Offer a coin to a dealer on the bourse, and they'll say "I don't really need one like that right now", or they'll say "how much". The second kind is liquid.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>I emailed CAC for a price on a few commems and the prices came back in less than an hour. >>
I guess since you paid the "initiation fee" you are now privy to the pricing info. Otherwise, wouldn't it make more sense to publish their bids on their web site?
<< <i>I emailed CAC for a price on a few commems and the prices came back in less than an hour. >>
I guess since you paid the "initiation fee" you are now privy to the pricing info. Otherwise, wouldn't it make more sense to publish their bids on their web site? >>
Why would that make sense? Does ANY dealer or other entity publish bids on their website?
<< <i>This is, of course, completely incorrect. CAC publishes its bids regularly. >>
<< <i>Why would that make sense? Does ANY dealer or other entity publish bids on their website? >>
pub⋅lish [puhb-lish] –verb (used with object)
1. to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public. 2. to issue publicly the work of: Random House publishes Faulkner. 3. to announce formally or officially; proclaim; promulgate. 4. to make publicly or generally known.
I am not aware of any initiation fee for coin collectors?
Dealer initiation fee. I do not know about that.
JA is admittedly a little old fashioned when it comes to web sites. He does not like updating web sites daily just to maintain published buying prices. He appears to be more of a email kind of person.
Heck, I have never even used the email with him either. I still use snail mail and telephone. LOL.
<< <i>This is, of course, completely incorrect. CAC publishes its bids regularly. >>
<< <i>Why would that make sense? Does ANY dealer or other entity publish bids on their website? >>
pub⋅lish [puhb-lish] –verb (used with object)
1. to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public. 2. to issue publicly the work of: Random House publishes Faulkner. 3. to announce formally or officially; proclaim; promulgate. 4. to make publicly or generally known. >>
5. If it's not sent directly to coinjunkie's house, it's not published
<< <i>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
I guess the above pretty much sums up my feelings on the whole CAC issue. So, can anyone explain why I should not trust myself, or the TPG's, but should trust CAC? Or should there be another sticker company to "okay" the CAC sticker? After all, ANOTHER "expert" opinion doesn't hurt, right? and maybe another, and another.....
And, you're right Mike, nobody on this board ever said anything about NGC grading looser than PCGS, I must have overmedicated and dreamed that up....
Actually, I think I'm becoming convinced that the CAC is necessary to save us collectors from ourselves. I'm also becoming convinced that maybe the moon is made of cheese.... >>
Treeman,
So I guess you can't find an example of a CAC proponent saying that "NGC ALWAYS [grades] 1 to 1.5 points higher than PCGS". And by the way, that's quite different from saying that "NGC grades looser than PCGS".
Bottom line: There is no reason to exaggerate to make your point, and NOBODY is suggesting that collectors trust the CAC (or the TPGs). However, the proponents of CAC are suggesting that it is a service and opinion that has value.
Simple as that.
Take care...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
1 rejected as just not nice enough for the grade [$125k coin that I already knew wouldn't cross to PCGS] 1 rejected as having been chloroxed [$50k coin] 1 rejected as having been dipped [$5k copper/nickel coin] 1 rejected as having altered surfaces [$100k coin]
Resale value was the least of my concerns when sending my coins to the CAC.
2 - an ego stroke or professional approval of your picks?
Understanding how another party viewed my collection was an important consideration. A validation of my grading ability, if you will.
3 - something else that I'm missing?
The most important reason I sent my coins to CAC was the educational benefit. Both in terms of grading as well as spotting of problems.
I feel like most of us here should be able to spot a low end coin if we had to, and price it accordingly. Also, isn't a coin still the same coin whether it's 64 and stickered or 65 and not?
I think that most people (myself included) overestimate their skills in grading. However, your point is a good one -- the coin is the same coin no matter the slab or the sticker.
I will also add this point -- can't a good coin simply be in an overgraded (and presumably stickerless) holder? More to the point, there were several coins in my collection that did not get the sticker. Some of these coins are among the favorites in my collection. Was it disappointing to find out JA/CAC didn't agree with my personal feelings on the coin? Yes, it was. Does the fact that the CAC didn't agree with the grades make them any less desireable to me? Not in the least.
