<< <i>So, CAC is definitely going to buy this coin?
Huh? >>
You said: " Personally, if they are batting 99% and willing to take mistakes off the market, I find that outstanding."
So will they be buying the coin?
Or was the non-sticker for the NGC Slab the "mistake"? >>
Displays total ignorance of, or an inability to understand, the CAC business plan. Which has been described, explained, explicated and otherwise been made so easy to understand that I am aghast (!). . . . .
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Several threads on this forum have had comments from members who have sent coins that failed to bean back to JA for reconsideration. Sometimes he does give the coin a sticker on the second trip, sometimes not, even in the same TPG'S holder. I fail to see anything nefarious or incompetent going on. I strongly suspect that JA remembered very well what his first opinion was. He must have been having a bad day the first time around- from the pictures this looks like a solid 65.
Collector since adolescent days in the early 1960's. Mostly inactive now, but I enjoy coin periodicals and books and coin shows as health permits.
<< <i>Again; it's all about marketing and money. Like the grading services, they get their money whether you get the bean or not.
And here all this time I thought they didn't charge for 'no bean'... thanks for clearing that up. >>
Hey TDN, maybe you could ask D.A. for my rebate on the 3 of 11 coins that didn't sticker when I submitted to CAC through him a few years ago. I suspect that the practice of not rebating to collector submitters on unstickered coins happens a hell of a lot more than you want to believe. That isn't CAC's fault, but it sure doesn't reflect well on dealers that are authorized to submit to CAC for collectors.
<< <i>So, CAC is definitely going to buy this coin?
Huh? >>
You said: " Personally, if they are batting 99% and willing to take mistakes off the market, I find that outstanding."
So will they be buying the coin?
Or was the non-sticker for the NGC Slab the "mistake"? >>
Displays total ignorance of, or an inability to understand, the CAC business plan. Which has been described, explained, explicated and otherwise been made so easy to understand that I am aghast (!). . . . . >>
Please Explain.
The CAC Web page states:
--------------------------------------------------------------- CAC-verified. Because Confidence in a Coin's Quality is Priceless.
Whether you're a novice or advanced collector, you know that quality is what determines the value of a rare coin.
However, within any certified coin grade, not all coins are "solid" quality coins.
Now there's an easy way to identify coins that are solid for the grade - a CAC verification sticker.
CAC was founded by leading members of the numismatic community who recognized the need for a higher level of grading.
With CAC, prices for the solid quality coins can be untethered from the lesser quality counterparts.
A CAC sticker means: ◾It has been verified as meeting our strict quality standards. ◾CAC is an active bidder on many CAC coins. In fact, CAC has purchased over $275 million of CAC verified coins.
Want confidence in the quality of a coin?
Look for the CAC sticker! ---------------------------------------------------------
So, is the CAC'ed slab the mistake? The NGC Slab? Is CAC saying that the NGC Grade wasn't up to NGC's Standards or that the PCGS Grade was the "quality" coin?
You see, TPG's offer professional opinions of grade and being an opinion means that mistakes can happen since coins resubmitted are often times not graded by the same three people.
The purpose behind the CAC Company if to validate the opinion of the TPG as being either:
Low end for the grade, meaning no sticker.
Good to High end for the grade, meaning Green Sticker
Under Graded, meaning Gold Sticker
The Web page specifically states:
"What Does a CAC Sticker Mean?
The CAC GREEN Label signifies that a coin has met Certified Acceptance Corporation's stringent grading standards."
In other words, CAC isn't supposed to make mistakes but if they do, they'll buy the coin which is the power "behind" the sticker.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
Based on what everyone here is saying, every TPG should grade a coin exactly the same each time it is submitted, right? We all know that is far from reality. Yet it seems this is expected from CAC.
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>Based on what everyone here is saying, every TPG should grade a coin exactly the same each time it is submitted, right? We all know that is far from reality. Yet it seems this is expected from CAC. >>
CAC's job is much simpler than a TPG grading a coin the same each time. CAC already knows the grade on the plastic -- they just have to consistently agree or disagree with that. They aren't assigning a numerical grade to a raw coin. You're comparing apples to mini-vans. That you wouldn't understand the difference in these two scenarios doesn't surprise me.
-Brandon -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins] -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
<< <i>Based on what everyone here is saying, every TPG should grade a coin exactly the same each time it is submitted, right? We all know that is far from reality. Yet it seems this is expected from CAC. >>
CAC's job is much simpler than a TPG grading a coin the same each time. CAC already knows the grade on the plastic -- they just have to consistently agree or disagree with that. They aren't assigning a numerical grade to a raw coin. You're comparing apples to mini-vans. That you wouldn't understand the difference in these two scenarios doesn't surprise me. >>
How do YOU know what CAC's procedures are? You make ASSumptions that you know nothing about. Perhaps it is CAC procedure to cover the grade on the coin and grade it through the plastic - an eminently more difficult job than you ASSume.
I think it all comes down to this: quality is a continuum, not a step by step event. There are liner coins for the grade and there are liner coins between C and B assessments. Anytime there are liner coins, by definition one day they will fall on one side and another they might fall on the other. If they get the sticker, CAC stands behind them with their bid process. If they don't, they are always willing to take another look at them
<< <i>I think it all comes down to this: quality is a continuum, not a step by step event. There are liner coins for the grade and there are liner coins between C and B assessments. Anytime there are liner coins, by definition one day they will fall on one side and another they might fall on the other. If they get the sticker, CAC stands behind them with their bid process. If they don't, they are always willing to take another look at them.
