What's old is new and what's new is old. A thought on Collectible Market Qualified.

Maywood

I find it interesting that when CAC first arrived on the Hobby scene the reaction was similar to what's taking place now with the Stack's/HRH service simply referred to as CMQ. A thought came to mind:
--- "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
--HERBERT SPENCER

Maywood.

sellitstore

Sort of like "Don't judge a book by it's cover."

Don't condemn something based on a first look. Check it out.

Makes sense.

Maywood

Yeah, and I can be just as guilty as the next guy.

It seems to be human nature to resist change and it's really evident in our Hobby when something new comes along. It's rare for something new to happen which isn't initially met with skepticism, cynicism or downright disdain. And as usually unfolds, we adjust and embrace the change to our mutual advantage. It happened with the advent of TPG's and continues till the current NKOB of CMQ. I suppose when NGC came along it was mocked for being a PCGS look-alike and now CMQ is being criticized as a CAC look-alike.

I think we'll take to it like a duck to water in 1-2 years.

jerseyben

As per usual, anything new or different is viewed as bad or unwelcome. Lots of haters and negativity. Only time will tell but my bet is they will be successful.

HillbillyCollector

I take a “wait and see” attitude. Time will tell if they will be successful but if they are consistent with their opinions and stickers, they could do very well. I am pulling for them since CAC is eventually moving away from the sticker business.
Ultimately, the market will answer that question soon enough.

gtstang

My first thought was "How actively involved is David Hall going to be in this and is he just utilizing his name and more of an investor while others review coins and do day to day business activities"

PerryHall

@gtstang said:
My first thought was "How actively involved is David Hall going to be in this and is he just utilizing his name and more of an investor while others review coins and do day to day business activities"

Does JA review and evaluate every coin that comes through CAC and CACG?

gtstang

@PerryHall said:

@gtstang said:
My first thought was "How actively involved is David Hall going to be in this and is he just utilizing his name and more of an investor while others review coins and do day to day business activities"

Does JA review and evaluate every coin that comes through CAC and CACG?

Legend has it (not the brand but what has been said) that he reviews all cac but I don't see how that will be possible going forward with cacg.

skier07

@PerryHall said:

@gtstang said:
My first thought was "How actively involved is David Hall going to be in this and is he just utilizing his name and more of an investor while others review coins and do day to day business activities"

Does JA review and evaluate every coin that comes through CAC and CACG?

Of course JA probably doesn’t but I think he has a much more active role than whatever David Hall’s role may be. I have a problem that David Hall has a company that sells coins to the public. That to me is a big conflict of interests.

PerryHall

@skier07 said:

@PerryHall said:

@gtstang said:
My first thought was "How actively involved is David Hall going to be in this and is he just utilizing his name and more of an investor while others review coins and do day to day business activities"

Does JA review and evaluate every coin that comes through CAC and CACG?

Of course JA probably doesn’t but I think he has a much more active role than whatever David Hall’s role may be. I have a problem that David Hall has a company that sells coins to the public. That to me is a big conflict of interests.

I don't see a significant difference between JA selling coins to dealers and DH selling coins to collectors.

braddick

People lean toward the negative.
When the first iPhone came out in 2007 there was plenty of negative press.

MetroD

@gtstang said:
My first thought was "How actively involved is David Hall going to be in this and is he just utilizing his name and more of an investor while others review coins and do day to day business activities"

Per the CMQ website:

Source: https://cmq.stacksbowers.com/news-article-20230905.php

StacksBowersGalleries

@MetroD said:

@gtstang said:
My first thought was "How actively involved is David Hall going to be in this and is he just utilizing his name and more of an investor while others review coins and do day to day business activities"

Per the CMQ website:

Source: https://cmq.stacksbowers.com/news-article-20230905.php

Exactly. David and Greg will in fact look at all coins submitted.

coinbuf

@StacksBowersGalleries said:

@MetroD said:

@gtstang said:
My first thought was "How actively involved is David Hall going to be in this and is he just utilizing his name and more of an investor while others review coins and do day to day business activities"

Per the CMQ website:

Source: https://cmq.stacksbowers.com/news-article-20230905.php

Exactly. David and Greg will in fact look at all coins submitted.

