is not right. While the issuance of stickers (and grading) is subjective, this limited “test” demonstrates to me the standards they each use to sticker apparently is VERY different. As I indicated above, when differences are this great, my faith for the collectors goal is met by JA, and completely not met by Hall, for MY purposes!
"CAC grades similarly to the grading standards in place 3+ decades ago before gradeflation took place.
CAC is much less tolerant of physical rubs on high points of MS coins than the two main TPG’s.
CAC is much less tolerant of surface treatments, especially on gold coins, than the two main TPG’s."
I would add.
CAC provides vastly superior customer service.
Ok - perhaps. My following questions are directed to @winesteven as well.
But have we considered that this may not be true?
1) What were the standards 3+ decades ago - and how do we know CAC follows them? I personally think CAC goes off of "feel" while grading, and as such their standards have varied over the years. I will address my main point here below.
2) This I will agree on.
3) I agree with you on this, but playing devil's advocate - how are we sure of this too? Perhaps CAC is just far too strict on gold, and the TPGs got it right? Why aren't the same standards used for silver?
The big problem with CAC was there weren't any datasets to back up what they were claiming to do - separate coins into A, B, and C and then sticker the A and B coins. There was no way to prove their consistency. There was no way to prove their standards didn't change. That was the smartest thing CAC could do - limit who knew what coins failed to just the submitter.
Now we see a different set of standards from CAC in CMQ, while both provide the same service.
Steve said:
"So CAC not having detailed written standards is absolutely no excuse for CMQ stickering such a high percentage of CAC failures. From your two submissions, you submitted 18 CAC failures, and of those, a whopping 8 got stickered by CMQ. That’s almost half! (Are they using the “Coin Toss” method, lol?) Unbelievably, one got the rare CMQ-X on a CAC failed coin."
As I suggested above, I believe that the CAC standards are other than advertised. It's not just "solid for the grade" but some other somewhat arbitrary or subjective quality, probably designed to do what what it did - keep the sticker rare and hard to to get rather than to achieve the goal of identifying coins that are simply "good quality" and graded correctly. We have one great example posted in the CIM 4k Youtube video I posted. It is an MS61PL Morgan that CAC rejected but CMQ stickered. We have 4k video of it. Surely someone here can tell use why this coin is a "C" coin or has some surface issue? I can't. That coin is a solid 61 all day long in my, my coin dealer's, PCGS, and CMQ opinion. I think CAC got that one wrong. And I think they've rejected plenty of other accurately graded issue-free coins too.
But how do we know that CMQ didn't get it right and CAC did? Maybe CAC is the one who is 50% off here! This can go both ways - perhaps CMQ is much more in tune with what the market expects. I can always start a stickering service and never sticker any coins - just say they failed. Does that make me better than CAC?
Please know I am not attacking you guys or your views - I just don't think it's fair to look at CMQ under a different light than CAC when they provide the same service- stickering coins they think are "premium" in some fashion - in what fashion - that we don't know. Therefore CAC can be just as wrong as CMQ, and CMQ can be just as right as CAC.
I don't remember CAC coins as being advertised (by CAC) as "premium." Again, CAC's stated goal was to basically identify correctly graded coins and sticker "A" and "B" coins. However, as the best coins have been stickered by them the market perception is that a CAC sticker indicates premium even though that was never the official objective. From my seat, I would guess that CAC does not actually sticker many B coins and that this is where CMQ is stepping in. I believe the coin market appreciates the CAC opinion but will be happy to have someone truly recognize the "B" coins that should be just as acceptable in anyone's collection.
It is to the advantage of both CAC and the newer service to "sticker" coins and promote the belief that PCGS/NGC tend to mis-grade coins at a high rate.
It is difficult, for me at least, to accept as unbiased the opinions of members who are heavily invested in CAC when they critique the new service.
@winesteven said:
While the lines of A, B, and C are not visible, what is clear is the roughly 40+% or so of coins that sticker. That does not make stickers rare.
While technically accurate, it's a slanted picture.
They sticker ~40% of the coins that submitters expect to to be good enough to get a sticker. I (like many collectors) have several coins that are not likely to sticker so they will never be sent in. This skews the stats significantly. I believe it's called selection bias.
@ProofCollection said:
It's not just "solid for the grade" but some other somewhat arbitrary or subjective quality, probably designed to do what what it did - keep the sticker rare and hard to to get rather than to achieve the goal of identifying coins that are simply "good quality" and graded correctly. We have one great example posted in the CIM 4k Youtube video I posted. It is an MS61PL Morgan that CAC rejected but CMQ stickered. We have 4k video of it. Surely someone here can tell use why this coin is a "C" coin or has some surface issue? I can't. That coin is a solid 61 all day long in my, my coin dealer's, PCGS, and CMQ opinion. I think CAC got that one wrong. And I think they've rejected plenty of other accurately graded issue-free coins too.
But that goes both ways, no? The 1895-S Morgan you posted that passed CAC at 61PL, but then CMQ declines to sticker it. I don't have the luxury of an in hand evaluation, but looking at the TV I can't see what CMQ didn't like about it, especially at that grade level. Admittedly i'm not particularly fond of the splotchy toning, but can you see anything on that coin in hand that explains CMQ's disapproval?
I would also like to add that I'm not trying to be argumentative, I genuinely appreciate the thoughtful discussion we're having on the subject, and your willingness to be the CMQ guinea pig for the benefit of the forum. It's too early in the game to draw conclusions either way, but I can agree with you that both CAC and CMQ's approval process have some similarities. What I mean by that- highly subjective, open for interpretation, and difficult to put into words. What I do know is that JA's opinion carries a lot of weight, and adds quite a bit of value in the marketplace. If CMQ eventually elevates to a status where their sticker adds value in the marketplace, I will likely use the service. Perhaps my Simpson-Hall pedigreed 03-S $10 will be a shoe in for CMQ-X 😅
@winesteven said:
While the lines of A, B, and C are not visible, what is clear is the roughly 40+% or so of coins that sticker. That does not make stickers rare.
While technically accurate, it's a slanted picture.
They sticker ~40% of the coins that submitters expect to to be good enough to get a sticker. I (like many collectors) have several coins that are not likely to sticker so they will never be sent in. This skews the stats significantly. I believe it's called selection bias.
So with selection bias, there’s another side to the coin, lol.
Due to the old lower pricing, many dealers and collectors used to submit everything, and see what will stick to the wall.
Sometimes people would submit again, and/or have coins cracked out or sent for Regrade, and then with a new cert number, then submit the same coin again to CAC, since the fee was so low.
So your point is correct regarding skewing, but my points happen too.
Separately, your one example could indeed be an error by CAC. Everyone makes errors, and I make more than my fair share of errors, and I think you’ll admit you make errors too. But the key is, do you believe CAC makes more errors than PCGS and NGC (talking about percentages to be fair, not raw numbers, since CAC makes fewer judgements than the TPG’s)? From the position you’re taking, it seems clear you do believe that. I don’t believe that.