What is the big deal about all that??? >>
The problem with this is that many collectors over the last 6 years have sold their coins just because they didn't get a sticker...
They now no longer posses these coins for such a second look
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
CAC knew at time of stickering that there was record of a previous CAC decision on this coin in its database. The decision by CAC to sticker this coin was unbiased by the previous result. Opinions about a coin's grade vary from day to day for all observers, and CAC knows that. I commend CAC.
Okay, yes my apologies. I was misinfored of the fee structure for CAC...mea culpa, I should have done my own homework rather than rely on hearsay...He who is without sin may now cast the first Stone Mountain...
But, I still stand by my opinion that the hobby has become so reliant upon TPGs and their offshoots, that it has taken much of the fun out of it. New collectors are now too gun shy to take a chance on a raw coin.
DOCTOR: You've only go a month to live.
2nd OPINION: You've only got a month to live.
3rd OPINION: You've only got a month to live.
4th OPINION: You're fine, you'll live to be a hundred.
Rather than viewing either the non-acceptance the first time or the acceptance in the PCGS holder by CAC a mistake, I think it should be called an updated or revised opinion. I think it is good that a coin is not locked out for consideration on the failure of the first try. Possibly the fact that it crossed over may have swayed the opinon to be positive.
<< <i>Collectors need to learn to grade, form their own opinions and buy the coin, not the plastic or stickers.
Grading is an opinion. >>
Well, shut down the forums, the final word on the matter has been proclaimed.
On the other hand, don't you think that sellers and buyers (the first and second party graders) USE the different TPGs, the FPG (fourth party grader, CAC), and then the Fifth party chorus (we crowd on this and other public forums) to interact and communicate, and that's exactly how collectors learn to grade like the TPGs and CAC, in order to form their own opinion about raw and third-tier (i.e. home slabbed) graded and stickered coins? So they can buy the coin and then get them into the good slabs and stickers and achieve favorable internet write-ups
This thread and coin is just, IMO, another example of a coin moving into it's "final resting place" from which no one would dare peel it or crack it back out, since there would be no hope of getting it into any higher levels*
It's not easy getting a coin to have all those favorable opinions about it, and of course then some of the chorus chime in, "oh no, I'm a conservative grader of other people's coins, I do not think it grades that"
So, the OP coin, to me looks ok at 65, but I haven't seen it in hand. Some will say, "it has hairlines" or "been dipped", well, maybe that's why it's not a 66 or 67.
*unless one can crack it out and improve it somehow, I've heard that happens sometimes.
<< <i>Based on what everyone here is saying, every TPG should grade a coin exactly the same each time it is submitted, right? We all know that is far from reality. Yet it seems this is expected from CAC. >>
CAC's job is much simpler than a TPG grading a coin the same each time. CAC already knows the grade on the plastic -- they just have to consistently agree or disagree with that. They aren't assigning a numerical grade to a raw coin. You're comparing apples to mini-vans. That you wouldn't understand the difference in these two scenarios doesn't surprise me. >>
How do YOU know what CAC's procedures are? You make ASSumptions that you know nothing about. Perhaps it is CAC procedure to cover the grade on the coin and grade it through the plastic - an eminently more difficult job than you ASSume. >>
Do the "graders" then play guess what number I'm thinking of before assigning the sticker and pin the tail on the donkey in celebration if they agree?
<< <i>CAC knew at time of stickering that there was record of a previous CAC decision on this coin in its database. The decision by CAC to sticker this coin was unbiased by the previous result. Opinions about a coin's grade vary from day to day for all observers, and CAC knows that. I commend CAC. >>
In their defense they would have had to manually remember it. Once the slab number changes, they probably don't have an easy way to look up the coin itself. Though that would again be assuming about CAC procedures and TDN might point out they might have a carnival fortune teller on hand.
<< <i>Based on what everyone here is saying, every TPG should grade a coin exactly the same each time it is submitted, right? We all know that is far from reality. Yet it seems this is expected from CAC. >>
CAC's job is much simpler than a TPG grading a coin the same each time. CAC already knows the grade on the plastic -- they just have to consistently agree or disagree with that. They aren't assigning a numerical grade to a raw coin. You're comparing apples to mini-vans. That you wouldn't understand the difference in these two scenarios doesn't surprise me. >>
How do YOU know what CAC's procedures are? You make ASSumptions that you know nothing about. Perhaps it is CAC procedure to cover the grade on the coin and grade it through the plastic - an eminently more difficult job than you ASSume. >>
Mularky.
-Brandon -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins] -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
But, I still stand by my opinion that the hobby has become so reliant upon TPGs and their offshoots, that it has taken much of the fun out of it. New collectors are now too gun shy to take a chance on a raw coin. . . . >>
In many cases, this reliance has also eliminated the risk of buying raw coins.
I'm a pro grader. I've seen stuff that you've never seen. Some I hope to never see again. And some I have misanalyzed (they fooled me). You will note several thousand Ebay-related posts with images of coins I never want to see again. . .
I have learned quite a bit more about what is acceptable and what is not from the viewpoint of some who don't have my own perspective. Some of it I don't like. Tough nuggies for me. . . Made and cost me money. In the aggregate I'm way ahead. As I believe are damn near all of us.
The consumer (collector, investor, et al.) is protected to a much greater degree and this gives new collectors confidence they wouldn't have in raw coins. The basic premise underlying TPG services.
I'd think it's both. And with a very strong bias towards protection as a NET gain.
But.....