So what happens if those two people cannot agree on a coin? Who is the tiebreaker in those situations?

jmlanzaf

@coinbuf said:

@StacksBowersGalleries said:

@MetroD said:

@gtstang said:
My first thought was "How actively involved is David Hall going to be in this and is he just utilizing his name and more of an investor while others review coins and do day to day business activities"

Per the CMQ website:

Source: https://cmq.stacksbowers.com/news-article-20230905.php

Exactly. David and Greg will in fact look at all coins submitted.

So what happens if those two people cannot agree on a coin? Who is the tiebreaker in those situations?

No tie breaker. It fails to sticker.

StacksBowersGalleries

@jmlanzaf said:

@coinbuf said:

@StacksBowersGalleries said:

@MetroD said:

@gtstang said:
My first thought was "How actively involved is David Hall going to be in this and is he just utilizing his name and more of an investor while others review coins and do day to day business activities"

Per the CMQ website:

Source: https://cmq.stacksbowers.com/news-article-20230905.php

Exactly. David and Greg will in fact look at all coins submitted.

So what happens if those two people cannot agree on a coin? Who is the tiebreaker in those situations?

No tie breaker. It fails to sticker.

Thats correct.

jmlanzaf

@StacksBowersGalleries said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@coinbuf said:

@StacksBowersGalleries said:

@MetroD said:

@gtstang said:
My first thought was "How actively involved is David Hall going to be in this and is he just utilizing his name and more of an investor while others review coins and do day to day business activities"

Per the CMQ website:

Source: https://cmq.stacksbowers.com/news-article-20230905.php

Exactly. David and Greg will in fact look at all coins submitted.

So what happens if those two people cannot agree on a coin? Who is the tiebreaker in those situations?

No tie breaker. It fails to sticker.

Thats correct.

Best of luck on the new venture.

Maywood

What's with all the "conflict of interest" talk?? It seems to me that the principal at CAC already does the things that this new service, which hasn't really even started yet, is accused of preparing to do!! Why not let things roll out, evidence become public and then assess what is taking place?? All the ethical self-righteous posturing is a bit over the top.

jmlanzaf

@Maywood said:
What's with all the "conflict of interest" talk?? It seems to me that the principal at CAC already does the things that this new service, which hasn't really even started yet, is accused of preparing to do!! Why not let things roll out, evidence become public and then assess what is taking place?? All the ethical self-righteous posturing is a bit over the top.

Yeah, I'm not sure what the difference between retail and wholesale is when it comes to any COI.

skier07

@PerryHall said:

@skier07 said:

@PerryHall said:

@gtstang said:
My first thought was "How actively involved is David Hall going to be in this and is he just utilizing his name and more of an investor while others review coins and do day to day business activities"

Does JA review and evaluate every coin that comes through CAC and CACG?

Of course JA probably doesn’t but I think he has a much more active role than whatever David Hall’s role may be. I have a problem that David Hall has a company that sells coins to the public. That to me is a big conflict of interests.

I don't see a significant difference between JA selling coins to dealers and DH selling coins to collectors.

Dealers and collectors can buy coins from DH while only dealers can buy coins from JA.

Elcontador

My only comment is that I see how numismatics has changed over the last two generations. The TPGs were necessary as a form of insurance policy. I would not have bought what for me are any expensive coins before this, because I saw what the industry was like pre TPG and didn't like it.

As most everything pre 1930 was graded, the business had to evolve or the powers that be would have gone out of business. If you know how to grade a particular series, you don't need plusses, stars, stickers, etc. But the marketing over much of this time made it easier for those who either can't physically see the coins or for those who don't understand how to grade them but want them nevertheless, to buy them with an additional safety net of sorts.

Manifest_Destiny

The conflict of interest concern isn't about "wholesale vs retail" (although some may have mistakenly framed it that way). The concern is the relationship between CMQ and Stacks.

