@Manifest_Destiny said:
I like the coin. The slab, not so much. It's a plastic brick, way too thick, and doesn't fit in any standard slab box.
As long as you’re happy with the coin, that’s what matters.
Thanks, I don't hate the slab either despite my tweaking the fan boys. It does have really good optics. They really should look into making it thinner though. At some point, it creates "distance" between the observer and the coin.
The thick insert also creates an optical illusion that the coin inside is smaller.
You're not wrong. I'm a big CAC fan but even the biggest kool-aid drinker would readily admit that their marketing, technology, and PR is subpar.
What do you think accounts for that? Ask because there are many sophisticated , experienced principals involved.
I think it's just a matter of scale and infrastructure. PCGS has had a long time and has many people and spent a lot of money to develop these important but secondary functions. I think CAC will get there; they have really good people who care a lot. But PCGS has a 30+year head start.
Appreciate the reply. . All a guess as venture is privately held, but if principals are who they are rumored to be, a lack of capitol to rapidly scale should not be a concern. Could very well be teething pains from a premature launch. or signs of a company in flux, Don't think they are advancing their brand by leaving ambiguities/ concerns out there. Company did have a soft launch 6/23, and full launch 10/23. Seems ample time has gone by for sophisticated principles to issue a coherent written statement. Lack of communication remains a continuing non trivial concern. Would like to see statements concerning grading standards, and potential conflicts. Do not believe either is unreasonable. Statements from "third party's in the know" do make me think, well if the company is able to speak informally to individuals, why can't it say those same things --itself-- publicly. Have not seen a good explanation for that so far. Just becomes about personalities and reputations, the later of which I do not question.
Glancing through again I picked up on another part of the discussion (I do Not read all of this stuff). So I think, I have seen this before. Some searching (not the soul type ) and here is a JA interview (I am guessing maybe there is a video of it or maybe not) that covers part of the discussion above.
I used a screen shot as the text copy and paste sometimes jumbles the format.
@lilolme Thanks for that. The editor gets the point that several of us are trying to make. CACG needs to acknowledge the standards change and stop pretending that they use CAC stickering standards.
IMO, there are things that CAC could have lined up prior to launching and should have. This includes communication. This may all stem from the beautique-like “mission statement”, which is laudable but may not be the best blueprint for a successful business.
@PeakRarities said:
My cats just shattered a glass vase downstairs that I had to tend to, now that I'm awake I figure I may as well try to put this one to bed and leave it on a positive note. Matthew Mcconaughey is a tough act to follow, but I'll do my best to make this VERY clear, so please read my post slowly and carefully.
I did in fact read what @Manifest_Destiny wrote, just as did when you wrote the same thing. MD thinks I'm missing his point, but I dont miss very much and I say that he is missing the forest for the trees. MD also stated that i make "extraordinary". contributions, but ask yourself if that's true, could I really be that obtuse to the point where I dont understand what youre saying? I've addressed it multiple times, but perhaps I wasnt clear enough....😓
I DONT REALLY CARE WHAT THE WEBSITE SAYS, AND NEITHER SHOULD EITHER OF YOU.
I have already acknowledged that some of what is written there contradicts what is applied in practice, but I guess I fail to understand why you two are making it out to be some clandestine affair. First of all, CAC did not "Publish Standards" like PCGS has. It's informatiom from the FAQ section. I've seen older interviews where JA has said something similar.
I'm not going to explain why he did that, again, but I will absolutely concede that their PR and marketing language leaves much to be desired and it should be corrected. But, heres the thing- I dont care.
It doesn't affect me, nor does it have an influence how they grade coins. It doesnt effect you or MD either, so why are you guys so hung up on that? You cannot accurately define grading standards in words, and though I've already hammered that point, I'm going to keep at it until it sinks in. Here is the PCGS definition of the standard for MS-66.
"Well struck with a few marks or hairlines, not in focal areas"
Here's an MS-66 1921 peace from coinfacts.
Its totally flat in the center obverse, and its got two nicks with depth on the eyebrow, which I think we all can agree for the most part is a focal area. So, neither of the things listed in the "definition" seem to be the case, but yet the coin got a 66. I didn't have to look hard for this, and it may be a lower hanging fruit but I could do this all day.
What happened was, the graders probably figured that it has great luster and color, and the eye appeal is enough to overcome the weak strike and eyebrow hits at this grade level, for this issue. They ask themselves, "should this coin be worth 66 money" and evidently they arrived at a consensus of "Yes". You might ask, how would I know what their thought process on a coin like this is? I'll give you a hint. It was NOT on their website, or in their "published standards", whatever the heck that means.
I learned that by going to summer seminar and grading coins with Steve Feltner and David McCarthy for a few days. If you don't know who they are, ask around. We sat in a dark room for 8 hours a day grading coins, and Steve would vocalize his stream of consciousness whenever he revealed the grade. ( a fantastic opportunity and learning experience, if either of you could ever make it. I encourage all collectors to take grading classes at summer seminar if possible, probably the best $2,000 I've ever spent (all in, Including flights, lodging and meals). I also go to all the major shows, for a few days each and view thousands of coins. Not to mention the fact that I spend hours every day combing through auction records, and buying and selling coins. At the level I participate, it gets expensive REAL fast if you don't know how to grade.
My point is, you do not learn about how a service grades from a 3 page website with an FAQ section. Everyone knows that, including both of you. So I emphasize, why is it an obstacle that you both can not overcome? Can it be better? Absolutely, but it has no bearing on anything. It's directed towards laymen who have just begun to dip their toes in the CAC water, and after that you need to get your hands dirty if you want to learn anything.
The best way I can break it down is the classic anecdote of the big corporate behemoth store vs the small Mom & Pop outfit. They might not take online orders or let you use apple pay, but the end product is just the same if not better, i and you don't mind making some comprimises because of the convenience. The compromise with CAC/G is that their verbiage isn't clear and you may have to experiment or do your own due diligence to see if it has value to you. Don't like it? Fine, dont use it. Theyre not begging for your business, and they'll be just fine without you. JA has been doing what he does for 40 years, and the way he grades isn't going to change anytime soon. It's not that he isn't trying to be transparent, its that him trying to put the thought process of how he grades into words is a futile and superlative exercise. You want to learn how CAC or CACG grades? Look at many coins in their holders, or start submitting coins yourself. Same way you have to learn how PCGS or NGC grades.
You're demanding transparency when the concept of grading is fundamentally opaqe.
Let’s imagine that CAC puts up “defined” standards, along with a statement saying that "both" companies are applying those standards. They also issue a statement that Chris' comments do not reflect their policy. What do you think that would affect their daily operations? I’ll tell you...
NOTHING.
The irony is that the "lack of transparency" actually IS transparent in itself 😂. Why? Because the coin is only a 68 if JA, or Ron, or whoever is calling the shots decades from now says it is, and that goes for EVERY TPG. You arrived at that conclusion 1-2 posts back, but only myopically for CACG. You also keep neglecting to recognize the CACG grading sets which, as far as I know, are the first ones that are comprised of physical coins, that will forever will be a reference source for the graders long after JA has left the building.
Edit: and remember that the grading sets are used at both locations, while JA has an active role at both locations.
Imagine that you think you have a coin that meets the criteria in the definition of MS-68, as described on the PCGS website, but its got a carbon spot on the obverse.
"Only the slightest weakness in strike with a few tiny imperfections visible"
Well, that doesn’t appear to mention anything about spots, right? So then how do you determine what’s tiny and what’s not? You send the coin in again. The head grader at ___insert TPG here____ says "nope, I dont like it as a 68". Now what do can you do?
NOTHING
Except maybe...try it again in 6 months 😅.
Edit: and it’s important to remember my 50-53-58 example and read between the lines some. The goal is to be as consistent as possible, but even if you gave the 5 best graders in the world 25 coins to grade, and do that 10 times in a row spread out across a year, there’s going to be some coins fluctuating between grades. Not many, but at least 3-4 coins out of that group will sit on the line somewhere.
It’s only feel-good transparency. It's great for optics & PR but it has no inherent value. Does this mean that grading is just one big scam 😱? No, it’s not, because the services provide a tremendous value to non-expert level collectors, who used to get taken to the cleaners by dealers who took advantage of their trust & naïveté. From what I understand, JA saw that pattern beginning to take place again in the early 2000's, which is one of the reasons he started CAC in the first place.
If you're still not getting it, I really don't know what’s left to be said at this point. The goal posts keep getting moved on me throughout the discussion, and at this point you’d have to be making a concerted effort not to comprehend what I'm saying if it doesn’t make some sense after this post.
I offered to go out on a limb to ask him about this for you, directly, despite the fact that I and many others already knew the answer. Your response, demanding, not asking, that it must be in writing infers that you feel either his or my word is no good. Feels sort of insulting, considering that our word is all that we truly have at the end of it all. Life goes on, but I sincerely do hope that it does click for you one day... and you'll look back and realize that there was a good reason that "no one else seemed to care". It takes quite a bit of effort to put the concept of professional coin grading into words, and I’m probably wasting my breath, but maybe a couple folks will get something out of it.
