<< <i>Since the matter was raised, John Albanese is one of the shining stars in numismatics. He doesn't need the money. He doesn't need any more recognition. Not only is he very good at what he does, but he's humble and approachable. I've contacted him by e-mail and spoken with him over the phone.
You may say what you like about CAC, but trust me on this; he started CAC because he thought this concept was needed in numismatics. Whether or not you seek out 'beaned' coins and / or willing to pay a premium for them, is up to you. >>
Those calling CAC a scam, or accusing JA of just being in it for the money, simply expose their own ignorance. JA could make much more elsewhere but believes in giving back to the hobby. >>
Hmmm. OK, how about some videos on the web site educating collectors about how to spot problem coins themselves. He seems perfectly willing to do that for a roomful of people PAYING money at the ANA seminars. I'm getting a bit tired of hearing how JA doesn't care about making money. Most of the people defending him are also quite rich.
The main mission of CAC is to identify and make a market in nice coins. This will lower the monetary reward and thus the incentive for coin doctoring and crackout inflation. Since the vast majority of nice coins are in collectors' hands, the lion's share of the benefits from this mission rests with collectors.
As for your personal inuendos against JA and myself - have fun.
<< <i>Since the matter was raised, John Albanese is one of the shining stars in numismatics. He doesn't need the money. He doesn't need any more recognition. Not only is he very good at what he does, but he's humble and approachable. I've contacted him by e-mail and spoken with him over the phone.
You may say what you like about CAC, but trust me on this; he started CAC because he thought this concept was needed in numismatics. Whether or not you seek out 'beaned' coins and / or willing to pay a premium for them, is up to you. >>
Those calling CAC a scam, or accusing JA of just being in it for the money, simply expose their own ignorance. JA could make much more elsewhere but believes in giving back to the hobby. >>
All you do is criticize with emoticons but you either have no concept of what's been revealed here or you just like to play with your computer.
Coinjunkie...you're beginning to sound like justaplainjunkie.
I really don't give a damn about those who have a mindset that this is some venture started in the mold of some scams in the business world. One time, one time...we get a man who LOVES coins, cares about collectors, loves his business and numismatics, and by being a decent person it's made him rich. And he doesn't need more money. He actually undertakes this as a partial "Messianic" gesture for the benefit of the collector and integrity of coins and he's accused of being a charlatan or "P.T. Barnum" as some schmuck said.
Until you meet or talk to the man you are unable to judge what he's trying to do. But you can see the auctions and watch the CAC coins sell for good money all day long and laugh, then pout that it wasn't your coin that was selling for a premium.
Until you meet or talk to the man you are unable to judge what he's trying to do.
I agree. I have come to believe CAC impacts primarily the sight-unseen market. PQ coins bring PQ money at auction, sticker or no sticker. Who hasn't purchased something sight-unseen and been disappointed? Since most collectors seek representation when spending big money, or travel to the venue to see what they're buying, CAC has no impact on them at all. If CAC DID start publishing grading opinions, they WOULD have an impact on collectors. If CAC DID list coins that had failed, they'd have a negative impact on someone's coin. As it is, if you are holding a nice coin, and feel like doing the submission gyration, the sticker might help you get more money for the coin from someone who hasn't seen it. That's the impact. My initial misunderstanding of CAC's intention was based at least partly on LS's rant about teaching the grading services a lesson. That was harmful. It created ill will among those who feel the TPG's have been good for the hobby, and for those who are heavily invested in TPG graded material. I posted what I believed were legitimate criticisms of CAC yesterday, particularly the ability for CAC dealers to sell coins that failed to get a CAC sticker without telling the customer. Mr. Albanese was courteous enough to chat with me and explain his view of CAC. Knowing CAC's actions would be deemed more ambitious if the published grading opinions or failed submission cert#'s helps me understand his intention. I can't imagine it being harmful to collectors.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Bill Jones...you know that JA went out of his way to find that coin. Who else would be so diligent and concerned? In fact, the coin ended up in the hands of a well-knowned crackout artist. The coin, acoording to JA had a small problem (and it was avery old problem) but for a 200 year old coin he felt it WAS in the top 50% for the grade. It's simply one opinion versus another at that point but had you emailed or called John he would have paid a good price. I know this. >>
A "small problem?"
Here is a picture of the coin with an arrow pointing to the "small problem." It was a file mark in the field that I sawwith my bare eyes as soon as opened the package . When I took a 10X to it I could see that it was NOT an adjustment mark but a post mint issue addition. It had the looks of an effort to remove an offending spot. AND I’m not so sure that it was an “old problem” because I was not sure that the color of the coin was original.
The coin was in an EF-45 holder. The price to me was $12,000. Bid on this coin, a 1796 “LIKERTY” half dime in EF, is $7,600. AU is $10,450.
I had the option of returning the piece or paying $12,000 so I could find out what the “secret” CAC bid for it was. I’ll bet I would not have gotten $12,000 for it from CAC. At any rate this coin should not have had a CAC sticker if the service is a perfect as its cheerleaders claim. It sure shook my faith in the belief that CAC is “perfect.”
And it is truly beyond me what the crack out artist saw. I saw a coin that could come back in a body bag the next time around.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>I had the option of returning the piece or paying $12,000 so I could find out what the “secret” CAC bid for it was. I’ll bet I would not have gotten $12,000 for it from CAC. At any rate this coin should not have had a CAC sticker if the service is a perfect as its cheerleaders claim. It sure shook my faith in the belief that CAC is “perfect.” >>
Hi Bill,
Two points...
First, couldn't you have simply called the CAC and asked what their bid was? From what I understand, their bids are hardly secret.
Second, I don't think I've seen anyone suggesting that the CAC is perfect or even close to it, and exaggerating in your argument makes it less credible.
Respectfully...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>Coinjunkie...you're beginning to sound like justaplainjunkie.
I really don't give a damn about those who have a mindset that this is some venture started in the mold of some scams in the business world. One time, one time...we get a man who LOVES coins, cares about collectors, loves his business and numismatics, and by being a decent person it's made him rich. And he doesn't need more money. He actually undertakes this as a partial "Messianic" gesture for the benefit of the collector and integrity of coins and he's accused of being a charlatan or "P.T. Barnum" as some schmuck said.
Until you meet or talk to the man you are unable to judge what he's trying to do. But you can see the auctions and watch the CAC coins sell for good money all day long and laugh, then pout that it wasn't your coin that was selling for a premium.
