CoinHack: It's always just been all about the money.
Keets: ... but it strikes me as nothing but hype. its purpose is to convince collectors that they need to have the coins with the sticker. though JA comes across as somewhat altruistic in what he says he wanted to accomplish I have difficulty with the profit motive.
JustACommeMan: But it's not [about the money] at the stickering level in CAC's case. It's at the wholesale level and some retail. It's about separating the wheat from the chaff and indentifying solid for the grade coins in which to create a market in. Ever wonder what the market would look like without CAC and the bids they support?
CAC is not "just about the money." JA was making plenty of money before he founded CAC and probably working fewer hours. If it was about money, he would just consider submissions of coins of the types or kinds in which he frequently deals. The opposite is true.
CAC accepts many coins in which JA rarely (if ever) deals. CAC accepts submissions of mint state Lincoln Cents dating from 1909 to 1958, all half cents, all Three Cent Silvers, all U.S. Patterns, all Hawaiian coinage, etc. CAC stickers many coins that JA really does not want to buy, but he usually will make a competitive offer, if asked, out of a sense of fairness.
As Mark said, the stickering aspect of CAC is not particularly profitable. JA really feels an ethical obligation to examine all Classic U.S. coins that people wish to submit.
JustACommeMan: @Elcontador said: ... If he does not want to buy a particular coin at a particular time, it does not get a CAC sticker. ... That's all. [according to El Contador]
JustACommeMan: That's not true. If a coin warrants a sticker it gets a sticker whether he is interested or not at that point in time. ... If he doesn't want to buy a coin at any point and time he doesn't support the bid.
I know JA well. Mark is correct and ElContador is clearly wrong. On innumerable occasions, JA has approved coins that he does not like and really does not wish to buy. I have discussed some such coins with him.
JA finalizes a coin if he finds it to be an 'A' or 'B' grade coin in regard to the certified grade already assigned, or if he finds it to have been undergraded by PCGS or NGC. In many cases, he knows he would be likely to lose money or profit to a trivial extent on specific coins that he decides to sticker, if he was asked to buy them.
I am not blindly following CAC. Indeed, there are many CAC approved coins that I maintain should not have been stickered, and there are some coins that fail to sticker that I contend should have been approved. My aim at the moment is set the record straight, about CAC and JA. Some of the statements in this thread about JA's intentions and CAC operations are false, in a factual sense.
About every 10 years there has been a big enough change to entice people to re-submit coins for grading.
1) mid 80's birth of slabing
2) mid 90's first round of gradflation
3) mid-late 00's more gradflation, CAC, and plus grading
Were about due for a change in the next few years.
What's the next big thing?
@Elcontador said:
Mark, we'll agree to disagree on this. JA is in the business of buying and selling coins, not stickering them.
Nah, you're just wrong on this one
I still love you
mark
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 think that for the many collectors buying coins online, whether from auctions or dealers, by photos only, the bean provides an additional measure of security against overgrading or doctoring.
Clearly, CAC and JA have filled a niche in the Coin Market that was needed. By any measure CAC is a success as a business and has seen continued growth since their inception. The "market" has clearly accepted CAC, regardless of how all of us on the message board feels about it. This is fact, and not debatable. Coins with CAC stickers bring more money when brought to market. Are there exceptions? As always, of course.
Grading coins is much more difficult than most realize. To play the crackout grading game is very difficult to make money day in and day out. CAC has helped the collector to avoid many of the pitfalls that are inherent to coin grading. They have also educated everyone (including dealers) on what a really nice coin for the grade should look like...and you would be surprised how many dealers do NOT know what a nice or PQ coin looks like. There are many nice coins out there that have not CAC'd. Don't confuse not having a CAC sticker with a "less than acceptable" coin. In the end, it is still subjective.
As a dealer, I would rather not have to send coins to PCGS (and hope the final grade is correct), then send the coin to CAC. It can easily tie up inventory for 30 days or more. From a business standpoint, we need to send our coins to CAC. As long as the market not only accepts CAC, but will pay more for CAC coins, we will continue to submit to them. Just like TPG when it came along, CAC has evolved to become a clear market player. We don't make the rules of the game, but always have a choice on whether to "play" the game at all. We all do.
I agree with Analyst in his summary of JA and his motives and have always found him to be straightforward, honest, and have the entire industry's best interests at heart. One thing is for certain....grading and coin collecting will continue to evolve, but for now CAC has changed the way we view 3rd party grading. I, for one, think it has been a positive.
@10000lakes said:
About every 10 years there has been a big enough change to entice people to re-submit coins for grading.
1) mid 80's birth of slabing
2) mid 90's first round of gradflation
3) mid-late 00's more gradflation, CAC, and plus grading
Were about due for a change in the next few years.
What's the next big thing?
The next big thing is already here. I'd say the latest round of gradeflation has been going on for at least 1-2 years...following Gardner/Newman. It's one way to keep the money flowing during tough times in the coin market. It was gradeflation + the Pittman/Eliasberg auctions that got coins moving again in 1996-1998. One sure fire way to help recover a weak coin market is a bout of gradeflation. As much as we thought the 2004-2008 was loose....it has been exceeded yet again. You may be on to something with the 10 yr cycle.....1986....1996....2006....2016.