One might ask-
“What is the solution to all of this?”
Buy the coins you like, cross them into the holders you desire with or without stickers, or don't. If you’re having fun, you’re doing it the right way, but try not to forget that most of it is just glitter and fancy packaging with a bow on top.
With that, I’ll see myself out before one of our resident trolls enters the thread to correct some minute detail of this long-winded dissertation.
Makes sense. And ALL of this could be cleared up if CACG would just admit that by stating what their standards are for slabbing "accurately graded C coins".
Unfortunately, the ABC thing has really spiraled out of control. Here's the thing. There is no such thing as a C coin. They are grading based on their unpublished grading standards, and CAC always stickered the same way.
The ABC scale was an attempt to explain the process to the laymen and to not broadly insult a huge swath of coins that JA believed were incorrectly graded. (Coins not stickered by JA but that nonetheless are owned by his clients and others).
If you ignore the ABC completely it will make this a lot easier.
I'm ok with that explanation. But again, CAC claims C coins are "accurately graded". They need to stop saying that. This is the transparency issue people like me keep bringing up.
What's frustrating is we're supposed to "wink, wink" know what CACG is really doing and ignore what they're saying.
I'll make it even simpler so we can drive a stake through the heart of this meaningless forum topic once and for all, and there is some common ground. I agree that its confusing and it doesn't fit well as it relates to CACG, but I feel like you might feel less strongly about once you finally realize theres no such thing as C coins. I will spoon feed it, if you don't get it now I'm afraid there's no hope...
Picture JA in a dark room under a grading lamp, unpacking a group of coins. Picks one up, rotates well under the light until he can make the call.
1."Do I like the coin is a 64? Yes, green sticker.
2. Do I like this coin as a 65? No..
3. Do i like this coin as a 63? Wow, this is a great 64. (Could be even better- gold sticker
Little Billy the YN asks JA why his "Gem" Walker didnt sticker at the Tampa, and instead of saying "Well Billy, your coin is an overgraded cat turd", he says "Well Billy it was a C coin, it just didnt make the cut".
By doing so he accomplishes-
Not making Billy (or the middle aged collector) cry.
Not Firing shots at companies who, at the time he could not disparage their grading publicly.
An palatable PR blanket statement simplifies things for easy digestion.
I can assume he probably didn't think much of it at the time, and would have known it would come back to bite him, the the landscape has changed while the wensite FAQ does not. Perhaps some might use ABC in their thought process, but that's definitely not how graders are taught.
It's not a conspiracy, and there's no "wink, wink", and no one cares accept for a select few people, because they feel like they've been lied to, when the fact of the matter was that it was a cute little child's tale that doesn't make sense anymore. If anything it would be a white lie. It's not exactly, because it's an inneficient way to explain the thought process, but its a relatively efficient way to compare the scale. It doesnt bode well now that jig is up, and the "C coins" can't conveniently be lumped together to keep an interview shorter.
Keep in mind that John Butler @JohnBCoins , who is also an decades long, expert-level grader who may or may not comment, but he would tell you the same thing that I am. John doesn't have to tell little Billy that his coin is an overgraded cat turd despite the fact that he grades coins the same way that all graders grade, because the coin came back in a 58+ holder.
@PeakRarities said:
My cats just shattered a glass vase downstairs that I had to tend to, now that I'm awake I figure I may as well try to put this one to bed and leave it on a positive note. Matthew Mcconaughey is a tough act to follow, but I'll do my best to make this VERY clear, so please read my post slowly and carefully.
I did in fact read what @Manifest_Destiny wrote, just as did when you wrote the same thing. MD thinks I'm missing his point, but I dont miss very much and I say that he is missing the forest for the trees. MD also stated that i make "extraordinary". contributions, but ask yourself if that's true, could I really be that obtuse to the point where I dont understand what youre saying? I've addressed it multiple times, but perhaps I wasnt clear enough....😓
I DONT REALLY CARE WHAT THE WEBSITE SAYS, AND NEITHER SHOULD EITHER OF YOU.
I have already acknowledged that some of what is written there contradicts what is applied in practice, but I guess I fail to understand why you two are making it out to be some clandestine affair. First of all, CAC did not "Publish Standards" like PCGS has. It's informatiom from the FAQ section. I've seen older interviews where JA has said something similar.
I'm not going to explain why he did that, again, but I will absolutely concede that their PR and marketing language leaves much to be desired and it should be corrected. But, heres the thing- I dont care.
It doesn't affect me, nor does it have an influence how they grade coins. It doesnt effect you or MD either, so why are you guys so hung up on that? You cannot accurately define grading standards in words, and though I've already hammered that point, I'm going to keep at it until it sinks in. Here is the PCGS definition of the standard for MS-66.
"Well struck with a few marks or hairlines, not in focal areas"
Here's an MS-66 1921 peace from coinfacts.
Its totally flat in the center obverse, and its got two nicks with depth on the eyebrow, which I think we all can agree for the most part is a focal area. So, neither of the things listed in the "definition" seem to be the case, but yet the coin got a 66. I didn't have to look hard for this, and it may be a lower hanging fruit but I could do this all day.
What happened was, the graders probably figured that it has great luster and color, and the eye appeal is enough to overcome the weak strike and eyebrow hits at this grade level, for this issue. They ask themselves, "should this coin be worth 66 money" and evidently they arrived at a consensus of "Yes". You might ask, how would I know what their thought process on a coin like this is? I'll give you a hint. It was NOT on their website, or in their "published standards", whatever the heck that means.
I learned that by going to summer seminar and grading coins with Steve Feltner and David McCarthy for a few days. If you don't know who they are, ask around. We sat in a dark room for 8 hours a day grading coins, and Steve would vocalize his stream of consciousness whenever he revealed the grade. ( a fantastic opportunity and learning experience, if either of you could ever make it. I encourage all collectors to take grading classes at summer seminar if possible, probably the best $2,000 I've ever spent (all in, Including flights, lodging and meals). I also go to all the major shows, for a few days each and view thousands of coins. Not to mention the fact that I spend hours every day combing through auction records, and buying and selling coins. At the level I participate, it gets expensive REAL fast if you don't know how to grade.
My point is, you do not learn about how a service grades from a 3 page website with an FAQ section. Everyone knows that, including both of you. So I emphasize, why is it an obstacle that you both can not overcome? Can it be better? Absolutely, but it has no bearing on anything. It's directed towards laymen who have just begun to dip their toes in the CAC water, and after that you need to get your hands dirty if you want to learn anything.
The best way I can break it down is the classic anecdote of the big corporate behemoth store vs the small Mom & Pop outfit. They might not take online orders or let you use apple pay, but the end product is just the same if not better, i and you don't mind making some comprimises because of the convenience. The compromise with CAC/G is that their verbiage isn't clear and you may have to experiment or do your own due diligence to see if it has value to you. Don't like it? Fine, dont use it. Theyre not begging for your business, and they'll be just fine without you. JA has been doing what he does for 40 years, and the way he grades isn't going to change anytime soon. It's not that he isn't trying to be transparent, its that him trying to put the thought process of how he grades into words is a futile and superlative exercise. You want to learn how CAC or CACG grades? Look at many coins in their holders, or start submitting coins yourself. Same way you have to learn how PCGS or NGC grades.
You're demanding transparency when the concept of grading is fundamentally opaqe.
Let’s imagine that CAC puts up “defined” standards, along with a statement saying that "both" companies are applying those standards. They also issue a statement that Chris' comments do not reflect their policy. What do you think that would affect their daily operations? I’ll tell you...
NOTHING.
The irony is that the "lack of transparency" actually IS transparent in itself 😂. Why? Because the coin is only a 68 if JA, or Ron, or whoever is calling the shots decades from now says it is, and that goes for EVERY TPG. You arrived at that conclusion 1-2 posts back, but only myopically for CACG. You also keep neglecting to recognize the CACG grading sets which, as far as I know, are the first ones that are comprised of physical coins, that will forever will be a reference source for the graders long after JA has left the building.
Edit: and remember that the grading sets are used at both locations, while JA has an active role at both locations.
Imagine that you think you have a coin that meets the criteria in the definition of MS-68, as described on the PCGS website, but its got a carbon spot on the obverse.
"Only the slightest weakness in strike with a few tiny imperfections visible"
Well, that doesn’t appear to mention anything about spots, right? So then how do you determine what’s tiny and what’s not? You send the coin in again. The head grader at ___insert TPG here____ says "nope, I dont like it as a 68". Now what do can you do?
NOTHING
Except maybe...try it again in 6 months 😅.
Edit: and it’s important to remember my 50-53-58 example and read between the lines some. The goal is to be as consistent as possible, but even if you gave the 5 best graders in the world 25 coins to grade, and do that 10 times in a row spread out across a year, there’s going to be some coins fluctuating between grades. Not many, but at least 3-4 coins out of that group will sit on the line somewhere.