Ignorance isn't bliss. It's just ignorance. >>
Saintguru, you need to disabuse yourself of this whole "JA as savior" trip that you're on. The people that stand to gain (by far) the MOST from this whole CAC exercise are the people who own the really rare, high dollar coins. People like you, TDN, and JA himself. Believe it or not, I don't really care if people want to get their coins stickered. I have a lot more important things to worry about than whether my coins will be worth an extra few percentage points whenever they get sold. I collect coins I enjoy owning AS COINS, not investments. What annoys me no end is when someone like you keeps promoting this idea that CAC is anything other than a business, ultimately designed to make money. Read TDN's post: "The main mission of CAC is to identify and make a market in nice coins."
I don't know if you actually believe what you're trying to make other people believe, but I'm calling you on it in either case. The motivation behind CAC was to make money, not to save the world. There's nothing wrong with that as long as it's upfront. And another thing: people don't generally become wealthy primarily because they are "decent"; usually it has more to do with having keen business instincts. Stop playing people for suckers, and I'll stop arguing with you.
Let’s see … I have a return privilege a coin I didn’t care for, and yet I’m supposed to pay for it any way and seek redress from the grading service instead …
Perhaps that’s the way you would handle it, but I prefer the line of least resistance ... and lowest potential cost to me.
In case you missed the numbers the price was 57% over Gray Sheet bid and at the time higher than the number in Coin Prices magazine.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>The motivation behind CAC was to make money, not to save the world. >>
And how do you know?
TDN, who is an investor in the company, has stated his intention was not to make money. Are you calling him a liar?
JA has said the same thing. Are you calling him a liar?
Personally, I'd believe them without solid evidence to the contrary. Where is your evidence? Or are you suggesting that we believe your word when you won't believe theirs....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>Let’s see … I have a return privilege a coin I didn’t care for, and yet I’m supposed to pay for it any way and seek redress from the grading service instead …
Perhaps that’s the way you would handle it, but I prefer the line of least resistance ... and lowest potential cost to me. >>
Bill, If your response was directed to me, I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make...
Here's what you said: " I had the option of returning the piece or paying $12,000 so I could find out what the “secret” CAC bid for it was. I’ll bet I would not have gotten $12,000 for it from CAC. "
My point was simply that you had another option -- simply calling the CAC and asking. You didn't have to buy the coin, but you could have known with a simple phone call what the "secret" bid was, and you could have replaced conjecture with facts.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<<< The people that stand to gain (by far) the MOST from this whole CAC exercise are the people who own the really rare, high dollar coins. People like you, TDN, and JA himself >>>
I don't know where you came up with that one, and I doubt that statement can be backed up with any type of extensive prices realized or private transaction data to support it? In fact, I think it would be the very high dollar rarities that would benefit the least in percentage terms from being CAC stickered, while the biggest beneficiaries on a precentage basis would be many of the everyday collector coins in the $100.00 - $2500.00 range.
In addition, to state that the 'whole CAC exercise' is by far for the benefit of wealthy investors/collectors and their expensive coins seems way off base.
All you do is criticize with emoticons but you either have no concept of what's been revealed here or you just like to play with your computer.
Ignorance isn't bliss. It's just ignorance. >>
Jay, blow it out your ass. It's all about the damn money. Oh, yes, JA don't make any money on this. That's like you saying you sell stocks and don't ever get a commission. Total BS!!!
It sure shook my faith in the belief that CAC is “perfect.”
You've been in the coin biz for how many years and still believe someone can be perfect when it comes to grading? You must also believe that the TPG's are perfect as well.
The obvious "option" with that 1796 gold piece was to pick up the phone and ask JA why did he CAC a $12K piece of gold where an obvious spot was removed from the field. Getting a hold of John (ie the guy who can make a decision) is far easier than seeking satisfaction via the TPG. In fact you'd probably have a firm decision in 10 minutes as to what should have been done with the coin. CAC doesn't want mistakes in their holders. They actively root them out. There is also the possibility that the spot removed was deemed too minor not to CAC the coin though I tend to think this possibility was small. I'd bet that JA would have covered you on that coin.
Ironically, while CAC might have been thought by some to be a way of "adding" value to coins that merit a solid for the grade rating, it has also subtracted a lot of value from many of the coins in the market that are lower end for the grade. A lot of the holders of these coins have yet to realize that many of their coins fall into that category. The fact that CAC is around today has probably accentuated the rate of lower quality coins dropping since last fall. Without CAC in the picture I believe a lot of the prices on those coins would have lingered higher for a longer period of time. There is no free lunch for the market.
<< <i>Bill Jones...you know that JA went out of his way to find that coin. Who else would be so diligent and concerned? In fact, the coin ended up in the hands of a well-knowned crackout artist. The coin, acoording to JA had a small problem (and it was avery old problem) but for a 200 year old coin he felt it WAS in the top 50% for the grade. It's simply one opinion versus another at that point but had you emailed or called John he would have paid a good price. I know this. >>
A "small problem?"
Here is a picture of the coin with an arrow pointing to the "small problem." It was a file mark in the field that I sawwith my bare eyes as soon as opened the package . When I took a 10X to it I could see that it was NOT an adjustment mark but a post mint issue addition. It had the looks of an effort to remove an offending spot. AND I’m not so sure that it was an “old problem” because I was not sure that the color of the coin was original.
The coin was in an EF-45 holder. The price to me was $12,000. Bid on this coin, a 1796 “LIKERTY” half dime in EF, is $7,600. AU is $10,450.
I had the option of returning the piece or paying $12,000 so I could find out what the “secret” CAC bid for it was. I’ll bet I would not have gotten $12,000 for it from CAC. At any rate this coin should not have had a CAC sticker if the service is a perfect as its cheerleaders claim. It sure shook my faith in the belief that CAC is “perfect.”
And it is truly beyond me what the crack out artist saw. I saw a coin that could come back in a body bag the next time around.
>>
Try as I might, on an image that must be 500% size, I can't see what you are referencing on that dime. Do you think the TPG missed it as well - or that it was acceptable on a coin from the 18th century. Many many early coins are net graded for small problems. If only perfect early coins were allowed into TPG holders, there wouldn't be that many.
The price to me was $12,000. Bid on this coin, a 1796 “LIKERTY” half dime in EF, is $7,600. AU is $10,450.
You know as well as I know that greysheet bid has for years lagged market value in early bust material. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.
It sure shook my faith in the belief that CAC is “perfect.”
You also know darn well that you have NEVER considered CAC to be perfect. To feign such is beneath you.
<< <i>The motivation behind CAC was to make money, not to save the world. >>
And how do you know?
TDN, who is an investor in the company, has stated his intention was not to make money. Are you calling him a liar?
JA has said the same thing. Are you calling him a liar?