Whatever your opinion of TPG impact on the hobby/business/industry, the fact remains; that ship has sailed.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
<< <i>In other words, CAC isn't supposed to make mistakes but if they do, they'll buy the coin which is the power "behind" the sticker. >>
Maybe PCGS and NGC should start dishing out mistake refunds for all the coins they've ever upgraded? I see nothing in their company statement saying that they will provide monetary compensation for any mistakes, it simply says you can have confidence in their product. Not unlike what the TPG's do; the confidence is created by the market.
Or are you proposing something even more drastic? Do you want CAC to pay the previous owner for not stickering their coin and stickering it now in PCGS plastic? Oh lawdy...
<< <i>>>In their defense they would have had to manually remember it.<<
How hard would that be? In addition to its inherent scarcity, the subject coin was part of a very famous collection. >>
I know from talking to JA that he brain dumps all but the most memorable submissions. I doubt he recognized the coin and even if he did he's not gonna take the time to research it. It's faster just to grade it again from a fresh perspective.
<< <i>Based on what everyone here is saying, every TPG should grade a coin exactly the same each time it is submitted, right? We all know that is far from reality. Yet it seems this is expected from CAC. >>
CAC's job is much simpler than a TPG grading a coin the same each time. CAC already knows the grade on the plastic -- they just have to consistently agree or disagree with that. They aren't assigning a numerical grade to a raw coin. You're comparing apples to mini-vans. That you wouldn't understand the difference in these two scenarios doesn't surprise me. >>
Please do explain how agreeing with a grade is any easier than grading a raw coin? Do you think JA and the other CAC certifiers need their hands held to know the difference between grade levels? That they can't tell the difference between UNC and AU? F and VF? Maybe you should try working at CAC before making such statements...
<< <i>Oreville is right. I can say from first hand knowlege that some coins just look better in a PCGS holder. >>
And it certainly doesn't bother JA any to sticker the same coin in a PCGS holder vs a NGC holder. That coin is now in his system and in a holder with more liquidity and in almost all cases....more value. Frankly, I'd assign more value to the coin in this holder as well. In essence that increase in value is no different than say calling the coin a MS65.3 vs. a MS65.5.
I doubt that coin is 100% original. It might be untouched since the 1920's to 1940's though. If that were a regular 1840 Philly half the odds were long for it to have ever crossed. Just too many upper reverse field marks. But there is something special about this rare 1840 such that PCGS didn't mind having in its holder as finest graded. It probably didn't hurt that it was pedigreed to Newman either.
It's far harder to determine the grade on a raw coin (or label insert covered) than it is to decide if you like, dislike, or are neutral on the coin as graded. And as far as CAC not looking at ANACS or ICG coins. That simply comes down to how good those guys are at grading and how marketable those coins are in their holders. If they did a good as job as grading as the other guys AND the coins were as liquid in the assigned grades...he'd sticker those too. That's CAC's business plan and makes perfect sense.
I agree that at first blush, this scenario seems to be an inconsistent application of CAC evaluation standards.
However, if CAC's endorsement goes beyond just confirming that the coin is "solid for the grade," and also means that CAC would gladly buy the coin, then the grading service (upon which the endorsement is placed) does matter.
I have seen multiple instances of accurately graded, slow moving "ATS"-graded coins that were subsequently crossed over at grade (to PCGS) and then sold quickly. The grading service does affect how a particular TPG coin is viewed in the market place. Thus, the withholding of the CAC endorsement on the ATS-graded coin may be more than just variability in the evaluation process.
<< <i>>>In their defense they would have had to manually remember it.<<
How hard would that be? In addition to its inherent scarcity, the subject coin was part of a very famous collection. >>
I know from talking to JA that he brain dumps all but the most memorable submissions. I doubt he recognized the coin and even if he did he's not gonna take the time to research it. It's faster just to grade it again from a fresh perspective. >>
You can't blame brain dumps for this reconsideration...
As how could anyone not remember a coin with the "EHR Green/ Eric Newman" pedigree also on the PCGS slab label
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
7. Are the serial numbers of PCGS or NGC coins submitted to CAC for verification recorded? If so, are coins automatically rejected by CAC that have previously been submitted but were not stickered?
The serial numbers of all PCGS and NGC coins that are submitted to CAC are recorded at the time they are entered into the CAC system.
All PCGS or NGC coins that are submitted to CAC are reviewed for CAC verification whether they have previously been submitted to CAC or not. Occasionally a coin that has previously been rejected for CAC verification is reconsidered by CAC and stickered.
<< <i>>>In their defense they would have had to manually remember it.<<
How hard would that be? In addition to its inherent scarcity, the subject coin was part of a very famous collection. >>
I know from talking to JA that he brain dumps all but the most memorable submissions. I doubt he recognized the coin and even if he did he's not gonna take the time to research it. It's faster just to grade it again from a fresh perspective. >>
You can't blame brain dumps for this reconsideration...
As how could anyone not remember a coin with the "EHR Green/ Eric Newman" pedigree also on the PCGS slab label >>
And remember exactly what one thought of the coin nine months ago when one has graded thousands since?
I would think their database of previously reviewed coins could be searched by type/date (and not just by serial number)? I would think that would be irresistible for such a high value coin.
Seated Half Society member #38
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress, running like a water color in the rain...."
<< <i>>>In their defense they would have had to manually remember it.<<
How hard would that be? In addition to its inherent scarcity, the subject coin was part of a very famous collection. >>
I know from talking to JA that he brain dumps all but the most memorable submissions. I doubt he recognized the coin and even if he did he's not gonna take the time to research it. It's faster just to grade it again from a fresh perspective. >>
You can't blame brain dumps for this reconsideration...