@cnncoins said:
Clearly, CAC and JA have filled a niche in the Coin Market that was needed. By any measure CAC is a success as a business and has seen continued growth since their inception. The "market" has clearly accepted CAC, regardless of how all of us on the message board feels about it. This is fact, and not debatable. Coins with CAC stickers bring more money when brought to market. Are there exceptions? As always, of course.
Grading coins is much more difficult than most realize. To play the crackout grading game is very difficult to make money day in and day out. CAC has helped the collector to avoid many of the pitfalls that are inherent to coin grading. They have also educated everyone (including dealers) on what a really nice coin for the grade should look like...and you would be surprised how many dealers do NOT know what a nice or PQ coin looks like. There are many nice coins out there that have not CAC'd. Don't confuse not having a CAC sticker with a "less than acceptable" coin. In the end, it is still subjective.
As a dealer, I would rather not have to send coins to PCGS (and hope the final grade is correct), then send the coin to CAC. It can easily tie up inventory for 30 days or more. From a business standpoint, we need to send our coins to CAC. As long as the market not only accepts CAC, but will pay more for CAC coins, we will continue to submit to them. Just like TPG when it came along, CAC has evolved to become a clear market player. We don't make the rules of the game, but always have a choice on whether to "play" the game at all. We all do.
I agree with Analyst in his summary of JA and his motives and have always found him to be straightforward, honest, and have the entire industry's best interests at heart. One thing is for certain....grading and coin collecting will continue to evolve, but for now CAC has changed the way we view 3rd party grading. I, for one, think it has been a positive.
Great post Chris. Hope to see you soon
m
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......
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
If anything Al, CAC may have eliminated the need for a loupe for a lot of collectors. Then again, I think the TPGs did that , too.
Sorry, no. Did you not see the photo of the 1852 gold dollar, graded MS-63,CAC, that had a "T" scratched into the obverse? I spotted that one with my 10X glass.
Mister Jones, you may have noticed I typed "...may have eliminated the need for a loupe for a lot of collectors", I didn't infer that it meant "ALL COLLECTORS". There is a thing called blind faith and we often refer to "Kool-Aid" drinkers as having it. And in this regard, I don't believe for a minute that you are any relation to the Reverend Jones, although some think poorly of Kool-Aid because aid costs more.
And JA is in it for the money (referring to the comment that he isn't as stickers go, in my opinion )... or he and Lipton would not have bought , then instantly resold a coin to TDN. The cost of business is related to the cost of the hobby. There will always be middlemen. And of course, none of us are infallible. There are opinions, oversights and blind eyes all around. It's not a bad thing to remain objective with our views. I think the reality is : It's a serious game.
@Analyst said: CoinHack: It's always just been all about the money.
Keets: ... but it strikes me as nothing but hype. its purpose is to convince collectors that they need to have the coins with the sticker. though JA comes across as somewhat altruistic in what he says he wanted to accomplish I have difficulty with the profit motive.
JustACommeMan: But it's not [about the money] at the stickering level in CAC's case. It's at the wholesale level and some retail. It's about separating the wheat from the chaff and indentifying solid for the grade coins in which to create a market in. Ever wonder what the market would look like without CAC and the bids they support?
CAC is not "just about the money." JA was making plenty of money before he founded CAC and probably working fewer hours. If it was about money, he would just consider submissions of coins of the types or kinds in which he frequently deals. The opposite is true.
CAC accepts many coins in which JA rarely (if ever) deals. CAC accepts submissions of mint state Lincoln Cents dating from 1909 to 1958, all half cents, all Three Cent Silvers, all U.S. Patterns, all Hawaiian coinage, etc. CAC stickers many coins that JA really does not want to buy, but he usually will make a competitive offer, if asked, out of a sense of fairness.
As Mark said, the stickering aspect of CAC is not particularly profitable. JA really feels an ethical obligation to examine all Classic U.S. coins that people wish to submit.
JustACommeMan: @Elcontador said: ... If he does not want to buy a particular coin at a particular time, it does not get a CAC sticker. ... That's all. [according to El Contador]
JustACommeMan: That's not true. If a coin warrants a sticker it gets a sticker whether he is interested or not at that point in time. ... If he doesn't want to buy a coin at any point and time he doesn't support the bid.
I know JA well. Mark is correct and ElContador is clearly wrong. On innumerable occasions, JA has approved coins that he does not like and really does not wish to buy. I have discussed some such coins with him.
JA finalizes a coin if he finds it to be an 'A' or 'B' grade coin in regard to the certified grade already assigned, or if he finds it to have been undergraded by PCGS or NGC. In many cases, he knows he would be likely to lose money or profit to a trivial extent on specific coins that he decides to sticker, if he was asked to buy them.
I am not blindly following CAC. Indeed, there are many CAC approved coins that I maintain should not have been stickered, and there are some coins that fail to sticker that I contend should have been approved. My aim at the moment is set the record straight, about CAC and JA. Some of the statements in this thread about JA's intentions and CAC operations are false, in a factual sense.
I know someone who is a very good friend of JA. He says JA is an honorable man, and his word is good enough for me. But JA has seen an opportunity to make money in numismatics by creating CAC. I don't have an issue with that, I really don't. He's not being sneaky or dishonorable about this. Someone else said in a business like this, there will always be middlemen. I agree with this wholeheartedly.