It’s only feel-good transparency. It's great for optics & PR but it has no inherent value. Does this mean that grading is just one big scam 😱? No, it’s not, because the services provide a tremendous value to non-expert level collectors, who used to get taken to the cleaners by dealers who took advantage of their trust & naïveté. From what I understand, JA saw that pattern beginning to take place again in the early 2000's, which is one of the reasons he started CAC in the first place.
If you're still not getting it, I really don't know what’s left to be said at this point. The goal posts keep getting moved on me throughout the discussion, and at this point you’d have to be making a concerted effort not to comprehend what I'm saying if it doesn’t make some sense after this post.
I offered to go out on a limb to ask him about this for you, directly, despite the fact that I and many others already knew the answer. Your response, demanding, not asking, that it must be in writing infers that you feel either his or my word is no good. Feels sort of insulting, considering that our word is all that we truly have at the end of it all. Life goes on, but I sincerely do hope that it does click for you one day... and you'll look back and realize that there was a good reason that "no one else seemed to care". It takes quite a bit of effort to put the concept of professional coin grading into words, and I’m probably wasting my breath, but maybe a couple folks will get something out of it.
One might ask-
“What is the solution to all of this?”
Buy the coins you like, cross them into the holders you desire with or without stickers, or don't. If you’re having fun, you’re doing it the right way, but try not to forget that most of it is just glitter and fancy packaging with a bow on top.
With that, I’ll see myself out before one of our resident trolls enters the thread to correct some minute detail of this long-winded dissertation.
🎤
💥
Screw the coins, are the cats ok?
Oh theyre fine, the orange one pushes stuff off the counter for fun.
@Manifest_Destiny said: @lilolme Thanks for that. The editor gets the point that several of us are trying to make. CACG needs to acknowledge the standards change and stop pretending that they use CAC stickering standards.
And now youre back at square one. Stop trying to make the same exact point, and try to understand my last explanation. It's not that hard. There's a reason you're the only one relentlessley whining about it, and why you get needled by feld for being obtuse. It sucks the life out of the forum, quit your bitching and enjoy your coins.
@PeakRarities said:
My cats just shattered a glass vase downstairs that I had to tend to, now that I'm awake I figure I may as well try to put this one to bed and leave it on a positive note. Matthew Mcconaughey is a tough act to follow, but I'll do my best to make this VERY clear, so please read my post slowly and carefully.
I did in fact read what @Manifest_Destiny wrote, just as did when you wrote the same thing. MD thinks I'm missing his point, but I dont miss very much and I say that he is missing the forest for the trees. MD also stated that i make "extraordinary". contributions, but ask yourself if that's true, could I really be that obtuse to the point where I dont understand what youre saying? I've addressed it multiple times, but perhaps I wasnt clear enough....😓
I DONT REALLY CARE WHAT THE WEBSITE SAYS, AND NEITHER SHOULD EITHER OF YOU.
I have already acknowledged that some of what is written there contradicts what is applied in practice, but I guess I fail to understand why you two are making it out to be some clandestine affair. First of all, CAC did not "Publish Standards" like PCGS has. It's informatiom from the FAQ section. I've seen older interviews where JA has said something similar.
I'm not going to explain why he did that, again, but I will absolutely concede that their PR and marketing language leaves much to be desired and it should be corrected. But, heres the thing- I dont care.
It doesn't affect me, nor does it have an influence how they grade coins. It doesnt effect you or MD either, so why are you guys so hung up on that? You cannot accurately define grading standards in words, and though I've already hammered that point, I'm going to keep at it until it sinks in. Here is the PCGS definition of the standard for MS-66.
"Well struck with a few marks or hairlines, not in focal areas"
Here's an MS-66 1921 peace from coinfacts.
Its totally flat in the center obverse, and its got two nicks with depth on the eyebrow, which I think we all can agree for the most part is a focal area. So, neither of the things listed in the "definition" seem to be the case, but yet the coin got a 66. I didn't have to look hard for this, and it may be a lower hanging fruit but I could do this all day.
What happened was, the graders probably figured that it has great luster and color, and the eye appeal is enough to overcome the weak strike and eyebrow hits at this grade level, for this issue. They ask themselves, "should this coin be worth 66 money" and evidently they arrived at a consensus of "Yes". You might ask, how would I know what their thought process on a coin like this is? I'll give you a hint. It was NOT on their website, or in their "published standards", whatever the heck that means.
I learned that by going to summer seminar and grading coins with Steve Feltner and David McCarthy for a few days. If you don't know who they are, ask around. We sat in a dark room for 8 hours a day grading coins, and Steve would vocalize his stream of consciousness whenever he revealed the grade. ( a fantastic opportunity and learning experience, if either of you could ever make it. I encourage all collectors to take grading classes at summer seminar if possible, probably the best $2,000 I've ever spent (all in, Including flights, lodging and meals). I also go to all the major shows, for a few days each and view thousands of coins. Not to mention the fact that I spend hours every day combing through auction records, and buying and selling coins. At the level I participate, it gets expensive REAL fast if you don't know how to grade.
My point is, you do not learn about how a service grades from a 3 page website with an FAQ section. Everyone knows that, including both of you. So I emphasize, why is it an obstacle that you both can not overcome? Can it be better? Absolutely, but it has no bearing on anything. It's directed towards laymen who have just begun to dip their toes in the CAC water, and after that you need to get your hands dirty if you want to learn anything.
The best way I can break it down is the classic anecdote of the big corporate behemoth store vs the small Mom & Pop outfit. They might not take online orders or let you use apple pay, but the end product is just the same if not better, i and you don't mind making some comprimises because of the convenience. The compromise with CAC/G is that their verbiage isn't clear and you may have to experiment or do your own due diligence to see if it has value to you. Don't like it? Fine, dont use it. Theyre not begging for your business, and they'll be just fine without you. JA has been doing what he does for 40 years, and the way he grades isn't going to change anytime soon. It's not that he isn't trying to be transparent, its that him trying to put the thought process of how he grades into words is a futile and superlative exercise. You want to learn how CAC or CACG grades? Look at many coins in their holders, or start submitting coins yourself. Same way you have to learn how PCGS or NGC grades.
You're demanding transparency when the concept of grading is fundamentally opaqe.
Let’s imagine that CAC puts up “defined” standards, along with a statement saying that "both" companies are applying those standards. They also issue a statement that Chris' comments do not reflect their policy. What do you think that would affect their daily operations? I’ll tell you...
NOTHING.
The irony is that the "lack of transparency" actually IS transparent in itself 😂. Why? Because the coin is only a 68 if JA, or Ron, or whoever is calling the shots decades from now says it is, and that goes for EVERY TPG. You arrived at that conclusion 1-2 posts back, but only myopically for CACG. You also keep neglecting to recognize the CACG grading sets which, as far as I know, are the first ones that are comprised of physical coins, that will forever will be a reference source for the graders long after JA has left the building.
Edit: and remember that the grading sets are used at both locations, while JA has an active role at both locations.
Imagine that you think you have a coin that meets the criteria in the definition of MS-68, as described on the PCGS website, but its got a carbon spot on the obverse.
"Only the slightest weakness in strike with a few tiny imperfections visible"
Well, that doesn’t appear to mention anything about spots, right? So then how do you determine what’s tiny and what’s not? You send the coin in again. The head grader at ___insert TPG here____ says "nope, I dont like it as a 68". Now what do can you do?
NOTHING
Except maybe...try it again in 6 months 😅.
Edit: and it’s important to remember my 50-53-58 example and read between the lines some. The goal is to be as consistent as possible, but even if you gave the 5 best graders in the world 25 coins to grade, and do that 10 times in a row spread out across a year, there’s going to be some coins fluctuating between grades. Not many, but at least 3-4 coins out of that group will sit on the line somewhere.
It’s only feel-good transparency. It's great for optics & PR but it has no inherent value. Does this mean that grading is just one big scam 😱? No, it’s not, because the services provide a tremendous value to non-expert level collectors, who used to get taken to the cleaners by dealers who took advantage of their trust & naïveté. From what I understand, JA saw that pattern beginning to take place again in the early 2000's, which is one of the reasons he started CAC in the first place.
If you're still not getting it, I really don't know what’s left to be said at this point. The goal posts keep getting moved on me throughout the discussion, and at this point you’d have to be making a concerted effort not to comprehend what I'm saying if it doesn’t make some sense after this post.
I offered to go out on a limb to ask him about this for you, directly, despite the fact that I and many others already knew the answer. Your response, demanding, not asking, that it must be in writing infers that you feel either his or my word is no good. Feels sort of insulting, considering that our word is all that we truly have at the end of it all. Life goes on, but I sincerely do hope that it does click for you one day... and you'll look back and realize that there was a good reason that "no one else seemed to care". It takes quite a bit of effort to put the concept of professional coin grading into words, and I’m probably wasting my breath, but maybe a couple folks will get something out of it.
One might ask-
“What is the solution to all of this?”
Buy the coins you like, cross them into the holders you desire with or without stickers, or don't. If you’re having fun, you’re doing it the right way, but try not to forget that most of it is just glitter and fancy packaging with a bow on top.
With that, I’ll see myself out before one of our resident trolls enters the thread to correct some minute detail of this long-winded dissertation.