Personally, I'd believe them without solid evidence to the contrary. Where is your evidence? Or are you suggesting that we believe your word when you won't believe theirs....Mike >>
How do I know? Let's just call it a very strong hunch based on all that has been posted here to date. Also, I know quite a bit about marketing techniques, as well as human nature. This thing doesn't smell like a non-profit organization in the slightest. Do you have any evidence that they are chartered as such?
Am I calling them liars? I guess so. Do you really think these guys would be putting this kind of time and energy into something without a financial carrot? The fact that you use the word "investor" is very telling and appropriate:
in⋅vest [in-vest] –verb (used with object) 1. to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.
Where is my evidence? I don't have wiretaps of phone calls between the principles, if that's what you mean. Look, you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. Ultimately, the truth will out down the road. If it turns out I was wrong, I'll admit it. Cheers...
<< <i>The motivation behind CAC was to make money, not to save the world. >>
And how do you know?
TDN, who is an investor in the company, has stated his intention was not to make money. Are you calling him a liar?
JA has said the same thing. Are you calling him a liar?
Personally, I'd believe them without solid evidence to the contrary. Where is your evidence? Or are you suggesting that we believe your word when you won't believe theirs....Mike >>
How do I know? Let's just call it a very strong hunch based on all that has been posted here to date. Also, I know quite a bit about marketing techniques, as well as human nature. This thing doesn't smell like a non-profit organization in the slightest. Do you have any evidence that they are chartered as such? >>
Who said anything about a non-profit? You stated it was started to make money, yet the one who runs in as well as investors (and yes, I'm well aware of what the word means, thanks) have stated their primary goals were not making money.
<< <i>Am I calling them liars? I guess so. Do you really think these guys would be putting this kind of time and energy into something without a financial carrot? The fact that you use the word "investor" is very telling and appropriate:
Where is my evidence? I don't have wiretaps of phone calls between the principles, if that's what you mean. Look, you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. Ultimately, the truth will out down the road. If it turns out I was wrong, I'll admit it. Cheers... >>
Fair enough, if given the chance to believe JA/TDN or CoinJunkie, you'll have to excuse me if I believe the former rather than the latter, particularly your evidence is self-described as "a very strong hunch". At least where I come from, you don't call people liars based on a hunch, you do it because you have evidence to the contrary.
Respectfully....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
It is not a non profit organization. IIRC, I think I received a distribution check of $14,000 last quarter. Woohoo. [/eyeroll]
The reason I'm in it is pure and simple - put a stop to some of the crap that goes on in this hobby. If you had even an inkling of a clue about half the crap that I know for a fact, you might stop insinuating things. Certain goings on had to stop and we felt this was the best way.
Lets go back to the example and the coin that was used to illustrate the point- an MS67 1924 $20 Saint and the examples auctioned for $8K-$12K. What is the percentage of collectors that participate here that plan to BUY this common date in this grade?
Not me.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I find it interesting that many collectors publicly decry, condemn and blast CAC and JA and then privately confide that it gives them time to secretly get their collection in order by having their slabs reviewed by CAC.
Once his or her collection is in good order, then the collector comes out of the "closet."
The same thing happened when PCGS and then NGC started slabbing coins. The ones who fought slabbing the most were secretly slabbing their coin collection.
Junkie, I don't care if you believe anything I say but calling me a LIAR shows what a moron you are. Frankly, this forum is full of more doubt than positive posts on just about every subject.
I know John very well. I know the man, you don't, so before you write a biography on him and his business you better do more due diligence. As for the contention that this is only for investors, you're wrong because I own pieces of history and beauty. Are they investments in the long run...sure. But considering that I have a 100% gain on paper in my coins and have no desire to sell them is a fair statement on what my passion is. You can diminish your intent but don't attack mine. John is NOT a savior. I said his "mission was "Messianic". Well, when you start a company with the purpose of making life for coin doctors very difficult and as a benefit to collectors to identify better coins (collectors who may not know every detail, and I don't) then I take umbrage with your statement that CAC is solely a money making venture. John has been studying this deception for 30 years and his eye helps me. I clearly said, as did TDN, that an expertly puttied coin will beat my eye every time.
I'll side with the more experienced collectors like TDN, Oreville, Steve Duckor and others who understand what CAC is all about any day. And I'll watch those coins that are often bought sight unseen because so many dealers have faith in his judgement and pay premiums. And eventually I'll sell my undoctored coins the same way. I've been duped by carefully doctored coins. All collectors have...the best of the best.
<< <i>Ultimately, the truth will out down the road.
The truth has already come out but you refuse to believe it. Why will it be any different down the road? >>
TDN, why doesn't CAC post their financial results on their web site on a quarterly basis? That might clear up some of this speculation. One other quick question: how did you reinvest that $14K in the service of putting the coin doctors out of business?
This tells me that JA should start putting stickers on PCI slabs. As a matter of fact, if it's just about money, tell him NTC and NNC could use a little help, too.
At first, I thought why the hell do I need a sticker to tell me my coins are graded properly? I also thought, wow, what a great new way to grade already graded coins and make a buck.
Honestly, if youre good at something, why do it for free? JA and any investors in Cac SHOULD make money. And for myself I see no problem whatsoever with that. I pay for water, why shouldnt we pay for this service too?
As for publishing any of their info about profits, I think thats their call.
Do I think Cac is for everyone? No. But nor is numismatics. I dont think Cac means you cant tell what a nice coin is, more just a helping hand to the collector.
I for one would submit any coins I thought stickerable. If they do bring more with a sale, then good for the owner. The coin doctors made plenty of money off collectors and I dont see why its an issue if the seller makes some cash on their coins.
Also, I have never talked with JA or had any dealings with him, but his reputation speaks volumes. I know several people that speak very highly of him, and I value those opinions. I think some more fine tuning has to be done, but its still a nrew company.
Thank you for a great thread, it has been very interesting to read.
Being profitable while simultanously helping others stave off losses and even become profitable themselves is one of the greatest and most constructive things a person can do.
The same thing happened when PCGS and then NGC started slabbing coins. The ones who fought slabbing the most were secretly slabbing their coin collection. >>
OR were critisizing the very concept of PCGS/NGC and complaining they were a "cartel" whose only interests were "self interests".
Being profitable while simultanously helping others stave off losses and even become profitable themselves is one of the greatest and most constructive things a person can do.
It is hard to argue with this point... I agree.
CAC has the potential to do great things for the hobby. Unfortunately, this hobby is so set in its ways that trying to convince people that there are other ways to grade and evaluate the state of preservation for coins is a task that makes one ask if they would rather go to the dentist and have a root canal instead.