From what I understand, JA / CAC buys and sells a lot of Morgans and gold. He makes money on the volume, not the markup. To me, a sticker on a Morgan or gold coin means something, beacause these are effectively, CAC's stock and trade. I'll stop here.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
..... In 2004-2008 you were just seeing a gradual tightening and a lot of the retreads of coins graded a few years before (hence your misconception grading was loose). I can't speak much for pre-1934 coins ....
That sounds like you agree with tightening from 2004-2008. I saw the same thing in choice/gem pre-1934 silver/gold type coinage which is pretty much all I dealt with. Grading never tightens up as a bull market is peaking. That occurs after the fact (ie 1981-1982, 1991-1996, 2009-2012).
@BAJJERFAN said:
Has CAC affected the way many collectors and dealers view each other??
Maybe that's the next wave: Stickering dealers and collectors.
Whether someone likes CAC or not is his or her business. I don't care to hear someone's reason/s why they don't like it. Most people don't need a bean to tell if a coin is nice or not. Great eye appeal is no assurance that a coin doesn't have issues. When selling into this market, only a doofus would ignore the fact that many others DO value the bean.
That being said, I was not exactly enamored with the hammer price on a CACd coin that was up for auction not too long ago.
@Analyst said: CoinHack: It's always just been all about the money.
Keets: ... but it strikes me as nothing but hype. its purpose is to convince collectors that they need to have the coins with the sticker. though JA comes across as somewhat altruistic in what he says he wanted to accomplish I have difficulty with the profit motive.
JustACommeMan: But it's not [about the money] at the stickering level in CAC's case. It's at the wholesale level and some retail. It's about separating the wheat from the chaff and indentifying solid for the grade coins in which to create a market in. Ever wonder what the market would look like without CAC and the bids they support?
CAC is not "just about the money." JA was making plenty of money before he founded CAC and probably working fewer hours. If it was about money, he would just consider submissions of coins of the types or kinds in which he frequently deals. The opposite is true.
CAC accepts many coins in which JA rarely (if ever) deals. CAC accepts submissions of mint state Lincoln Cents dating from 1909 to 1958, all half cents, all Three Cent Silvers, all U.S. Patterns, all Hawaiian coinage, etc. CAC stickers many coins that JA really does not want to buy, but he usually will make a competitive offer, if asked, out of a sense of fairness.
As Mark said, the stickering aspect of CAC is not particularly profitable. JA really feels an ethical obligation to examine all Classic U.S. coins that people wish to submit.
JustACommeMan: @Elcontador said: ... If he does not want to buy a particular coin at a particular time, it does not get a CAC sticker. ... That's all. [according to El Contador]
JustACommeMan: That's not true. If a coin warrants a sticker it gets a sticker whether he is interested or not at that point in time. ... If he doesn't want to buy a coin at any point and time he doesn't support the bid.
I know JA well. Mark is correct and ElContador is clearly wrong. On innumerable occasions, JA has approved coins that he does not like and really does not wish to buy. I have discussed some such coins with him.
JA finalizes a coin if he finds it to be an 'A' or 'B' grade coin in regard to the certified grade already assigned, or if he finds it to have been undergraded by PCGS or NGC. In many cases, he knows he would be likely to lose money or profit to a trivial extent on specific coins that he decides to sticker, if he was asked to buy them.
I am not blindly following CAC. Indeed, there are many CAC approved coins that I maintain should not have been stickered, and there are some coins that fail to sticker that I contend should have been approved. My aim at the moment is set the record straight, about CAC and JA. Some of the statements in this thread about JA's intentions and CAC operations are false, in a factual sense.
JA is a member here. He could post and clear up a lot of the confusion if he wanted to.
In fairness the last post I can find from John was 2011. It's not like he's remotely accessible here. I think one would be better off if they contacted John directly at CAC if they had questions. Otherwise you are talking three ring circus........
mark
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......
@Analyst said: CoinHack: It's always just been all about the money.
Keets: ... but it strikes me as nothing but hype. its purpose is to convince collectors that they need to have the coins with the sticker. though JA comes across as somewhat altruistic in what he says he wanted to accomplish I have difficulty with the profit motive.
JustACommeMan: But it's not [about the money] at the stickering level in CAC's case. It's at the wholesale level and some retail. It's about separating the wheat from the chaff and indentifying solid for the grade coins in which to create a market in. Ever wonder what the market would look like without CAC and the bids they support?
CAC is not "just about the money." JA was making plenty of money before he founded CAC and probably working fewer hours. If it was about money, he would just consider submissions of coins of the types or kinds in which he frequently deals. The opposite is true.
CAC accepts many coins in which JA rarely (if ever) deals. CAC accepts submissions of mint state Lincoln Cents dating from 1909 to 1958, all half cents, all Three Cent Silvers, all U.S. Patterns, all Hawaiian coinage, etc. CAC stickers many coins that JA really does not want to buy, but he usually will make a competitive offer, if asked, out of a sense of fairness.
As Mark said, the stickering aspect of CAC is not particularly profitable. JA really feels an ethical obligation to examine all Classic U.S. coins that people wish to submit.
JustACommeMan: @Elcontador said: ... If he does not want to buy a particular coin at a particular time, it does not get a CAC sticker. ... That's all. [according to El Contador]
JustACommeMan: That's not true. If a coin warrants a sticker it gets a sticker whether he is interested or not at that point in time. ... If he doesn't want to buy a coin at any point and time he doesn't support the bid.