As how could anyone not remember a coin with the "EHR Green/ Eric Newman" pedigree also on the PCGS slab label >>
And remember exactly what one thought of the coin nine months ago when one has graded thousands since? >>
Although I personally haven't taken advantage of CAC's services it's been mentioned that you can call and they will discuss why your coin didn't meet their standards.
So wouldn't you think that there would be some notes taken upon viewing of why it didn't sticker the first time
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
<< <i>>>In their defense they would have had to manually remember it.<<
How hard would that be? In addition to its inherent scarcity, the subject coin was part of a very famous collection. >>
I know from talking to JA that he brain dumps all but the most memorable submissions. I doubt he recognized the coin and even if he did he's not gonna take the time to research it. It's faster just to grade it again from a fresh perspective. >>
You can't blame brain dumps for this reconsideration...
As how could anyone not remember a coin with the "EHR Green/ Eric Newman" pedigree also on the PCGS slab label >>
And remember exactly what one thought of the coin nine months ago when one has graded thousands since? >>
Although I personally haven't taken advantage of CAC's services it's been mentioned that you can call and they will discuss why your coin didn't meet their standards.
So wouldn't you think that there would be some notes taken upon viewing of why it didn't sticker the first time >>
How would they know it didn't sticker the first time? And why not just grade it fresh without any biases?
<< <i>>>In their defense they would have had to manually remember it.<<
How hard would that be? In addition to its inherent scarcity, the subject coin was part of a very famous collection. >>
I know from talking to JA that he brain dumps all but the most memorable submissions. I doubt he recognized the coin and even if he did he's not gonna take the time to research it. It's faster just to grade it again from a fresh perspective. >>
You can't blame brain dumps for this reconsideration...
As how could anyone not remember a coin with the "EHR Green/ Eric Newman" pedigree also on the PCGS slab label >>
And remember exactly what one thought of the coin nine months ago when one has graded thousands since? >>
While I agree with you and Gkellogg
I would add it isn't about remembering but the consistent application of a standard. While virtually impossible, that is the standard all TPG strive for and examples of their fallibility are important to the people who take them/put their faith too literally in them as an absolute.
The leading TPGs (PCGS & CAC) while the best and market preference and well worth the money, should never be used as a crutch that empowers the individuals to not use their own senses and judgement.
While a fraction of the variance/spread between found in normal holders, it would be naive not to realize there are a,b,c,d & e CAC quality coins out there.
<< <i>>>In their defense they would have had to manually remember it.<<
How hard would that be? In addition to its inherent scarcity, the subject coin was part of a very famous collection. >>
I know from talking to JA that he brain dumps all but the most memorable submissions. I doubt he recognized the coin and even if he did he's not gonna take the time to research it. It's faster just to grade it again from a fresh perspective. >>
You can't blame brain dumps for this reconsideration...
As how could anyone not remember a coin with the "EHR Green/ Eric Newman" pedigree also on the PCGS slab label >>
And remember exactly what one thought of the coin nine months ago when one has graded thousands since? >>
Although I personally haven't taken advantage of CAC's services it's been mentioned that you can call and they will discuss why your coin didn't meet their standards.
So wouldn't you think that there would be some notes taken upon viewing of why it didn't sticker the first time >>
How would they know it didn't sticker the first time? And why not just grade it fresh without any biases? >>
Records in their database when the whole NGC Newman collection initially passed through their office.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
Records in their database when the whole NGC Newman collection initially passed through their office.
They just aren't going to do that for every provenanced coin that comes in.
Look, coins get changed all the time. Dipped, acetoned, thumbed, MS70'd, etc. - it's better and faster to just look at it again if it's not in the same holder.
Whether they knew they changed their mind or not is irrelevent. Upon a second viewing they decided they'd be willing to back a market price for the coin. In the end it is their money on the line every time they sticker a coin.
So... why oh why does anyone else care?! They don't need to be defended or criticized.
<< <i>Whether they knew they changed their mind or not is irrelevent. Upon a second viewing they decided they'd be willing to back a market price for the coin. In the end it is their money on the line every time they sticker a coin.
So... why oh why does anyone else care?! They don't need to be defended or criticized. >>
My beef with CAC is that they claim they are doing a great service for the hobby by separating the A/B coins from the C coins at a given grade level of the TPGs (NGC and PCGS). That's simply not true. They sticker coins for which they are willing to "make a market" using one of their coin exchanges. Nothing more...
If CAC would change their misleading (and simply false) website claims to say what they are really doing, then I'd be fine. They simply can't consistently differentiate A/B vs. C coins within a given grade; and, even if they could, they are only doing it under their own internal idiosyncratic definitions. I get that the pediatric way of explaining the A/B vs. C level coins is easy for the masses to understand, but it is NOT what the consumer is actually getting from their service. Period.
-Brandon -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins] -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
<< <i>Whether they knew they changed their mind or not is irrelevent. Upon a second viewing they decided they'd be willing to back a market price for the coin. In the end it is their money on the line every time they sticker a coin.
So... why oh why does anyone else care?! They don't need to be defended or criticized. >>
My beef with CAC is that they claim they are doing a great service for the hobby by separating the A/B coins from the C coins at a given grade level of the TPGs (NGC and PCGS). That's simply not true. They sticker coins for which they are willing to "make a market" using one of their coin exchanges. Nothing more...