BTW, I am still waiting for comments on the 1924 Saint graded in 67 and how many collectors this really impacts... My guess is less than 5% and that is generous
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The thing I find silly is that MOST (notice I did NOT say ALL) of the CAC fans usually spout off about NGC ALWAYS grading 1 to 1.5 points higher than PCGS... Then they say that they need a bean to tell them that a PCGS coin is actually graded correctly... So, if JA is "the best set of grading eyes out there", and an NGC coin gets a bean, it's a lock for a cross, right? But, if it doesn't cross, the Kool Aide crowd says that "PCGS standards are higher"!!! If that is the case, PCGS trumps the bean anyway, so what's the point? Someone earlier mentioned that the CAC "is not perfect, mistakes can be made". Then again, what's the point? Are two mistakes better than one? One more thing... a "bean" does NOT change the coin that is in the slab, so if someone pays a premium for the "bean", anyone in the know would pay a premium for that coin anyway! If the coin has a "bean", but is not very eye appealing, only a fool would pay a premium! Anyway, if you like the bean, buy the bean. If you don't like the bean, buy the COIN, and you can probably find a way to remove that little sticker. It's also refreshing to learn that there are still people in this world who would lose money just to help us poor, uneducated collectors. I may have to send my coins in to the CAC, just so I can find out if they are really nice, or not. If they get a bean, I'm a good collector, if not, I guess I find eye appeal in junk! I can no longer trust myself, or NGC, or PCGS, but, for a reason that escapes me, I can have total trust in the CAC. Don't take any offense, and don't take me seriously, I'm just trying to think for myself again.... and LOGIC ain't workin'
<< <i>The thing I find silly is that MOST (notice I did NOT say ALL) of the CAC fans usually spout off about NGC ALWAYS grading 1 to 1.5 points higher than PCGS... Then they say that they need a bean to tell them that a PCGS coin is actually graded correctly... So, if JA is "the best set of grading eyes out there", and an NGC coin gets a bean, it's a lock for a cross, right? But, if it doesn't cross, the Kool Aide crowd says that "PCGS standards are higher"!!! If that is the case, PCGS trumps the bean anyway, so what's the point? Someone earlier mentioned that the CAC "is not perfect, mistakes can be made". Then again, what's the point? Are two mistakes better than one? One more thing... a "bean" does NOT change the coin that is in the slab, so if someone pays a premium for the "bean", anyone in the know would pay a premium for that coin anyway! If the coin has a "bean", but is not very eye appealing, only a fool would pay a premium! Anyway, if you like the bean, buy the bean. If you don't like the bean, buy the COIN, and you can probably find a way to remove that little sticker. It's also refreshing to learn that there are still people in this world who would lose money just to help us poor, uneducated collectors. I may have to send my coins in to the CAC, just so I can find out if they are really nice, or not. If they get a bean, I'm a good collector, if not, I guess I find eye appeal in junk! I can no longer trust myself, or NGC, or PCGS, but, for a reason that escapes me, I can have total trust in the CAC. Don't take any offense, and don't take me seriously, I'm just trying to think for myself again.... and LOGIC ain't workin' >>
Probably one of the most sensible posts I have read in a long while on this forum
Re: Slabbed coins - There are some coins that LIVE within clear plastic and wear their labels with pride... while there are others that HIDE behind scratched plastic and are simply dragged along by a label. Then there are those coins that simply hang out, naked and free
Treeman, good post. I don't buy the NGC being a point more lenient arguement either. Not for one minute. PCGS coins do generally bring stronger money however and that's impossible to dispute. I firmly believe PCGS has a superior marketing/kool aid vechicle to that of NGC. Maybe beaned NGC coins are "undervalued" and are the better deal. PQ coins are the ones that will get beaned the most and , you're right those coins should already bring a premium. I sat in both nights on the JA CAC class in Colorado Springs. JA passed around about 15-20 CAC coins. I was sitting with some coin heavyweights ( both collectors and dealers) and there was NO "general" concensus that agreed with a lot the stickered coins ( in our group anyways) . I close with that I think John Albanese is an expert, a very very nice man and a creative genius. The stickers are cool if one is into that thing and I get why people like it. I'm just not one of those people. I believe that John's intentions with CAC are pure in regards to protecting the hobby as well as returning a profit for his investors. MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>Someone earlier mentioned that the CAC "is not perfect, mistakes can be made". Then again, what's the point? Are two mistakes better than one?
I'm just trying to think for myself again.... and LOGIC ain't workin' >>
Well, not on that particular concept, it's not.
Say for the sake of argument the mistake rate is 1 in 1000. So you take 1000 TPG graded coins (with the one mistake) and send them to CAC. What do you suppose the odds are that CAC will pick the same coin to make a mistake on? Does 1 in 1000 sound about right?
999 times out of 1000, the mistake will be caught. So it's not very likely that two mistakes will be made on the same coin, is it?
<< <i>The thing I find silly is that MOST (notice I did NOT say ALL) of the CAC fans usually spout off about NGC ALWAYS grading 1 to 1.5 points higher than PCGS... Then they say that they need a bean to tell them that a PCGS coin is actually graded correctly... So, if JA is "the best set of grading eyes out there", and an NGC coin gets a bean, it's a lock for a cross, right? But, if it doesn't cross, the Kool Aide crowd says that "PCGS standards are higher"!!! If that is the case, PCGS trumps the bean anyway, so what's the point? Someone earlier mentioned that the CAC "is not perfect, mistakes can be made". Then again, what's the point? Are two mistakes better than one? One more thing... a "bean" does NOT change the coin that is in the slab, so if someone pays a premium for the "bean", anyone in the know would pay a premium for that coin anyway! If the coin has a "bean", but is not very eye appealing, only a fool would pay a premium! Anyway, if you like the bean, buy the bean. If you don't like the bean, buy the COIN, and you can probably find a way to remove that little sticker. It's also refreshing to learn that there are still people in this world who would lose money just to help us poor, uneducated collectors. I may have to send my coins in to the CAC, just so I can find out if they are really nice, or not. If they get a bean, I'm a good collector, if not, I guess I find eye appeal in junk! I can no longer trust myself, or NGC, or PCGS, but, for a reason that escapes me, I can have total trust in the CAC. Don't take any offense, and don't take me seriously, I'm just trying to think for myself again.... and LOGIC ain't workin' >>
What if I told you that 40% of CAC stickered coins are NGC? They are.
<<What if I told you that 40% of CAC stickered coins are NGC? They are>>
John said that 48% off all coins are stickered. I asked him in the classroom what was the breakdown of PCGS vs NGC were.....he said he didn't know and that it was close...........MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
True...but I wonder what the coins look like in hand. I would imagine the CAC coins actually ARE nicer...thus the premium, not necessarily because of the bean but because of the coin.