I know JA well. Mark is correct and ElContador is clearly wrong. On innumerable occasions, JA has approved coins that he does not like and really does not wish to buy. I have discussed some such coins with him.
JA finalizes a coin if he finds it to be an 'A' or 'B' grade coin in regard to the certified grade already assigned, or if he finds it to have been undergraded by PCGS or NGC. In many cases, he knows he would be likely to lose money or profit to a trivial extent on specific coins that he decides to sticker, if he was asked to buy them.
I am not blindly following CAC. Indeed, there are many CAC approved coins that I maintain should not have been stickered, and there are some coins that fail to sticker that I contend should have been approved. My aim at the moment is set the record straight, about CAC and JA. Some of the statements in this thread about JA's intentions and CAC operations are false, in a factual sense.
JA is a member here. He could post and clear up a lot of the confusion if he wanted to.
In fairness the last post I can find from John was 2011. It's not like he's best remotely accessible here. I think one would be better off if they contacted John directly at CAC if they had questions. Otherwise you are talking three ring circus........
mark
True, but if it was posted here then EVERYBODY would get the same story.
@Analyst said: CoinHack: It's always just been all about the money.
Keets: ... but it strikes me as nothing but hype. its purpose is to convince collectors that they need to have the coins with the sticker. though JA comes across as somewhat altruistic in what he says he wanted to accomplish I have difficulty with the profit motive.
JustACommeMan: But it's not [about the money] at the stickering level in CAC's case. It's at the wholesale level and some retail. It's about separating the wheat from the chaff and indentifying solid for the grade coins in which to create a market in. Ever wonder what the market would look like without CAC and the bids they support?
CAC is not "just about the money." JA was making plenty of money before he founded CAC and probably working fewer hours. If it was about money, he would just consider submissions of coins of the types or kinds in which he frequently deals. The opposite is true.
CAC accepts many coins in which JA rarely (if ever) deals. CAC accepts submissions of mint state Lincoln Cents dating from 1909 to 1958, all half cents, all Three Cent Silvers, all U.S. Patterns, all Hawaiian coinage, etc. CAC stickers many coins that JA really does not want to buy, but he usually will make a competitive offer, if asked, out of a sense of fairness.
As Mark said, the stickering aspect of CAC is not particularly profitable. JA really feels an ethical obligation to examine all Classic U.S. coins that people wish to submit.
JustACommeMan: @Elcontador said: ... If he does not want to buy a particular coin at a particular time, it does not get a CAC sticker. ... That's all. [according to El Contador]
JustACommeMan: That's not true. If a coin warrants a sticker it gets a sticker whether he is interested or not at that point in time. ... If he doesn't want to buy a coin at any point and time he doesn't support the bid.
I know JA well. Mark is correct and ElContador is clearly wrong. On innumerable occasions, JA has approved coins that he does not like and really does not wish to buy. I have discussed some such coins with him.
JA finalizes a coin if he finds it to be an 'A' or 'B' grade coin in regard to the certified grade already assigned, or if he finds it to have been undergraded by PCGS or NGC. In many cases, he knows he would be likely to lose money or profit to a trivial extent on specific coins that he decides to sticker, if he was asked to buy them.
I am not blindly following CAC. Indeed, there are many CAC approved coins that I maintain should not have been stickered, and there are some coins that fail to sticker that I contend should have been approved. My aim at the moment is set the record straight, about CAC and JA. Some of the statements in this thread about JA's intentions and CAC operations are false, in a factual sense.
JA is a member here. He could post and clear up a lot of the confusion if he wanted to.
In fairness the last post I can find from John was 2011. It's not like he's best remotely accessible here. I think one would be better off if they contacted John directly at CAC if they had questions. Otherwise you are talking three ring circus........
mark
True, but if it was posted here then EVERYBODY would get the same story.
People have their heels so dig in I'm afraid it wouldn't matter. Folks tend to make things more complicated then they are.
Green stickered coins are of A or B quality for the grade according to CAC standards
Gold stickered coins exceed the grade on the holder according to CAC standards
Non stickered coins may still meet the grade on the holder albeit the low end of the grade
CAC may or may not bid on a stickered coin.
There's not much else to it
Not tough at all
mark
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......
Perhaps folks get frustrated and dig their heals in because too many times people come on here and say what JA is thinking or many other things. Even down to what the MO is. Seems so many want it to mean what benefits themselves. The website doesn't seem to say. Nearly what folks say he means, or does.
Too much secrecy maybe folks think. So what might seem simple for some after all these years it is still not clear. Or, the very ones that claim people are stubborn or whatever don't seem to correct when bad information is put. Out. Yes we. Have discussed this before. Thing is, I can understand they get. Tired. Of correcting. Although I I rarely see it. Yet the same ones are in about every cac thread.
Just because some don't like something gives. Others no right whatsoever to degrade them, call them old or other names. I have said I am neutral on all this but when people get challenged because they do not submit to cac. Like they are afraid they have low end coins. Seems like elitism to me. I am neutral because if I still buy a coin once in a while, I'd be a. Fool to ignore the market.
Still trying to get used to this iPad.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
It really is simple, The best part is if you keep an open mind I'm confident you will learn something from the experience. At the very least it will reinforce/confirm your existing opinions. Don't be afraid, it's been a great educational experience for many numismatists.
