"I think the upgrade sticker is a can of worms, as Russ indicated. I can see it now. One buys a coin with an upgrade sticker, cracks it out, sends it to the same TPG and it comes back a grade lower...or BB'ed. This scenario will happen, and it will be a 200+ post thread on the forum when it happens to one of us. Best bet in town."
Greed comes with risk- why not just be happy knowing you have a VERY PQ coin and sell it as a premium example when that time comes? Why crack it at all? CAC is just identifying a nice coin cracking it out is up to the owner.
I'm guessing liability concerns, specifically lawsuits alleging "loss of value" in their coins because CAC placed a scarlet letter on the slab.
Ziggy, I would think CAC was as entitled to an opinion as the next guy. I think they are afraid of giving collectors traction with the TPG's regarding grade guaranty. Instead of reforming the TPG's, they're opting to congratulate them for a fee.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Greed comes with risk- why not just be happy knowing you have a VERY PQ coin and sell it as a premium example when that time comes? Why crack it at all? CAC is just identifying a nice coin cracking it out is up to the owner. >>
Am I the only person confused by these rules and how they can be consistently applied?
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>Ziggy, I would think CAC was as entitled to an opinion as the next guy. I think they are afraid of giving collectors traction with the TPG's regarding grade guaranty. Instead of reforming the TPG's, they're opting to congratulate them for a fee. >>
That's possible, too. But I still think liability concerns are at least a part of it.
If you buy an 1896-O Morgan in PCGS/NGC 64 and the CAC marks that slab permanently (in a database by cert, presumably) as not worthy, good luck getting 64 money for it. Whereas you might have been able to get close to 64 money for it before (currently $45,000), the market may treat this one as 63 for all time -- and the 63 value is a drop to $7400.
I would agree that I don't think CAC wants to encourage people to send the coin back to the TPG and insist on using the grade guarantee, especially if they are trying to avoid antagonizing the TPG. But I could also see a litigious owner seeing compensation for an opinion that knocks 50-75% off of a coin's market value running into the tens of thousands.
I can just see the next Crackout Artist Convention.
CA #1: Hey, guys, remember how we used to have to look at thousands and thousands of coins to find candidates to crack out? CA #2: Yeah, man, this business is a lot of hard work to make a few bucks. CA #3: It would sure be nice if somebody would identify the undergraded stuff for us.
CA #1: Check this out! I just bought this collection, and there's a bunch of coins with little stickers that say "crack me out"!
<< <i>I can just see the next Crackout Artist Convention.
CA #1: Hey, guys, remember how we used to have to look at thousands and thousands of coins to find candidates to crack out? CA #2: Yeah, man, this business is a lot of hard work to make a few bucks. CA #3: It would sure be nice if somebody would identify the undergraded stuff for us.
CA #1: Check this out! I just bought this collection, and there's a bunch of coins with little stickers that say "crack me out"!
Russ, NCNE >>
It will never happen, they are all going to be out of business remember!!!
It is not exactly cheating, I prefer to consider it creative problem solving!!!
No offense to any interested parties, but the more I hear about the CAC, the less confident I am that they will achive MY GOALS for them. My goals would include discouraging the destruction of nice, original coins and bringing some consistency back to the grading process. Furthermore, I see the potential for more abuses and chicanery. I am getting a little burnt out by the hoops that I am having to jump through to get a decent coin.
In the old days, you had to find a nice coin and buy it. Then, it had to be certified. Then, it had to be certified by one of the top grading companies. Then, it had to be in a PCGS holder. Now, NGC is okay if it has a sticker. But wait, is PCGS okay without a sticker? How do I know if it has been tried for a sticker? Another sticker tells me to upgrade it, but it would be greedy of me to try. What about all the coins sold to me without stickers in the old era (prior to September, 2007) by CAC dealers? Should they get stickered? What if they don't qualify? Were the dealers selling me a bunch of crap? Should I only buy coins from CAC dealers that have stickers? Are they going to sell coins without stickers? What does it mean when they do sell a coin without a sticker? What if I don't like the look of a coin with a CAC sticker on it--is it better to buy a coin I don't like with a sticker or one that I do like without a sticker? Etc. (I am getting a headache. )
You know, I do admit that a lot of what the CAC makes sense. I really do. The problem is, that it only makes sense if EVERY coin is stickered. Certainly not every PQ coin will be stickered. I would expect less than 50% of them will be. So of those other 50% PQ coins, they will still be cracked and resubmitted. Maybe even doctored in between.