This is circular logic. Only the nicer coins get more money; the beans only go on the nicer coins. Also, when you're buying such a high end coin (MS67), it sure won't hurt to have the bean for added peace of mind/future flips.
Bear, before there was kool-aid there was soylent green : )
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>Since the matter was raised, John Albanese is one of the shining stars in numismatics. He doesn't need the money. He doesn't need any more recognition. Not only is he very good at what he does, but he's humble and approachable. I've contacted him by e-mail and spoken with him over the phone.
You may say what you like about CAC, but trust me on this; he started CAC because he thought this concept was needed in numismatics. Whether or not you seek out 'beaned' coins and / or willing to pay a premium for them, is up to you. >>
Those calling CAC a scam, or accusing JA of just being in it for the money, simply expose their own ignorance. JA could make much more elsewhere but believes in giving back to the hobby. >>
Hmmm. OK, how about some videos on the web site educating collectors about how to spot problem coins themselves.
He seems perfectly willing to do that for a roomful of people PAYING money at the ANA seminars. I'm getting a bit tired
of hearing how JA doesn't care about making money. Most of the people defending him are also quite rich.
As far a what the ANA charges for its educational seminars - why don't you take that up with them, eh?
<< <i>I would say its a very good thing to be defended by successful people. To deride someone only for such is the act of a small mind.
As far a what the ANA charges for its educational seminars - why don't you take that up with them, eh? >>
Wow, that was a very impressive deflection on your part. You should be a politician.
Oh wait, you are one!
If the main mission of CAC is collector education, please explain why its structure and actions (or lack thereof) belie that.
As for your personal inuendos against JA and myself - have fun.
<< <i>
<< <i>Since the matter was raised, John Albanese is one of the shining stars in numismatics. He doesn't need the money. He doesn't need any more recognition. Not only is he very good at what he does, but he's humble and approachable. I've contacted him by e-mail and spoken with him over the phone.
You may say what you like about CAC, but trust me on this; he started CAC because he thought this concept was needed in numismatics. Whether or not you seek out 'beaned' coins and / or willing to pay a premium for them, is up to you. >>
Those calling CAC a scam, or accusing JA of just being in it for the money, simply expose their own ignorance. JA could make much more elsewhere but believes in giving back to the hobby. >>
All you do is criticize with emoticons but you either have no concept of what's been revealed here or you just like to play with your computer.
Coinjunkie...you're beginning to sound like justaplainjunkie.
I really don't give a damn about those who have a mindset that this is some venture started in the mold of some scams in the business world. One time, one time...we get a man who LOVES coins, cares about collectors, loves his business and numismatics, and by being a decent person it's made him rich. And he doesn't need more money. He actually undertakes this as a partial "Messianic" gesture for the benefit of the collector and integrity of coins and he's accused of being a charlatan or "P.T. Barnum" as some schmuck said.
Until you meet or talk to the man you are unable to judge what he's trying to do. But you can see the auctions and watch the CAC coins sell for good money all day long and laugh, then pout that it wasn't your coin that was selling for a premium.
Ignorance isn't bliss. It's just ignorance.
I agree. I have come to believe CAC impacts primarily the sight-unseen market. PQ coins bring PQ money at auction, sticker or no sticker. Who hasn't purchased something sight-unseen and been disappointed? Since most collectors seek representation when spending big money, or travel to the venue to see what they're buying, CAC has no impact on them at all. If CAC DID start publishing grading opinions, they WOULD have an impact on collectors. If CAC DID list coins that had failed, they'd have a negative impact on someone's coin. As it is, if you are holding a nice coin, and feel like doing the submission gyration, the sticker might help you get more money for the coin from someone who hasn't seen it. That's the impact. My initial misunderstanding of CAC's intention was based at least partly on LS's rant about teaching the grading services a lesson. That was harmful. It created ill will among those who feel the TPG's have been good for the hobby, and for those who are heavily invested in TPG graded material. I posted what I believed were legitimate criticisms of CAC yesterday, particularly the ability for CAC dealers to sell coins that failed to get a CAC sticker without telling the customer. Mr. Albanese was courteous enough to chat with me and explain his view of CAC. Knowing CAC's actions would be deemed more ambitious if the published grading opinions or failed submission cert#'s helps me understand his intention. I can't imagine it being harmful to collectors.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Five minutes with JA speaks volumes about his integrity, intent and selflessness.
<< <i>Bill Jones...you know that JA went out of his way to find that coin. Who else would be so diligent and concerned? In fact, the coin ended up in the hands of a well-knowned crackout artist. The coin, acoording to JA had a small problem (and it was avery old problem) but for a 200 year old coin he felt it WAS in the top 50% for the grade. It's simply one opinion versus another at that point but had you emailed or called John he would have paid a good price. I know this. >>
A "small problem?"
Here is a picture of the coin with an arrow pointing to the "small problem." It was a file mark in the field that I sawwith my bare eyes as soon as opened the package . When I took a 10X to it I could see that it was NOT an adjustment mark but a post mint issue addition. It had the looks of an effort to remove an offending spot. AND I’m not so sure that it was an “old problem” because I was not sure that the color of the coin was original.
The coin was in an EF-45 holder. The price to me was $12,000. Bid on this coin, a 1796 “LIKERTY” half dime in EF, is $7,600. AU is $10,450.
I had the option of returning the piece or paying $12,000 so I could find out what the “secret” CAC bid for it was. I’ll bet I would not have gotten $12,000 for it from CAC. At any rate this coin should not have had a CAC sticker if the service is a perfect as its cheerleaders claim. It sure shook my faith in the belief that CAC is “perfect.”
And it is truly beyond me what the crack out artist saw. I saw a coin that could come back in a body bag the next time around.
<< <i>I had the option of returning the piece or paying $12,000 so I could find out what the “secret” CAC bid for it was. I’ll bet I would not have gotten $12,000 for it from CAC. At any rate this coin should not have had a CAC sticker if the service is a perfect as its cheerleaders claim. It sure shook my faith in the belief that CAC is “perfect.”
>>
Hi Bill,
Two points...
First, couldn't you have simply called the CAC and asked what their bid was? From what I understand, their bids are hardly secret.
Second, I don't think I've seen anyone suggesting that the CAC is perfect or even close to it, and exaggerating in your argument makes it less credible.
Respectfully...Mike
<< <i>Coinjunkie...you're beginning to sound like justaplainjunkie.