Green stickered coins are of A or B quality for the grade according to CAC standards
Gold stickered coins exceed the grade on the holder according to CAC standards
Non stickered coins may still meet the grade on the holder albeit the low end of the grade
Mark, I understood the explanation that "A" coins would be Gold, "B" coins would be Green and "C" coins would not have a sticker.
my summary of thought from everything is that CAC tends to take advantage of some basic human frailties, three of the worst character traits of man: pride, greed and sloth. it is apparent by all the threads about CAC submissions and success rates(the recent one by Realone may be the absolute worst example) that there is extreme pride in owning a coin with a Green or Gold sticker, so much that we feel the need to brag about it. Greed causes dealers in the network to take advantage of that and charge a premium to own a stickered coin. people in general tend to be lazy and will almost always allow someone else to do something for them, so instead of studying and learning it is simpler to trust the sticker and pay the price.
Welcome to NumisCology 101!!!
I'm sure some will say that this is all the same as what PCGS did back in 1986 but it feels different to me. PCGS was certainly doing what they did for money but the concept was to allow easier sight-unseen trading and liquidity. those factors were already in place when CAC came into being, all that changed is pricing.
@tradedollarnut said:
'A' coins are not gold stickered. 'A' coins for the grade up is more like it...
There was a discussion a while back and where it was thought that a gold stickered coin could be a 'B' coin a grade up. Is a gold coin always an 'A' coin a grade up?
@keets said:
Bruce, I based my summary on what Mark posted on page one.
But that's not what I said. This is what I said. Not even close
Green stickered coins are of A or B quality for the grade according to CAC standards
Gold stickered coins exceed the grade on the holder according to CAC standards
Non stickered coins may still meet the grade on the holder albeit the low end of the grade
mark
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......
agreed, they just agree or disagree with the assigned grade
They have to grade in order to know whether to agree or disagree, no?
agreed, but -- as per them, they do not just grade a coin (read: raw) but will agree or disagree with the assigned grade.
or perhaps I am being obtuse
Maybe reaffirm the grade might be a better descriptor.
My thought is that CAC provides a grading opinion. They don't simply reaffirm grades because 'C' coins are still passing grades but are not stickered.
Assuming that the coin was seen at CAC, a "C" grade would be reaffirmation by omission. Kinda like conspicuous by absence comparison.
CAC does not reaffirm a 'C' grade because they offer no opinion between a 'C' coin (which is a passing grade) and a coin that is overgraded by one or more grades (a failing grade).
please, let's discuss this issue but not get ridiculously stupid.
I don't think anyone disputes the fact that PCGS and NGC have overgraded coins, but with all respect due TDN to call it "crap grading" is over the top. and to reaffirm that and say that the CAC opinion is "reliable" only adds to the only problem. does anyone stop and remember that only the best coins are getting sent to CAC?? that means(to me) that submitters are sending their best coins to PCGS who is grading them, properly. then they are being screened by the best dealers and collectors only to be sent to CAC and verified that PCGS has indeed graded them properly.
maybe we can hoist a flag for CAC whenever a service starts up that grades what they have done and assures us they were correct.
to the "crap grading comment, I have an analogy that is fitting. consider Customer Service complaints at any moderately sized business. with all the day to day customer interactions there are bound to be a few which aren't perfect, some where the customer is disappointed in some way. at the same time the overwhelming majority of customers are satisfied. have you ever noticed that at sites like "Yelp" you tend to see negative feedback?? customers who have a good in-store experience rarely post, what they do is tell other people and return to do more business.
that's how it is with PCGS grading, we hear about the over graded crap all the time and think it is really the norm. if members came here and told stories about good experiences all the time the place would slow to a crawl.
agreed, they just agree or disagree with the assigned grade
They have to grade in order to know whether to agree or disagree, no?
agreed, but -- as per them, they do not just grade a coin (read: raw) but will agree or disagree with the assigned grade.
or perhaps I am being obtuse
Maybe reaffirm the grade might be a better descriptor.
My thought is that CAC provides a grading opinion. They don't simply reaffirm grades because 'C' coins are still passing grades but are not stickered.
Assuming that the coin was seen at CAC, a "C" grade would be reaffirmation by omission. Kinda like conspicuous by absence comparison.
CAC does not reaffirm a 'C' grade because they offer no opinion between a 'C' coin (which is a passing grade) and a coin that is overgraded by one or more grades (a failing grade).
If it doesn't sticker, it doesn't matter to me whether it's a 64-C or an overgraded 63.
agreed, they just agree or disagree with the assigned grade
They have to grade in order to know whether to agree or disagree, no?
agreed, but -- as per them, they do not just grade a coin (read: raw) but will agree or disagree with the assigned grade.
or perhaps I am being obtuse
Maybe reaffirm the grade might be a better descriptor.
My thought is that CAC provides a grading opinion. They don't simply reaffirm grades because 'C' coins are still passing grades but are not stickered.
Assuming that the coin was seen at CAC, a "C" grade would be reaffirmation by omission. Kinda like conspicuous by absence comparison.
CAC does not reaffirm a 'C' grade because they offer no opinion between a 'C' coin (which is a passing grade) and a coin that is overgraded by one or more grades (a failing grade).