<< <i>No offense to any interested parties, but the more I hear about the CAC, the less confident I am that they will achive MY GOALS for them. My goals would include discouraging the destruction of nice, original coins and bringing some consistency back to the grading process. Furthermore, I see the potential for more abuses and chicanery. I am getting a little burnt out by the hoops that I am having to jump through to get a decent coin.
In the old days, you had to find a nice coin and buy it. Then, it had to be certified. Then, it had to be certified by one of the top grading companies. Then, it had to be in a PCGS holder. Now, NGC is okay if it has a sticker. But wait, is PCGS okay without a sticker? How do I know if it has been tried for a sticker? Another sticker tells me to upgrade it, but it would be greedy of me to try. What about all the coins sold to me without stickers in the old era (prior to September, 2007) by CAC dealers? Should they get stickered? What if they don't qualify? Were the dealers selling me a bunch of crap? Should I only buy coins from CAC dealers that have stickers? Are they going to sell coins without stickers? What does it mean when they do sell a coin without a sticker? What if I don't like the look of a coin with a CAC sticker on it--is it better to buy a coin I don't like with a sticker or one that I do like without a sticker? Etc. (I am getting a headache. ) >>
Nicely written.
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>Furthermore, I see the potential for more abuses and chicanery. I am getting a little burnt out by the hoops that I am having to jump through to get a decent coin. >>
Aye, 'tis true.
I've said all along that the group most screwed by more and more layers of "professional opinions" are the people who don't have infinitely deep pockets but have a good eye for locating quality. It used to be that people like that had an advantage in the market as they could pick out PQ coins without paying up to the next grade for them. These days, all that numismatic education and experience doesn't seem to give you as much of a leg up on the coin-buying competition as it used to.
In other words, people who knew how to find diamonds in the rough can't do that much any more, because all the diamonds are being taken out of the rough and placed in expensive presentation cases. Third party grading did that to some degree, and this just moves us closer to completing that process.
<< <i>And the upgrade sticker guarantees what????? >>
That the price will increase.
I'd still like to know if there are going to be different sets of criteria depending on if it's in PCGS or NGC plastic. Time and time again, I've read that coin is a 63x or 64y for whichever company. If some CAC members openly admit the two companies grade to different standards, how can the two be judged evenly? An MS65 same date/mint/series in the two companies holders can not be compared to each other evenly when they each use their own grading standards. If we're just comparing the coin to the grade on the plastic, how can they be even? If they pick a neutral grading standard - the ANA for instance, one service should consistantly get stickered while the other doesn't depending on if the grader believes that series is the 1 point higher or 1 point lower by their criteria.
I've said all along that the group most screwed by more and more layers of "professional opinions" are the people who don't have infinitely deep pockets but have a good eye for locating quality. It used to be that people like that had an advantage in the market as they could pick out PQ coins without paying up to the next grade for them. These days, all that numismatic education and experience doesn't seem to give you as much of a leg up on the coin-buying competition as it used to.
In other words, people who knew how to find diamonds in the rough can't do that much any more, because all the diamonds are being taken out of the rough and placed in expensive presentation cases. Third party grading did that to some degree, and this just moves us closer to completing that process.
A very excellent point! In other words, your mommy says you can go outside to play if you finish eating your peas first. Gads! I don't need anybody's permission to buy a coin if I like it. Period! End of Story!
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
In real life, the collecting community extends far beyond this chatroom [where everyone is an expert in their field and needs no advice whatsoever to ensure that they buy only PQ coins at rip prices]. Having John Albanese tell you that your coin is nicer than the grade on the holder is a very valuable service. Having the ability to keep your red copper in a rattler or OGH and participate in the Registry at a higher more appropriate grade is a very nice feature as well.
Not only that, but an awful lot of the wailing going on a few weeks ago was how the CAC was going to rip off collectors by cherrypicking their upgrade candidates for themselves. Now it's written that the CAC is going to identify the upgrade candidates for the collector and there's still wailing. Methinks smoe of you guys just like to wail a lot...