As I said in a different thread, look at how GC does business with CAC. GC sends coins to CAC in an effort to get a bean and add value to their bottom line. If Stacks sends coins to CMQ to get a griff, directly or even indirectly by instructing consignors to send them in, that's a conflict of interest.

coinbuf

@Maywood said:
What's with all the "conflict of interest" talk?? It seems to me that the principal at CAC already does the things that this new service, which hasn't really even started yet, is accused of preparing to do!! Why not let things roll out, evidence become public and then assess what is taking place?? All the ethical self-righteous posturing is a bit over the top.

Perhaps not everyone is willing to put their heads in the sand and hope all is good. There are lots of situations, old and new, within numismatics that present the opportunity for a conflict of interest to be present. Because that conflict is optically present is not an indictment of an automatic issue. Just as talking about it is not an accusation of any nefarious activity, but simply recognizing that one exists.

All this reminds me of a line from an obscure movie: "innovation is not inherently bad, but it must be watched".

jmlanzaf

@Manifest_Destiny said:
The conflict of interest concern isn't about "wholesale vs retail" (although some may have mistakenly framed it that way). The concern is the relationship between CMQ and Stacks.

As I said in a different thread, look at how GC does business with CAC. GC sends coins to CAC in an effort to get a bean and add value to their bottom line. If Stacks sends coins to CMQ to get a griff, directly or even indirectly by instructing consignors to send them in, that's a conflict of interest.

Yes, but the and conflict exists for a wholesale operation as well. The wholesaler could simply sticker their entire inventory.

You may not be the one that made the specific wolesale/retail distinction but a couple people have said it.

Walkerlover

@StacksBowersGalleries said:

@MetroD said:

@gtstang said:
My first thought was "How actively involved is David Hall going to be in this and is he just utilizing his name and more of an investor while others review coins and do day to day business activities"

Per the CMQ website:

Source: https://cmq.stacksbowers.com/news-article-20230905.php

Exactly. David and Greg will in fact look at all coins submitted.

What is the exact criteria for a gold sticker CMQX? You stated wonder coin on your website. Would a CAC gold sticker with above average eye appeal get the CMQX Gold sticker or are there different requirements necessary? Thanks

SoCalBigMark

--- "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof that all boo birds and chatroom chimps and all their arguments, and who can not fail to keep widgets in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to exasperation."
--LAURA SPERBER

Walkerlover

@Manifest_Destiny said:
The conflict of interest concern isn't about "wholesale vs retail" (although some may have mistakenly framed it that way). The concern is the relationship between CMQ and Stacks.

As I said in a different thread, look at how GC does business with CAC. GC sends coins to CAC in an effort to get a bean and add value to their bottom line. If Stacks sends coins to CMQ to get a griff, directly or even indirectly by instructing consignors to send them in, that's a conflict of interest.

I don’t understand why you feel that way. GC is also protecting the consignors interests as well. They are getting their customers the best possible price on their coins by having them stickered by CAC. Stack’s would be doing the same unless you think CMQ will unfairly sticker more coins from Stacks clients

Manifest_Destiny

@Walkerlover said:

@Manifest_Destiny said:
The conflict of interest concern isn't about "wholesale vs retail" (although some may have mistakenly framed it that way). The concern is the relationship between CMQ and Stacks.

As I said in a different thread, look at how GC does business with CAC. GC sends coins to CAC in an effort to get a bean and add value to their bottom line. If Stacks sends coins to CMQ to get a griff, directly or even indirectly by instructing consignors to send them in, that's a conflict of interest.

I don’t understand why you feel that way. GC is also protecting the consignors interests as well. They are getting their customers the best possible price on their coins by having them stickered by CAC. Stack’s would be doing the same unless you think CMQ will unfairly sticker more coins from Stacks clients

Who knows what CMQ will do. That's the point of the conflict of interest.

gumby1234

@StacksBowersGalleries can you say why you won't accept ANACS and ICG coins?

