FACT: We would not have coin values where they are today with out CAC.
I agree with this. Numerous US coins, even nice ones, are now valued much lower than they should be if CAC had not existed....this is approx 80% of the current higher $$ valued slabbed market.
If Bill Jones hasn't seen an Eagle Eye coin they didn't like I have. At least one of them. And I don't go out of my way to find nice Indian cents either. No sticker outfit is infallible. I'd say their (EE, CAC, etc.) accuracy would be in the 80-95% range.
I have to ask because I have always wondered this. The 80-95% accuracy range. How is that measured? Who gets to decide that 20% to 5% are wrong ? Whats the perimeters? A CAC sticker only means solid for the grade. It doesnt necessarily mean it's PQ. It just means its not low end for the grade. With that being said, I think Bill Jones has stated he agrees 90% with CAC. That means he thinks JA is wrong 10% of the time in his eyes. It also means in Bill's eyes that Bill Jones is right 100% of the time. The 90% he agrees with and the 10% he doesn't. Cant have it both ways. I know who I will place my bets with.
mark
Adding to the commentary - I agree with CAC about 80% of the time. I don't call it accuracy I call it an opinion of CAC vs. an opinion of mine, and we agree around 80% of the time, no worries. Everyone, including Bill, will have their own opinion on what is strong for the grade. None of these opinions have to concur with CAC at any level. That is why grading is subjective and not fully a strict science, there is, after all, a human element involved in judging a coin and humans, after all, are all different (thank heavens)...........
In terms of who gets to decide what is right, what is wrong, and whats the perimeters - well everyone gets to decide and the perimeters are whatever anyone wants them to be, that is, the subjectivity of grading coins..........................
Best, SH
Oh I get it. Its alway just an opinion. Its all subjective. John is as good as there is so if one is going to piggyback on an opinion its a great place to start. Its a pretty good avenue to try to keep gradeflation in check and ferreting out monkied with coins. I'd say that has a ton of value. At the end of the day a buyer needs to arm himself with enough knowledge as possible to make a smart purchase and like the coin with his own eyes.
mark
I don't disagree with what you are saying, but yes it is all subjective, JA's opinion if a great one to have for sure withing this complex realm of subjectivity.
CoinStartled: The concern though is the gentleman has access to a complete list of those holdered coins that have failed to earn a coveted sticker. ... Might be a good time to publish the results of all submissions, Mr. A.
Back in 2010, I strongly suggested to JA that the 'coin look-up' function should also reveal if a coin attached to a particular serial number failed at CAC. We argued about this topic a few times.
Now, in 2017, this discussion is largely theoretical, as it is literally too late. For more than eight years, collectors and dealers have been submitting coins to CAC with the understanding that coins not be revealed as not passing by CAC. While I do not now remember the exact wording of CAC submission agreements, would it be fair to change the rules retroactively?
As I said already, more than 95% of the non-generic, rare or scarce, classic U.S. coins that are worth more than $1500 each in major auctions have already been to CAC, in my estimation, which is unprovable. Some coins being auctioned in 2017 were sent to CAC years ago, often with different serial numbers. So, even if the change in policy called for by "CoinStartled" was effected, coins that failed at CAC with different serial numbers would not be all be on the list under their current respective serial numers.
Second, a concern is that, if CAC implemented such a policy change, wholesalers and auction firms could just send coins to PCGS or to the main competitor for reholdering with new serial numbers. Although I hope that PCGS officials will comment here on the precise rules, I have been told that the owner of any PCGS certified coin can request a new holder and a new serial number while paying the reholder fee, which is often a small percentage of the value of the respective coin. While I doubt that a change in CAC policy would cause every non-stickered $1500 coin to be reholdered with a new serial number, many $10k coins would be and this leads to other inefficiencies.
Serial numbers are often used to help track pedigrees and I prefer that they are not changed often. Also, it would not be best for the coin community for PCGS or our friends ATS to devote more resources to reholdering and generating new serial numbers for already certified coins.
More importantly, access to such information does not give JA an advantage when bidding in auctions. With extremely rare exceptions, in auctions, all JA does is place wholesale-level bids on coins that already have CAC stickers. As for the exceptions, most of these are coins that most bidders assume have failed at CAC, anyway.
In any event, PCGS changes over time and JA will not be grading forever. It is important to stop focusing on the values of certifications now. There is a need to focus on the coins and to think about grading practices in the future.
Comments
I don't disagree with what you are saying, but yes it is all subjective, JA's opinion if a great one to have for sure withing this complex realm of subjectivity.
Best, SH
CoinStartled:
Back in 2010, I strongly suggested to JA that the 'coin look-up' function should also reveal if a coin attached to a particular serial number failed at CAC. We argued about this topic a few times.
Now, in 2017, this discussion is largely theoretical, as it is literally too late. For more than eight years, collectors and dealers have been submitting coins to CAC with the understanding that coins not be revealed as not passing by CAC. While I do not now remember the exact wording of CAC submission agreements, would it be fair to change the rules retroactively?
As I said already, more than 95% of the non-generic, rare or scarce, classic U.S. coins that are worth more than $1500 each in major auctions have already been to CAC, in my estimation, which is unprovable. Some coins being auctioned in 2017 were sent to CAC years ago, often with different serial numbers. So, even if the change in policy called for by "CoinStartled" was effected, coins that failed at CAC with different serial numbers would not be all be on the list under their current respective serial numers.
Second, a concern is that, if CAC implemented such a policy change, wholesalers and auction firms could just send coins to PCGS or to the main competitor for reholdering with new serial numbers. Although I hope that PCGS officials will comment here on the precise rules, I have been told that the owner of any PCGS certified coin can request a new holder and a new serial number while paying the reholder fee, which is often a small percentage of the value of the respective coin. While I doubt that a change in CAC policy would cause every non-stickered $1500 coin to be reholdered with a new serial number, many $10k coins would be and this leads to other inefficiencies.
Serial numbers are often used to help track pedigrees and I prefer that they are not changed often. Also, it would not be best for the coin community for PCGS or our friends ATS to devote more resources to reholdering and generating new serial numbers for already certified coins.
More importantly, access to such information does not give JA an advantage when bidding in auctions. With extremely rare exceptions, in auctions, all JA does is place wholesale-level bids on coins that already have CAC stickers. As for the exceptions, most of these are coins that most bidders assume have failed at CAC, anyway.
In any event, PCGS changes over time and JA will not be grading forever. It is important to stop focusing on the values of certifications now. There is a need to focus on the coins and to think about grading practices in the future.
How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?
Very good post, Analyst.