If it doesn't sticker, it doesn't matter to me whether it's a 64-C or an overgraded 63.
It may not matter to you, but in your scenario, they are not reaffirming the 64 grade by omission for a non-stickered coin since it could be a 63.
A nice touch that JA could make when he reviews coins would be to give a one or two sentence verbal opinion of the coin and for say a dollar or 2 more with a password you could access his opinions on the site and hear what he had to say.
you stated on page one that JA said 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. it is logical to presume that the "A" coins are Gold and the "B" coins are Green. that's what I was referring to and all I said.
you stated on page one that JA said 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. it is logical to presume that the "A" coins are Gold and the "B" coins are Green. that's what I was referring to and all I said.
Green = "A" or "B" coin at the current grade
Gold = "A" or "B" coin at one or more grades above (some discussion on whether gold can include "B" coins or not per above)
the man gave three letters in his interview and assigns Gold, Green and nothing. break it down and dissect it if you want to but it seems pretty clear.
There really shouldn't be any discussion on what cac or ja means all the time. He speaks for himself on his website what he means. Too many around here want to speak for him and slice it every way they want.
I didn't realize so many could micro grade these days. According to some of the most vocal on threads........ people can be accurate grading between let's say a 64.3 and 64.4. The difference I guess what they are calling a c coin vs a b coin.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
you stated on page one that JA said 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. it is logical to presume that the "A" coins are Gold and the "B" coins are Green. that's what I was referring to and all I said.
That statement has nothing to do with green and gold stickers. A coins are the top of the grade. B coins are solid for the grade and C coins are low end for the grade.
mark
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......
My view of coins hasn't changed in 40 years of collecting them , including the advent of 3rd and 4th and 5th party opinions (i.e."appraisals"): Do I like to own it for what i paid, even if it's then cracked out and raw again? Would I still like it in my collection, even if the value went to zero?
The second party seller's description, and the third party Grade and 4th party Sticker, and any new ones "the industry" comes up with are great, but the coin still has to pass the other questions from the first party buyer.
Comments
CoinHack:
Keets:
JustACommeMan:
CAC is not "just about the money." JA was making plenty of money before he founded CAC and probably working fewer hours. If it was about money, he would just consider submissions of coins of the types or kinds in which he frequently deals. The opposite is true.
CAC accepts many coins in which JA rarely (if ever) deals. CAC accepts submissions of mint state Lincoln Cents dating from 1909 to 1958, all half cents, all Three Cent Silvers, all U.S. Patterns, all Hawaiian coinage, etc. CAC stickers many coins that JA really does not want to buy, but he usually will make a competitive offer, if asked, out of a sense of fairness.
As Mark said, the stickering aspect of CAC is not particularly profitable. JA really feels an ethical obligation to examine all Classic U.S. coins that people wish to submit.
JustACommeMan:
JustACommeMan:
I know JA well. Mark is correct and ElContador is clearly wrong. On innumerable occasions, JA has approved coins that he does not like and really does not wish to buy. I have discussed some such coins with him.
JA finalizes a coin if he finds it to be an 'A' or 'B' grade coin in regard to the certified grade already assigned, or if he finds it to have been undergraded by PCGS or NGC. In many cases, he knows he would be likely to lose money or profit to a trivial extent on specific coins that he decides to sticker, if he was asked to buy them.
I am not blindly following CAC. Indeed, there are many CAC approved coins that I maintain should not have been stickered, and there are some coins that fail to sticker that I contend should have been approved. My aim at the moment is set the record straight, about CAC and JA. Some of the statements in this thread about JA's intentions and CAC operations are false, in a factual sense.
The Specter of Coin Doctoring and The Survival of Great Coins
About every 10 years there has been a big enough change to entice people to re-submit coins for grading.
1) mid 80's birth of slabing
2) mid 90's first round of gradflation
3) mid-late 00's more gradflation, CAC, and plus grading
Were about due for a change in the next few years.
What's the next big thing?
Nah, you're just wrong on this one
I still love you
mark
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 think that for the many collectors buying coins online, whether from auctions or dealers, by photos only, the bean provides an additional measure of security against overgrading or doctoring.
Starting a CAC thread is liking yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.
Clearly, CAC and JA have filled a niche in the Coin Market that was needed. By any measure CAC is a success as a business and has seen continued growth since their inception. The "market" has clearly accepted CAC, regardless of how all of us on the message board feels about it. This is fact, and not debatable. Coins with CAC stickers bring more money when brought to market. Are there exceptions? As always, of course.
Grading coins is much more difficult than most realize. To play the crackout grading game is very difficult to make money day in and day out. CAC has helped the collector to avoid many of the pitfalls that are inherent to coin grading. They have also educated everyone (including dealers) on what a really nice coin for the grade should look like...and you would be surprised how many dealers do NOT know what a nice or PQ coin looks like. There are many nice coins out there that have not CAC'd. Don't confuse not having a CAC sticker with a "less than acceptable" coin. In the end, it is still subjective.
As a dealer, I would rather not have to send coins to PCGS (and hope the final grade is correct), then send the coin to CAC. It can easily tie up inventory for 30 days or more. From a business standpoint, we need to send our coins to CAC. As long as the market not only accepts CAC, but will pay more for CAC coins, we will continue to submit to them. Just like TPG when it came along, CAC has evolved to become a clear market player. We don't make the rules of the game, but always have a choice on whether to "play" the game at all. We all do.