<< <i>So if it's got an upgrade sticker, you just send it in, right? >>
So, what happens if it gets the "upgrade" sticker and you send it in and it doesn't upgrade? Who do you sue??????
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
So with the name Collectors Acceptance Corporation that means the coins are going to be checked by collectors?? It seems to me the name should be Dealers Acceptance Corporation since they are the only one to have any input on what coins get stickered and which ones don't. Oh wait the dealers are the ones who hatched this scheme and they want to be the ones making all the money from it so making it seem like the collectors are the ones benefiting makes a good cover.
<< <i>Now it's written that the CAC is going to identify the upgrade candidates for the collector and there's still wailing. >>
Sorry, TDN, but stickering a coin as an upgrade candidate is a terrible idea. You know as well as anyone that it amounts to a neon sign flashing the message "Attention crackout artists, the CAC did the work for you!" It also adds a confusing layer to the process. They should just stick to a simple solid for the grade yes or no process.
TDN, any inkling why the decision was made to not publish the cert#'s that didn't warrant a sticker? Wouldn't that mean dealers were compelled to identify which coins they were marketing that the consortium wouldn't sticker? Wouldn't that make resubmission in the current holder unnecessary? Wouldn't that increase consistency of the service? Wouldn't that provide transparency, etc,etc,etc?
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Now it's written that the CAC is going to identify the upgrade candidates for the collector and there's still wailing. >>
Sorry, TDN, but stickering a coin as an upgrade candidate is a terrible idea. You know as well as anyone that it amounts to a neon sign flashing the message "Attention crackout artists, the CAC did the work for you!" It also adds a confusing layer to the process. They should just stick to a simple solid for the grade yes or no process.
Russ, NCNE >>
I think you are mistaken in your thinking about which coins will receive an upgrade sticker. Not a PQ coin that might work if you throw enough mud at the ceiling, but rather a lock upgrade that more than likely resides in a rattler or first generation NGC holder. You or I might identify this coin immediately upon first sight, but how about my heirs? This is a consumer protection feature and I like it. I also like the idea of being able to enter a coin on the Registry at a competition grade while retaining it in a rattler or OGH to prove the stability of the color.
<< <i>TDN, any inkling why the decision was made to not publish the cert#'s that didn't warrant a sticker? Wouldn't that mean dealers were compelled to identify which coins they were marketing that the consortium wouldn't sticker? Wouldn't that make resubmission in the current holder unnecessary? Wouldn't that increase consistency of the service? Wouldn't that provide transparency, etc,etc,etc? >>
I, as a collector, would be inclined NOT to send my coins in to be stickered if they were going to be permanently tainted by being listed somewhere forever as being rejected.
I, as a collector, would be inclined NOT to send my coins in to be stickered if they were going to be permanently tainted by being listed somewhere forever as being rejected.
Do you believe coins will be tried multiple times?
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>I think you are mistaken in your thinking about which coins will receive an upgrade sticker. Not a PQ coin that might work if you throw enough mud at the ceiling, but rather a lock upgrade that more than likely resides in a rattler or first generation NGC holder. >>
Nope, I'm not mistaken about what the sticker means. Perhaps I'm mistaken about the process, though. Are collectors allowed to submit directly to the CAC? If so, then I can see some of these upgrade stickered coins staying in collections. But, if collectors are not allowed to submit directly to the CAC, then what exactly will stop the crackout artists from seeking these coins and plying their trade?
And, even if the collector does submit directly, what's to stop the crackout artists from chasing that collector to get his coins?
<< <i>I also like the idea of being able to enter a coin on the Registry at a competition grade while retaining it in a rattler or OGH to prove the stability of the color. >>
Are you saying that a coin stickered as an upgrade can be entered in the registry at a grade higher than the holder label? If so, does this mean that PCGS has agreed to do this?
WOW! Now we get to pay for someone's opinion ABOUT someone else's opinion. This is ridiculous.
I do have one concern that's probably been voiced before. With all the gullible folk out there that will go for this, will that push down the values on coin collections (like mine) that will not have these lovely tamper-proof stickers on them?
Are you saying that a coin stickered as an upgrade can be entered in the registry at a grade higher than the holder label?
That would depend on what you mean when you say the registry.