If CAC would change their misleading (and simply false) website claims to say what they are really doing, then I'd be fine. They simply can't consistently differentiate A/B vs. C coins within a given grade; and, even if they could, they are only doing it under their own internal idiosyncratic definitions. I get that the pediatric way of explaining the A/B vs. C level coins is easy for the masses to understand, but it is NOT what the consumer is actually getting from their service. Period. >>
Or maybe this is just a linear "B" coin CAC. The edge has got to be somewhere.
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
<< <i>
<< <i>So, CAC is definitely going to buy this coin?
Huh? >>
You said: " Personally, if they are batting 99% and willing to take mistakes off the market, I find that outstanding."
So will they be buying the coin?
Or was the non-sticker for the NGC Slab the "mistake"? >>
Arent they suppose to buy it either way?
<< <i>
<< <i>So, CAC is definitely going to buy this coin?
Huh? >>
You said: " Personally, if they are batting 99% and willing to take mistakes off the market, I find that outstanding."
So will they be buying the coin?
Or was the non-sticker for the NGC Slab the "mistake"? >>
Displays total ignorance of, or an inability to understand, the CAC business plan. Which has been described, explained, explicated and otherwise been made so easy to understand that I am aghast (!). . . . .
Do you like NGC yellow or PCGS red?
Lance.
<< <i>Again; it's all about marketing and money. Like the grading services, they get their money whether you get the bean or not.
And here all this time I thought they didn't charge for 'no bean'... thanks for clearing that up. >>
Hey TDN, maybe you could ask D.A. for my rebate on the 3 of 11 coins that didn't sticker when I submitted to CAC through him a few years ago. I suspect that the practice of not rebating to collector submitters on unstickered coins happens a hell of a lot more than you want to believe. That isn't CAC's fault, but it sure doesn't reflect well on dealers that are authorized to submit to CAC for collectors.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So, CAC is definitely going to buy this coin?
Huh? >>
You said: " Personally, if they are batting 99% and willing to take mistakes off the market, I find that outstanding."
So will they be buying the coin?
Or was the non-sticker for the NGC Slab the "mistake"? >>
Displays total ignorance of, or an inability to understand, the CAC business plan. Which has been described, explained, explicated and otherwise been made so easy to understand that I am aghast (!). . . . .
Please Explain.
The CAC Web page states:
---------------------------------------------------------------
CAC-verified.
Because Confidence in a Coin's Quality is Priceless.
Whether you're a novice or advanced collector, you know that quality is what determines the value of a rare coin.
However, within any certified coin grade, not all coins are "solid" quality coins.
Now there's an easy way to identify coins that are solid for the grade - a CAC verification sticker.
CAC was founded by leading members of the numismatic community who recognized the need for a higher level of grading.
With CAC, prices for the solid quality coins can be untethered from the lesser quality counterparts.
A CAC sticker means:
◾It has been verified as meeting our strict quality standards.
◾CAC is an active bidder on many CAC coins. In fact, CAC has purchased over $275 million of CAC verified coins.
Want confidence in the quality of a coin?
Look for the CAC sticker!
---------------------------------------------------------
So, is the CAC'ed slab the mistake? The NGC Slab? Is CAC saying that the NGC Grade wasn't up to NGC's Standards or that the PCGS Grade was the "quality" coin?
You see, TPG's offer professional opinions of grade and being an opinion means that mistakes can happen since coins resubmitted are often times not graded by the same three people.
The purpose behind the CAC Company if to validate the opinion of the TPG as being either:
Low end for the grade, meaning no sticker.
Good to High end for the grade, meaning Green Sticker
Under Graded, meaning Gold Sticker
The Web page specifically states:
"What Does a CAC Sticker Mean?
The CAC GREEN Label signifies that a coin has met Certified Acceptance Corporation's stringent grading standards."
In other words, CAC isn't supposed to make mistakes but if they do, they'll buy the coin which is the power "behind" the sticker.
The name is LEE!
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
TDN - My memory may be off, but I thought when CAC first came out you did have a stake. Did that change?
<< <i> I have no monetary stake in CAC though I do like and respect JA
TDN - My memory may be off, but I thought when CAC first came out you did have a stake. Did that change? >>
Yes and yes
<< <i>Based on what everyone here is saying, every TPG should grade a coin exactly the same each time it is submitted, right? We all know that is far from reality. Yet it seems this is expected from CAC. >>
CAC's job is much simpler than a TPG grading a coin the same each time. CAC already knows the grade on the plastic -- they just have to consistently agree or disagree with that. They aren't assigning a numerical grade to a raw coin. You're comparing apples to mini-vans. That you wouldn't understand the difference in these two scenarios doesn't surprise me.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
<< <i>
<< <i>Based on what everyone here is saying, every TPG should grade a coin exactly the same each time it is submitted, right? We all know that is far from reality. Yet it seems this is expected from CAC. >>
CAC's job is much simpler than a TPG grading a coin the same each time. CAC already knows the grade on the plastic -- they just have to consistently agree or disagree with that. They aren't assigning a numerical grade to a raw coin. You're comparing apples to mini-vans. That you wouldn't understand the difference in these two scenarios doesn't surprise me. >>
How do YOU know what CAC's procedures are? You make ASSumptions that you know nothing about. Perhaps it is CAC procedure to cover the grade on the coin and grade it through the plastic - an eminently more difficult job than you ASSume.
What is the big deal about all that???