***Disclaimer - I'm not anti-CAC, nor pro-CAC, just curious as to why all of the animosity and strong feelings.
I think the answer to your question lies in the emotions of fear and the resistance to change, because for the life of me, I can't understand the logic behind the positions of those who agree in the value of a TPG yet deny the value of the CAC. That's not to say those who advocate this position are wrong in feeling as they do, but rather the position makes no sense to me personally -- and not for lack of trying.
Take care...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>My own experience with CAC: 1 rejected as having been dipped [$5k copper/nickel coin] >>
Please explain. Earlier in the thread, someone quoted JA as saying he wasn't opposed to dipping. Furthermore, I've seen plenty of dipped coins with CAC stickers at shows.
<< <i> Does the fact that the CAC didn't agree with the grades make them any less desireable to me? Not in the least. >>
That's how I see it, too. I like my collection, and enjoy my coins. I have at least a few that I'm sure would sticker, and some that wouldn't. But in the end I'm pleased with them for what they are and not what slab they are in or grade they were assigned.
That said, I'm a collector, not a dealer. I see a place for CAC, but probably not a need in my case. I wouldn't seek out stickered coins, nor avoid them. The coin is what I seek, one with a certain look or place in history in many cases.
Thanks to all for helping me to understand the situation a bit clearer.
<< <i>My own experience with CAC: 1 rejected as having been dipped [$5k copper/nickel coin] >>
Please explain. Earlier in the thread, someone quoted JA as saying he wasn't opposed to dipping. Furthermore, I've seen plenty of dipped coins with CAC stickers at shows. >>
I dont think very many people consider dipping a Bu silver coin a problem since if done correctly the coins are chemically stable. If cac only stickered 100% original coins that had never been dipped there would be very few candidates.
But dipping copper/nickel (assuming an indian or FE) is just BAD.
Wouldnt expect them to miss that.
I dont see a problem with dipped coins either as long as its done correctly
<< <i>My own experience with CAC: 1 rejected as having been dipped [$5k copper/nickel coin] >>
Please explain. Earlier in the thread, someone quoted JA as saying he wasn't opposed to dipping. Furthermore, I've seen plenty of dipped coins with CAC stickers at shows. >>
I dont think very many people consider dipping a Bu silver coin a problem since if done correctly the coins are chemically stable. If cac only stickered 100% original coins that had never been dipped there would be very few candidates.
But dipping copper/nickel (assuming an indian or FE) is just BAD.
Wouldnt expect them to miss that.
I dont see a problem with dipped coins either as long as its done correctly >>
Thanks, I don't really "do copper", so wasn't aware that it was verboten in that arena...
<< <i>My own experience with CAC: 1 rejected as having been dipped [$5k copper/nickel coin] >>
Please explain. Earlier in the thread, someone quoted JA as saying he wasn't opposed to dipping. Furthermore, I've seen plenty of dipped coins with CAC stickers at shows. >>
I dont think very many people consider dipping a Bu silver coin a problem since if done correctly the coins are chemically stable. If cac only stickered 100% original coins that had never been dipped there would be very few candidates.
But dipping copper/nickel (assuming an indian or FE) is just BAD.
Wouldnt expect them to miss that.
I dont see a problem with dipped coins either as long as its done correctly >>
Thanks, I don't really "do copper", so wasn't aware that it was verboten in that arena... >>
Copper, Copper nickel clad, copper nickel, & nickel coins are all bad candidates for dipping. nickel usually gets streaky orange toning afterwards while copper becomes a horrid pink color.......
Here is a 1906 NGC AU-58 $10 gold piece I also acquired from an old time collection.
Awesome coin! Undipped, old gold patina (see the toning spots) on this coin. Old time technical grading. You gotta love it. Cracking out? Not as long as I can have anything to do with it.
This coin should be technically graded as an MS-61 due to the deep bag mark in the field that is apparent in the picture but in all other respects, this coin is a solid MS-63 in my opinion. The spots do not bother me. They are not the dark annoying spots.
Yet, it failed CAC stickering. Even though JA graded this coin over 30 years ago, he refused to sticker it as the bag mark was too distracting to give it a sticker. That was the only reason he would not sticker it. This is an example of the complex kind of coin that would split people into two camps about this coin. Many will love it but not pay the solid bucks for it. The others will not like the big bag mark and/or spots and hence will not pay the solid bucks for it. The only saving grace for this coin is that it is a good looking coin and it is in a very scarce old NGC holder.