If so, does this mean that PCGS has agreed to do this?
I highly doubt it since HRH rejected the idea long ago - tho it certainly makes sense to give Registry stickers to lock upgrades and even to other TPG holdered coins that won't cross.
One might wonder whether PCGS keeps a database of those coins that DIDN'T cross - if only to be consistent so that if it doesn't cross the 1st time it will NEVER cross a subsequent time - if not to summarily DNC it a second (or more) time around.
If they did, to make it public so that one wouldn't waste their money trying to cross it again would be a major plus for the potential submitters or even the "pre-purchase slab evaluators" (i.e. one could check their site to see if it had been attempted to be crossed PRIOR to buying it).
Of course, since to SAVE people from wasting grading fees is NOT in THEIR best interest, greed would thus prevent this as it would SUBSTANTIALLY decrease their revenues.
I can't count the number of times I've heard red copper collectors say that they wished there was a way they could keep their coins in the old holders so they could prove the coin was stable but have the coin compete head to head with looser graded coins. Now they get their wish.
<< <i>If they did, to make it public so that one wouldn't waste their money trying to cross it again would be a major plus for the potential submitters or even the "pre-purchase slab evaluators" (i.e. one could check their site to see if it had been attempted to be crossed PRIOR to buying it).
Of course, greed would prevent this as it would decrease SUBSTANTIALLY their revenues. >>
Even if they did keep such a list internally and didn't publish it, it would maximize revenue to let some get through once in a while. If they never did so, people would eventually wise up to it and stop trying to resubmit crossovers.
<< <i>Are you saying that a coin stickered as an upgrade can be entered in the registry at a grade higher than the holder label?
That would depend on what you mean when you say the registry.
If so, does this mean that PCGS has agreed to do this?
I highly doubt it since HRH rejected the idea long ago - tho it certainly makes sense to give Registry stickers to lock upgrades and even to other TPG holdered coins that won't cross. >>
Okay, then what exactly are you talking about when you say "I also like the idea of being able to enter a coin on the Registry at a competition grade while retaining it in a rattler or OGH to prove the stability of the color". Is the CAC creating a registry?
I am not spending any money on "high ticket" coins until some of this shakes out. I simply do not know what is going to happen and how it would affect a newer collector like me. Right now my money stays in my back pocket.
<< <i>I can't count the number of times I've heard red copper collectors say that they wished there was a way they could keep their coins in the old holders so they could prove the coin was stable but have the coin compete head to head with looser graded coins. Now they get their wish.
More wailing.... >>
Bruce, I don't think too many people are saying the idea has NO merit. But instead of acknowledging what I think are some very real and legitimate concerns from a collector standpoint, you seem to dismiss it as all "wailing" or whatever else.
I will be brutally honest -- I was mostly for this at first. The more details I hear, though, the less I think it benefits the majority of collectors. It seems to benefit dealers far more, and when it helps average collectors it seems more and more like serendipity than direct intent.
The concept of "crack me out" stickers, I think, has made it harder for me to keep a "wait and see" approach. If I have a good eye for finding exceptional quality for the grade, I don't see how it benefits me to be forced to pay up a lot more for that quality if it has an "upgrade me" sticker on it. That helps dealers (more money trading hands, more confidence in sight-unseen coin buying). That helps collectors who have more money than coin grading skills (money is no object). That helps pure investors (reduces uncertainty, and investors despise uncertainty in the markets). It does not seem to help knowledgeable collectors of moderate means.
<< <i>Keep seeing this mentioned, where is that info coming from? >>
Well, TDN says he's in for a million. Taking him at his word, that leaves another $24 million. Silent partners, perhaps? >>
So, how is it even germane? How much does it take to look at and sticker slabs? >>
Start-up expenses probably aren't too great as far as tangible items go. Advertising will probably eat up a little. I'm guessing insurance would be the bulk of their expenses initially if all the CAC members aren't insured enough to handle a few million in extra inventory. Out of curiosity, I just called my local anqiue shop and asked them how much liability/fire/theft insurance they have and they're only good up to 500,000. If the CAC is rotating the members to do the viewing/approving, are all the CAC members individual shops insured to handle an additional million or two in inventory should things get backlogged? The few bigger companies surely are, but I'm not sure who all will be receiving coins.