<< <i>I think it all comes down to this: quality is a continuum, not a step by step event. There are liner coins for the grade and there are liner coins between C and B assessments. Anytime there are liner coins, by definition one day they will fall on one side and another they might fall on the other. If they get the sticker, CAC stands behind them with their bid process. If they don't, they are always willing to take another look at them.
What is the big deal about all that??? >>
The problem with this is that many collectors over the last 6 years have sold their coins just because they didn't get a sticker...
They now no longer posses these coins for such a second look
But, I still stand by my opinion that the hobby has become so reliant upon TPGs and their offshoots, that it has taken much of the fun out of it. New collectors are now too gun shy to take a chance on a raw coin.
DOCTOR: You've only go a month to live.
2nd OPINION: You've only got a month to live.
3rd OPINION: You've only got a month to live.
4th OPINION: You're fine, you'll live to be a hundred.
PATIENT: I knew those other guys were nuts.
<< <i>Collectors need to learn to grade, form their own opinions and buy the coin, not the plastic or stickers.
Grading is an opinion. >>
Well, shut down the forums, the final word on the matter has been proclaimed.
On the other hand, don't you think that sellers and buyers (the first and second party graders) USE the different TPGs, the FPG (fourth party grader, CAC), and then the Fifth party chorus (we crowd on this and other public forums) to interact and communicate, and that's exactly how collectors learn to grade like the TPGs and CAC, in order to form their own opinion about raw and third-tier (i.e. home slabbed) graded and stickered coins? So they can buy the coin and then get them into the good slabs and stickers and achieve favorable internet write-ups
This thread and coin is just, IMO, another example of a coin moving into it's "final resting place" from which no one would dare peel it or crack it back out, since there would be no hope of getting it into any higher levels*
It's not easy getting a coin to have all those favorable opinions about it, and of course then some of the chorus chime in, "oh no, I'm a conservative grader of other people's coins, I do not think it grades that"
So, the OP coin, to me looks ok at 65, but I haven't seen it in hand. Some will say, "it has hairlines" or "been dipped", well, maybe that's why it's not a 66 or 67.
*unless one can crack it out and improve it somehow, I've heard that happens sometimes.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Based on what everyone here is saying, every TPG should grade a coin exactly the same each time it is submitted, right? We all know that is far from reality. Yet it seems this is expected from CAC. >>
CAC's job is much simpler than a TPG grading a coin the same each time. CAC already knows the grade on the plastic -- they just have to consistently agree or disagree with that. They aren't assigning a numerical grade to a raw coin. You're comparing apples to mini-vans. That you wouldn't understand the difference in these two scenarios doesn't surprise me. >>
How do YOU know what CAC's procedures are? You make ASSumptions that you know nothing about. Perhaps it is CAC procedure to cover the grade on the coin and grade it through the plastic - an eminently more difficult job than you ASSume. >>
Do the "graders" then play guess what number I'm thinking of before assigning the sticker and pin the tail on the donkey in celebration if they agree?
<< <i>CAC knew at time of stickering that there was record of a previous CAC decision on this coin in its database. The decision by CAC to sticker this coin was unbiased by the previous result. Opinions about a coin's grade vary from day to day for all observers, and CAC knows that. I commend CAC. >>
In their defense they would have had to manually remember it. Once the slab number changes, they probably don't have an easy way to look up the coin itself. Though that would again be assuming about CAC procedures and TDN might point out they might have a carnival fortune teller on hand.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Based on what everyone here is saying, every TPG should grade a coin exactly the same each time it is submitted, right? We all know that is far from reality. Yet it seems this is expected from CAC. >>
CAC's job is much simpler than a TPG grading a coin the same each time. CAC already knows the grade on the plastic -- they just have to consistently agree or disagree with that. They aren't assigning a numerical grade to a raw coin. You're comparing apples to mini-vans. That you wouldn't understand the difference in these two scenarios doesn't surprise me. >>
How do YOU know what CAC's procedures are? You make ASSumptions that you know nothing about. Perhaps it is CAC procedure to cover the grade on the coin and grade it through the plastic - an eminently more difficult job than you ASSume. >>
Mularky.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
How hard would that be? In addition to its inherent scarcity, the subject coin was part of a very famous collection.
<< <i>.....
But, I still stand by my opinion that the hobby has become so reliant upon TPGs and their offshoots, that it has taken much of the fun out of it. New collectors are now too gun shy to take a chance on a raw coin. . . . >>
In many cases, this reliance has also eliminated the risk of buying raw coins.
I'm a pro grader. I've seen stuff that you've never seen. Some I hope to never see again. And some I have misanalyzed (they fooled me). You will note several thousand Ebay-related posts with images of coins I never want to see again. . .
I have learned quite a bit more about what is acceptable and what is not from the viewpoint of some who don't have my own perspective. Some of it I don't like. Tough nuggies for me. . .
The consumer (collector, investor, et al.) is protected to a much greater degree and this gives new collectors confidence they wouldn't have in raw coins. The basic premise underlying TPG services.
I'd think it's both. And with a very strong bias towards protection as a NET gain.
But.....
Whatever your opinion of TPG impact on the hobby/business/industry, the fact remains; that ship has sailed.
<< <i>In other words, CAC isn't supposed to make mistakes but if they do, they'll buy the coin which is the power "behind" the sticker. >>
Maybe PCGS and NGC should start dishing out mistake refunds for all the coins they've ever upgraded? I see nothing in their company statement saying that they will provide monetary compensation for any mistakes, it simply says you can have confidence in their product. Not unlike what the TPG's do; the confidence is created by the market.