JA had no objection to these toning spots especially since the coin was already in circulated condition. Had the coin been in mint state, he might have felt differently.
Here's a classic head large cent that PCGS graded VF 25.
CAC refused to sticker the coin because it was "low-end for the grade, almost stickered but too many hits".
While I can understand why JA/CAC provided the opinion they did, it doesn't detract from my opinion of the coin in the least. I bought the coin because the color and surfaces appealed to me, and the price was fair as far as I was concerned.
So I say the same thing I said above -- can't a coin be low-end for the grade and still be a good coin?
Said another way, the TPG and CAC are simply (helpful) opinions, and ultimately it is the collector's opinion that matters the most....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
I had no idea, and apparently neither did PCGS. But now I know what to look for.
So has the CAC stopped the practice of puttying coins? I hardly think so. However, the CAC sure has educated THIS collector in what to look for -- and that's invaluable to me....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
I wonder if CAC would consider starting a section on their web site with high quality images of rejected coins, and their reasoning for rejecting them. I honestly think that would be a very useful feature to the numismatic community at large.
The coin will always be what it is, whether stickered, plasticized, or any other "3rd/4th/5th, etc." OPINIONS. I don't care what JA likes. I like what I like. If he/they like it too, great. If not, I don't care.
<< <i>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
I guess the above pretty much sums up my feelings on the whole CAC issue. So, can anyone explain why I should not trust myself, or the TPG's, but should trust CAC? Or should there be another sticker company to "okay" the CAC sticker? After all, ANOTHER "expert" opinion doesn't hurt, right? and maybe another, and another.....
And, you're right Mike, nobody on this board ever said anything about NGC grading looser than PCGS, I must have overmedicated and dreamed that up....
Actually, I think I'm becoming convinced that the CAC is necessary to save us collectors from ourselves. I'm also becoming convinced that maybe the moon is made of cheese.... >>
Treeman,
So I guess you can't find an example of a CAC proponent saying that "NGC ALWAYS [grades] 1 to 1.5 points higher than PCGS". And by the way, that's quite different from saying that "NGC grades looser than PCGS".
Bottom line: There is no reason to exaggerate to make your point, and NOBODY is suggesting that collectors trust the CAC (or the TPGs). However, the proponents of CAC are suggesting that it is a service and opinion that has value.
Simple as that.
Take care...Mike >>
However, the opponents of CAC are suggesting that it is a service and opinion that has no value.
Did the other CAC thread go poof? That one was just really heating up and was interesting to boot...........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......
Comments
Offer a coin to a dealer on the bourse, and they'll say "I don't really need one like that right now", or they'll say "how much". The second kind is liquid.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Ranked in terms of illiquidity:
raw
other tpg
ngc
pcgs
cac >>
I'm rather offended that you did not capitalize or emphasize "collectibility".
But I'll get over it brother.
<< <i>
<< <i>filthybroke- #1- I can now sell my stickered comemms at or above Greysheey bid. >>
NO, you can't. I asked Saintguru if CAC would pay greysheet bid for ALL classic commems earlier in this thread and his answer was "NO".
Nobody except CAC knows what CAC will pay for anything. >>
This is, of course, completely incorrect. CAC publishes its bids regularly.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>filthybroke- #1- I can now sell my stickered comemms at or above Greysheey bid. >>
NO, you can't. I asked Saintguru if CAC would pay greysheet bid for ALL classic commems earlier in this thread and his answer was "NO".
Nobody except CAC knows what CAC will pay for anything. >>
This is, of course, completely incorrect. CAC publishes its bids regularly. >>
Funny, I didn't find them on the web site.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>filthybroke- #1- I can now sell my stickered comemms at or above Greysheey bid. >>
NO, you can't. I asked Saintguru if CAC would pay greysheet bid for ALL classic commems earlier in this thread and his answer was "NO".
Nobody except CAC knows what CAC will pay for anything. >>
This is, of course, completely incorrect. CAC publishes its bids regularly. >>
Funny, I didn't find them on the web site. >>
Funny, I didn't say they were on the web site.