🎤
💥
Screw the coins, are the cats ok?
Oh theyre fine, the orange one pushes stuff off the counter for fun.
Had an orange one that swiped credit cards and silver coins off my desk. Found them all in a hidden pile after searching.
It's not a conspiracy, and there's no "wink, wink", and no one cares accept for a select few people, because they feel like they've been lied to, when the fact of the matter was that it was a cute little child's tale that doesn't make sense anymore. If anything it would be a white lie. It's not exactly, because it's an inneficient way to explain the thought process, but its a relatively efficient way to compare the scale. It doesnt bode well now that jig is up, and the "C coins" can't conveniently be lumped together to keep an interview shorter.
I think you made you belief in JA's abilities more than clear, Sledgehammering that is not relevant No one, I believe, has questioned his reputation-- in any way--nor has alleged a conspiracy, To be crystal clear, the issue is with the lack of written policy from--- the company. Period.
Boomer advice--so discard at will--always served me to listen to what is actually being said, rather than implying things based on my own biases, Learned a lot from other doing so, and has help me avoid many potential significant misunderstandings,
You're not wrong. I'm a big CAC fan but even the biggest kool-aid drinker would readily admit that their marketing, technology, and PR is subpar.
What do you think accounts for that? Ask because there are many sophisticated , experienced principals involved.
I think it's just a matter of scale and infrastructure. PCGS has had a long time and has many people and spent a lot of money to develop these important but secondary functions. I think CAC will get there; they have really good people who care a lot. But PCGS has a 30+year head start.
Appreciate the reply. . All a guess as venture is privately held, but if principals are who they are rumored to be, a lack of capitol to rapidly scale should not be a concern. Could very well be teething pains from a premature launch. or signs of a company in flux, Don't think they are advancing their brand by leaving ambiguities/ concerns out there. Company did have a soft launch 6/23, and full launch 10/23. Seems ample time has gone by for sophisticated principles to issue a coherent written statement. Lack of communication remains a continuing non trivial concern. Would like to see statements concerning grading standards, and potential conflicts. Do not believe either is unreasonable. Statements from "third party's in the know" do make me think, well if the company is able to speak informally to individuals, why can't it say those same things --itself-- publicly. Have not seen a good explanation for that so far. Just becomes about personalities and reputations, the later of which I do not question.
And what is the point of the trolling, though? Do you just live and thrive to make criticism's about other entities and people, or do you have an interest in coins at all? I know you're not someone with grading knowledge, because you clamor for "published grading standards" when they'd be of about as much value as a roll of toilet paper.
There hasn't been an "informal statement to parties in the know" as far as I'm aware, John just confirming to me what has been known all along is far from a statement. Chris is a junior level grader and wasn't making a statement on behalf of the organization. He was just informally posting what he thought was the truth at the time, on a post from a thread that I have'nt seen yet. I won't dispute the lack of clarity or communication, but again, is that the entire reason you're on this forum? You spoke in circles last time, so what is the actual concern in plain English?
Can you name one specific potential conflict you would like clarity on, and just explain how it negatively affects the consumer. You have yet to do so, even when requested on the other thread.
It's not a conspiracy, and there's no "wink, wink", and no one cares accept for a select few people, because they feel like they've been lied to, when the fact of the matter was that it was a cute little child's tale that doesn't make sense anymore. If anything it would be a white lie. It's not exactly, because it's an inneficient way to explain the thought process, but its a relatively efficient way to compare the scale. It doesnt bode well now that jig is up, and the "C coins" can't conveniently be lumped together to keep an interview shorter.
I think you made you belief in JA's abilities more than clear, Sledgehammering that is not relevant No one, I believe, has questioned his reputation-- in any way--nor has alleged a conspiracy, To be crystal clear, the issue is with the lack of written policy from--- the company. Period.
Boomer advice--so discard at will--always served me to listen to what is actually being said, rather than implying things based on my own biases, Learned a lot from other doing so, and has help me avoid many potential significant misunderstandings,
I don't need your advice, my reading comprehension abilities are fine, but what exactly is it you want me to listen? I just dismantled several points of your argument and I'm still unclear on what you're inferring is a potential conflict. Millenial advice - If you're going to try to infer bias' or potential conflicts, make sure that your argument is'nt based on a nonexistent evidence, such as an imaginary "informal statement"and an ambiguous conflict which has not been yet put forth.
Also millenial advice- Learn to grade, and you'll never place any value on "published standards" again.
@Manifest_Destiny said: @lilolme Thanks for that. The editor gets the point that several of us are trying to make. CACG needs to acknowledge the standards change and stop pretending that they use CAC stickering standards.
And now youre back at square one. Stop trying to make the same exact point, and try to understand my last explanation. It's not that hard. There's a reason you're the only one relentlessley whining about it, and why you get needled by feld for being obtuse. It sucks the life out of the forum, quit your bitching and enjoy your coins.
Um, ok. I get it now. The part on the CAC website about "C" coins being accurately graded was just BS to keep from hurting Billy's feelings and I should have known that and moved on. I don't have the advantage of having direct conversations with JA to know which are the children's tales meant for the masses and what's the actual scoop. Going forward, I'll take your word for all things JA related and ignore anything published on their website. Thanks for your time and consideration in clearing this up.
Also, the only point that was "sledgehammered" was the fact that there is a lack of communication and clarity, to which I have agreed. In fact, there hasn't been another point made.
Still waiting to hear the potential conflict of concern, I'll continue to wait.
@Manifest_Destiny said: @lilolme Thanks for that. The editor gets the point that several of us are trying to make. CACG needs to acknowledge the standards change and stop pretending that they use CAC stickering standards.
And now youre back at square one. Stop trying to make the same exact point, and try to understand my last explanation. It's not that hard. There's a reason you're the only one relentlessley whining about it, and why you get needled by feld for being obtuse. It sucks the life out of the forum, quit your bitching and enjoy your coins.
Um, ok. I get it now. The part on the CAC website about "C" coins being accurately graded was just BS to keep from hurting Billy's feelings and I should have known that and moved on. I don't have the advantage of having direct conversations with JA to know which are the children's tales meant for the masses and what's the actual scoop. Going forward, I'll take your word for all things JA related and ignore anything published on their website. Thanks for your time and consideration in clearing this up.
If you would have absorbed the long comment about the grading system, and picked up on my point about the coin that went all the way across the AU spectrum, you would have understood there cant be C coins to begin with. Mondays C coin is thursdays B coin. Standards fluctutate over time. You don't need to have direct conversations wit JA, anyone who knows how to grade or has been around for a while knows that ABC is for laymen, but I was trying not to sound like an ass so I tried to go the long way and break down the concept.
Most of what I said is information sponged up from he most knowledgeable numismatist and researcher currently alive, in my opinion. If you spent any considerable time with him, you would know what im talking about, but this is all information that took me serveral years to sponge up. It's a tough mental barrier to break, but once you do the grading game starts to make sense, and ABC sounds ludicrous to begin with.
Now lets see what the wanna-be corporate shill alleges is a potential conflict, in LAYMEN's terms, just like I have done to make my points. I say wannabe because his argument has no meat on it, there's nothing of substance. If you are on the clock, you must have been a cheap one. This is child's play, I see right through it.
Anonymous profiles should be disabled. They enable troll like behavior, and they provide a cloak that hides the fact that he ain't here to talk coins. Prove me wrong, let's see what you collect, "JCH22".
@Manifest_Destiny said: @lilolme Thanks for that. The editor gets the point that several of us are trying to make. CACG needs to acknowledge the standards change and stop pretending that they use CAC stickering standards.
And now youre back at square one. Stop trying to make the same exact point, and try to understand my last explanation. It's not that hard. There's a reason you're the only one relentlessley whining about it, and why you get needled by feld for being obtuse. It sucks the life out of the forum, quit your bitching and enjoy your coins.
Um, ok. I get it now. The part on the CAC website about "C" coins being accurately graded was just BS to keep from hurting Billy's feelings and I should have known that and moved on. I don't have the advantage of having direct conversations with JA to know which are the children's tales meant for the masses and what's the actual scoop. Going forward, I'll take your word for all things JA related and ignore anything published on their website. Thanks for your time and consideration in clearing this up.
If you would have absorbed the long comment about the grading system, and picked up on my point about the coin that went all the way across the AU spectrum, you would have understood there cant be C coins to begin with. Mondays C coin is thursdays B coin. Standards fluctutate over time. You don't need to have direct conversations wit JA, anyone who knows how to grade or has been around for a while knows that ABC is for laymen, but I was trying not to sound like an ass so I tried to go the long way and break down the concept.
Most of what I said is information sponged up from he most knowledgeable numismatist and researcher currently alive, in my opinion. If you spent any considerable time with him, you would know what im talking about, but this is all information that took me serveral years to sponge up. It's a tough mental barrier to break, but once you do the grading game starts to make sense, and ABC sounds ludicrous to begin with.
Ok. The only thing I cared about was knowing the C coin thing was BS. I guess I was just supposed to know that. I'm glad we're all on the same page with that now.