I believe the reason the CAC pass rate is only around 40+% is NOT because of errors they make (which is what you’re saying), and it’s NOT because CAC is being unfair to submitters by artificially trying to keep CAC sticker numbers low (which is also what you’re saying), but is ONLY due to the TPG’s NOT following my “3a, 3b and 3c” shown in one of my replies above! If the two TPG’s did consistently follow all three of those things, then the CAC sticker pass rate would be substantially higher!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
It is difficult, for me at least, to accept as unbiased the opinions of members who are heavily invested in CAC when they critique the new service.
Apparently you don’t know me. While I’m a BIG fan of CAC, and my collection reflects that, I regularly post things that are not supportive of CAC. On this forum I share my thoughts, positive and negative. That’s who I am! Here are two recent examples:
On a different thread, I posted photos of a CACG dupe coin of mine that was successfully crossed as an upgrade with a plus, and I said they were terrible, especially the two slab shots.
I previously posted in several threads that I don’t intend buy coins in CACG slabs, AND I don’t plan to cross my PCGS coins with CAC stickers to CACG, since the PCGS Registry is important to me.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
While the lines of A, B, and C are not visible, what is clear is the roughly 40+% or so of coins that sticker. That does not make stickers rare.
While technically accurate, it's a slanted picture.
They sticker ~40% of the coins that submitters expect to to be good enough to get a sticker. I (like many collectors) have several coins that are not likely to sticker so they will never be sent in. This skews the stats significantly. I believe it's called selection bias.
In the case of higher graded and higher value coins, one would believe a high percentage have been sent to CAC and expected to pass.. For example, I recently mentioned in another thread, I believe the gold Grant No Star is an undervalued coin. There are 471 MS66s out of the 5000 minted that PCGS has graded and values at $2,100. But only 120 (24.89%) have CACs and price guide at $2,440. There is an incentive to obtain a CAC when one sees the additional $340 price guide added value..
@winesteven, your reply seems to bolster my opinion, you are pro-CAC and anti-CMQ. There's nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but prudence should dictate that some time passes before making a final judgement about this new service. Again, that is your choice and I was merely posting my thoughts on what's been posted in this thread.
@Maywood said: @winesteven, your reply seems to bolster my opinion, you are pro-CAC and anti-CACG. There's nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but prudence should dictate that some time passes before making a final judgement about this new service. Again, that is your choice and I was merely posting my thoughts on what's been posted in this thread.
Actually, since I know what’s in my head, you are incorrect. I am pro CAC AND Pro CACG, and neutral on CMQ! As I indicated above, I like sharing my opinions, and with these three, those opinions of mine on various issues can be pro or con, since I’m open minded!!!!!!
I’m one of the very few BIG Miami Marlins fans, but that doesn’t keep me from criticizing certain players or bone-headed mental errors.
I would hope that if you’re not already open-minded, you should give it a shot. It’s ok to criticize things that in general you support, as well as showing praise when warranted for things that in general you don’t like. It’s healthy!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
I hate to nitpick so I'll make one last comment on the topic. You mention being openminded so it is peculiar that after such a short time you tend to be so critical of CMQ. As for me, I choose not to be supportive of either service. CMQ hasn't been around long enough for any real unbiased opinion to be formed by any collector, including me but I'll assume that CMQ will have the same result as CAC, inflating the prices of coins. I understand all the hooey about having another expert opinion or two or three or four or five....................on a coin, but wouldn't it be easier to just learn your craft a little better and be more selective about what you buy??
@Maywood said:
I hate to nitpick so I'll make one last comment on the topic. You mention being openminded so it is peculiar that after such a short time you tend to be so critical of CMQ. As for me, I choose not to be supportive of either service. CMQ hasn't been around long enough for any real unbiased opinion to be formed by any collector, including me but I'll assume that CMQ will have the same result as CAC, inflating the prices of coins. I understand all the hooey about having another expert opinion or two or three or four or five....................on a coin, but wouldn't it be easier to just learn your craft a little better and be more selective about what you buy??
Stay safe, happy collecting and have a nice day.
Actually, I find it ok to form opinions based on the information provided. That’s what we each do as we go through life - we make decisions that are hopefully informed ones based on information provided.
The key though, is being open-minded, so as more information is provided over time, we can assess that added information in an unbiased manner, and use the total information we then have to possibly change our mind. As indicated in my reply earlier, that’s healthy.
I recognize from my line of work though, that some people have difficulty making decisions unless they feel they have ALL of the information they will ever get, and will then make a decision only if the information is very clear to make a proper decision. So feel free to wait a year or so until you become comfortable forming an opinion on CAC and CMQ!
So what we know now from the limited but very interesting sample provided generously by @ProofCollection is that of 18 CAC failures submitted to CMQ, almost half (8) were awarded a CMQ sticker, and even more surprisingly, one additional coin of the CAC failures got their highly coveted CMQ-X! So while I’m using that limited information to form a strong negative opinion, as noted, I’m still open minded to change my opinion down the road if information provided then changes my mind. Feel free to ignore that current available data for now and not form an opinion.
Thanks for your good wishes, which I recognize as sincere, and the same to you.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Maywood said:
….. wouldn't it be easier to just learn your craft a little better and be more selective about what you buy??
Actually, my craft is not grading and recognizing surface treatments, but using tools to put together in my opinion a collection that is pleasing and affordable to me. I have succeeded at that, as I have been VERY selective in what I buy. Just because a coin is in the grade I want and has a CAC sticker does not mean I’ll buy it. I pass on well over 90+% of coins that in theory could meet my needs.
I decided long ago to not take the tremendous amount of time needed to develop the skills of the top experts so I could then make a lot of money by purchasing raw coins that the seller undergrades, to then get graded, or by buying four figure graded coins without CAC stickers that I can then send to CAC to get a sticker.
That brings to mind a skill that perhaps I have developed. Of my coins eligible for a plus grade (69 and 70’s are ineligible for pluses), roughly 60% - 65% have a plus grade. While roughly half of those were purchased that way, the others were obtained via Reconsideration. I never buy a coin with an expectation for a plus upgrade, but perhaps my being so selective has led to that success?
As a collector, I also decided that I’d prefer minimizing having “C” coins in my collection, and/or coins that have undergone surface treatments and/or slight rubs on high points, all of which are usually acceptable to the TPG’s but not to CAC.
I’m glad you apparently have that expertise, and when the time comes for you or your heirs to sell your collection, that you receive similar fair value for your coins as I will hopefully receive for mine.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
I decided long ago to not take the tremendous amount of time needed to develop the skills of the top experts so I could then make a lot of money by purchasing raw coins that the seller undergrades, to then get graded, or by buying four figure graded coins without CAC stickers that I can then send to CAC to get a sticker.
As a collector, I also decided that I’d prefer minimizing having “C” coins in my collection, and/or coins that have undergone surface treatments and/or slight rubs on high points, all of which are usually acceptable to the TPG’s but not to CAC.
Well said and I agree. For me collecting coins should be a source of enjoyment and not a lot of hard work.
@ProofCollection said:
It's not just "solid for the grade" but some other somewhat arbitrary or subjective quality, probably designed to do what what it did - keep the sticker rare and hard to to get rather than to achieve the goal of identifying coins that are simply "good quality" and graded correctly. We have one great example posted in the CIM 4k Youtube video I posted. It is an MS61PL Morgan that CAC rejected but CMQ stickered. We have 4k video of it. Surely someone here can tell use why this coin is a "C" coin or has some surface issue? I can't. That coin is a solid 61 all day long in my, my coin dealer's, PCGS, and CMQ opinion. I think CAC got that one wrong. And I think they've rejected plenty of other accurately graded issue-free coins too.