TDN: I, as a collector, would be inclined NOT to send my coins in to be stickered if they were going to be permanently tainted by being listed somewhere forever as being rejected.
I agree with you there, but on the otherhand, if the CAC is keeping an internal database of those not stickered (to keep consistancy between the reviewers), and it is not available to the public, wouldn't this create an unfair advantage for CAC members who can access that list? If a coin is on eBay and CAC members can check their own list and know it was once rejected, but the general public can't, it doesn't seem right. I'd rather everyone gets to see the list, than have just the CAC, or no list at all.
It would seem that the new CAC Lettering would eventualy lead to a possibly new type of system.Who knows at what level of numbering system it may lead to once the stickers are on.They got you ..hook.. line and ..sticker...!!
Comments
<< <i>Ah, it's all very clear now. The CAC can't stop coin doctors. Only the TPG's can stop coin doctors. But, the CAC will stop coin doctors. >>
the ANA, dealers, TPGs, and etc..
Greed comes with risk- why not just be happy knowing you have a VERY PQ coin and sell it as a premium example when that time comes? Why crack it at all? CAC is just identifying a nice coin cracking it out is up to the owner.
Ziggy, I would think CAC was as entitled to an opinion as the next guy. I think they are afraid of giving collectors traction with the TPG's regarding grade guaranty. Instead of reforming the TPG's, they're opting to congratulate them for a fee.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Greed comes with risk- why not just be happy knowing you have a VERY PQ coin and sell it as a premium example when that time comes? Why crack it at all? CAC is just identifying a nice coin cracking it out is up to the owner. >>
You can't possibly be this naive.
Russ, NCNE
Will CAC dealers/graders be submitting their coins for stickering?
Who is (who is not a part of the organazation) overseeing the operation (lot's of people trusted Tom Noe!)
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>Am I the only person confused by these rules and how they can be consistently applied? >>
Man, this opens up a couple of months worth of Longacre questions!!!
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>i cannot begin to describe my disappointment in the coin hobby,
the ANA, dealers, TPGs, and etc.. >>
fc, you are a collector yes? Well, this is all for you the collector. Silly you!
The break out A, B, C would be interesting to see after a large enough pool has been submitted.
I wouldn't expect people would intentionally submit C coins, so the data may be useless.
A witty saying proves nothing- Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor
does the truth become error because nobody will see it. -Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)
<< <i>Ziggy, I would think CAC was as entitled to an opinion as the next guy. I think they are afraid of giving collectors traction with the TPG's regarding grade guaranty. Instead of reforming the TPG's, they're opting to congratulate them for a fee. >>
That's possible, too. But I still think liability concerns are at least a part of it.
If you buy an 1896-O Morgan in PCGS/NGC 64 and the CAC marks that slab permanently (in a database by cert, presumably) as not worthy, good luck getting 64 money for it. Whereas you might have been able to get close to 64 money for it before (currently $45,000), the market may treat this one as 63 for all time -- and the 63 value is a drop to $7400.
I would agree that I don't think CAC wants to encourage people to send the coin back to the TPG and insist on using the grade guarantee, especially if they are trying to avoid antagonizing the TPG. But I could also see a litigious owner seeing compensation for an opinion that knocks 50-75% off of a coin's market value running into the tens of thousands.
CA #1: Hey, guys, remember how we used to have to look at thousands and thousands of coins to find candidates to crack out?
CA #2: Yeah, man, this business is a lot of hard work to make a few bucks.
CA #3: It would sure be nice if somebody would identify the undergraded stuff for us.
CA #1: Check this out! I just bought this collection, and there's a bunch of coins with little stickers that say "crack me out"!
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>I can just see the next Crackout Artist Convention.
CA #1: Hey, guys, remember how we used to have to look at thousands and thousands of coins to find candidates to crack out?
CA #2: Yeah, man, this business is a lot of hard work to make a few bucks.
CA #3: It would sure be nice if somebody would identify the undergraded stuff for us.
CA #1: Check this out! I just bought this collection, and there's a bunch of coins with little stickers that say "crack me out"!
Russ, NCNE >>
It will never happen, they are all going to be out of business remember!!!