Walkerlover

@Manifest_Destiny said:

@Walkerlover said:

@Manifest_Destiny said:
The conflict of interest concern isn't about "wholesale vs retail" (although some may have mistakenly framed it that way). The concern is the relationship between CMQ and Stacks.

As I said in a different thread, look at how GC does business with CAC. GC sends coins to CAC in an effort to get a bean and add value to their bottom line. If Stacks sends coins to CMQ to get a griff, directly or even indirectly by instructing consignors to send them in, that's a conflict of interest.

I don’t understand why you feel that way. GC is also protecting the consignors interests as well. They are getting their customers the best possible price on their coins by having them stickered by CAC. Stack’s would be doing the same unless you think CMQ will unfairly sticker more coins from Stacks clients

Who knows what CMQ will do. That's the point of the conflict of interest.

Okay I get your point but it doesn’t pertain to GC and CAC

Manifest_Destiny

@Walkerlover said:

@Manifest_Destiny said:

@Walkerlover said:

@Manifest_Destiny said:
The conflict of interest concern isn't about "wholesale vs retail" (although some may have mistakenly framed it that way). The concern is the relationship between CMQ and Stacks.

As I said in a different thread, look at how GC does business with CAC. GC sends coins to CAC in an effort to get a bean and add value to their bottom line. If Stacks sends coins to CMQ to get a griff, directly or even indirectly by instructing consignors to send them in, that's a conflict of interest.

I don’t understand why you feel that way. GC is also protecting the consignors interests as well. They are getting their customers the best possible price on their coins by having them stickered by CAC. Stack’s would be doing the same unless you think CMQ will unfairly sticker more coins from Stacks clients

Who knows what CMQ will do. That's the point of the conflict of interest.

Okay I get your point but it doesn’t pertain to GC and CAC

I know. GC and CAC are the example I'm using to show there isn't a conflict of interest in that relationship.

Maywood

@Walkerlover, the perceived "conflict of interest" is that CMQ will sticker a bunch of unworthy coins and sell them in their auctions to boost prices.

That notion is ridiculous on its face if you really think about it. Dealers/collectors would identify it and the game would be up in 1-2 auction cycles. Logically, not only would it dry up CMQ submissions but it would almost certainly hurt Stack's auctions and "shame" HRH along with Greg Roberts. Why would otherwise well respected Numismatists and one of the leading auction firms in the history of Numismatics put themselves at risk like that?? The answer is clear: they wouldn't.

Maywood

@Manifest_Distilny said: GC and CAC are the example I'm using to show there isn't a conflict of interest in that relationship.

And you know this how??

What it really comes down to is that you have made a decision that CAC and GC are trustworthy and HRH, Greg Roberts and Stack's aren't to be trusted. I generally trust people and entities until they give me a reason not to.

fathom

Deleted.

NJCoin

@Manifest_Destiny said:

@Walkerlover said:

@Manifest_Destiny said:
The conflict of interest concern isn't about "wholesale vs retail" (although some may have mistakenly framed it that way). The concern is the relationship between CMQ and Stacks.

As I said in a different thread, look at how GC does business with CAC. GC sends coins to CAC in an effort to get a bean and add value to their bottom line. If Stacks sends coins to CMQ to get a griff, directly or even indirectly by instructing consignors to send them in, that's a conflict of interest.

I don’t understand why you feel that way. GC is also protecting the consignors interests as well. They are getting their customers the best possible price on their coins by having them stickered by CAC. Stack’s would be doing the same unless you think CMQ will unfairly sticker more coins from Stacks clients

Who knows what CMQ will do. That's the point of the conflict of interest.

Right. And if they do that, sticker coins that don't deserve it, that will soon become apparent, and a CMQ sticker won't mean anything.

As long as they disclose the relationship, and they have, it's all good. If they sticker marginal coins, their sticker just won't add value.

Which is why they won't do it, even with the potential conflict of interest. It would also be a conflict of interest for them to destroy the value of their new enterprise in pursuit of trying to goose the value of a few Stack's submissions. I have a strong feeling the principals are well aware of this, even if some skeptics will never be satisfied.