But that goes both ways, no? The 1895-S Morgan you posted that passed CAC at 61PL, but then CMQ declines to sticker it. I don't have the luxury of an in hand evaluation, but looking at the TV I can't see what CMQ didn't like about it, especially at that grade level. Admittedly i'm not particularly fond of the splotchy toning, but can you see anything on that coin in hand that explains CMQ's disapproval?
I would also like to add that I'm not trying to be argumentative, I genuinely appreciate the thoughtful discussion we're having on the subject, and your willingness to be the CMQ guinea pig for the benefit of the forum. It's too early in the game to draw conclusions either way, but I can agree with you that both CAC and CMQ's approval process have some similarities. What I mean by that- highly subjective, open for interpretation, and difficult to put into words. What I do know is that JA's opinion carries a lot of weight, and adds quite a bit of value in the marketplace. If CMQ eventually elevates to a status where their sticker adds value in the marketplace, I will likely use the service. Perhaps my Simpson-Hall pedigreed 03-S $10 will be a shoe in for CMQ-X 😅
I appreciate and enjoy the discussion too. Thanks everyone.
@winesteven said:
While the lines of A, B, and C are not visible, what is clear is the roughly 40+% or so of coins that sticker. That does not make stickers rare.
While technically accurate, it's a slanted picture.
They sticker ~40% of the coins that submitters expect to to be good enough to get a sticker. I (like many collectors) have several coins that are not likely to sticker so they will never be sent in. This skews the stats significantly. I believe it's called selection bias.
In the case of higher graded and higher value coins, one would believe a high percentage have been sent to CAC and expected to pass.. For example, I recently mentioned in another thread, I believe the gold Grant No Star is an undervalued coin. There are 471 MS66s out of the 5000 minted that PCGS has graded and values at $2,100. But only 120 (24.89%) have CACs and price guide at $2,440. There is an incentive to obtain a CAC when one sees the additional $340 price guide added value..
I almost have one of those... Maybe I should send it in to CMQ? Owned it a long time.
@winesteven said:
While the lines of A, B, and C are not visible, what is clear is the roughly 40+% or so of coins that sticker. That does not make stickers rare.
While technically accurate, it's a slanted picture.
They sticker ~40% of the coins that submitters expect to to be good enough to get a sticker. I (like many collectors) have several coins that are not likely to sticker so they will never be sent in. This skews the stats significantly. I believe it's called selection bias.
So with selection bias, there’s another side to the coin, lol.
Due to the old lower pricing, many dealers and collectors used to submit everything, and see what will stick to the wall.
Sometimes people would submit again, and/or have coins cracked out or sent for Regrade, and then with a new cert number, then submit the same coin again to CAC, since the fee was so low.
So your point is correct regarding skewing, but my points happen too.
Separately, your one example could indeed be an error by CAC. Everyone makes errors, and I make more than my fair share of errors, and I think you’ll admit you make errors too. But the key is, do you believe CAC makes more errors than PCGS and NGC (talking about percentages to be fair, not raw numbers, since CAC makes fewer judgements than the TPG’s)? From the position you’re taking, it seems clear you do believe that. I don’t believe that.
I believe the reason the CAC pass rate is only around 40+% is NOT because of errors they make (which is what you’re saying), and it’s NOT because CAC is being unfair to submitters by artificially trying to keep CAC sticker numbers low (which is also what you’re saying), but is ONLY due to the TPG’s NOT following my “3a, 3b and 3c” shown in one of my replies above! If the two TPG’s did consistently follow all three of those things, then the CAC sticker pass rate would be substantially higher!
Again, it's hard to speculate but that's about all that we can do because there are no hard facts. But the number of 40% pass rate is below what I would expect for a service that claims to be be stickering "A" and "B" coins which I presume comprise of roughly 2/3 of CAC-eligible PCGS and NGC coins. Assuming an even distribution of coin quality and that "C" coins are the lower 1/3 of the spectrum. In the end, I don't know why the numbers are what they are, and maybe it is due to your points 3a, 3b, 3c but I do believe that from personal experience and these CMQ submissions that CAC is not stickering some or most "B" coins. JA knows I'm sure that it is beneficial to withhold stickers from bottom "B" material and that he can get away with it. Which is fine, I would just like more transparency on this if that is indeed the case. Not that we'll ever get it.
What I would travel for and pay to see though - if it can be arranged - is a panel at a show with JA and JH and put 5 coins the one service stickered and the other did not (10 coins total) on a screen and have the one defend the sticker and the other say why it doesn't deserve a sticker. That would truly be informative and worth the price of admission!
For the series I collect my experience has been CAC approved coins are mostly above average.
What matters most to me is that I agree with JA about 90% of the time.
The fact that CAC approved coins realize strong prices is icing on the cake.
In addition, JA has helped me become a better grader which has helped me improve the quality of my collection.
@ProofCollection, three good points. On your second one regarding the Grant No Star gold Commem with a CAC sticker, if you ever consign it to Stacks, then yes, it’s a “must” to first have them try to CMQ it, and the cost is only a few dollars. Otherwise, bidders of coins in Stacks auctions could think it failed to CMQ for some reason, and that could hurt the potential max bid.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
In the case of higher graded and higher value coins, one would believe a high percentage have been sent to CAC and expected to pass.. For example, I recently mentioned in another thread, I believe the gold Grant No Star is an undervalued coin. There are 471 MS66s out of the 5000 minted that PCGS has graded and values at $2,100. But only 120 (24.89%) have CACs and price guide at $2,440. There is an incentive to obtain a CAC when one sees the additional $340 price guide added value..
I almost have one of those... Maybe I should send it in to CMQ? Owned it a long time.
That MS65+ sure looks like a nice coin!
Interestingly, only 16.79% of the MS65 Grant No stars have a CAC and 42.28% of the MS67s have a CAC. It does appear that the higher grade a coin is, the more likely it has been submitted to CAC.
Can it also be that the lower grade coins are more loosely graded by the third party grading services?
In the case of higher graded and higher value coins, one would believe a high percentage have been sent to CAC and expected to pass.. For example, I recently mentioned in another thread, I believe the gold Grant No Star is an undervalued coin. There are 471 MS66s out of the 5000 minted that PCGS has graded and values at $2,100. But only 120 (24.89%) have CACs and price guide at $2,440. There is an incentive to obtain a CAC when one sees the additional $340 price guide added value..
I almost have one of those... Maybe I should send it in to CMQ? Owned it a long time.
That MS65+ sure looks like a nice coin!
Interestingly, only 16.79% of the MS65 Grant No stars have a CAC and 42.28% of the MS67s have a CAC. It does appear that the higher grade a coin is, the more likely it has been submitted to CAC.
Can it also be that the lower grade coins are more loosely graded by the third party grading services?
There has long been the understanding (belief?) that they are more conservative when there is a price jump. This makes some sense based on the price guarantee.