I agree with Analyst in his summary of JA and his motives and have always found him to be straightforward, honest, and have the entire industry's best interests at heart. One thing is for certain....grading and coin collecting will continue to evolve, but for now CAC has changed the way we view 3rd party grading. I, for one, think it has been a positive.
The next big thing is already here. I'd say the latest round of gradeflation has been going on for at least 1-2 years...following Gardner/Newman. It's one way to keep the money flowing during tough times in the coin market. It was gradeflation + the Pittman/Eliasberg auctions that got coins moving again in 1996-1998. One sure fire way to help recover a weak coin market is a bout of gradeflation. As much as we thought the 2004-2008 was loose....it has been exceeded yet again. You may be on to something with the 10 yr cycle.....1986....1996....2006....2016.
Great post Chris. Hope to see you soon
m
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......
Perhaps we should refer to this as " > @BillJones said:
Mister Jones, you may have noticed I typed "...may have eliminated the need for a loupe for a lot of collectors", I didn't infer that it meant "ALL COLLECTORS". There is a thing called blind faith and we often refer to "Kool-Aid" drinkers as having it. And in this regard, I don't believe for a minute that you are any relation to the Reverend Jones, although some think poorly of Kool-Aid because aid costs more.
And JA is in it for the money (referring to the comment that he isn't as stickers go, in my opinion )... or he and Lipton would not have bought , then instantly resold a coin to TDN. The cost of business is related to the cost of the hobby. There will always be middlemen. And of course, none of us are infallible. There are opinions, oversights and blind eyes all around. It's not a bad thing to remain objective with our views. I think the reality is : It's a serious game.
JA is a member here. He could post and clear up a lot of the confusion if he wanted to.
Has CAC affected the way many collectors and dealers view each other??
I know someone who is a very good friend of JA. He says JA is an honorable man, and his word is good enough for me. But JA has seen an opportunity to make money in numismatics by creating CAC. I don't have an issue with that, I really don't. He's not being sneaky or dishonorable about this. Someone else said in a business like this, there will always be middlemen. I agree with this wholeheartedly.
From what I understand, JA / CAC buys and sells a lot of Morgans and gold. He makes money on the volume, not the markup. To me, a sticker on a Morgan or gold coin means something, beacause these are effectively, CAC's stock and trade. I'll stop here.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
That sounds like you agree with tightening from 2004-2008. I saw the same thing in choice/gem pre-1934 silver/gold type coinage which is pretty much all I dealt with. Grading never tightens up as a bull market is peaking. That occurs after the fact (ie 1981-1982, 1991-1996, 2009-2012).
agreed, they just agree or disagree with the assigned grade
BHNC #203
Maybe that's the next wave: Stickering dealers and collectors.
Whether someone likes CAC or not is his or her business. I don't care to hear someone's reason/s why they don't like it. Most people don't need a bean to tell if a coin is nice or not. Great eye appeal is no assurance that a coin doesn't have issues. When selling into this market, only a doofus would ignore the fact that many others DO value the bean.
That being said, I was not exactly enamored with the hammer price on a CACd coin that was up for auction not too long ago.
**
CAC doesn't grade anything.
I read that somewhere.
agreed, they just agree or disagree with the assigned grade**
Oh, Brother!!!
They have to grade in order to know whether to agree or disagree, no?
In fairness the last post I can find from John was 2011. It's not like he's remotely accessible here. I think one would be better off if they contacted John directly at CAC if they had questions. Otherwise you are talking three ring circus........
mark
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......
agreed, but -- as per them, they do not just grade a coin (read: raw) but will agree or disagree with the assigned grade.
or perhaps I am being obtuse
BHNC #203
I am make opinion of coin very good to peoples.
You trust me good, okay?
Maybe reaffirm the grade might be a better descriptor.
True, but if it was posted here then EVERYBODY would get the same story.
People have their heels so dig in I'm afraid it wouldn't matter. Folks tend to make things more complicated then they are.
Green stickered coins are of A or B quality for the grade according to CAC standards
Gold stickered coins exceed the grade on the holder according to CAC standards
Non stickered coins may still meet the grade on the holder albeit the low end of the grade
CAC may or may not bid on a stickered coin.
There's not much else to it
Not tough at all
mark
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......
Perhaps folks get frustrated and dig their heals in because too many times people come on here and say what JA is thinking or many other things. Even down to what the MO is. Seems so many want it to mean what benefits themselves. The website doesn't seem to say. Nearly what folks say he means, or does.
Too much secrecy maybe folks think. So what might seem simple for some after all these years it is still not clear. Or, the very ones that claim people are stubborn or whatever don't seem to correct when bad information is put. Out. Yes we. Have discussed this before. Thing is, I can understand they get. Tired. Of correcting. Although I I rarely see it. Yet the same ones are in about every cac thread.
Just because some don't like something gives. Others no right whatsoever to degrade them, call them old or other names. I have said I am neutral on all this but when people get challenged because they do not submit to cac. Like they are afraid they have low end coins. Seems like elitism to me. I am neutral because if I still buy a coin once in a while, I'd be a. Fool to ignore the market.
Still trying to get used to this iPad.