I really don't give a damn about those who have a mindset that this is some venture started in the mold of some scams in the business world. One time, one time...we get a man who LOVES coins, cares about collectors, loves his business and numismatics, and by being a decent person it's made him rich. And he doesn't need more money. He actually undertakes this as a partial "Messianic" gesture for the benefit of the collector and integrity of coins and he's accused of being a charlatan or "P.T. Barnum" as some schmuck said.
Until you meet or talk to the man you are unable to judge what he's trying to do. But you can see the auctions and watch the CAC coins sell for good money all day long and laugh, then pout that it wasn't your coin that was selling for a premium.
Ignorance isn't bliss. It's just ignorance. >>
Saintguru, you need to disabuse yourself of this whole "JA as savior" trip that you're on. The people that stand to gain (by far) the MOST from
this whole CAC exercise are the people who own the really rare, high dollar coins. People like you, TDN, and JA himself. Believe it or not, I don't
really care if people want to get their coins stickered. I have a lot more important things to worry about than whether my coins will be worth an
extra few percentage points whenever they get sold. I collect coins I enjoy owning AS COINS, not investments. What annoys me no end is when
someone like you keeps promoting this idea that CAC is anything other than a business, ultimately designed to make money. Read TDN's post:
"The main mission of CAC is to identify and make a market in nice coins."
I don't know if you actually believe what you're trying to make other people believe, but I'm calling you on it in either case. The motivation behind
CAC was to make money, not to save the world. There's nothing wrong with that as long as it's upfront. And another thing: people
don't generally become wealthy primarily because they are "decent"; usually it has more to do with having keen business instincts. Stop playing
people for suckers, and I'll stop arguing with you.
Perhaps that’s the way you would handle it, but I prefer the line of least resistance ... and lowest potential cost to me.
In case you missed the numbers the price was 57% over Gray Sheet bid and at the time higher than the number in Coin Prices magazine.
<< <i>The motivation behind CAC was to make money, not to save the world. >>
And how do you know?
TDN, who is an investor in the company, has stated his intention was not to make money. Are you calling him a liar?
JA has said the same thing. Are you calling him a liar?
Personally, I'd believe them without solid evidence to the contrary. Where is your evidence? Or are you suggesting that we believe your word when you won't believe theirs....Mike
<< <i>Let’s see … I have a return privilege a coin I didn’t care for, and yet I’m supposed to pay for it any way and seek redress from the grading service instead …
Perhaps that’s the way you would handle it, but I prefer the line of least resistance ... and lowest potential cost to me. >>
Bill, If your response was directed to me, I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make...
Here's what you said: " I had the option of returning the piece or paying $12,000 so I could find out what the “secret” CAC bid for it was. I’ll bet I would not have gotten $12,000 for it from CAC. "
My point was simply that you had another option -- simply calling the CAC and asking. You didn't have to buy the coin, but you could have known with a simple phone call what the "secret" bid was, and you could have replaced conjecture with facts.
this whole CAC exercise are the people who own the really rare, high dollar coins. People like you, TDN, and JA himself >>>
I don't know where you came up with that one, and I doubt that statement can be backed up with any type of extensive prices realized or private transaction data to support it? In fact, I think it would be the very high dollar rarities that would benefit the least in percentage terms from being CAC stickered, while the biggest beneficiaries on a precentage basis would be many of the everyday collector coins in the $100.00 - $2500.00 range.
In addition, to state that the 'whole CAC exercise' is by far for the benefit of wealthy investors/collectors and their expensive coins seems way off base.
<< <i>Steelheader...Your full of BS.
All you do is criticize with emoticons but you either have no concept of what's been revealed here or you just like to play with your computer.
Ignorance isn't bliss. It's just ignorance. >>
Jay, blow it out your ass. It's all about the damn money. Oh, yes, JA don't make any money on this. That's like you saying you sell stocks and don't ever get a commission. Total BS!!!
You've been in the coin biz for how many years and still believe someone can be perfect when it comes to grading? You must also believe that the TPG's are perfect as well.
The obvious "option" with that 1796 gold piece was to pick up the phone and ask JA why did he CAC a $12K piece of gold where an obvious spot was removed from the field. Getting a hold of John (ie the guy who can make a decision) is far easier than seeking satisfaction via the TPG. In fact you'd probably have a firm decision in 10 minutes as to what should have been done with the coin. CAC doesn't want mistakes in their holders. They actively root them out. There is also the possibility that the spot removed was deemed too minor not to CAC the coin though I tend to think this possibility was small. I'd bet that JA would have covered you on that coin.
Ironically, while CAC might have been thought by some to be a way of "adding" value to coins that merit a solid for the grade rating, it has also subtracted a lot of value from many of the coins in the market that are lower end for the grade. A lot of the holders of these coins have yet to realize that many of their coins fall into that category. The fact that CAC is around today has probably accentuated the rate of lower quality coins dropping since last fall. Without CAC in the picture I believe a lot of the prices on those coins would have lingered higher for a longer period of time. There is no free lunch for the market.
roadrunner
<< <i>
<< <i>Bill Jones...you know that JA went out of his way to find that coin. Who else would be so diligent and concerned? In fact, the coin ended up in the hands of a well-knowned crackout artist. The coin, acoording to JA had a small problem (and it was avery old problem) but for a 200 year old coin he felt it WAS in the top 50% for the grade. It's simply one opinion versus another at that point but had you emailed or called John he would have paid a good price. I know this. >>
A "small problem?"
Here is a picture of the coin with an arrow pointing to the "small problem." It was a file mark in the field that I sawwith my bare eyes as soon as opened the package . When I took a 10X to it I could see that it was NOT an adjustment mark but a post mint issue addition. It had the looks of an effort to remove an offending spot. AND I’m not so sure that it was an “old problem” because I was not sure that the color of the coin was original.
The coin was in an EF-45 holder. The price to me was $12,000. Bid on this coin, a 1796 “LIKERTY” half dime in EF, is $7,600. AU is $10,450.
I had the option of returning the piece or paying $12,000 so I could find out what the “secret” CAC bid for it was. I’ll bet I would not have gotten $12,000 for it from CAC. At any rate this coin should not have had a CAC sticker if the service is a perfect as its cheerleaders claim. It sure shook my faith in the belief that CAC is “perfect.”
And it is truly beyond me what the crack out artist saw. I saw a coin that could come back in a body bag the next time around.
Try as I might, on an image that must be 500% size, I can't see what you are referencing on that dime. Do you think the TPG missed it as well - or that it was acceptable on a coin from the 18th century. Many many early coins are net graded for small problems. If only perfect early coins were allowed into TPG holders, there wouldn't be that many.
The price to me was $12,000. Bid on this coin, a 1796 “LIKERTY” half dime in EF, is $7,600. AU is $10,450.
You know as well as I know that greysheet bid has for years lagged market value in early bust material. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.