<< <i>coinjunkie- I think you wanted him to ask John for you and he answered NO to you. He would not ask him for you. >>
Nope, he subsequently sent me a PM confirming that they won't pay Greysheet for ALL classic commems.
<< <i>I emailed CAC for a price on a few commems and the prices came back in less than an hour. >>
I guess since you paid the "initiation fee" you are now privy to the pricing info. Otherwise, wouldn't it make more
sense to publish their bids on their web site?
<< <i>
<< <i>I emailed CAC for a price on a few commems and the prices came back in less than an hour. >>
I guess since you paid the "initiation fee" you are now privy to the pricing info. Otherwise, wouldn't it make more
sense to publish their bids on their web site? >>
Why would that make sense? Does ANY dealer or other entity publish bids on their website?
<< <i>
<< <i>This is, of course, completely incorrect. CAC publishes its bids regularly. >>
<< <i>Why would that make sense? Does ANY dealer or other entity publish bids on their website? >>
pub⋅lish [puhb-lish]
–verb (used with object)
1. to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.
2. to issue publicly the work of: Random House publishes Faulkner.
3. to announce formally or officially; proclaim; promulgate.
4. to make publicly or generally known.
Dealer initiation fee. I do not know about that.
JA is admittedly a little old fashioned when it comes to web sites. He does not like updating web sites daily just to maintain published buying prices. He appears to be more of a email kind of person.
Heck, I have never even used the email with him either. I still use snail mail and telephone. LOL.
<< <i>
<< <i>This is, of course, completely incorrect. CAC publishes its bids regularly. >>
<< <i>Why would that make sense? Does ANY dealer or other entity publish bids on their website? >>
pub⋅lish [puhb-lish]
–verb (used with object)
1. to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.
2. to issue publicly the work of: Random House publishes Faulkner.
3. to announce formally or officially; proclaim; promulgate.
4. to make publicly or generally known. >>
5. If it's not sent directly to coinjunkie's house, it's not published
until one learns how to grade, learns how to avoid the cons and the
traps and learns the rules of the game. This is the tuition and sometimes
it can be very , very expensive.
Camelot
<< <i>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
I guess the above pretty much sums up my feelings on the whole CAC issue. So, can anyone explain why I should not trust myself, or the TPG's, but should trust CAC? Or should there be another sticker company to "okay" the CAC sticker? After all, ANOTHER "expert" opinion doesn't hurt, right? and maybe another, and another.....
And, you're right Mike, nobody on this board ever said anything about NGC grading looser than PCGS, I must have overmedicated and dreamed that up....
Actually, I think I'm becoming convinced that the CAC is necessary to save us collectors from ourselves. I'm also becoming convinced that maybe the moon is made of cheese....
Treeman,
So I guess you can't find an example of a CAC proponent saying that "NGC ALWAYS [grades] 1 to 1.5 points higher than PCGS". And by the way, that's quite different from saying that "NGC grades looser than PCGS".
Bottom line: There is no reason to exaggerate to make your point, and NOBODY is suggesting that collectors trust the CAC (or the TPGs). However, the proponents of CAC are suggesting that it is a service and opinion that has value.
Simple as that.
Take care...Mike
Approximately 60 coins sent in:
1 rejected as just not nice enough for the grade [$125k coin that I already knew wouldn't cross to PCGS]
1 rejected as having been chloroxed [$50k coin]
1 rejected as having been dipped [$5k copper/nickel coin]
1 rejected as having altered surfaces [$100k coin]
4 gold stickers [all old holders]
50+ green stickers.
It means another opinion.
1 - resale value?
Resale value was the least of my concerns when sending my coins to the CAC.
2 - an ego stroke or professional approval of your picks?
Understanding how another party viewed my collection was an important consideration. A validation of my grading ability, if you will.
3 - something else that I'm missing?
The most important reason I sent my coins to CAC was the educational benefit. Both in terms of grading as well as spotting of problems.
I feel like most of us here should be able to spot a low end coin if we had to, and price it accordingly. Also, isn't a coin still the same coin whether it's 64 and stickered or 65 and not?
I think that most people (myself included) overestimate their skills in grading. However, your point is a good one -- the coin is the same coin no matter the slab or the sticker.