[On a side note, it was also a concern when they started charging the upgrade fee that they were incentiveizing grade inflation.]
@ProofCollection said: the number of 40% pass rate is below what I would expect for a service that claims to be be stickering "A" and "B" coins which I presume comprise of roughly 2/3 of CAC-eligible PCGS and NGC coins.
CAC is a business which promotes itself and not the other TPG's. As such, it is to their advantage to be saying "PCGS/NGC are not fairly and accurately grading the coins you are sending them" which is how I have always perceived CAC. Now that they have established themselves it is time to begin taking away the grading business from PCGS/NGC and move away from just critiquing what those TPG's are doing.
If you think along those terms, it is no coincidence that approximately half of what is submitted to CAC is in turn viewed as inferior for the grade.
@Maywood said: @ProofCollection said: the number of 40% pass rate is below what I would expect for a service that claims to be be stickering "A" and "B" coins which I presume comprise of roughly 2/3 of CAC-eligible PCGS and NGC coins.
CAC is a business which promotes itself and not the other TPG's. As such, it is to their advantage to be saying "PCGS/NGC are not fairly and accurately grading the coins you are sending them" which is how I have always perceived CAC. Now that they have established themselves it is time to begin taking away the grading business from PCGS/NGC and move away from just critiquing what those TPG's are doing.
If you think along those terms, it is no coincidence that approximately half of what is submitted to CAC is in turn viewed as inferior for the grade.
I hate to say this, but I'm getting a little tired of hearing that CAC acts on MOTIVATION to intentionally NOT sticker coins that actually merit stickers. While I have no "proof" of this (nor do the accusers), many of us have gotten to know JA over the years, and how he thinks. He is MUCH more consumer friendly than many people realize. Those false accusations are really unfair.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Again, it's hard to speculate but that's about all that we can do because there are no hard facts. But the number of 40% pass rate is below what I would expect for a service that claims to be be stickering "A" and "B" coins which I presume comprise of roughly 2/3 of CAC-eligible PCGS and NGC coins.Assuming an even distribution of coin quality and that "C" coins are the lower 1/3 of the spectrum. In the end, I don't know why the numbers are what they are, and maybe it is due to your points 3a, 3b, 3c but I do believe that from personal experience and these CMQ submissions that CAC is not stickering some or most "B" coins. JA knows I'm sure that it is beneficial to withhold stickers from bottom "B" material and that he can get away with it. Which is fine, I would just like more transparency on this if that is indeed the case. Not that we'll ever get it.
What I would travel for and pay to see though - if it can be arranged - is a panel at a show with JA and JH and put 5 coins the one service stickered and the other did not (10 coins total) on a screen and have the one defend the sticker and the other say why it doesn't deserve a sticker. That would truly be informative and worth the price of admission!
I would definitely pay to see that as well.
With regard to text I made bold in your reply, JA once made a statement to the effect of "Many assume that most coins that fail to sticker are properly graded C coins, and that would be an incorrect assumption."
The way I interpret that, he might think the distribution of quality among a specific grade might be more along these lines:
A coins - 20% (Some A coins could possibly have been upgraded already, and now are C coins in the next grade up)
B coins- 20%
C coins- 20%
D coins- 20% (Already overgraded by a full numerical grade)
E Coins (or should we call them F coins?) - 20% (Coins that will never sticker at any grade level, due to cleaning or surface manipulation)
That type of distribution would make more sense with respect to the 40% sticker rate.
@winesteven said:
Based on your results, I DON’T see CMQ showing us there are a lot more quality and accurately graded coins out there than CAC would have you believe.Based on your sampling, my interpretation is it’s the very opposite - they sticker coins that JA would not, and they refuse to sticker coins that JA does! As I indicated, grading is subjective, but CMQ is polar opposite!
One can choose to vote for their candidate, and I strongly vote for JA. These results reflect a much worse image of CMQ than I would have guessed in my wildest dreams!
Steve
Agreed but we are still looking at a small sample size.
@winesteven said:
Based on your results, I DON’T see CMQ showing us there are a lot more quality and accurately graded coins out there than CAC would have you believe.Based on your sampling, my interpretation is it’s the very opposite - they sticker coins that JA would not, and they refuse to sticker coins that JA does! As I indicated, grading is subjective, but CMQ is polar opposite!
One can choose to vote for their candidate, and I strongly vote for JA. These results reflect a much worse image of CMQ than I would have guessed in my wildest dreams!
Steve
Agreed but we are still looking at a small sample size.
Absolutely it’s a small sample size, but so far we haven’t seen additional data, which will come with time. As I said in a reply of mine above, I’m open minded, and with additional data I’m very willing to change my opinion. But initially, of the coins that failed getting CAC stickers that a forum member generously submitted, seeing almost half of those getting stickered by CMQ, and also seeing a coin that also failed at CAC getting the highly coveted CMQ-X, I’m quite surprised in a negative fashion. Are you surprised too, or is this what you expected? We’ll see what happens down the road.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
Based on your results, I DON’T see CMQ showing us there are a lot more quality and accurately graded coins out there than CAC would have you believe.Based on your sampling, my interpretation is it’s the very opposite - they sticker coins that JA would not, and they refuse to sticker coins that JA does! As I indicated, grading is subjective, but CMQ is polar opposite!
One can choose to vote for their candidate, and I strongly vote for JA. These results reflect a much worse image of CMQ than I would have guessed in my wildest dreams!
Steve
Agreed but we are still looking at a small sample size.
Absolutely it’s a small sample size, but so far we haven’t seen additional data, which will come with time. As I said in a reply of mine above, I’m open minded, and with additional data I’m very willing to change my opinion. But initially, of the coins that failed getting CAC stickers that a forum member generously submitted, seeing almost half of those getting stickered by CMQ, and also seeing a coin that also failed at CAC getting the highly coveted CMQ-X, I’m quite surprised in a negative fashion. Are you surprised too, or is this what you expected? We’ll see what happens down the road.
Steve
You didn't mention the CACed coin that failed to get the CMQ sticker. I guess that proves CAC sometimes gets it wrong.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@winesteven said:
Based on your results, I DON’T see CMQ showing us there are a lot more quality and accurately graded coins out there than CAC would have you believe.Based on your sampling, my interpretation is it’s the very opposite - they sticker coins that JA would not, and they refuse to sticker coins that JA does! As I indicated, grading is subjective, but CMQ is polar opposite!
One can choose to vote for their candidate, and I strongly vote for JA. These results reflect a much worse image of CMQ than I would have guessed in my wildest dreams!
Steve
Agreed but we are still looking at a small sample size.
Absolutely it’s a small sample size, but so far we haven’t seen additional data, which will come with time. As I said in a reply of mine above, I’m open minded, and with additional data I’m very willing to change my opinion. But initially, of the coins that failed getting CAC stickers that a forum member generously submitted, seeing almost half of those getting stickered by CMQ, and also seeing a coin that also failed at CAC getting the highly coveted CMQ-X, I’m quite surprised in a negative fashion. Are you surprised too, or is this what you expected? We’ll see what happens down the road.
Steve
You didn't mention the CACed coin that failed to get the CMQ sticker. I guess that proves CAC sometimes gets it wrong.