It sure shook my faith in the belief that CAC is “perfect.”
You also know darn well that you have NEVER considered CAC to be perfect. To feign such is beneath you.
<< <i>Try as I might, on an image that must be 500% size, I can't see what you are referencing on that dime. >>
Really? It's plain as day on my laptop.
<< <i>
<< <i>The motivation behind CAC was to make money, not to save the world. >>
And how do you know?
TDN, who is an investor in the company, has stated his intention was not to make money. Are you calling him a liar?
JA has said the same thing. Are you calling him a liar?
Personally, I'd believe them without solid evidence to the contrary. Where is your evidence? Or are you suggesting that we believe your word when you won't believe theirs....Mike >>
How do I know? Let's just call it a very strong hunch based on all that has been posted here to date. Also, I know
quite a bit about marketing techniques, as well as human nature. This thing doesn't smell like a non-profit organization
in the slightest. Do you have any evidence that they are chartered as such?
Am I calling them liars? I guess so. Do you really think these guys would be putting this kind of time and energy into
something without a financial carrot? The fact that you use the word "investor" is very telling and appropriate:
in⋅vest [in-vest]
–verb (used with object) 1. to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.
Where is my evidence? I don't have wiretaps of phone calls between the principles, if that's what you mean. Look,
you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. Ultimately, the truth will out down the road. If it turns out I was
wrong, I'll admit it. Cheers...
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The motivation behind CAC was to make money, not to save the world. >>
And how do you know?
TDN, who is an investor in the company, has stated his intention was not to make money. Are you calling him a liar?
JA has said the same thing. Are you calling him a liar?
Personally, I'd believe them without solid evidence to the contrary. Where is your evidence? Or are you suggesting that we believe your word when you won't believe theirs....Mike >>
How do I know? Let's just call it a very strong hunch based on all that has been posted here to date. Also, I know
quite a bit about marketing techniques, as well as human nature. This thing doesn't smell like a non-profit organization
in the slightest. Do you have any evidence that they are chartered as such? >>
Who said anything about a non-profit? You stated it was started to make money, yet the one who runs in as well as investors (and yes, I'm well aware of what the word means, thanks) have stated their primary goals were not making money.
<< <i>Am I calling them liars? I guess so. Do you really think these guys would be putting this kind of time and energy into
something without a financial carrot? The fact that you use the word "investor" is very telling and appropriate:
Where is my evidence? I don't have wiretaps of phone calls between the principles, if that's what you mean. Look,
you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. Ultimately, the truth will out down the road. If it turns out I was
wrong, I'll admit it. Cheers... >>
Fair enough, if given the chance to believe JA/TDN or CoinJunkie, you'll have to excuse me if I believe the former rather than the latter, particularly your evidence is self-described as "a very strong hunch". At least where I come from, you don't call people liars based on a hunch, you do it because you have evidence to the contrary.
Respectfully....Mike
The reason I'm in it is pure and simple - put a stop to some of the crap that goes on in this hobby. If you had even an inkling of a clue about half the crap that I know for a fact, you might stop insinuating things. Certain goings on had to stop and we felt this was the best way.
Not me.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The truth has already come out but you refuse to believe it. Why will it be any different down the road?
Once his or her collection is in good order, then the collector comes out of the "closet."
The same thing happened when PCGS and then NGC started slabbing coins. The ones who fought slabbing the most were secretly slabbing their coin collection.
we would lose over half of the
collectors, as well as 40% in coin
values.
Camelot
I know John very well. I know the man, you don't, so before you write a biography on him and his business you better do more due diligence. As for the contention that this is only for investors, you're wrong because I own pieces of history and beauty. Are they investments in the long run...sure. But considering that I have a 100% gain on paper in my coins and have no desire to sell them is a fair statement on what my passion is. You can diminish your intent but don't attack mine. John is NOT a savior. I said his "mission was "Messianic". Well, when you start a company with the purpose of making life for coin doctors very difficult and as a benefit to collectors to identify better coins (collectors who may not know every detail, and I don't) then I take umbrage with your statement that CAC is solely a money making venture. John has been studying this deception for 30 years and his eye helps me. I clearly said, as did TDN, that an expertly puttied coin will beat my eye every time.
I'll side with the more experienced collectors like TDN, Oreville, Steve Duckor and others who understand what CAC is all about any day. And I'll watch those coins that are often bought sight unseen because so many dealers have faith in his judgement and pay premiums. And eventually I'll sell my undoctored coins the same way. I've been duped by carefully doctored coins. All collectors have...the best of the best.
that doesn't mean that I am not a moron.
Camelot
<< <i>Ultimately, the truth will out down the road.
The truth has already come out but you refuse to believe it. Why will it be any different down the road? >>
TDN, why doesn't CAC post their financial results on their web site on a quarterly basis? That might clear up some of this
speculation. One other quick question: how did you reinvest that $14K in the service of putting the coin doctors out of
business?
<< <i>
TDN, why doesn't CAC post their financial results on their web site on a quarterly basis? That might clear up some of this
speculation. >>
I doubt it. You'll just find something else to harp on.
<< <i>One other quick question: how did you reinvest that $14K in the service of putting the coin doctors out of
business? >>
<< <i>
<< <i>
TDN, why doesn't CAC post their financial results on their web site on a quarterly basis? That might clear up some of this
speculation. >>
I doubt it. You'll just find something else to harp on.
<< <i>One other quick question: how did you reinvest that $14K in the service of putting the coin doctors out of
business? >>
Then why are the coin doctors still in business??
As a matter of fact, if it's just about money, tell him NTC and NNC could use a little help, too.
At first, I thought why the hell do I need a sticker to tell me my coins are graded properly? I also thought, wow, what a great new way to grade already graded coins and make a buck.
Honestly, if youre good at something, why do it for free? JA and any investors in Cac SHOULD make money. And for myself I see no problem whatsoever with that. I pay for water, why shouldnt we pay for this service too?
As for publishing any of their info about profits, I think thats their call.
Do I think Cac is for everyone? No. But nor is numismatics. I dont think Cac means you cant tell what a nice coin is, more just a helping hand to the collector.
I for one would submit any coins I thought stickerable. If they do bring more with a sale, then good for the owner. The coin doctors made plenty of money off collectors and I dont see why its an issue if the seller makes some cash on their coins.
Also, I have never talked with JA or had any dealings with him, but his reputation speaks volumes. I know several people that speak very highly of him, and I value those opinions. I think some more fine tuning has to be done, but its still a nrew company.
Thank you for a great thread, it has been very interesting to read.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
TDN, why doesn't CAC post their financial results on their web site on a quarterly basis? That might clear up some of this
speculation. >>
I doubt it. You'll just find something else to harp on.