@Manifest_Destiny said: @lilolme Thanks for that. The editor gets the point that several of us are trying to make. CACG needs to acknowledge the standards change and stop pretending that they use CAC stickering standards.
And now youre back at square one. Stop trying to make the same exact point, and try to understand my last explanation. It's not that hard. There's a reason you're the only one relentlessley whining about it, and why you get needled by feld for being obtuse. It sucks the life out of the forum, quit your bitching and enjoy your coins.
Um, ok. I get it now. The part on the CAC website about "C" coins being accurately graded was just BS to keep from hurting Billy's feelings and I should have known that and moved on. I don't have the advantage of having direct conversations with JA to know which are the children's tales meant for the masses and what's the actual scoop. Going forward, I'll take your word for all things JA related and ignore anything published on their website. Thanks for your time and consideration in clearing this up.
If you would have absorbed the long comment about the grading system, and picked up on my point about the coin that went all the way across the AU spectrum, you would have understood there cant be C coins to begin with. Mondays C coin is thursdays B coin. Standards fluctutate over time. You don't need to have direct conversations wit JA, anyone who knows how to grade or has been around for a while knows that ABC is for laymen, but I was trying not to sound like an ass so I tried to go the long way and break down the concept.
Most of what I said is information sponged up from he most knowledgeable numismatist and researcher currently alive, in my opinion. If you spent any considerable time with him, you would know what im talking about, but this is all information that took me serveral years to sponge up. It's a tough mental barrier to break, but once you do the grading game starts to make sense, and ABC sounds ludicrous to begin with.
Ok. The only thing I cared about was knowing the C coin thing was BS. I guess I was just supposed to know that. I'm glad we're all on the same page with that now.
MOST of us are. We all agree some clarity by CACG would be helpful, but I'm still waiting to hear about this "potential conflict" by mr. anonymous.
I find it ironic that he showed up around the time of the "potential conflict" thread that was bumped recently......I have my suspicions but I'll wait to hear more.
@PeakRarities said:
Now lets see what the wanna-be corporate shill alleges
I don't engage personal attacks, Just mentioning to save you more keystrokes, Have a good day.
Deuces, you thought you were picking up steam here when you got a couple likes, but there’s here for all the wrong reasons. Prove us wrong somehow, hit a home run for me and I’ll be happy to eat my words. We can make it interesting if you want.
Either that, or tell me what the potential conflict is? It’s a recurring theme this past week and I have yet to hear a potential example of it,
@DocBenjamin said:
Still not sure what the green bean facsimile means. Is it the equivalent of a CAC green stickered coin or just more contrived confusion from Mr. A?
@DocBenjamin said:
Still not sure what the green bean facsimile means. Is it the equivalent of a CAC green stickered coin or just more contrived confusion from Mr. A?
Go ahead and play the “feeble old boomer” role whenever you get called out or have nothing to say. Though you pretend to be “offended” and clutch your pearls, your feelings are fine. Let me call the waaambulance for you, because my “personal attack” of calling you a troll who evidently isn’t an experienced grader. Further evidence in addition to your private profile, and the fact that every one of your posts here has either been a criticism of CAC or a criticism of me.
Where you went wrong, was accusing me of letting my bias’ cloud my reading comprehension. That’s just straight up nonsense, I’m open to changing my mind about a topic, at least once you say or show something of substance. I think JA is a honest person with good intentions, and so do many others here. Could I be wrong? Sure, but you have to prove me wrong first.
I have no blind loyalty, I collect coins. Just about of all my coins are pcgs/cac stickered but guess what? I don’t need CAC to buy coins, my collection is CAC because I prefer it, as does the market. I also like continuity, and for now my coins are in the right holders. You’ll never make a point here because you have no point to make. There’s enough context clues that indicate to me you’re only here to stir the pot, and until you lead me to believe otherwise I guess we’re at a stalemate.
Not sure if you’ve seen the wire, but like Omar says- You want to take a shot my way, you best not miss 😊.
It appears that you don’t engage in answering direct questions, either, even if they’re asked in order to clarify your own posts and opinions.
What might those be Mark. Already mentioned the reason for not engaging in hypos on conflicts with that poster earlier in the thread.
You’re the one who brought up potential conflicts. Yet, when asked to present scenarios, you don’t want to engage in hypotheticals.
Correct. And i stand by the reasons i already stated for why. The formula was presented for evaluating conflicts.
You don't think if I give hypos, we wont just end upn up discussing ?
You may recall another topic that went off the rails where the criminal burden if proof was carelessly raised…….
It appears that you don’t engage in answering direct questions, either, even if they’re asked in order to clarify your own posts and opinions.
What might those be Mark. Already mentioned the reason for not engaging in hypos on conflicts with that poster earlier in the thread.
You’re the one who brought up potential conflicts. Yet, when asked to present scenarios, you don’t want to engage in hypotheticals.
Correct. And i stand by the reasons i already stated for why. The formula was presented for evaluating conflicts.
You don't think if I give hypos, we wont just end upn up discussing ?
You may recall another topic that went off the rails where the criminal burden if proof was carelessly raised…….
I’m through trying to have any meaningful dialog with you.
Thank you for your many solid contributions to this and other threads since you (re)joined the forum.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@DocBenjamin said:
Still not sure what the green bean facsimile means. Is it the equivalent of a CAC green stickered coin or just more contrived confusion from Mr. A?
Apparently 200 posts later, the latter.
You nailed it - the green bean facsimile is “more contrived confusion from Mr. A.”
In fact, rumor has it that he spent 3 years working on it so he could confuse as many people as possible in order to reap huge financial rewards.
But in case somehow, you’re genuinely confused and not just stooping to a ridiculous insinuation, I’ll give you a very helpful hint.
It’s either:
A) an NGC mascot a PCGS mascot
or
C) CAC’s mascot.
PS - I take it back. Either way, you were stooping to a ridiculous insinuation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@DocBenjamin said:
Still not sure what the green bean facsimile means. Is it the equivalent of a CAC green stickered coin or just more contrived confusion from Mr. A?
Apparently 200 posts later, the latter.
You nailed it - the green bean facsimile is “more contrived confusion from Mr. A.”
In fact, rumor has it that he spent 3 years working on it so he could confuse as many people as possible in order to reap huge financial rewards.
But in case somehow, you’re genuinely confused and not just stooping to a ridiculous insinuation, I’ll give you a very helpful hint.
It’s either:
A) an NGC mascot a PCGS mascot
or
C) CAC’s mascot.
PS - I take it back. Either way, you were stooping to a ridiculous insinuation.
Rare photo of the mascot shortly after being born.
Mark, when you were an independent dealer, you got a time out and then was banned from this forum for calling out PCGS on the First Strike designation.
Not all grader moves are altruistic. Speaking up is not always easy but it is always necessary for the benefit of the hobby.
@DocBenjamin said:
Mark, when you were an independent dealer, you got a time out and then was banned from this forum for calling out PCGS on the First Strike designation.
Not all grader moves are altruistic. Speaking up is not always easy but it is always necessary for the benefit of the hobby.
I don’t disagree with any of the above. But, as you know, it has nothing to do with asking if the CAC mascot was “more contrived confusion from Mr. A.”
What was your previous identity here?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Goodness five pages of nonsense from a couple of trolls with private profiles to hide behind asking for (actually demanding) clarity, full disclosure, and transparency. How ironic.
@DocBenjamin said:
Mark, when you were an independent dealer, you got a time out and then was banned from this forum for calling out PCGS on the First Strike designation.
Not all grader moves are altruistic. Speaking up is not always easy but it is always necessary for the benefit of the hobby.
I don’t disagree with any of the above. But, as you know, it has nothing to do with asking if the CAC mascot was “more contrived confusion from Mr. A.”
What was your previous identity here?
My name is Glicker. We share the same first name.
Not sure if you are confusing mascot with logo. The green CAC sticker likeness is what I am referring to and what if represents on a slab after being established as a verification vehicle, not the mascot that Destiny keeps posting.
@DocBenjamin said:
Mark, when you were an independent dealer, you got a time out and then was banned from this forum for calling out PCGS on the First Strike designation.
Not all grader moves are altruistic. Speaking up is not always easy but it is always necessary for the benefit of the hobby.
I don’t disagree with any of the above. But, as you know, it has nothing to do with asking if the CAC mascot was “more contrived confusion from Mr. A.”
What was your previous identity here?
My name is Glicker. We share the same first name.
Not sure if you are confusing mascot with logo. The green CAC sticker likeness is what I am referring to and what if represents on a slab after being established as a verification vehicle, not the mascot that Destiny keeps posting.
Thank you for your candidness in answering my question. I think I’ll end our discussion on that cheery note. Take care.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@DocBenjamin said:
Mark, when you were an independent dealer, you got a time out and then was banned from this forum for calling out PCGS on the First Strike designation.
Not all grader moves are altruistic. Speaking up is not always easy but it is always necessary for the benefit of the hobby.
I don’t disagree with any of the above. But, as you know, it has nothing to do with asking if the CAC mascot was “more contrived confusion from Mr. A.”