I will also add this point -- can't a good coin simply be in an overgraded (and presumably stickerless) holder? More to the point, there were several coins in my collection that did not get the sticker. Some of these coins are among the favorites in my collection. Was it disappointing to find out JA/CAC didn't agree with my personal feelings on the coin? Yes, it was. Does the fact that the CAC didn't agree with the grades make them any less desireable to me? Not in the least.
***Disclaimer - I'm not anti-CAC, nor pro-CAC, just curious as to why all of the animosity and strong feelings.
I think the answer to your question lies in the emotions of fear and the resistance to change, because for the life of me, I can't understand the logic behind the positions of those who agree in the value of a TPG yet deny the value of the CAC. That's not to say those who advocate this position are wrong in feeling as they do, but rather the position makes no sense to me personally -- and not for lack of trying.
Take care...Mike
where a known expert
gives a second opinion
of a slabbed coin?
I think so.
<< <i>My own experience with CAC:
1 rejected as having been dipped [$5k copper/nickel coin]
>>
Please explain. Earlier in the thread, someone quoted JA as saying he wasn't opposed to dipping. Furthermore,
I've seen plenty of dipped coins with CAC stickers at shows.
<< <i> Does the fact that the CAC didn't agree with the grades make them any less desireable to me? Not in the least. >>
That's how I see it, too. I like my collection, and enjoy my coins. I have at least a few that I'm sure would sticker, and some that wouldn't. But in the end I'm pleased with them for what they are and not what slab they are in or grade they were assigned.
That said, I'm a collector, not a dealer. I see a place for CAC, but probably not a need in my case. I wouldn't seek out stickered coins, nor avoid them. The coin is what I seek, one with a certain look or place in history in many cases.
Thanks to all for helping me to understand the situation a bit clearer.
<< <i>
<< <i>My own experience with CAC:
1 rejected as having been dipped [$5k copper/nickel coin]
>>
Please explain. Earlier in the thread, someone quoted JA as saying he wasn't opposed to dipping. Furthermore,
I've seen plenty of dipped coins with CAC stickers at shows. >>
I dont think very many people consider dipping a Bu silver coin a problem since if done correctly the coins are chemically stable.
If cac only stickered 100% original coins that had never been dipped there would be very few candidates.
But dipping copper/nickel (assuming an indian or FE) is just BAD.
Wouldnt expect them to miss that.
I dont see a problem with dipped coins either as long as its done correctly
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>My own experience with CAC:
1 rejected as having been dipped [$5k copper/nickel coin]
>>
Please explain. Earlier in the thread, someone quoted JA as saying he wasn't opposed to dipping. Furthermore,
I've seen plenty of dipped coins with CAC stickers at shows. >>
I dont think very many people consider dipping a Bu silver coin a problem since if done correctly the coins are chemically stable.
If cac only stickered 100% original coins that had never been dipped there would be very few candidates.
But dipping copper/nickel (assuming an indian or FE) is just BAD.
Wouldnt expect them to miss that.
I dont see a problem with dipped coins either as long as its done correctly >>
Thanks, I don't really "do copper", so wasn't aware that it was verboten in that arena...
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>My own experience with CAC:
1 rejected as having been dipped [$5k copper/nickel coin]
>>
Please explain. Earlier in the thread, someone quoted JA as saying he wasn't opposed to dipping. Furthermore,
I've seen plenty of dipped coins with CAC stickers at shows. >>
I dont think very many people consider dipping a Bu silver coin a problem since if done correctly the coins are chemically stable.
If cac only stickered 100% original coins that had never been dipped there would be very few candidates.
But dipping copper/nickel (assuming an indian or FE) is just BAD.
Wouldnt expect them to miss that.
I dont see a problem with dipped coins either as long as its done correctly >>
Thanks, I don't really "do copper", so wasn't aware that it was verboten in that arena... >>
Copper, Copper nickel clad, copper nickel, & nickel coins are all bad candidates for dipping.
nickel usually gets streaky orange toning afterwards while copper becomes a horrid pink color.......
Hoard the keys.
Here is a 1906 NGC AU-58 $10 gold piece I also acquired from an old time collection.
Awesome coin! Undipped, old gold patina (see the toning spots) on this coin. Old time technical grading. You gotta love it. Cracking out? Not as long as I can have anything to do with it.
