I did not know that Joe O. also posted market reports...
RYK
Posts: 35,799 ✭✭✭✭✭
0
RYK
Posts: 35,799 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
<< <i>Link fixed. My most recent "Viewpoint" regarding CAC is now live. >>
I wasn't able to open it -
Son of a gun.
Edited to fix quote.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
CAC Missing The Mark [8.25.09]
In October 2007 a group of coin dealers headed by John Albanese launched Certified Acceptance Corporation (CAC), originally known as Collectors Acceptance Corporation. The basic premise was that in the 20+ years since PCGS and NGC were founded, the grading services' standards had both relaxed and varied to the point where the market has been flooded with coins that are substandard for the grade, dragging down the prices for properly graded coins.
In mid-March 2008, Maurice Rosen interviewed John Albanese for the May 2008 Rosen Numismatic Advisory Newsletter (Vol. 33 No. 4). In this interview, John stated his case for founding CAC:
"I felt we were basically in a death spiral. I saw the "C" coins dragging down the prices of "A" and "B" coins. Throughout my career I've always tried to buy the "A" and "B" coins. I felt that someone just had to push back. I felt strongly that the "A" and "B" coins needed to trade on their own, to be decoupled from the "C" coins. I felt the best way to accomplish that was to start CAC."
When CAC began operations in October 2007, I was highly skeptical of this new service. First, CAC's early and most vocal supporters failed to instill any confidence in me. Second, and more important, CAC's end mission was to provide a product suitable for sight-unseen electronic trading.
While the boiler room coin dealers desire a product that can be sold sight-unseen to unknowledgable investors by an "account executive" with all of 8 months on the job, efforts to better sight-unseen trading have no positive consequences for numismatic collectors. Since I'm a collector-oriented dealer, CAC just didn't seem to fit with what I do.
About a year later, in late 2008, I had a shift in my indifferent opinion regarding CAC, just as I sensed that the CAC cheerleaders had quieted down. After all, I have known John Albanese for a very long time. And while I believed that CAC had over promised, I knew that John's intentions were good.
Since that time, just about all of the coins that have made it to this website have been submitted to CAC, and nearly all have passed. Most of the coins that have sold before posting on this site have not been submitted, as I've simply had only one collector request the service. Nevertheless, I have supported John's efforts and made a point of keeping in regular contact so that we can compare notes on what we are seeing.
I have been told by a major dealer and CAC supporter that my grading disagreements are simply a matter of my "taste". But regardless of differences in taste, there would not be any doctored coins approved by CAC. That has not proved to be the case.
It's well known that CAC has had trouble with both colonials and early copper. In fact, I do not submit any colonials to them as I simply don't believe that they have enough expertise in that area. Additionally, I've seen the stray PCGS/CAC coin here and there that I certainly would not have "stickered". Again, maybe it's just my taste. However, this summer's auctions have included an increased number of CAC approved coins that were unquestionably doctored - added color or added film - with the highest concentrations within silver type.
In CAC's defense, all of those doctored coins were previously certified by PCGS or NGC, so they erred first. Yet, given that PCGS has had over 23 years to accumulate mistakes, CAC should not have so many problems in less than two. Additionally, collectors are paying significant premiums for CAC approved coins at auction, yet in some instances, are not getting what they're paying for.
Going forward, I'll continue to submit coins to CAC if only to differentiate myself from the charlatans who either don't know the difference between good and bad, or choose not to know. I'll also continue to participate in any discussions that could improve CAC, and provide a safer coin market for collectors.
However, it's important for collectors to know that the coin doctor problem has not gone away, and the market is not any more safe than it was pre-CAC. In fact, if CAC gives buyers another reason to let their guard down, it could be even worse.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Interesting perspective from a knowledgeable experienced source. I would say his point to be cautious, even with CAC, is good free advice.