What was your previous identity here?
My name is Glicker. We share the same first name.
Not sure if you are confusing mascot with logo. The green CAC sticker likeness is what I am referring to and what if represents on a slab after being established as a verification vehicle, not the mascot that Destiny keeps posting.
Unfortunately the mascot turned to a life of crime.
@coinbuf said:
Goodness five pages of nonsense from a couple of trolls with private profiles to hide behind asking for (actually demanding) clarity, full disclosure, and transparency. How ironic.
Questioning the graders is not nonsense when a grade bump can take a ten thousand dollar coin to six figures. When David Hall left CU, it was revealed that a relative (unidentified) was a major submitter to PCGS. Is that a potential conflict?
D Hansen has a position in CACG. Is it a majority? Could it affect the grades he receives on his massive collection? Hope not.
What about DLRC which he is a principal in? And Does John Feigenbaum who I believe is still in control of Greysheet, does he still hold an interest in DLRC which his father founded, or CACG?
Good stuff to know, or you can just blindly trust the plastic.
It appears that you don’t engage in answering direct questions, either, even if they’re asked in order to clarify your own posts and opinions.
What might those be Mark. Already mentioned the reason for not engaging in hypos on conflicts with that poster earlier in the thread.
You’re the one who brought up potential conflicts. Yet, when asked to present scenarios, you don’t want to engage in hypotheticals.
Correct. And i stand by the reasons i already stated for why. The formula was presented for evaluating conflicts.
You don't think if I give hypos, we wont just end upn up discussing ?
You may recall another topic that went off the rails where the criminal burden if proof was carelessly raised…….
I’m through trying to have any meaningful dialog with you.
Thank you for your many solid contributions to this and other threads since you (re)joined the forum.
As you please, I am sorry you found my below prior response of, 8/26 unmeaningful.
... You latest inference, that my comfort level is the reason for a "hypothetical," is mistaken. When you look to conflicts, you look objectively. That means personalities must be taken out of the equation.
It is the model where multiple people are wearing multiple hats of buyer, grader(owner)/seller/dealer/ market maker (as you said) which is problematic. You reference to personalities is not relevant to an objective discussion of the model itself.
Could game out an objective scenario or two where wearing multiple hats could cause a clash of personal/professional interest. Think it best not to given things would likely revert right back to discussions of individuals....
Makes sense. And ALL of this could be cleared up if CACG would just admit that by stating what their standards are for slabbing "accurately graded C coins".
Unfortunately, the ABC thing has really spiraled out of control. Here's the thing. There is no such thing as a C coin. They are grading based on their unpublished grading standards, and CAC always stickered the same way.
The ABC scale was an attempt to explain the process to the laymen and to not broadly insult a huge swath of coins that JA believed were incorrectly graded. (Coins not stickered by JA but that nonetheless are owned by his clients and others).
If you ignore the ABC completely it will make this a lot easier.
I'm ok with that explanation. But again, CAC claims C coins are "accurately graded". They need to stop saying that. This is the transparency issue people like me keep bringing up.
What's frustrating is we're supposed to "wink, wink" know what CACG is really doing and ignore what they're saying.
I'll make it even simpler so we can drive a stake through the heart of this meaningless forum topic once and for all, and there is some common ground. I agree that its confusing and it doesn't fit well as it relates to CACG, but I feel like you might feel less strongly about once you finally realize theres no such thing as C coins. I will spoon feed it, if you don't get it now I'm afraid there's no hope...
Picture JA in a dark room under a grading lamp, unpacking a group of coins. Picks one up, rotates well under the light until he can make the call.
1."Do I like the coin is a 64? Yes, green sticker.
2. Do I like this coin as a 65? No..
3. Do i like this coin as a 63? Wow, this is a great 64. (Could be even better- gold sticker
Little Billy the YN asks JA why his "Gem" Walker didnt sticker at the Tampa, and instead of saying "Well Billy, your coin is an overgraded cat turd", he says "Well Billy it was a C coin, it just didnt make the cut".
By doing so he accomplishes-
Not making Billy (or the middle aged collector) cry.
Not Firing shots at companies who, at the time he could not disparage their grading publicly.
An palatable PR blanket statement simplifies things for easy digestion.
I can assume he probably didn't think much of it at the time, and would have known it would come back to bite him, the the landscape has changed while the wensite FAQ does not. Perhaps some might use ABC in their thought process, but that's definitely not how graders are taught.
It's not a conspiracy, and there's no "wink, wink", and no one cares accept for a select few people, because they feel like they've been lied to, when the fact of the matter was that it was a cute little child's tale that doesn't make sense anymore. If anything it would be a white lie. It's not exactly, because it's an inneficient way to explain the thought process, but its a relatively efficient way to compare the scale. It doesnt bode well now that jig is up, and the "C coins" can't conveniently be lumped together to keep an interview shorter.
Keep in mind that John Butler @JohnBCoins , who is also an decades long, expert-level grader who may or may not comment, but he would tell you the same thing that I am. John doesn't have to tell little Billy that his coin is an overgraded cat turd despite the fact that he grades coins the same way that all graders grade, because the coin came back in a 58+ holder.
I'm not trying to fan any flames or be difficult and I can be a bit dense. What you mean when you say there's no such thing as C coins? Are you missing a qualifier in that statement? Do you mean there's no CACG holdered (or stickered) C coins? From the CAC FAQ:
Surely you're not contesting the information here that for years dealers and collectors referred to some coins as C coins and C coins are just a myth that dealers and collectors discuss?
Makes sense. And ALL of this could be cleared up if CACG would just admit that by stating what their standards are for slabbing "accurately graded C coins".
Unfortunately, the ABC thing has really spiraled out of control. Here's the thing. There is no such thing as a C coin. They are grading based on their unpublished grading standards, and CAC always stickered the same way.
The ABC scale was an attempt to explain the process to the laymen and to not broadly insult a huge swath of coins that JA believed were incorrectly graded. (Coins not stickered by JA but that nonetheless are owned by his clients and others).
If you ignore the ABC completely it will make this a lot easier.
I'm ok with that explanation. But again, CAC claims C coins are "accurately graded". They need to stop saying that. This is the transparency issue people like me keep bringing up.
What's frustrating is we're supposed to "wink, wink" know what CACG is really doing and ignore what they're saying.
I'll make it even simpler so we can drive a stake through the heart of this meaningless forum topic once and for all, and there is some common ground. I agree that its confusing and it doesn't fit well as it relates to CACG, but I feel like you might feel less strongly about once you finally realize theres no such thing as C coins. I will spoon feed it, if you don't get it now I'm afraid there's no hope...
Picture JA in a dark room under a grading lamp, unpacking a group of coins. Picks one up, rotates well under the light until he can make the call.
1."Do I like the coin is a 64? Yes, green sticker.
2. Do I like this coin as a 65? No..
3. Do i like this coin as a 63? Wow, this is a great 64. (Could be even better- gold sticker
Little Billy the YN asks JA why his "Gem" Walker didnt sticker at the Tampa, and instead of saying "Well Billy, your coin is an overgraded cat turd", he says "Well Billy it was a C coin, it just didnt make the cut".
By doing so he accomplishes-
Not making Billy (or the middle aged collector) cry.
Not Firing shots at companies who, at the time he could not disparage their grading publicly.
An palatable PR blanket statement simplifies things for easy digestion.
I can assume he probably didn't think much of it at the time, and would have known it would come back to bite him, the the landscape has changed while the wensite FAQ does not. Perhaps some might use ABC in their thought process, but that's definitely not how graders are taught.
It's not a conspiracy, and there's no "wink, wink", and no one cares accept for a select few people, because they feel like they've been lied to, when the fact of the matter was that it was a cute little child's tale that doesn't make sense anymore. If anything it would be a white lie. It's not exactly, because it's an inneficient way to explain the thought process, but its a relatively efficient way to compare the scale. It doesnt bode well now that jig is up, and the "C coins" can't conveniently be lumped together to keep an interview shorter.
Keep in mind that John Butler @JohnBCoins , who is also an decades long, expert-level grader who may or may not comment, but he would tell you the same thing that I am. John doesn't have to tell little Billy that his coin is an overgraded cat turd despite the fact that he grades coins the same way that all graders grade, because the coin came back in a 58+ holder.
I'm not trying to fan any flames or be difficult and I can be a bit dense. What you mean when you say there's no such thing as C coins? Are you missing a qualifier in that statement? Do you mean there's no CACG holdered (or stickered) C coins? From the CAC FAQ:
Surely you're not contesting the information here that for years dealers and collectors referred to some coins as C coins and C coins are just a myth that dealers and collectors discuss?
Don't call me Shirley.
And yes, there is no such thing as C coins and never were. It was a short hand that JA used to explain the concept behind CAC Stickering to collectors without alienating the entire coin collecting community by deeming some coins, in his opinion, crap.
ABC unfortunately stuck around but it's not a grading strategy or the basis for any grades.
CAC will sticker coins that JA feels are appropriately graded by his standards and that he would be willing to buy sight unseen for market prices.