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>At the same time collectors will understand that they have a coin worthy of a premium. >>
Of course they will, when they're walking bow-legged from the price they had to pay from participating dealers. I wonder if they get a kiss first.
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
In the old days, you had to find a nice coin and buy it. Then, it had to be certified. Then, it had to be certified by one of the top grading companies. Then, it had to be in a PCGS holder. Now, NGC is okay if it has a sticker. But wait, is PCGS okay without a sticker? How do I know if it has been tried for a sticker? Another sticker tells me to upgrade it, but it would be greedy of me to try. What about all the coins sold to me without stickers in the old era (prior to September, 2007) by CAC dealers? Should they get stickered? What if they don't qualify? Were the dealers selling me a bunch of crap? Should I only buy coins from CAC dealers that have stickers? Are they going to sell coins without stickers? What does it mean when they do sell a coin without a sticker? What if I don't like the look of a coin with a CAC sticker on it--is it better to buy a coin I don't like with a sticker or one that I do like without a sticker? Etc. (I am getting a headache.
<< <i>No offense to any interested parties, but the more I hear about the CAC, the less confident I am that they will achive MY GOALS for them. My goals would include discouraging the destruction of nice, original coins and bringing some consistency back to the grading process. Furthermore, I see the potential for more abuses and chicanery. I am getting a little burnt out by the hoops that I am having to jump through to get a decent coin.
In the old days, you had to find a nice coin and buy it. Then, it had to be certified. Then, it had to be certified by one of the top grading companies. Then, it had to be in a PCGS holder. Now, NGC is okay if it has a sticker. But wait, is PCGS okay without a sticker? How do I know if it has been tried for a sticker? Another sticker tells me to upgrade it, but it would be greedy of me to try. What about all the coins sold to me without stickers in the old era (prior to September, 2007) by CAC dealers? Should they get stickered? What if they don't qualify? Were the dealers selling me a bunch of crap? Should I only buy coins from CAC dealers that have stickers? Are they going to sell coins without stickers? What does it mean when they do sell a coin without a sticker? What if I don't like the look of a coin with a CAC sticker on it--is it better to buy a coin I don't like with a sticker or one that I do like without a sticker? Etc. (I am getting a headache.
Nicely written.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>Furthermore, I see the potential for more abuses and chicanery. I am getting a little burnt out by the hoops that I am having to jump through to get a decent coin. >>
Aye, 'tis true.
I've said all along that the group most screwed by more and more layers of "professional opinions" are the people who don't have infinitely deep pockets but have a good eye for locating quality. It used to be that people like that had an advantage in the market as they could pick out PQ coins without paying up to the next grade for them. These days, all that numismatic education and experience doesn't seem to give you as much of a leg up on the coin-buying competition as it used to.
In other words, people who knew how to find diamonds in the rough can't do that much any more, because all the diamonds are being taken out of the rough and placed in expensive presentation cases. Third party grading did that to some degree, and this just moves us closer to completing that process.
<< <i>And the upgrade sticker guarantees what????? >>
That the price will increase.
I'd still like to know if there are going to be different sets of criteria depending on if it's in PCGS or NGC plastic. Time and time again, I've read that coin is a 63x or 64y for whichever company. If some CAC members openly admit the two companies grade to different standards, how can the two be judged evenly? An MS65 same date/mint/series in the two companies holders can not be compared to each other evenly when they each use their own grading standards. If we're just comparing the coin to the grade on the plastic, how can they be even? If they pick a neutral grading standard - the ANA for instance, one service should consistantly get stickered while the other doesn't depending on if the grader believes that series is the 1 point higher or 1 point lower by their criteria.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
In other words, people who knew how to find diamonds in the rough can't do that much any more, because all the diamonds are being taken out of the rough and placed in expensive presentation cases. Third party grading did that to some degree, and this just moves us closer to completing that process.
A very excellent point! In other words, your mommy says you can go outside to play if you finish eating your peas first. Gads! I don't need anybody's permission to buy a coin if I like it. Period! End of Story!
I knew it would happen.
Not only that, but an awful lot of the wailing going on a few weeks ago was how the CAC was going to rip off collectors by cherrypicking their upgrade candidates for themselves. Now it's written that the CAC is going to identify the upgrade candidates for the collector and there's still wailing. Methinks smoe of you guys just like to wail a lot...