Or it proves that CMQ got it wrong. Hard to tell anything from a sample size of one.
@winesteven said:
Based on your results, I DON’T see CMQ showing us there are a lot more quality and accurately graded coins out there than CAC would have you believe.Based on your sampling, my interpretation is it’s the very opposite - they sticker coins that JA would not, and they refuse to sticker coins that JA does! As I indicated, grading is subjective, but CMQ is polar opposite!
One can choose to vote for their candidate, and I strongly vote for JA. These results reflect a much worse image of CMQ than I would have guessed in my wildest dreams!
Steve
Agreed but we are still looking at a small sample size.
Absolutely it’s a small sample size, but so far we haven’t seen additional data, which will come with time. As I said in a reply of mine above, I’m open minded, and with additional data I’m very willing to change my opinion. But initially, of the coins that failed getting CAC stickers that a forum member generously submitted, seeing almost half of those getting stickered by CMQ, and also seeing a coin that also failed at CAC getting the highly coveted CMQ-X, I’m quite surprised in a negative fashion. Are you surprised too, or is this what you expected? We’ll see what happens down the road.
Steve
You didn't mention the CACed coin that failed to get the CMQ sticker. I guess that proves CAC sometimes gets it wrong.
Or it proves that CMQ got it wrong. Hard to tell anything from a sample star of one.
I was joking. Did you see the winky emoji? I would have to see the actual stickered coin to make any judgement as to whether they got it right or not. I've seen enough CACed coins where I disagree with their determination. Also, what is a "sample star"?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@winesteven said:
Based on your results, I DON’T see CMQ showing us there are a lot more quality and accurately graded coins out there than CAC would have you believe.Based on your sampling, my interpretation is it’s the very opposite - they sticker coins that JA would not, and they refuse to sticker coins that JA does! As I indicated, grading is subjective, but CMQ is polar opposite!
One can choose to vote for their candidate, and I strongly vote for JA. These results reflect a much worse image of CMQ than I would have guessed in my wildest dreams!
Steve
Agreed but we are still looking at a small sample size.
Absolutely it’s a small sample size, but so far we haven’t seen additional data, which will come with time. As I said in a reply of mine above, I’m open minded, and with additional data I’m very willing to change my opinion. But initially, of the coins that failed getting CAC stickers that a forum member generously submitted, seeing almost half of those getting stickered by CMQ, and also seeing a coin that also failed at CAC getting the highly coveted CMQ-X, I’m quite surprised in a negative fashion. Are you surprised too, or is this what you expected? We’ll see what happens down the road.
Steve
You didn't mention the CACed coin that failed to get the CMQ sticker. I guess that proves CAC sometimes gets it wrong.
Or it proves that CMQ got it wrong. Hard to tell anything from a sample star of one.
I was joking. Did you see the winky emoji? I would have to see the actual stickered coin to make any judgement as to whether they got it right or not. I've seen enough CACed coins where I disagree with their determination. Also, what is a "sample star"?
@winesteven said:
Based on your results, I DON’T see CMQ showing us there are a lot more quality and accurately graded coins out there than CAC would have you believe.Based on your sampling, my interpretation is it’s the very opposite - they sticker coins that JA would not, and they refuse to sticker coins that JA does! As I indicated, grading is subjective, but CMQ is polar opposite!
One can choose to vote for their candidate, and I strongly vote for JA. These results reflect a much worse image of CMQ than I would have guessed in my wildest dreams!
Steve
Agreed but we are still looking at a small sample size.
Absolutely it’s a small sample size, but so far we haven’t seen additional data, which will come with time. As I said in a reply of mine above, I’m open minded, and with additional data I’m very willing to change my opinion. But initially, of the coins that failed getting CAC stickers that a forum member generously submitted, seeing almost half of those getting stickered by CMQ, and also seeing a coin that also failed at CAC getting the highly coveted CMQ-X, I’m quite surprised in a negative fashion. Are you surprised too, or is this what you expected? We’ll see what happens down the road.
Steve
You also seem to be applying CAC standards to CMQ. CMQ's stated standard is not he same as CAC's ("A" and "B" coins, solid for the grade, etc), so naturally there will be coins that qualify for one and not the other.
@winesteven said:
Based on your results, I DON’T see CMQ showing us there are a lot more quality and accurately graded coins out there than CAC would have you believe.Based on your sampling, my interpretation is it’s the very opposite - they sticker coins that JA would not, and they refuse to sticker coins that JA does! As I indicated, grading is subjective, but CMQ is polar opposite!
One can choose to vote for their candidate, and I strongly vote for JA. These results reflect a much worse image of CMQ than I would have guessed in my wildest dreams!
Steve
Agreed but we are still looking at a small sample size.
Absolutely it’s a small sample size, but so far we haven’t seen additional data, which will come with time. As I said in a reply of mine above, I’m open minded, and with additional data I’m very willing to change my opinion. But initially, of the coins that failed getting CAC stickers that a forum member generously submitted, seeing almost half of those getting stickered by CMQ, and also seeing a coin that also failed at CAC getting the highly coveted CMQ-X, I’m quite surprised in a negative fashion. Are you surprised too, or is this what you expected? We’ll see what happens down the road.
Steve
You also seem to be applying CAC standards to CMQ. CMQ's stated standard is not he same as CAC's ("A" and "B" coins, solid for the grade, etc), so naturally there will be coins that qualify for one and not the other.
I fully agree. As I heard an opinion from another collector, It's possible that CMQ decided for marketing reasons it would be best to have standards DIFFERENT from CAC, either tighter or looser. Tighter would not be good, so apparently they may have chosen to be looser. IF that's the case, that could then easily explain those early but very limited results. Further, IF that turns out to be true, the market should then recognize and accept that decision/policy as part of evaluating the many factors involved in buying a coin.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Comments
This ship sailed a long time ago.
I sent another box of 20 to CMQ. They received it on Tuesday and I have my results today which is fast!
Of the 20:
One feature not discussed is that they do photograph the slab unlike CAC (this is CMQ-X from my previous submission):
This coin has not been to CAC and got the CMQ-X, which I predicted. I will send it to CAC eventually (MS63+DMPL):
This is the CMQ-rejected CAC coin (MS61PL):
Additionally, I had them do a sample Coin-In-Motion for me for my 1893 MS61PL Morgan. These are delivered as an MP4 to a Dropbox link. it is a VERY large file (343MB). Unfortunately you have to do an entire order all or none, but in this case I was able to talk them into a sample. I believe it is a 4k video.
It's not the prettiest coin I own or submitted but these are extremely rare in PL and hard to find.
https://youtu.be/Ubb4aY0Q0hU
I put it on Youtube. It might take some time to process.
I think you might be their biggest customer so far.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Comparing the coins of CAC failures and the CAC passed one, with your expectations, and then the CMQ results, unfortunately it’s like throwing darts!
I fully recognize that grading is subjective, but these results, along with your results from the prior box of 20, indicates that even though these are small samples, either JA or David Hall don’t know much about grading. Admittedly, I know even less, but I can throw darts and end up with similar results. My belief is I’ll side with JA’s opinion, and place the CMQ opinion in the circular file!