For CACG, the concept is similar but C coins are even more nonsensical because there is no longer a reference point of a P or N grade. There is only CACG 's opinion of what a coin's grade is; that may be similar, higher, or lower than anyone else's grade, it's simply their opinion just like every other TPG holdered coin.
Makes sense. And ALL of this could be cleared up if CACG would just admit that by stating what their standards are for slabbing "accurately graded C coins".
Unfortunately, the ABC thing has really spiraled out of control. Here's the thing. There is no such thing as a C coin. They are grading based on their unpublished grading standards, and CAC always stickered the same way.
The ABC scale was an attempt to explain the process to the laymen and to not broadly insult a huge swath of coins that JA believed were incorrectly graded. (Coins not stickered by JA but that nonetheless are owned by his clients and others).
If you ignore the ABC completely it will make this a lot easier.
I'm ok with that explanation. But again, CAC claims C coins are "accurately graded". They need to stop saying that. This is the transparency issue people like me keep bringing up.
What's frustrating is we're supposed to "wink, wink" know what CACG is really doing and ignore what they're saying.
I'll make it even simpler so we can drive a stake through the heart of this meaningless forum topic once and for all, and there is some common ground. I agree that its confusing and it doesn't fit well as it relates to CACG, but I feel like you might feel less strongly about once you finally realize theres no such thing as C coins. I will spoon feed it, if you don't get it now I'm afraid there's no hope...
Picture JA in a dark room under a grading lamp, unpacking a group of coins. Picks one up, rotates well under the light until he can make the call.
1."Do I like the coin is a 64? Yes, green sticker.
2. Do I like this coin as a 65? No..
3. Do i like this coin as a 63? Wow, this is a great 64. (Could be even better- gold sticker
Little Billy the YN asks JA why his "Gem" Walker didnt sticker at the Tampa, and instead of saying "Well Billy, your coin is an overgraded cat turd", he says "Well Billy it was a C coin, it just didnt make the cut".
By doing so he accomplishes-
Not making Billy (or the middle aged collector) cry.
Not Firing shots at companies who, at the time he could not disparage their grading publicly.
An palatable PR blanket statement simplifies things for easy digestion.
I can assume he probably didn't think much of it at the time, and would have known it would come back to bite him, the the landscape has changed while the wensite FAQ does not. Perhaps some might use ABC in their thought process, but that's definitely not how graders are taught.
It's not a conspiracy, and there's no "wink, wink", and no one cares accept for a select few people, because they feel like they've been lied to, when the fact of the matter was that it was a cute little child's tale that doesn't make sense anymore. If anything it would be a white lie. It's not exactly, because it's an inneficient way to explain the thought process, but its a relatively efficient way to compare the scale. It doesnt bode well now that jig is up, and the "C coins" can't conveniently be lumped together to keep an interview shorter.
Keep in mind that John Butler @JohnBCoins , who is also an decades long, expert-level grader who may or may not comment, but he would tell you the same thing that I am. John doesn't have to tell little Billy that his coin is an overgraded cat turd despite the fact that he grades coins the same way that all graders grade, because the coin came back in a 58+ holder.
I'm not trying to fan any flames or be difficult and I can be a bit dense. What you mean when you say there's no such thing as C coins? Are you missing a qualifier in that statement? Do you mean there's no CACG holdered (or stickered) C coins? From the CAC FAQ:
Surely you're not contesting the information here that for years dealers and collectors referred to some coins as C coins and C coins are just a myth that dealers and collectors discuss?
Don't call me Shirley.
And yes, there is no such thing as C coins and never were. It was a short hand that JA used to explain the concept behind CAC Stickering to collectors without alienating the entire coin collecting community by deeming some coins, in his opinion, crap.
ABC unfortunately stuck around but it's not a grading strategy or the basis for any grades.
CAC will sticker coins that JA feels are appropriately graded by his standards and that he would be willing to buy sight unseen for market prices.
For CACG, the concept is similar but C coins are even more nonsensical because there is no longer a reference point of a P or N grade. There is only CACG 's opinion of what a coin's grade is; that may be similar, higher, or lower than anyone else's grade, it's simply their opinion just like every other TPG holdered coin.
Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself. (At least not again, anyway. lol)
Comments
Thanks, I don't hate the slab either despite my tweaking the fan boys. It does have really good optics. They really should look into making it thinner though. At some point, it creates "distance" between the observer and the coin.
The thick insert also creates an optical illusion that the coin inside is smaller.
Appreciate the reply. . All a guess as venture is privately held, but if principals are who they are rumored to be, a lack of capitol to rapidly scale should not be a concern. Could very well be teething pains from a premature launch. or signs of a company in flux, Don't think they are advancing their brand by leaving ambiguities/ concerns out there. Company did have a soft launch 6/23, and full launch 10/23. Seems ample time has gone by for sophisticated principles to issue a coherent written statement. Lack of communication remains a continuing non trivial concern. Would like to see statements concerning grading standards, and potential conflicts. Do not believe either is unreasonable. Statements from "third party's in the know" do make me think, well if the company is able to speak informally to individuals, why can't it say those same things --itself-- publicly. Have not seen a good explanation for that so far. Just becomes about personalities and reputations, the later of which I do not question.
Glancing through again I picked up on another part of the discussion (I do Not read all of this stuff). So I think, I have seen this before. Some searching (not the soul type
) and here is a JA interview (I am guessing maybe there is a video of it or maybe not) that covers part of the discussion above.
I used a screen shot as the text copy and paste sometimes jumbles the format.
https://coinweek.com/a-cac-grading-service-coinweek-interview-with-john-albanese/
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
@lilolme Thanks for that. The editor gets the point that several of us are trying to make. CACG needs to acknowledge the standards change and stop pretending that they use CAC stickering standards.
IMO, there are things that CAC could have lined up prior to launching and should have. This includes communication. This may all stem from the beautique-like “mission statement”, which is laudable but may not be the best blueprint for a successful business.
Screw the coins, are the cats ok?
I'll make it even simpler so we can drive a stake through the heart of this meaningless forum topic once and for all, and there is some common ground. I agree that its confusing and it doesn't fit well as it relates to CACG, but I feel like you might feel less strongly about once you finally realize theres no such thing as C coins. I will spoon feed it, if you don't get it now I'm afraid there's no hope...
Picture JA in a dark room under a grading lamp, unpacking a group of coins. Picks one up, rotates well under the light until he can make the call.
1."Do I like the coin is a 64? Yes, green sticker.
2. Do I like this coin as a 65? No..
3. Do i like this coin as a 63? Wow, this is a great 64. (Could be even better- gold sticker
Little Billy the YN asks JA why his "Gem" Walker didnt sticker at the Tampa, and instead of saying "Well Billy, your coin is an overgraded cat turd", he says "Well Billy it was a C coin, it just didnt make the cut".
By doing so he accomplishes-
I can assume he probably didn't think much of it at the time, and would have known it would come back to bite him, the the landscape has changed while the wensite FAQ does not. Perhaps some might use ABC in their thought process, but that's definitely not how graders are taught.
It's not a conspiracy, and there's no "wink, wink", and no one cares accept for a select few people, because they feel like they've been lied to, when the fact of the matter was that it was a cute little child's tale that doesn't make sense anymore. If anything it would be a white lie. It's not exactly, because it's an inneficient way to explain the thought process, but its a relatively efficient way to compare the scale. It doesnt bode well now that jig is up, and the "C coins" can't conveniently be lumped together to keep an interview shorter.
Keep in mind that John Butler @JohnBCoins , who is also an decades long, expert-level grader who may or may not comment, but he would tell you the same thing that I am. John doesn't have to tell little Billy that his coin is an overgraded cat turd despite the fact that he grades coins the same way that all graders grade, because the coin came back in a 58+ holder.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Oh theyre fine, the orange one pushes stuff off the counter for fun.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
And now youre back at square one. Stop trying to make the same exact point, and try to understand my last explanation. It's not that hard. There's a reason you're the only one relentlessley whining about it, and why you get needled by feld for being obtuse. It sucks the life out of the forum, quit your bitching and enjoy your coins.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Had an orange one that swiped credit cards and silver coins off my desk. Found them all in a hidden pile after searching.
I think you made you belief in JA's abilities more than clear, Sledgehammering that is not relevant No one, I believe, has questioned his reputation-- in any way--nor has alleged a conspiracy, To be crystal clear, the issue is with the lack of written policy from--- the company. Period.
Boomer advice--so discard at will--always served me to listen to what is actually being said, rather than implying things based on my own biases, Learned a lot from other doing so, and has help me avoid many potential significant misunderstandings,
And what is the point of the trolling, though? Do you just live and thrive to make criticism's about other entities and people, or do you have an interest in coins at all? I know you're not someone with grading knowledge, because you clamor for "published grading standards" when they'd be of about as much value as a roll of toilet paper.