<< <i>So if it's got an upgrade sticker, you just send it in, right?
So, what happens if it gets the "upgrade" sticker and you send it in and it doesn't upgrade?
Who do you sue??????
<< <i>Now it's written that the CAC is going to identify the upgrade candidates for the collector and there's still wailing. >>
Sorry, TDN, but stickering a coin as an upgrade candidate is a terrible idea. You know as well as anyone that it amounts to a neon sign flashing the message "Attention crackout artists, the CAC did the work for you!" It also adds a confusing layer to the process. They should just stick to a simple solid for the grade yes or no process.
Russ, NCNE
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>
<< <i>Now it's written that the CAC is going to identify the upgrade candidates for the collector and there's still wailing. >>
Sorry, TDN, but stickering a coin as an upgrade candidate is a terrible idea. You know as well as anyone that it amounts to a neon sign flashing the message "Attention crackout artists, the CAC did the work for you!" It also adds a confusing layer to the process. They should just stick to a simple solid for the grade yes or no process.
Russ, NCNE >>
I think you are mistaken in your thinking about which coins will receive an upgrade sticker. Not a PQ coin that might work if you throw enough mud at the ceiling, but rather a lock upgrade that more than likely resides in a rattler or first generation NGC holder. You or I might identify this coin immediately upon first sight, but how about my heirs? This is a consumer protection feature and I like it. I also like the idea of being able to enter a coin on the Registry at a competition grade while retaining it in a rattler or OGH to prove the stability of the color.
<< <i>
<< <i>Keep seeing this mentioned, where is that info coming from? >>
Well, TDN says he's in for a million. Taking him at his word, that leaves another $24 million. Silent partners, perhaps? >>
So, how is it even germane? How much does it take to look at and sticker slabs?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>TDN, any inkling why the decision was made to not publish the cert#'s that didn't warrant a sticker? Wouldn't that mean dealers were compelled to identify which coins they were marketing that the consortium wouldn't sticker? Wouldn't that make resubmission in the current holder unnecessary? Wouldn't that increase consistency of the service? Wouldn't that provide transparency, etc,etc,etc? >>
I, as a collector, would be inclined NOT to send my coins in to be stickered if they were going to be permanently tainted by being listed somewhere forever as being rejected.
Do you believe coins will be tried multiple times?
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Do you get your fee back ala ICG, or lose your money ala PCGS and NGC?
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>I think you are mistaken in your thinking about which coins will receive an upgrade sticker. Not a PQ coin that might work if you throw enough mud at the ceiling, but rather a lock upgrade that more than likely resides in a rattler or first generation NGC holder. >>
Nope, I'm not mistaken about what the sticker means. Perhaps I'm mistaken about the process, though. Are collectors allowed to submit directly to the CAC? If so, then I can see some of these upgrade stickered coins staying in collections. But, if collectors are not allowed to submit directly to the CAC, then what exactly will stop the crackout artists from seeking these coins and plying their trade?
And, even if the collector does submit directly, what's to stop the crackout artists from chasing that collector to get his coins?
<< <i>I also like the idea of being able to enter a coin on the Registry at a competition grade while retaining it in a rattler or OGH to prove the stability of the color. >>
Are you saying that a coin stickered as an upgrade can be entered in the registry at a grade higher than the holder label? If so, does this mean that PCGS has agreed to do this?
Russ, NCNE
WOW! Now we get to pay for someone's opinion ABOUT someone else's opinion. This is ridiculous.
I do have one concern that's probably been voiced before. With all the gullible folk out there that will go for this, will that push down the values on coin collections (like mine) that will not have these lovely tamper-proof stickers on them?
<< <i>You send your coin to CAC, pay the fee, and you recieve no sticker.
Do you get your fee back ala ICG, or lose your money ala PCGS and NGC? >>
This has already been disclosed in a recent Coin World article -- if the coin fails to make the cut, you will have half of your fees refunded.
That would depend on what you mean when you say the registry.
If so, does this mean that PCGS has agreed to do this?
I highly doubt it since HRH rejected the idea long ago - tho it certainly makes sense to give Registry stickers to lock upgrades and even to other TPG holdered coins that won't cross.
By the way, will this be the impetus for the grading services to change to a 100 point grading system?