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
Well I do agree it is a little bit of a dart throwing exercise. I've had similar results at CAC vs my expectations. I think it shows that everyone looks at and evaluates coins differently. Plenty of experienced and respected dealers routinely make CAC submissions and are surprised by the results and from what I can tell, don't even try to guess what the results will be any more.
I think CMQ will effectively show the market that there are a lot more quality and accurately graded coins out there than CAC would have you believe. The post about the CACG grading results from SeatedDimeVariety guy (don't recall the exact name) where most of his coins came back Details shows what I expect the industry will start to take as a "too strict" of evaluation. I think there is a happy medium which I expect CMQ to provide. How the market accepts it is TBD.
I probably am! It's research for me really, as I have a pile of decent material for sale and I am very interested to see if the stickers affect sale price or sale speed like the CAC stickers did. I'm guessing it might not as the market is probably still skeptical but I didn't see the $10 evaluation and $10 success fee as unreasonable. Also for the CAC rejects that I own, I think the stickers will eventually bring at least a little more value than they would otherwise. Even if just a percent or two it will pay for the stickers easily and it is reassuring to have that validation, especially on pricier coins.
Can CMQ provide any feedback as to why they decline to sticker a coin? Although many of us can’t tell whether or not JA will like a coin before we send it, he will, and he has, provided specific feedback via stickers or phone call as to why the coin in question didn’t meet his standards.
With CMQs published standards, or lack thereof, the ambiguity leaves us all in the dark, with no clue about what they’re actually looking for. I’m really eager to see what other coins sport a Griff in the upcoming showcase auction at stacks for the Whitman show. I know there are some serious gold coins that are already griffed that they were showing off at Long Beach, and that would be a better data point for me personally. I’m surprised the auction isn’t catalogued yet considering that it’s (5 weeks?) away.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Based on your results, I DON’T see CMQ showing us there are a lot more quality and accurately graded coins out there than CAC would have you believe.Based on your sampling, my interpretation is it’s the very opposite - they sticker coins that JA would not, and they refuse to sticker coins that JA does! As I indicated, grading is subjective, but CMQ is polar opposite!
One can choose to vote for their candidate, and I strongly vote for JA. These results reflect a much worse image of CMQ than I would have guessed in my wildest dreams!
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
Can you point me to CAC's published standards? I don't recall seeing them anywhere.
I don't think that's completely fair. I've sent 2 CAC coins to CMQ. One stickered and one did not. We do not have enough sample size to draw the conclusions that they are the opposite. But CMQ is certainly stickering a lot of coins that JA did not. I've posted many of the trueviews of those coins and I can post more. I'd like to see any authoritative or definitive comments about problems with the coins or grades that CMQ stickered but CAC did not. I would even venture to say that JA's decision may even be a little arbitrary designed to keep the sticker population low to maintain exclusivity.
Well that certainly is the safe and easy vote to make given the CMQ is a month old and CAC has been around for over a decade.
CMQ = 🥱 IMO
ANA LM
USAF Retired — 34 years of active military service! 🇺🇸
You missed my point. I started my comment asking about if cmq would provide feedback. Though neither cmq or CAC have concrete standards written in stone, you can kind of get a feel for what JA is looking for based on his feedback.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I was just on the phone with a rep and asked this question but he was unable to provide an answer. He said he would ask for me. If I get an answer I'll let you know.
One other tidbit. CMQ images all of the coins that come through whether they sticker or not. It appears they just image the front of the slab. However, if it doesn't sticker it will not show up in the Coin look-up. It's only visible on the submission results screen.
OK, so here are my thoughts/opinions:
a. CAC grades similarly to the grading standards in place 3+ decades ago before gradeflation took place.
b. CAC is much less tolerant of physical rubs on high points of MS coins than the two main TPG’s.
c. CAC is much less tolerant of surface treatments, especially on gold coins, than the two main TPG’s.
It is the result of #4 that leads me to easily conclude that CMQ is not using 3a, 3b, and 3c. As a collector, I choose to have coins in my collection that are conservatively graded “like in the old days”, where my MS coins don’t have physical rubs on their high points, and where “objectionable” surface treatments (according to CAC) have not been applied to the coins in my collection.
You may laugh, but a high percentage of my coins have been dipped, so I agree they are clearly not “original”. But apparently they were dipped gently enough where EVERY coin of mine eligible for a CAC sticker has a CAC sticker. For me, that very gentle dipping is far better than the type of surface treatments applied to coins that CAC rejects.
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
Well said Steven.
"CAC grades similarly to the grading standards in place 3+ decades ago before gradeflation took place.
CAC is much less tolerant of physical rubs on high points of MS coins than the two main TPG’s.
CAC is much less tolerant of surface treatments, especially on gold coins, than the two main TPG’s."
I would add.
CAC provides vastly superior customer service.
Ok - perhaps. My following questions are directed to @winesteven as well.
But have we considered that this may not be true?
1) What were the standards 3+ decades ago - and how do we know CAC follows them? I personally think CAC goes off of "feel" while grading, and as such their standards have varied over the years. I will address my main point here below.
2) This I will agree on.
3) I agree with you on this, but playing devil's advocate - how are we sure of this too? Perhaps CAC is just far too strict on gold, and the TPGs got it right? Why aren't the same standards used for silver?
The big problem with CAC was there weren't any datasets to back up what they were claiming to do - separate coins into A, B, and C and then sticker the A and B coins. There was no way to prove their consistency. There was no way to prove their standards didn't change. That was the smartest thing CAC could do - limit who knew what coins failed to just the submitter.
Now we see a different set of standards from CAC in CMQ, while both provide the same service.
Steve said:
"So CAC not having detailed written standards is absolutely no excuse for CMQ stickering such a high percentage of CAC failures. From your two submissions, you submitted 18 CAC failures, and of those, a whopping 8 got stickered by CMQ. That’s almost half! (Are they using the “Coin Toss” method, lol?) Unbelievably, one got the rare CMQ-X on a CAC failed coin."
But how do we know that CMQ didn't get it right and CAC did? Maybe CAC is the one who is 50% off here! This can go both ways - perhaps CMQ is much more in tune with what the market expects. I can always start a stickering service and never sticker any coins - just say they failed. Does that make me better than CAC?
Please know I am not attacking you guys or your views - I just don't think it's fair to look at CMQ under a different light than CAC when they provide the same service- stickering coins they think are "premium" in some fashion - in what fashion - that we don't know. Therefore CAC can be just as wrong as CMQ, and CMQ can be just as right as CAC.
Coin Photographer.
I don’t consider cac a formalized grading process. It’s a “written” dealer opinion, as is CMQ.
How strongly you rate each of them depends on your feeling about the dealers in question and whether their aesthetic matches your own. I’d expect more agreement than disagreement between them, but that’s about it.
The dealers whos opinions I value highest don’t even do stickers. I wish they did. Maybe we could chip in and buy ‘em all a roll or two. We could have the CRO, DK, AL, TB, DMcC and MF stickers. You wouldn’t see many of them around though.
@FlyingAl , yes, none of us KNOWS as a FACT the issues you ask about above. We each can choose to believe what we believe, since we are not in the heads of JA and Hall.