This coin should be technically graded as an MS-61 due to the deep bag mark in the field that is apparent in the picture but in all other respects, this coin is a solid MS-63 in my opinion. The spots do not bother me. They are not the dark annoying spots.
Yet, it failed CAC stickering. Even though JA graded this coin over 30 years ago, he refused to sticker it as the bag mark was too distracting to give it a sticker. That was the only reason he would not sticker it. This is an example of the complex kind of coin that would split people into two camps about this coin. Many will love it but not pay the solid bucks for it. The others will not like the big bag mark and/or spots and hence will not pay the solid bucks for it. The only saving grace for this coin is that it is a good looking coin and it is in a very scarce old NGC holder.
JA had no objection to these toning spots especially since the coin was already in circulated condition. Had the coin been in mint state, he might have felt differently.
<< <i>what is cloroxing? >>
dipping in bleach - leaves a distinctive toning pattern if done quickly. Turns silver black if too long.
Here's a classic head large cent that PCGS graded VF 25.
CAC refused to sticker the coin because it was "low-end for the grade, almost stickered but too many hits".
While I can understand why JA/CAC provided the opinion they did, it doesn't detract from my opinion of the coin in the least. I bought the coin because the color and surfaces appealed to me, and the price was fair as far as I was concerned.
So I say the same thing I said above -- can't a coin be low-end for the grade and still be a good coin?
Said another way, the TPG and CAC are simply (helpful) opinions, and ultimately it is the collector's opinion that matters the most....Mike
Here's a coin that PCGS graded MS 63:
CAC rejected the coin for "obverse putty".
I had no idea, and apparently neither did PCGS. But now I know what to look for.
So has the CAC stopped the practice of puttying coins? I hardly think so. However, the CAC sure has educated THIS collector in what to look for -- and that's invaluable to me....Mike
<< <i>An educational post: >>
Thank you, Oreville!
I wonder if CAC would consider starting a section on their web site with high quality images of rejected coins, and their
reasoning for rejecting them. I honestly think that would be a very useful feature to the numismatic community at large.
The coin will always be what it is, whether stickered, plasticized, or any other "3rd/4th/5th, etc." OPINIONS.
I don't care what JA likes. I like what I like. If he/they like it too, great. If not, I don't care.
<< <i>And another....
Here's a coin that PCGS graded MS 63:
CAC rejected the coin for "obverse putty".
I had no idea, and apparently neither did PCGS. But now I know what to look for....Mike >>
Thank you, Mike.
Doesn't the PCGS guarantee cover graded gold that's been puttied? Did you seek recourse with them?
It would be a good idea for the TPG's to do so as well.
<< <i>
<< <i>And another....
Here's a coin that PCGS graded MS 63:
CAC rejected the coin for "obverse putty".
I had no idea, and apparently neither did PCGS. But now I know what to look for....Mike >>
Thank you, Mike.
Doesn't the PCGS guarantee cover graded gold that's been puttied? Did you seek recourse with them? >>
Yes & not yet.
then do not buy the service.
If you feel lucky, then buy raw
and enjoy. For those who choose to
may choose such a service be it TPG
or CAC, good for you too.
Camelot
<< <i>
<< <i>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
I guess the above pretty much sums up my feelings on the whole CAC issue. So, can anyone explain why I should not trust myself, or the TPG's, but should trust CAC? Or should there be another sticker company to "okay" the CAC sticker? After all, ANOTHER "expert" opinion doesn't hurt, right? and maybe another, and another.....
And, you're right Mike, nobody on this board ever said anything about NGC grading looser than PCGS, I must have overmedicated and dreamed that up....
Actually, I think I'm becoming convinced that the CAC is necessary to save us collectors from ourselves. I'm also becoming convinced that maybe the moon is made of cheese....
Treeman,
So I guess you can't find an example of a CAC proponent saying that "NGC ALWAYS [grades] 1 to 1.5 points higher than PCGS". And by the way, that's quite different from saying that "NGC grades looser than PCGS".
Bottom line: There is no reason to exaggerate to make your point, and NOBODY is suggesting that collectors trust the CAC (or the TPGs). However, the proponents of CAC are suggesting that it is a service and opinion that has value.
Simple as that.
Take care...Mike >>
However, the opponents of CAC are suggesting that it is a service and opinion that has no value.
Simple as that.
Take care...Ken
Wow.
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......