<< <i>One other quick question: how did you reinvest that $14K in the service of putting the coin doctors out of
business? >>
Then why are the coin doctors still in business?? >>
Using that same logic, let me ask you a question.... Why are there still criminals, we have police after all?
The question is not why they are in business, but if the CAC has made it harder on them.
Based on my own personal experience, as well as second-hand information from other collectors, I'd say they have -- but time will tell...Mike
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>
The same thing happened when PCGS and then NGC started slabbing coins. The ones who fought slabbing the most were secretly slabbing their coin collection. >>
OR were critisizing the very concept of PCGS/NGC and complaining they were a "cartel" whose only interests were "self interests".
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
It is hard to argue with this point... I agree.
CAC has the potential to do great things for the hobby. Unfortunately, this hobby is so set in its ways that trying to convince people that there are other ways to grade and evaluate the state of preservation for coins is a task that makes one ask if they would rather go to the dentist and have a root canal instead.
BTW, I am still waiting for comments on the 1924 Saint graded in 67 and how many collectors this really impacts... My guess is less than 5% and that is generous
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
7 green beans returned.
Camelot
<< <i>7 coins coins sent and
7 green beans returned. >>
I remember hearing of a similar deal.
Better plant them quick and be careful. Remember the Giant!
The entertainment can never be overdressed....except in burlesque
Someone earlier mentioned that the CAC "is not perfect, mistakes can be made". Then again, what's the point? Are two mistakes better than one? One more thing... a "bean" does NOT change the coin that is in the slab, so if someone pays a premium for the "bean", anyone in the know would pay a premium for that coin anyway! If the coin has a "bean", but is not very eye appealing, only a fool would pay a premium! Anyway, if you like the bean, buy the bean. If you don't like the bean, buy the COIN, and you can probably find a way to remove that little sticker.
It's also refreshing to learn that there are still people in this world who would lose money just to help us poor, uneducated collectors. I may have to send my coins in to the CAC, just so I can find out if they are really nice, or not. If they get a bean, I'm a good collector, if not, I guess I find eye appeal in junk! I can no longer trust myself, or NGC, or PCGS, but, for a reason that escapes me, I can have total trust in the CAC. Don't take any offense, and don't take me seriously, I'm just trying to think for myself again.... and LOGIC ain't workin'
<< <i>The thing I find silly is that MOST (notice I did NOT say ALL) of the CAC fans usually spout off about NGC ALWAYS grading 1 to 1.5 points higher than PCGS... Then they say that they need a bean to tell them that a PCGS coin is actually graded correctly... So, if JA is "the best set of grading eyes out there", and an NGC coin gets a bean, it's a lock for a cross, right? But, if it doesn't cross, the Kool Aide crowd says that "PCGS standards are higher"!!! If that is the case, PCGS trumps the bean anyway, so what's the point?
Someone earlier mentioned that the CAC "is not perfect, mistakes can be made". Then again, what's the point? Are two mistakes better than one? One more thing... a "bean" does NOT change the coin that is in the slab, so if someone pays a premium for the "bean", anyone in the know would pay a premium for that coin anyway! If the coin has a "bean", but is not very eye appealing, only a fool would pay a premium! Anyway, if you like the bean, buy the bean. If you don't like the bean, buy the COIN, and you can probably find a way to remove that little sticker.
It's also refreshing to learn that there are still people in this world who would lose money just to help us poor, uneducated collectors. I may have to send my coins in to the CAC, just so I can find out if they are really nice, or not. If they get a bean, I'm a good collector, if not, I guess I find eye appeal in junk! I can no longer trust myself, or NGC, or PCGS, but, for a reason that escapes me, I can have total trust in the CAC. Don't take any offense, and don't take me seriously, I'm just trying to think for myself again.... and LOGIC ain't workin' >>
Probably one of the most sensible posts I have read in a long while on this forum
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>Someone earlier mentioned that the CAC "is not perfect, mistakes can be made". Then again, what's the point? Are two mistakes better than one?
I'm just trying to think for myself again.... and LOGIC ain't workin' >>
Well, not on that particular concept, it's not.
Say for the sake of argument the mistake rate is 1 in 1000. So you take 1000 TPG graded coins (with the one mistake) and send them to CAC. What do you suppose the odds are that CAC will pick the same coin to make a mistake on? Does 1 in 1000 sound about right?
999 times out of 1000, the mistake will be caught. So it's not very likely that two mistakes will be made on the same coin, is it?
<< <i>The thing I find silly is that MOST (notice I did NOT say ALL) of the CAC fans usually spout off about NGC ALWAYS grading 1 to 1.5 points higher than PCGS... Then they say that they need a bean to tell them that a PCGS coin is actually graded correctly... So, if JA is "the best set of grading eyes out there", and an NGC coin gets a bean, it's a lock for a cross, right? But, if it doesn't cross, the Kool Aide crowd says that "PCGS standards are higher"!!! If that is the case, PCGS trumps the bean anyway, so what's the point?
Someone earlier mentioned that the CAC "is not perfect, mistakes can be made". Then again, what's the point? Are two mistakes better than one? One more thing... a "bean" does NOT change the coin that is in the slab, so if someone pays a premium for the "bean", anyone in the know would pay a premium for that coin anyway! If the coin has a "bean", but is not very eye appealing, only a fool would pay a premium! Anyway, if you like the bean, buy the bean. If you don't like the bean, buy the COIN, and you can probably find a way to remove that little sticker.
It's also refreshing to learn that there are still people in this world who would lose money just to help us poor, uneducated collectors. I may have to send my coins in to the CAC, just so I can find out if they are really nice, or not. If they get a bean, I'm a good collector, if not, I guess I find eye appeal in junk! I can no longer trust myself, or NGC, or PCGS, but, for a reason that escapes me, I can have total trust in the CAC. Don't take any offense, and don't take me seriously, I'm just trying to think for myself again.... and LOGIC ain't workin' >>
What if I told you that 40% of CAC stickered coins are NGC? They are.
<<What if I told you that 40% of CAC stickered coins are NGC? They are>>
John said that 48% off all coins are stickered. I asked him in the classroom what was the breakdown of PCGS vs NGC were.....he said he didn't know and that it was close...........MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
to think for themselves. Why, such a thing can lead
to intelligent discussion, open minds and informative
debate. That will never do....never....never.....never!
Camelot
This is circular logic. Only the nicer coins get more money; the beans only go on the nicer coins.
Also, when you're buying such a high end coin (MS67), it sure won't hurt to have the bean for added peace of mind/future flips.
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......