Separately, when we see that CMQ stickered 8 of 18 CAC failures and in addition gave their highly coveted CMQ-X to another CAC failure, something is not right. While the issuance of stickers (and grading) is subjective, this limited “test” demonstrates to me the standards they each use to sticker apparently is VERY different. As I indicated above, when differences are this great, my faith for the collectors goal is met by JA, and completely not met by Hall, for MY purposes!
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
Ok, this makes more sense. I like your reasoning.
Coin Photographer.
As I suggested above, I believe that the CAC standards are other than advertised. It's not just "solid for the grade" but some other somewhat arbitrary or subjective quality, probably designed to do what what it did - keep the sticker rare and hard to to get rather than to achieve the goal of identifying coins that are simply "good quality" and graded correctly. We have one great example posted in the CIM 4k Youtube video I posted. It is an MS61PL Morgan that CAC rejected but CMQ stickered. We have 4k video of it. Surely someone here can tell use why this coin is a "C" coin or has some surface issue? I can't. That coin is a solid 61 all day long in my, my coin dealer's, PCGS, and CMQ opinion. I think CAC got that one wrong. And I think they've rejected plenty of other accurately graded issue-free coins too.
I don't remember CAC coins as being advertised (by CAC) as "premium." Again, CAC's stated goal was to basically identify correctly graded coins and sticker "A" and "B" coins. However, as the best coins have been stickered by them the market perception is that a CAC sticker indicates premium even though that was never the official objective. From my seat, I would guess that CAC does not actually sticker many B coins and that this is where CMQ is stepping in. I believe the coin market appreciates the CAC opinion but will be happy to have someone truly recognize the "B" coins that should be just as acceptable in anyone's collection.
While the lines of A, B, and C are not visible, what is clear is the roughly 40+% or so of coins that sticker. That does not make stickers rare.
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
It is to the advantage of both CAC and the newer service to "sticker" coins and promote the belief that PCGS/NGC tend to mis-grade coins at a high rate.
It is difficult, for me at least, to accept as unbiased the opinions of members who are heavily invested in CAC when they critique the new service.
While technically accurate, it's a slanted picture.
They sticker ~40% of the coins that submitters expect to to be good enough to get a sticker. I (like many collectors) have several coins that are not likely to sticker so they will never be sent in. This skews the stats significantly. I believe it's called selection bias.
But that goes both ways, no? The 1895-S Morgan you posted that passed CAC at 61PL, but then CMQ declines to sticker it. I don't have the luxury of an in hand evaluation, but looking at the TV I can't see what CMQ didn't like about it, especially at that grade level. Admittedly i'm not particularly fond of the splotchy toning, but can you see anything on that coin in hand that explains CMQ's disapproval?
I would also like to add that I'm not trying to be argumentative, I genuinely appreciate the thoughtful discussion we're having on the subject, and your willingness to be the CMQ guinea pig for the benefit of the forum. It's too early in the game to draw conclusions either way, but I can agree with you that both CAC and CMQ's approval process have some similarities. What I mean by that- highly subjective, open for interpretation, and difficult to put into words. What I do know is that JA's opinion carries a lot of weight, and adds quite a bit of value in the marketplace. If CMQ eventually elevates to a status where their sticker adds value in the marketplace, I will likely use the service. Perhaps my Simpson-Hall pedigreed 03-S $10 will be a shoe in for CMQ-X 😅
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
So with selection bias, there’s another side to the coin, lol.
So your point is correct regarding skewing, but my points happen too.
Separately, your one example could indeed be an error by CAC. Everyone makes errors, and I make more than my fair share of errors, and I think you’ll admit you make errors too. But the key is, do you believe CAC makes more errors than PCGS and NGC (talking about percentages to be fair, not raw numbers, since CAC makes fewer judgements than the TPG’s)? From the position you’re taking, it seems clear you do believe that. I don’t believe that.
I believe the reason the CAC pass rate is only around 40+% is NOT because of errors they make (which is what you’re saying), and it’s NOT because CAC is being unfair to submitters by artificially trying to keep CAC sticker numbers low (which is also what you’re saying), but is ONLY due to the TPG’s NOT following my “3a, 3b and 3c” shown in one of my replies above! If the two TPG’s did consistently follow all three of those things, then the CAC sticker pass rate would be substantially higher!
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
Apparently you don’t know me. While I’m a BIG fan of CAC, and my collection reflects that, I regularly post things that are not supportive of CAC. On this forum I share my thoughts, positive and negative. That’s who I am! Here are two recent examples:
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
In the case of higher graded and higher value coins, one would believe a high percentage have been sent to CAC and expected to pass.. For example, I recently mentioned in another thread, I believe the gold Grant No Star is an undervalued coin. There are 471 MS66s out of the 5000 minted that PCGS has graded and values at $2,100. But only 120 (24.89%) have CACs and price guide at $2,440. There is an incentive to obtain a CAC when one sees the additional $340 price guide added value..
@winesteven, your reply seems to bolster my opinion, you are pro-CAC and anti-CMQ. There's nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but prudence should dictate that some time passes before making a final judgement about this new service. Again, that is your choice and I was merely posting my thoughts on what's been posted in this thread.
---edit above in bold, my mistake.
Actually, since I know what’s in my head, you are incorrect. I am pro CAC AND Pro CACG, and neutral on CMQ! As I indicated above, I like sharing my opinions, and with these three, those opinions of mine on various issues can be pro or con, since I’m open minded!!!!!!
I’m one of the very few BIG Miami Marlins fans, but that doesn’t keep me from criticizing certain players or bone-headed mental errors.
I would hope that if you’re not already open-minded, you should give it a shot. It’s ok to criticize things that in general you support, as well as showing praise when warranted for things that in general you don’t like. It’s healthy!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
I hate to nitpick so I'll make one last comment on the topic. You mention being openminded so it is peculiar that after such a short time you tend to be so critical of CMQ. As for me, I choose not to be supportive of either service. CMQ hasn't been around long enough for any real unbiased opinion to be formed by any collector, including me but I'll assume that CMQ will have the same result as CAC, inflating the prices of coins. I understand all the hooey about having another expert opinion or two or three or four or five....................on a coin, but wouldn't it be easier to just learn your craft a little better and be more selective about what you buy??
Stay safe, happy collecting and have a nice day.
Actually, I find it ok to form opinions based on the information provided. That’s what we each do as we go through life - we make decisions that are hopefully informed ones based on information provided.
The key though, is being open-minded, so as more information is provided over time, we can assess that added information in an unbiased manner, and use the total information we then have to possibly change our mind. As indicated in my reply earlier, that’s healthy.
I recognize from my line of work though, that some people have difficulty making decisions unless they feel they have ALL of the information they will ever get, and will then make a decision only if the information is very clear to make a proper decision. So feel free to wait a year or so until you become comfortable forming an opinion on CAC and CMQ!
So what we know now from the limited but very interesting sample provided generously by @ProofCollection is that of 18 CAC failures submitted to CMQ, almost half (8) were awarded a CMQ sticker, and even more surprisingly, one additional coin of the CAC failures got their highly coveted CMQ-X! So while I’m using that limited information to form a strong negative opinion, as noted, I’m still open minded to change my opinion down the road if information provided then changes my mind. Feel free to ignore that current available data for now and not form an opinion.