Or are you proposing something even more drastic? Do you want CAC to pay the previous owner for not stickering their coin and stickering it now in PCGS plastic? Oh lawdy...
<< <i>>>In their defense they would have had to manually remember it.<<
How hard would that be? In addition to its inherent scarcity, the subject coin was part of a very famous collection. >>
I know from talking to JA that he brain dumps all but the most memorable submissions. I doubt he recognized the coin and even if he did he's not gonna take the time to research it. It's faster just to grade it again from a fresh perspective.
<< <i>
<< <i>Based on what everyone here is saying, every TPG should grade a coin exactly the same each time it is submitted, right? We all know that is far from reality. Yet it seems this is expected from CAC. >>
CAC's job is much simpler than a TPG grading a coin the same each time. CAC already knows the grade on the plastic -- they just have to consistently agree or disagree with that. They aren't assigning a numerical grade to a raw coin. You're comparing apples to mini-vans. That you wouldn't understand the difference in these two scenarios doesn't surprise me. >>
Please do explain how agreeing with a grade is any easier than grading a raw coin? Do you think JA and the other CAC certifiers need their hands held to know the difference between grade levels? That they can't tell the difference between UNC and AU? F and VF? Maybe you should try working at CAC before making such statements...
<< <i>CAC will not sticker any coin with any sign of PVC. HOWEVER SLIGHT! >>
That is simply not true.
JA is supreme at detecting PVC on coins but even he misses a few. I have had him buy-back CAC coins that had PVC showing.
<< <i>Oreville is right. I can say from first hand knowlege that some coins just look better in a PCGS holder. >>
And it certainly doesn't bother JA any to sticker the same coin in a PCGS holder vs a NGC holder. That coin is now in his system and in a holder with more liquidity and in almost all cases....more value. Frankly, I'd assign more
value to the coin in this holder as well. In essence that increase in value is no different than say calling the coin a MS65.3 vs. a MS65.5.
I doubt that coin is 100% original. It might be untouched since the 1920's to 1940's though. If that were a regular 1840 Philly half the odds were long for it to have ever crossed. Just too many upper reverse
field marks. But there is something special about this rare 1840 such that PCGS didn't mind having in its holder as finest graded. It probably didn't hurt that it was pedigreed to Newman either.
It's far harder to determine the grade on a raw coin (or label insert covered) than it is to decide if you like, dislike, or are neutral on the coin as graded. And as far as CAC not looking at ANACS or ICG coins. That simply comes
down to how good those guys are at grading and how marketable those coins are in their holders. If they did a good as job as grading as the other guys AND the coins were as liquid in the assigned grades...he'd sticker those too.
That's CAC's business plan and makes perfect sense.
Just curious.
Cheers,
Bob
However, if CAC's endorsement goes beyond just confirming that the coin is "solid for the grade," and also means that CAC would gladly buy the coin, then the grading service (upon which the endorsement is placed) does matter.
I have seen multiple instances of accurately graded, slow moving "ATS"-graded coins that were subsequently crossed over at grade (to PCGS) and then sold quickly. The grading service does affect how a particular TPG coin is viewed in the market place. Thus, the withholding of the CAC endorsement on the ATS-graded coin may be more than just variability in the evaluation process.
<< <i>
<< <i>>>In their defense they would have had to manually remember it.<<
How hard would that be? In addition to its inherent scarcity, the subject coin was part of a very famous collection. >>
I know from talking to JA that he brain dumps all but the most memorable submissions. I doubt he recognized the coin and even if he did he's not gonna take the time to research it. It's faster just to grade it again from a fresh perspective. >>
You can't blame brain dumps for this reconsideration...
As how could anyone not remember a coin with the "EHR Green/ Eric Newman" pedigree also on the PCGS slab label
The serial numbers of all PCGS and NGC coins that are submitted to CAC are recorded at the time they are entered into the CAC system.
All PCGS or NGC coins that are submitted to CAC are reviewed for CAC verification whether they have previously been submitted to CAC or not. Occasionally a coin that has previously been rejected for CAC verification is reconsidered by CAC and stickered.
njcc
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>>>In their defense they would have had to manually remember it.<<
How hard would that be? In addition to its inherent scarcity, the subject coin was part of a very famous collection. >>
I know from talking to JA that he brain dumps all but the most memorable submissions. I doubt he recognized the coin and even if he did he's not gonna take the time to research it. It's faster just to grade it again from a fresh perspective. >>
You can't blame brain dumps for this reconsideration...
As how could anyone not remember a coin with the "EHR Green/ Eric Newman" pedigree also on the PCGS slab label
And remember exactly what one thought of the coin nine months ago when one has graded thousands since?
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress,
running like a water color in the rain...."
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>>>In their defense they would have had to manually remember it.<<
How hard would that be? In addition to its inherent scarcity, the subject coin was part of a very famous collection. >>
I know from talking to JA that he brain dumps all but the most memorable submissions. I doubt he recognized the coin and even if he did he's not gonna take the time to research it. It's faster just to grade it again from a fresh perspective. >>
You can't blame brain dumps for this reconsideration...
As how could anyone not remember a coin with the "EHR Green/ Eric Newman" pedigree also on the PCGS slab label
And remember exactly what one thought of the coin nine months ago when one has graded thousands since? >>
Although I personally haven't taken advantage of CAC's services it's been mentioned that you can call and they will discuss why your coin didn't meet their standards.