There hasn't been an "informal statement to parties in the know" as far as I'm aware, John just confirming to me what has been known all along is far from a statement. Chris is a junior level grader and wasn't making a statement on behalf of the organization. He was just informally posting what he thought was the truth at the time, on a post from a thread that I have'nt seen yet. I won't dispute the lack of clarity or communication, but again, is that the entire reason you're on this forum? You spoke in circles last time, so what is the actual concern in plain English?
Can you name one specific potential conflict you would like clarity on, and just explain how it negatively affects the consumer. You have yet to do so, even when requested on the other thread.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I don't need your advice, my reading comprehension abilities are fine, but what exactly is it you want me to listen? I just dismantled several points of your argument and I'm still unclear on what you're inferring is a potential conflict. Millenial advice - If you're going to try to infer bias' or potential conflicts, make sure that your argument is'nt based on a nonexistent evidence, such as an imaginary "informal statement"and an ambiguous conflict which has not been yet put forth.
Also millenial advice- Learn to grade, and you'll never place any value on "published standards" again.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Um, ok. I get it now. The part on the CAC website about "C" coins being accurately graded was just BS to keep from hurting Billy's feelings and I should have known that and moved on. I don't have the advantage of having direct conversations with JA to know which are the children's tales meant for the masses and what's the actual scoop. Going forward, I'll take your word for all things JA related and ignore anything published on their website. Thanks for your time and consideration in clearing this up.
Also, the only point that was "sledgehammered" was the fact that there is a lack of communication and clarity, to which I have agreed. In fact, there hasn't been another point made.
Still waiting to hear the potential conflict of concern, I'll continue to wait.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
If you would have absorbed the long comment about the grading system, and picked up on my point about the coin that went all the way across the AU spectrum, you would have understood there cant be C coins to begin with. Mondays C coin is thursdays B coin. Standards fluctutate over time. You don't need to have direct conversations wit JA, anyone who knows how to grade or has been around for a while knows that ABC is for laymen, but I was trying not to sound like an ass so I tried to go the long way and break down the concept.
Most of what I said is information sponged up from he most knowledgeable numismatist and researcher currently alive, in my opinion. If you spent any considerable time with him, you would know what im talking about, but this is all information that took me serveral years to sponge up. It's a tough mental barrier to break, but once you do the grading game starts to make sense, and ABC sounds ludicrous to begin with.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Now lets see what the wanna-be corporate shill alleges is a potential conflict, in LAYMEN's terms, just like I have done to make my points. I say wannabe because his argument has no meat on it, there's nothing of substance. If you are on the clock, you must have been a cheap one. This is child's play, I see right through it.
Anonymous profiles should be disabled. They enable troll like behavior, and they provide a cloak that hides the fact that he ain't here to talk coins. Prove me wrong, let's see what you collect, "JCH22".
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Ok. The only thing I cared about was knowing the C coin thing was BS. I guess I was just supposed to know that. I'm glad we're all on the same page with that now.
MOST of us are. We all agree some clarity by CACG would be helpful, but I'm still waiting to hear about this "potential conflict" by mr. anonymous.
I find it ironic that he showed up around the time of the "potential conflict" thread that was bumped recently......I have my suspicions but I'll wait to hear more.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I don't engage personal attacks, Just mentioning to save you more keystrokes, Have a good day.
Deuces, you thought you were picking up steam here when you got a couple likes, but there’s here for all the wrong reasons. Prove us wrong somehow, hit a home run for me and I’ll be happy to eat my words. We can make it interesting if you want.
Either that, or tell me what the potential conflict is? It’s a recurring theme this past week and I have yet to hear a potential example of it,
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Okay! I can’t wait to buy one. Gimme a couple days.
Edit: couldn’t wait. Sniped me one—
Don’t forget to post your first CAC slabbed coin.
Apparently 200 posts later, the latter.
It appears that you don’t engage in answering direct questions, either, even if they’re asked in order to clarify your own posts and opinions.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@JCH22
Go ahead and play the “feeble old boomer” role whenever you get called out or have nothing to say. Though you pretend to be “offended” and clutch your pearls, your feelings are fine. Let me call the waaambulance for you, because my “personal attack” of calling you a troll who evidently isn’t an experienced grader. Further evidence in addition to your private profile, and the fact that every one of your posts here has either been a criticism of CAC or a criticism of me.
Where you went wrong, was accusing me of letting my bias’ cloud my reading comprehension. That’s just straight up nonsense, I’m open to changing my mind about a topic, at least once you say or show something of substance. I think JA is a honest person with good intentions, and so do many others here. Could I be wrong? Sure, but you have to prove me wrong first.
I have no blind loyalty, I collect coins. Just about of all my coins are pcgs/cac stickered but guess what? I don’t need CAC to buy coins, my collection is CAC because I prefer it, as does the market. I also like continuity, and for now my coins are in the right holders. You’ll never make a point here because you have no point to make. There’s enough context clues that indicate to me you’re only here to stir the pot, and until you lead me to believe otherwise I guess we’re at a stalemate.
Not sure if you’ve seen the wire, but like Omar says- You want to take a shot my way, you best not miss 😊.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
What might those be Mark. Already mentioned the reason for not engaging in hypos on conflicts with that poster earlier in the thread.
You’re the one who brought up potential conflicts. Yet, when asked to present scenarios, you don’t want to engage in hypotheticals.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’m tempted to say something very offensive just to kill this thread, but don’t want to be banned.
Correct. And i stand by the reasons i already stated for why. The formula was presented for evaluating conflicts.
You don't think if I give hypos, we wont just end upn up discussing ?
You may recall another topic that went off the rails where the criminal burden if proof was carelessly raised…….
Typos…. End up discussing individuals….
I’m through trying to have any meaningful dialog with you.
Thank you for your many solid contributions to this and other threads since you (re)joined the forum.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
.
.
So is that the same as an MS-71 C coin?
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
This is me enjoying the show.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
You nailed it - the green bean facsimile is “more contrived confusion from Mr. A.”
In fact, rumor has it that he spent 3 years working on it so he could confuse as many people as possible in order to reap huge financial rewards.
But in case somehow, you’re genuinely confused and not just stooping to a ridiculous insinuation, I’ll give you a very helpful hint.
a PCGS mascot
It’s either:
A) an NGC mascot
or
C) CAC’s mascot.
PS - I take it back. Either way, you were stooping to a ridiculous insinuation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Rare photo of the mascot shortly after being born.
Mark, when you were an independent dealer, you got a time out and then was banned from this forum for calling out PCGS on the First Strike designation.
Not all grader moves are altruistic. Speaking up is not always easy but it is always necessary for the benefit of the hobby.
I don’t disagree with any of the above. But, as you know, it has nothing to do with asking if the CAC mascot was “more contrived confusion from Mr. A.”
What was your previous identity here?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Goodness five pages of nonsense from a couple of trolls with private profiles to hide behind asking for (actually demanding) clarity, full disclosure, and transparency. How ironic.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
My name is Glicker. We share the same first name.
Not sure if you are confusing mascot with logo. The green CAC sticker likeness is what I am referring to and what if represents on a slab after being established as a verification vehicle, not the mascot that Destiny keeps posting.
Thank you for your candidness in answering my question. I think I’ll end our discussion on that cheery note. Take care.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Unfortunately the mascot turned to a life of crime.
Questioning the graders is not nonsense when a grade bump can take a ten thousand dollar coin to six figures. When David Hall left CU, it was revealed that a relative (unidentified) was a major submitter to PCGS. Is that a potential conflict?
D Hansen has a position in CACG. Is it a majority? Could it affect the grades he receives on his massive collection? Hope not.
What about DLRC which he is a principal in? And Does John Feigenbaum who I believe is still in control of Greysheet, does he still hold an interest in DLRC which his father founded, or CACG?
Good stuff to know, or you can just blindly trust the plastic.
As you please, I am sorry you found my below prior response of, 8/26 unmeaningful.
... You latest inference, that my comfort level is the reason for a "hypothetical," is mistaken. When you look to conflicts, you look objectively. That means personalities must be taken out of the equation.
Potential conflicts abound in this life. A bit of cynicism and curiosity is healthy.
I'm not trying to fan any flames or be difficult and I can be a bit dense. What you mean when you say there's no such thing as C coins? Are you missing a qualifier in that statement? Do you mean there's no CACG holdered (or stickered) C coins? From the CAC FAQ:
Surely you're not contesting the information here that for years dealers and collectors referred to some coins as C coins and C coins are just a myth that dealers and collectors discuss?
Don't call me Shirley.
And yes, there is no such thing as C coins and never were. It was a short hand that JA used to explain the concept behind CAC Stickering to collectors without alienating the entire coin collecting community by deeming some coins, in his opinion, crap.
ABC unfortunately stuck around but it's not a grading strategy or the basis for any grades.
CAC will sticker coins that JA feels are appropriately graded by his standards and that he would be willing to buy sight unseen for market prices.
For CACG, the concept is similar but C coins are even more nonsensical because there is no longer a reference point of a P or N grade. There is only CACG 's opinion of what a coin's grade is; that may be similar, higher, or lower than anyone else's grade, it's simply their opinion just like every other TPG holdered coin.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself. (At least not again, anyway. lol)
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Everybody left and everybody came back.