Thanks for your good wishes, which I recognize as sincere, and the same to you.
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
Actually, my craft is not grading and recognizing surface treatments, but using tools to put together in my opinion a collection that is pleasing and affordable to me. I have succeeded at that, as I have been VERY selective in what I buy. Just because a coin is in the grade I want and has a CAC sticker does not mean I’ll buy it. I pass on well over 90+% of coins that in theory could meet my needs.
I decided long ago to not take the tremendous amount of time needed to develop the skills of the top experts so I could then make a lot of money by purchasing raw coins that the seller undergrades, to then get graded, or by buying four figure graded coins without CAC stickers that I can then send to CAC to get a sticker.
That brings to mind a skill that perhaps I have developed. Of my coins eligible for a plus grade (69 and 70’s are ineligible for pluses), roughly 60% - 65% have a plus grade. While roughly half of those were purchased that way, the others were obtained via Reconsideration. I never buy a coin with an expectation for a plus upgrade, but perhaps my being so selective has led to that success?
As a collector, I also decided that I’d prefer minimizing having “C” coins in my collection, and/or coins that have undergone surface treatments and/or slight rubs on high points, all of which are usually acceptable to the TPG’s but not to CAC.
I’m glad you apparently have that expertise, and when the time comes for you or your heirs to sell your collection, that you receive similar fair value for your coins as I will hopefully receive for mine.
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
Well said and I agree. For me collecting coins should be a source of enjoyment and not a lot of hard work.
I appreciate and enjoy the discussion too. Thanks everyone.
I almost have one of those... Maybe I should send it in to CMQ? Owned it a long time.
Again, it's hard to speculate but that's about all that we can do because there are no hard facts. But the number of 40% pass rate is below what I would expect for a service that claims to be be stickering "A" and "B" coins which I presume comprise of roughly 2/3 of CAC-eligible PCGS and NGC coins. Assuming an even distribution of coin quality and that "C" coins are the lower 1/3 of the spectrum. In the end, I don't know why the numbers are what they are, and maybe it is due to your points 3a, 3b, 3c but I do believe that from personal experience and these CMQ submissions that CAC is not stickering some or most "B" coins. JA knows I'm sure that it is beneficial to withhold stickers from bottom "B" material and that he can get away with it. Which is fine, I would just like more transparency on this if that is indeed the case. Not that we'll ever get it.
What I would travel for and pay to see though - if it can be arranged - is a panel at a show with JA and JH and put 5 coins the one service stickered and the other did not (10 coins total) on a screen and have the one defend the sticker and the other say why it doesn't deserve a sticker. That would truly be informative and worth the price of admission!
For the series I collect my experience has been CAC approved coins are mostly above average.
What matters most to me is that I agree with JA about 90% of the time.
The fact that CAC approved coins realize strong prices is icing on the cake.
In addition, JA has helped me become a better grader which has helped me improve the quality of my collection.
@ProofCollection, three good points. On your second one regarding the Grant No Star gold Commem with a CAC sticker, if you ever consign it to Stacks, then yes, it’s a “must” to first have them try to CMQ it, and the cost is only a few dollars. Otherwise, bidders of coins in Stacks auctions could think it failed to CMQ for some reason, and that could hurt the potential max bid.
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 said
That MS65+ sure looks like a nice coin!
Interestingly, only 16.79% of the MS65 Grant No stars have a CAC and 42.28% of the MS67s have a CAC. It does appear that the higher grade a coin is, the more likely it has been submitted to CAC.
Can it also be that the lower grade coins are more loosely graded by the third party grading services?
There has long been the understanding (belief?) that they are more conservative when there is a price jump. This makes some sense based on the price guarantee.
[On a side note, it was also a concern when they started charging the upgrade fee that they were incentiveizing grade inflation.]
@ProofCollection said: the number of 40% pass rate is below what I would expect for a service that claims to be be stickering "A" and "B" coins which I presume comprise of roughly 2/3 of CAC-eligible PCGS and NGC coins.
CAC is a business which promotes itself and not the other TPG's. As such, it is to their advantage to be saying "PCGS/NGC are not fairly and accurately grading the coins you are sending them" which is how I have always perceived CAC. Now that they have established themselves it is time to begin taking away the grading business from PCGS/NGC and move away from just critiquing what those TPG's are doing.
If you think along those terms, it is no coincidence that approximately half of what is submitted to CAC is in turn viewed as inferior for the grade.
I hate to say this, but I'm getting a little tired of hearing that CAC acts on MOTIVATION to intentionally NOT sticker coins that actually merit stickers. While I have no "proof" of this (nor do the accusers), many of us have gotten to know JA over the years, and how he thinks. He is MUCH more consumer friendly than many people realize. Those false accusations are really unfair.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
I would definitely pay to see that as well.
With regard to text I made bold in your reply, JA once made a statement to the effect of "Many assume that most coins that fail to sticker are properly graded C coins, and that would be an incorrect assumption."
The way I interpret that, he might think the distribution of quality among a specific grade might be more along these lines:
A coins - 20% (Some A coins could possibly have been upgraded already, and now are C coins in the next grade up)
B coins- 20%
C coins- 20%
D coins- 20% (Already overgraded by a full numerical grade)
E Coins (or should we call them F coins?) - 20% (Coins that will never sticker at any grade level, due to cleaning or surface manipulation)
That type of distribution would make more sense with respect to the 40% sticker rate.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Here's some more data points, this is the auction I've been waiting to see catalogued.
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/auctions/3-15VQ00/november-2023-auction-session-3-rarities-night-lots-3001-3304?page=2&limit=96
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Agreed but we are still looking at a small sample size.
Absolutely it’s a small sample size, but so far we haven’t seen additional data, which will come with time. As I said in a reply of mine above, I’m open minded, and with additional data I’m very willing to change my opinion. But initially, of the coins that failed getting CAC stickers that a forum member generously submitted, seeing almost half of those getting stickered by CMQ, and also seeing a coin that also failed at CAC getting the highly coveted CMQ-X, I’m quite surprised in a negative fashion. Are you surprised too, or is this what you expected? We’ll see what happens down the road.
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
You didn't mention the CACed coin that failed to get the CMQ sticker. I guess that proves CAC sometimes gets it wrong.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Or it proves that CMQ got it wrong. Hard to tell anything from a sample size of one.
I was joking. Did you see the winky emoji? I would have to see the actual stickered coin to make any judgement as to whether they got it right or not. I've seen enough CACed coins where I disagree with their determination. Also, what is a "sample star"?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Size. Corrected. Thanks.
You also seem to be applying CAC standards to CMQ. CMQ's stated standard is not he same as CAC's ("A" and "B" coins, solid for the grade, etc), so naturally there will be coins that qualify for one and not the other.
I fully agree. As I heard an opinion from another collector, It's possible that CMQ decided for marketing reasons it would be best to have standards DIFFERENT from CAC, either tighter or looser. Tighter would not be good, so apparently they may have chosen to be looser. IF that's the case, that could then easily explain those early but very limited results. Further, IF that turns out to be true, the market should then recognize and accept that decision/policy as part of evaluating the many factors involved in buying a coin.
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