Albanese Rare Coins w/Green Beans

aficoinado · November 10, 2009 10:26AM

Is it safe to assume that any coin listed on their site WITHOUT a bean was rejected by CAC?

Staircoins · November 10, 2009 10:26AM

Not the same Albanese.

commoncents05 · November 10, 2009 10:28AM

No, two different people.

-Paul

aficoinado · November 10, 2009 10:29AM

Alright then. Now I know. <preparing for the dozen incoming posts...>

commoncents05 · November 10, 2009 10:41AM

<< Alright then. Now I know. <preparing for the dozen incoming posts...> >>

You must have lurked for a while before starting to post, you already know the drill around here.

-Paul

Halfhunter06 · November 10, 2009 11:11AM

dont worry, I thought the same as you. Confusing part about it is they are both from New Jersey, which adds to this mistake.

WTCG · November 10, 2009 11:58AM

John Albanese of CAC fame is from Bedminster, NJ is not related to or affiliated with Albanese Rare Coins from Albion, NY.

joebb21 · November 10, 2009 2:02PM

while I am aware that they are two separate albanese, I would guess very strongly that any coin on albanese rare coins without a bean WAS in fact rejected.
reasoning is-if a good percentage is cac'd and you try to sell the finest and nicest pieces, my guess some coins bought or made by them just didnt cut it for cac

PerryHall · November 10, 2009 9:38PM

<< while I am aware that they are two separate albanese, I would guess very strongly that any coin on albanese rare coins without a bean WAS in fact rejected.
reasoning is-if a good percentage is cac'd and you try to sell the finest and nicest pieces, my guess some coins bought or made by them just didnt cut it for cac >>

Good point. When a dealer pushes CAC coins and their stock is primarily CAC coins, I assume the few non-CAC coins that they are selling were rejected by CAC in most cases.

Hyperion · November 10, 2009 9:40PM

<< 

<< while I am aware that they are two separate albanese, I would guess very strongly that any coin on albanese rare coins without a bean WAS in fact rejected.
reasoning is-if a good percentage is cac'd and you try to sell the finest and nicest pieces, my guess some coins bought or made by them just didnt cut it for cac >>

Good point. When a dealer pushes CAC coins and their stock is primarily CAC coins, I assume the few non-CAC coins that they are selling were rejected by CAC in most cases. >>

I think it's a tragic mistake on CAC's part not to also publish a database of every cert that was REJECTED. totally kills any credibility they had with me, just another for-profit organization when all is said and done.

Connecticoin · November 10, 2009 9:47PM

<< I think it's a tragic mistake on CAC's part not to also publish a database of every cert that was REJECTED. totally kills any credibility they had with me, just another for-profit organization when all is said and done. >>

I disagree. Such a database would put a "scarlet letter" on every rejected coin which would unfarily hurt its market value relative to a coin not in such a database.

TorinoCobra71 · November 10, 2009 9:49PM

<< 

<< I think it's a tragic mistake on CAC's part not to also publish a database of every cert that was REJECTED. totally kills any credibility they had with me, just another for-profit organization when all is said and done. >>

I disagree. Such a database would put a "scarlet letter" on every rejected coin which would unfarily hurt its market value relative to a coin not in such a database. >>

Good Point!

TC71

Hyperion · November 10, 2009 10:04PM

<< 

<< I think it's a tragic mistake on CAC's part not to also publish a database of every cert that was REJECTED. totally kills any credibility they had with me, just another for-profit organization when all is said and done. >>

I disagree. Such a database would put a "scarlet letter" on every rejected coin which would unfarily hurt its market value relative to a coin not in such a database. >>

Correct. It should be the risk for every coin that you want to have JUDGED by a service that proclaims it's watching the watchers.

That's the ABSOLUTE implication of having something be "approved", something has to be is REJECTED. If CAC's ultimate goal is "every coin in it's appropriate holder", then they do the entire market a disservice by not giving you the coins which are NOT accurately graded.

It would be sad that some would accept the boon of the bean, but not be able to accept it's logical reprocussions.

btw, I dont hold an inventory of every coin in the world, so what do I care? I just want someone to tell me what TPG is doing a good job!

Hyperion · November 10, 2009 10:04PM

<< 

<< 

<< I think it's a tragic mistake on CAC's part not to also publish a database of every cert that was REJECTED. totally kills any credibility they had with me, just another for-profit organization when all is said and done. >>

I disagree. Such a database would put a "scarlet letter" on every rejected coin which would unfarily hurt its market value relative to a coin not in such a database. >>

Good Point!

TC71 >>

Gators suck.

Justacommeman · November 10, 2009 10:35PM

It is my understanding that Dave Albanese is distantly related to John Albanese and that John was Dave's mentor and impetus into the coin business.................MJ

EagleEye · November 10, 2009 10:49PM

Any dealer who has a majority of CAC coins should tell you the truth if a coin was sent in and rejected.

Just like any non-photosealed coin in my inventory (PCGS and NGC FE & Indian Cents only) is obviously rejected.

I was advised that I would get sued if I listed the rejected coins I got, so CAC would likewise suffer if they listed the rejects they saw.

Hyperion · November 10, 2009 11:27PM

<< Any dealer who has a majority of CAC coins should tell you the truth if a coin was sent in and rejected.

Just like any non-photosealed coin in my inventory (PCGS and NGC FE & Indian Cents only) is obviously rejected.

I was advised that I would get sued if I listed the rejected coins I got, so CAC would likewise suffer if they listed the rejects they saw. >>

that's outrageous. sued on the basis of what? I'm sure CAC lawyers had that loophole sealed tight as a drum in an agreement with the TPGS on how to make money without besmirching anyone.

IMHO: crap.

ricko · November 11, 2009 12:33AM

Whether it be CAC, PCGS, NGC, ANACS, ICG or any other alphabet soup organization, grading is STILL an opinion (albeit a trained opinion) and subject to variance. Until grading is done scientifically, and is 100% repeatable, it remains open to discussion (at least between finite grades - i.e. 63/64, 69/70 etc). Because it is not a finite science, listing rejects could leave a group open to litigation. Likely not worth the cost, but in some cases, it certainly would be pursued. Cheers, RickO

ColonialCoinUnion · November 11, 2009 12:37AM

<< that's outrageous. sued on the basis of what? I'm sure CAC lawyers had that loophole sealed tight as a drum in an agreement with the TPGS on how to make money without besmirching anyone.

IMHO: crap. >>

Your opinion has been noted.

Tesoro · November 11, 2009 12:46AM

I have cosigned coins to ARC that have not been to CAC. I am sure either Bonnie or Dave would tell you if you asked about a specific coin on the web site. As they are in route to Baltimore today they can not respond to this thread,

lkeigwin · November 11, 2009 12:48AM

I too wish there were a database for all CAC-attempts. But I also know it will never happen.

I suppose you could liken the situation to a failed cross-at-grade attempt. The failing coin doesn't get any rejection stain.
Lance.

TwoSides2aCoin · November 11, 2009 1:14AM

<< 

<< that's outrageous. sued on the basis of what? I'm sure CAC lawyers had that loophole sealed tight as a drum in an agreement with the TPGS on how to make money without besmirching anyone.

IMHO: crap. >>

Your opinion has been noted. >>

It's easy to read why I come here for medicinal purposes.

Albanese Rare Coins w/Green Beans

Comments

Leave a Comment