Manifest_Destiny

@Maywood said:
@Manifest_Distilny said: GC and CAC are the example I'm using to show there isn't a conflict of interest in that relationship.

And you know this how??

What it really comes down to is that you have made a decision that CAC and GC are trustworthy and HRH, Greg Roberts and Stack's aren't to be trusted. I generally trust people and entities until they give me a reason not to.

I know because GC and CAC aren't owned by the same company. I'm not saying CMQ or Stacks are untrustworthy, I'm saying the business relationship is on it's face a conflict of interest if there's a direct (or indirect) pipeline from Stacks to CMQ. I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time with that concept.

You act as if the argument is being presented as CMQ will griff every slab that comes through Stacks. I agree, that's ridiculous, and no one is saying that.

jmlanzaf

@Maywood said:
@Manifest_Distilny said: GC and CAC are the example I'm using to show there isn't a conflict of interest in that relationship.

And you know this how??

What it really comes down to is that you have made a decision that CAC and GC are trustworthy and HRH, Greg Roberts and Stack's aren't to be trusted. I generally trust people and entities until they give me a reason not to.

GC and CAC are separate corporate entities.

lilolme

So I have been in and out recently. Reading through some of this I wonder - what is so different here with cmq sticker? Not sure how to word this properly below, so tried to make it as general as possible.
Note: no accusations here.

There is an eagle eye sticker that is at least indirectly / directly related to a wholesale / retail dealer or personnel.
There is QA sticker that is at least indirectly / directly related to a wholesale / retail dealer or personnel.
There is PQ sticker that tis at least indirectly / directly related to a wholesale /retail dealer or personnel.
Wings I don't know anything about.

https://www.indiancent.com//photoseal/
http://qacoins.com
https://www.pqapproved.com
https://wingscoingradingservice.com

StacksBowersGalleries

@Walkerlover said:

@StacksBowersGalleries said:

@MetroD said:

@gtstang said:
My first thought was "How actively involved is David Hall going to be in this and is he just utilizing his name and more of an investor while others review coins and do day to day business activities"

Per the CMQ website:

Source: https://cmq.stacksbowers.com/news-article-20230905.php

Exactly. David and Greg will in fact look at all coins submitted.

What is the exact criteria for a gold sticker CMQX? You stated wonder coin on your website. Would a CAC gold sticker with above average eye appeal get the CMQX Gold sticker or are there different requirements necessary? Thanks

CMQ-Exceptional applies to coins that are either exceptional for the coin or exceptional for the grade. It does not only apply to the ultra-high grades or the extreme rarities. Perhaps an alternative way to explain it is that a CMQ-Exceptional coin is one that you don’t mind paying “extra” for.

As it relates to CAC, we highly respect their service and opinion. However, David and Greg will apply CMQ’s own standards to each individual coin. Coins that receive a CAC sticker, may not receive a CMQ sticker and vice versa.

Walkerlover

@StacksBowersGalleries said:

@Walkerlover said:

@StacksBowersGalleries said:

@MetroD said:

@gtstang said:
My first thought was "How actively involved is David Hall going to be in this and is he just utilizing his name and more of an investor while others review coins and do day to day business activities"

Per the CMQ website:

Source: https://cmq.stacksbowers.com/news-article-20230905.php

Exactly. David and Greg will in fact look at all coins submitted.

What is the exact criteria for a gold sticker CMQX? You stated wonder coin on your website. Would a CAC gold sticker with above average eye appeal get the CMQX Gold sticker or are there different requirements necessary? Thanks

CMQ-Exceptional applies to coins that are either exceptional for the coin or exceptional for the grade. It does not only apply to the ultra-high grades or the extreme rarities. Perhaps an alternative way to explain it is that a CMQ-Exceptional coin is one that you don’t mind paying “extra” for.

As it relates to CAC, we highly respect their service and opinion. However, David and Greg will apply CMQ’s own standards to each individual coin. Coins that receive a CAC sticker, may not receive a CMQ sticker and vice versa.

Thanks for your reply, that clarified things