So wouldn't you think that there would be some notes taken upon viewing of why it didn't sticker the first time
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>>>In their defense they would have had to manually remember it.<<
How hard would that be? In addition to its inherent scarcity, the subject coin was part of a very famous collection. >>
I know from talking to JA that he brain dumps all but the most memorable submissions. I doubt he recognized the coin and even if he did he's not gonna take the time to research it. It's faster just to grade it again from a fresh perspective. >>
You can't blame brain dumps for this reconsideration...
As how could anyone not remember a coin with the "EHR Green/ Eric Newman" pedigree also on the PCGS slab label
And remember exactly what one thought of the coin nine months ago when one has graded thousands since? >>
Although I personally haven't taken advantage of CAC's services it's been mentioned that you can call and they will discuss why your coin didn't meet their standards.
So wouldn't you think that there would be some notes taken upon viewing of why it didn't sticker the first time
How would they know it didn't sticker the first time? And why not just grade it fresh without any biases?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>>>In their defense they would have had to manually remember it.<<
How hard would that be? In addition to its inherent scarcity, the subject coin was part of a very famous collection. >>
I know from talking to JA that he brain dumps all but the most memorable submissions. I doubt he recognized the coin and even if he did he's not gonna take the time to research it. It's faster just to grade it again from a fresh perspective. >>
You can't blame brain dumps for this reconsideration...
As how could anyone not remember a coin with the "EHR Green/ Eric Newman" pedigree also on the PCGS slab label
And remember exactly what one thought of the coin nine months ago when one has graded thousands since? >>
While I agree with you and Gkellogg
I would add it isn't about remembering but the consistent application of a standard. While virtually impossible, that is the standard all TPG strive for and examples of their fallibility are important to the people who take them/put their faith too literally in them as an absolute.
The leading TPGs (PCGS & CAC) while the best and market preference and well worth the money, should never be used as a crutch that empowers the individuals to not use their own senses and judgement.
While a fraction of the variance/spread between found in normal holders, it would be naive not to realize there are a,b,c,d & e CAC quality coins out there.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>>>In their defense they would have had to manually remember it.<<
How hard would that be? In addition to its inherent scarcity, the subject coin was part of a very famous collection. >>
I know from talking to JA that he brain dumps all but the most memorable submissions. I doubt he recognized the coin and even if he did he's not gonna take the time to research it. It's faster just to grade it again from a fresh perspective. >>
You can't blame brain dumps for this reconsideration...
As how could anyone not remember a coin with the "EHR Green/ Eric Newman" pedigree also on the PCGS slab label
And remember exactly what one thought of the coin nine months ago when one has graded thousands since? >>
Although I personally haven't taken advantage of CAC's services it's been mentioned that you can call and they will discuss why your coin didn't meet their standards.
So wouldn't you think that there would be some notes taken upon viewing of why it didn't sticker the first time
How would they know it didn't sticker the first time? And why not just grade it fresh without any biases? >>
Records in their database when the whole NGC Newman collection initially passed through their office.
They just aren't going to do that for every provenanced coin that comes in.
Look, coins get changed all the time. Dipped, acetoned, thumbed, MS70'd, etc. - it's better and faster to just look at it again if it's not in the same holder.
<< <i>At what point do we presume that all graded coins that don't have a bean affixed were rejected by CAC? >>
Ooh, ooh, easy one. The inflection point.
<< <i>
<< <i>At what point do we presume that all graded coins that don't have a bean affixed were rejected by CAC? >>
Ooh, ooh, easy one. The inflection point. >>
<< <i>And yet, people keep paying for insurance....and paying, and paying, and paying..... ad nauseum. Cheers, RickO >>
So... why oh why does anyone else care?! They don't need to be defended or criticized.
<< <i>Whether they knew they changed their mind or not is irrelevent. Upon a second viewing they decided they'd be willing to back a market price for the coin. In the end it is their money on the line every time they sticker a coin.
So... why oh why does anyone else care?! They don't need to be defended or criticized. >>
My beef with CAC is that they claim they are doing a great service for the hobby by separating the A/B coins from the C coins at a given grade level of the TPGs (NGC and PCGS). That's simply not true. They sticker coins for which they are willing to "make a market" using one of their coin exchanges. Nothing more...
If CAC would change their misleading (and simply false) website claims to say what they are really doing, then I'd be fine. They simply can't consistently differentiate A/B vs. C coins within a given grade; and, even if they could, they are only doing it under their own internal idiosyncratic definitions. I get that the pediatric way of explaining the A/B vs. C level coins is easy for the masses to understand, but it is NOT what the consumer is actually getting from their service. Period.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
<< <i>
<< <i>Whether they knew they changed their mind or not is irrelevent. Upon a second viewing they decided they'd be willing to back a market price for the coin. In the end it is their money on the line every time they sticker a coin.
So... why oh why does anyone else care?! They don't need to be defended or criticized. >>
My beef with CAC is that they claim they are doing a great service for the hobby by separating the A/B coins from the C coins at a given grade level of the TPGs (NGC and PCGS). That's simply not true. They sticker coins for which they are willing to "make a market" using one of their coin exchanges. Nothing more...
If CAC would change their misleading (and simply false) website claims to say what they are really doing, then I'd be fine. They simply can't consistently differentiate A/B vs. C coins within a given grade; and, even if they could, they are only doing it under their own internal idiosyncratic definitions. I get that the pediatric way of explaining the A/B vs. C level coins is easy for the masses to understand, but it is NOT what the consumer is actually getting from their service. Period. >>
Or maybe this is just a linear "B" coin CAC. The edge has got to be somewhere.
MJ
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......