<< <i>I had some trouble opening it as well - it was a browser issue - but here it is:
CAC Missing The Mark [8.25.09]
I have been told by a major dealer and CAC supporter that my grading disagreements are simply a matter of my "taste". But regardless of differences in taste, there would not be any doctored coins approved by CAC. That has not proved to be the case.
Again, maybe it's just my taste. However, this summer's auctions have included an increased number of CAC approved coins that were unquestionably doctored - added color or added film - with the highest concentrations within silver type.
In CAC's defense, all of those doctored coins were previously certified by PCGS or NGC, so they erred first. Yet, given that PCGS has had over 23 years to accumulate mistakes, CAC should not have so many problems in less than two. Additionally, collectors are paying significant premiums for CAC approved coins at auction, yet in some instances, are not getting what they're paying for.
Going forward, I'll continue to submit coins to CAC if only to differentiate myself from the charlatans who either don't know the difference between good and bad, or choose not to know. I'll also continue to participate in any discussions that could improve CAC, and provide a safer coin market for collectors.
However, it's important for collectors to know that the coin doctor problem has not gone away, and the market is not any more safe than it was pre-CAC. In fact, if CAC gives buyers another reason to let their guard down, it could be even worse. >>
Recently Joe was critical of a proof seated quarter I picked up from a recent Heritage auction, being of the opinion that the coin had added or accelerated color.
Yes the coin was CAC'd. The coin was looked at by myself in person and several (respected) dealers I know saw the coin and liked it and thought it was original as well.
One of which is held in rather high esteem by many members of this forum, some not as well known. Received not one negative comment about the coin, all very positive except from Joe in an exchange of PM's.
Now I am a fairly open minded person, and if I goofed, well then so be it, I do not make a living trading coins and do not have the experience of looking at thousands of coins every month. But some of these other guys do. Are they wrong as well?
As does Joe, who is known for having a great eye, so who is right? A question of taste may be more of an appropriate response than just assuming altered surfaces. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that in spite of TPG's, CAC, et al, we are still going to get different opinions about what constitutes a gem original coin.
Re: Docs, yeah, they are that good. The best docs can fool even some of the best graders. Dare I say, maybe even John and Joe on occasion? Maybe there really are far more doctored coins out there then anyone really wants to admit. After all, it's been going on for a long, long time.
Re: CAC. It's still evolving but I think on the whole it's positive but that could change. I certainly don't agree with the stickering of dipped silver, esp. evident on blast white 19th century proofs, or TPG's slabbing them in the first place, but hey, it's market acceptable right? Even though it is alteration of a coin's ENTIRE surface, which certainly qualifies as doctoring.
I wish CAC wouldn't sticker these coins. It does diminish them in my eye.
Just some thoughts for discussion. I've no real axe to grind with anyone in particular. Just a guy of relatively modest means who loves great coins.
john
Who is John Galt?
You can get wrapped up in all of this, but when it comes down to it, all that really matters is whether you like the coin or not. The additional opinions and levels of protection offered by the experts, plastic companies, and sticker companies is helpful and can shape your own opinion, but these does not change this simple fact.
<< <i>I have been generally satisfied with the CAC. I think that we all have our pet experts, and these experts may not agree with each other. I have coins that Mr. Albanese did not like but CRO, Doug Winter, David Akers, Boiler78, and other highly-esteemed (by me) dealers and advanced collectors did like. Additonally, we may not agree with our experts. No coin is perfect, and weighing the importance of the imperfections of our coins is highly subjective. Add to this the fact that many of the coins were mistreated over the years, and you can imagine the possible permutations of who likes what and who does not and whose opinion is most important.
You can get wrapped up in all of this, but when it comes down to it, all that really matters is whether you like the coin or not. The additional opinions and levels of protection offered by the experts, plastic companies, and sticker companies is helpful and can shape your own opinion, but these does not change this simple fact. >>
and that's it in a nutshell.
Some did not like this piece, but I do:
"if you like a coin, if you really REALLY like it, then the price does not matter"
(nor does the plastic, nor does the sticker, nor does the seller for that matter)
K S