It really is simple, The best part is if you keep an open mind I'm confident you will learn something from the experience. At the very least it will reinforce/confirm your existing opinions. Don't be afraid, it's been a great educational experience for many numismatists.
Green stickered coins are of A or B quality for the grade according to CAC standards
Gold stickered coins exceed the grade on the holder according to CAC standards
Non stickered coins may still meet the grade on the holder albeit the low end of the grade
Mark, I understood the explanation that "A" coins would be Gold, "B" coins would be Green and "C" coins would not have a sticker.
my summary of thought from everything is that CAC tends to take advantage of some basic human frailties, three of the worst character traits of man: pride, greed and sloth. it is apparent by all the threads about CAC submissions and success rates(the recent one by Realone may be the absolute worst example) that there is extreme pride in owning a coin with a Green or Gold sticker, so much that we feel the need to brag about it. Greed causes dealers in the network to take advantage of that and charge a premium to own a stickered coin. people in general tend to be lazy and will almost always allow someone else to do something for them, so instead of studying and learning it is simpler to trust the sticker and pay the price.
Welcome to NumisCology 101!!!
I'm sure some will say that this is all the same as what PCGS did back in 1986 but it feels different to me. PCGS was certainly doing what they did for money but the concept was to allow easier sight-unseen trading and liquidity. those factors were already in place when CAC came into being, all that changed is pricing.
'A' coins are not gold stickered. 'A' coins for the grade up is more like it...
Bruce, I based my summary on what Mark posted on page one.
My thought is that CAC provides a grading opinion. They don't simply reaffirm grades because 'C' coins are still passing grades but are not stickered.
There was a discussion a while back and where it was thought that a gold stickered coin could be a 'B' coin a grade up. Is a gold coin always an 'A' coin a grade up?
Zoins, that's why they grade the grade.
I'm sure that may happen. But where as a rule does it say this?
Assuming that the coin was seen at CAC, a "C" grade would be reaffirmation by omission. Kinda like conspicuous by absence comparison.
But that's not what I said. This is what I said. Not even close
Green stickered coins are of A or B quality for the grade according to CAC standards
Gold stickered coins exceed the grade on the holder according to CAC standards
Non stickered coins may still meet the grade on the holder albeit the low end of the grade
mark
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......
CAC does not reaffirm a 'C' grade because they offer no opinion between a 'C' coin (which is a passing grade) and a coin that is overgraded by one or more grades (a failing grade).
For completeness, non-stickered coins may also not meet the grade on the holder in their opinion.
please, let's discuss this issue but not get ridiculously stupid.
I don't think anyone disputes the fact that PCGS and NGC have overgraded coins, but with all respect due TDN to call it "crap grading" is over the top. and to reaffirm that and say that the CAC opinion is "reliable" only adds to the only problem. does anyone stop and remember that only the best coins are getting sent to CAC?? that means(to me) that submitters are sending their best coins to PCGS who is grading them, properly. then they are being screened by the best dealers and collectors only to be sent to CAC and verified that PCGS has indeed graded them properly.
maybe we can hoist a flag for CAC whenever a service starts up that grades what they have done and assures us they were correct.
to the "crap grading comment, I have an analogy that is fitting. consider Customer Service complaints at any moderately sized business. with all the day to day customer interactions there are bound to be a few which aren't perfect, some where the customer is disappointed in some way. at the same time the overwhelming majority of customers are satisfied. have you ever noticed that at sites like "Yelp" you tend to see negative feedback?? customers who have a good in-store experience rarely post, what they do is tell other people and return to do more business.
that's how it is with PCGS grading, we hear about the over graded crap all the time and think it is really the norm. if members came here and told stories about good experiences all the time the place would slow to a crawl.
If it doesn't sticker, it doesn't matter to me whether it's a 64-C or an overgraded 63.
It may not matter to you, but in your scenario, they are not reaffirming the 64 grade by omission for a non-stickered coin since it could be a 63.
A nice touch that JA could make when he reviews coins would be to give a one or two sentence verbal opinion of the coin and for say a dollar or 2 more with a password you could access his opinions on the site and hear what he had to say.
Mark, not looking for an argument.
you stated on page one that JA said 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. it is logical to presume that the "A" coins are Gold and the "B" coins are Green. that's what I was referring to and all I said.
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWD!!!!
the man gave three letters in his interview and assigns Gold, Green and nothing. break it down and dissect it if you want to but it seems pretty clear.
or am I being too obtuse????????
There really shouldn't be any discussion on what cac or ja means all the time. He speaks for himself on his website what he means. Too many around here want to speak for him and slice it every way they want.
I didn't realize so many could micro grade these days. According to some of the most vocal on threads........ people can be accurate grading between let's say a 64.3 and 64.4. The difference I guess what they are calling a c coin vs a b coin.
That statement has nothing to do with green and gold stickers. A coins are the top of the grade. B coins are solid for the grade and C coins are low end for the grade.
mark
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......
My view of coins hasn't changed in 40 years of collecting them , including the advent of 3rd and 4th and 5th party opinions (i.e."appraisals"): Do I like to own it for what i paid, even if it's then cracked out and raw again? Would I still like it in my collection, even if the value went to zero?
The second party seller's description, and the third party Grade and 4th party Sticker, and any new ones "the industry" comes up with are great, but the coin still has to pass the other questions from the first party buyer.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I wish I was this popular!
WWDD?