If they did, to make it public so that one wouldn't waste their money trying to cross it again would be a major plus for the potential submitters or even the "pre-purchase slab evaluators" (i.e. one could check their site to see if it had been attempted to be crossed PRIOR to buying it).
Of course, since to SAVE people from wasting grading fees is NOT in THEIR best interest, greed would thus prevent this as it would SUBSTANTIALLY decrease their revenues.
More wailing....
<< <i>If they did, to make it public so that one wouldn't waste their money trying to cross it again would be a major plus for the potential submitters or even the "pre-purchase slab evaluators" (i.e. one could check their site to see if it had been attempted to be crossed PRIOR to buying it).
Of course, greed would prevent this as it would decrease SUBSTANTIALLY their revenues. >>
Even if they did keep such a list internally and didn't publish it, it would maximize revenue to let some get through once in a while. If they never did so, people would eventually wise up to it and stop trying to resubmit crossovers.
<< <i>Are you saying that a coin stickered as an upgrade can be entered in the registry at a grade higher than the holder label?
That would depend on what you mean when you say the registry.
If so, does this mean that PCGS has agreed to do this?
I highly doubt it since HRH rejected the idea long ago - tho it certainly makes sense to give Registry stickers to lock upgrades and even to other TPG holdered coins that won't cross. >>
Okay, then what exactly are you talking about when you say "I also like the idea of being able to enter a coin on the Registry at a competition grade while retaining it in a rattler or OGH to prove the stability of the color". Is the CAC creating a registry?
Russ, NCNE
Not from me, just business questions about a service that's being offered.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I am not spending any money on "high ticket" coins until some of this shakes out. I simply do not know what is going to happen and how it would affect a newer collector like me. Right now my money stays in my back pocket.
<< <i>I can't count the number of times I've heard red copper collectors say that they wished there was a way they could keep their coins in the old holders so they could prove the coin was stable but have the coin compete head to head with looser graded coins. Now they get their wish.
More wailing.... >>
Bruce, I don't think too many people are saying the idea has NO merit. But instead of acknowledging what I think are some very real and legitimate concerns from a collector standpoint, you seem to dismiss it as all "wailing" or whatever else.
I will be brutally honest -- I was mostly for this at first. The more details I hear, though, the less I think it benefits the majority of collectors. It seems to benefit dealers far more, and when it helps average collectors it seems more and more like serendipity than direct intent.
The concept of "crack me out" stickers, I think, has made it harder for me to keep a "wait and see" approach. If I have a good eye for finding exceptional quality for the grade, I don't see how it benefits me to be forced to pay up a lot more for that quality if it has an "upgrade me" sticker on it. That helps dealers (more money trading hands, more confidence in sight-unseen coin buying). That helps collectors who have more money than coin grading skills (money is no object). That helps pure investors (reduces uncertainty, and investors despise uncertainty in the markets). It does not seem to help knowledgeable collectors of moderate means.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Keep seeing this mentioned, where is that info coming from? >>
Well, TDN says he's in for a million. Taking him at his word, that leaves another $24 million. Silent partners, perhaps? >>
So, how is it even germane? How much does it take to look at and sticker slabs? >>
Start-up expenses probably aren't too great as far as tangible items go. Advertising will probably eat up a little. I'm guessing insurance would be the bulk of their expenses initially if all the CAC members aren't insured enough to handle a few million in extra inventory. Out of curiosity, I just called my local anqiue shop and asked them how much liability/fire/theft insurance they have and they're only good up to 500,000. If the CAC is rotating the members to do the viewing/approving, are all the CAC members individual shops insured to handle an additional million or two in inventory should things get backlogged? The few bigger companies surely are, but I'm not sure who all will be receiving coins.
TDN: I, as a collector, would be inclined NOT to send my coins in to be stickered if they were going to be permanently tainted by being listed somewhere forever as being rejected.
I agree with you there, but on the otherhand, if the CAC is keeping an internal database of those not stickered (to keep consistancy between the reviewers), and it is not available to the public, wouldn't this create an unfair advantage for CAC members who can access that list? If a coin is on eBay and CAC members can check their own list and know it was once rejected, but the general public can't, it doesn't seem right. I'd rather everyone gets to see the list, than have just the CAC, or no list at all.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101