@ms70 said:
Has everyone lost their minds? I don't give a rat's butt what the coin is or what it's worth. Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent.
It's just like the good old days pre-TPGS but now there is a false veneer of legitimacy because of ever "evolving" guarantees, pretty holders, and purportedly objective third party grading.
@ms70 said:
Has everyone lost their minds? I don't give a rat's butt what the coin is or what it's worth. Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent.
It's just like the good old days pre-TPGS but now there is a false veneer of legitimacy because of ever "evolving" guarantees, pretty holders, and purportedly objective third party grading.
@ms70 said:
Has everyone lost their minds? I don't give a rat's butt what the coin is or what it's worth. Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent.
It's just like the good old days pre-TPGS but now there is a false veneer of legitimacy because of ever "evolving" guarantees, pretty holders, and purportedly objective third party grading.
did you mean "devolving"?
No.
Some of the guarantees are watered down compared to what they were.
@ms70 said:
Has everyone lost their minds? I don't give a rat's butt what the coin is or what it's worth. Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent.
It's just like the good old days pre-TPGS but now there is a false veneer of legitimacy because of ever "evolving" guarantees, pretty holders, and purportedly objective third party grading.
did you mean "devolving"?
No.
Some of the guarantees are watered down compared to what they were.
Yes but evolution can be both progressive and regressive in some cases/ways. When you say devolving, I think of the Devolution Revolution of the 1980s.
@Justacommeman said:
Here we go again. Well while others can grade its pretty well known that JA is the guru of grading. So his opinion matters more to me then most if not all. I don’t personally know anybody that buys only CAC coins so the BS that often gets slung in these threads that people are lemmings or devotees is just that. BS. I bought a 40K medal without a sticker last year as I’ve looked at so many that I knew it was solid. It’s hadn’t been into CAC. I recently sent it in through the dealer I bought it from. It stickered. Is it worth more now? Probably. I just know I like the fact that JA liked it as well as myself and the dealer. Confirmation from JA is a good thing. There isn’t a negative.
I’ll take a stab at the OP’s question
If JA announced he was ending the service eventually you would see an avalanche of submissions. Post JA the spread would widen in value CAC coins over non CAC coins. Classic gold through Saints would be the most effected. Mid four figure coins and up would also benefit. NGC coins without stickers God help your soul especially on big ticket items.
Whether you like CAC or not the evidence is overwhelming that stickered coins being more money then non stickered coins. PCGS stickered coins being at the top of the pyramid.
Unless you plan on living forever and plan on keeping your coins into eternity or just don’t like your heirs then by all means don’t use the service. If you think you are the smartest person in the room and you’ve convinced everyone else your the bestest grader ever don’t use the service. If you ever plan on selling your coins during your lifetime and like money and your family I think you would be a fool not to use this service IMO ( on low to mid four figure coins and higher)
mark
But you are deflecting and not addressing the issue that has been brought up. No one has questioned JA's grading skills or knowledge, and no one advocated not submitting to CAC (which would be pretty dumb when it comes to selling if you have more expensive material). The concern is that a well meaning business may also create some unintended consequences even while it also brings some positive changes to the hobby as well. It isn't an all or nothing proposition and that is the false dichotomy that is repeated ad nauseam on the forums.
I think another point you are missing is that you are an anomaly collector wise. You actually know what you are doing and are not a sycophant. You are in a very, very small minority of the rare coin market. The lack of grading skills and general knowledge among collectors and dealers alike in this hobby is absolutely terrifying. Also, yes, there are a number of collectors that will not look at a coin if it is not stickered. Maybe your coin friends are more sophisticated.
Not deflecting. There’s is just no way of addressing every point in this thread so I gave my POV on a couple of points.
As far as unintended consequences go that book hasn’t been finished yet. The first couple of chapters yes, but the book no. The fact is CAC is part of the slabbed landscape now. I for one would hate to see what gradflation would look like without it. That terrifies me more then collectors or dealers not knowing how to grade.
For sure collateral damage from CAC has been “unstickered” coins. For sure there is some babies being thown out with the bath water. That’s where the educated can still make some hay. Regardless of all of that the CAC train has left the station. I knew CAC would have an effect on non stickered coins but the divergence is more then I expected for good or bad. I’ve personally been rewarded by being picky and not a “price” buyer pre sticker days. It used to rankle me a little when people said I was over paying and they would cite examples of the same grade they got at 50% what I paid. On a spreadsheet they were always ahead and I was always under water according to the price guides. Weaker coins really held back prices of premium coins in the same grade. Thankfully IMO that dynamic has changed and the script has been flipped.
I was originally against CAC. My mentor still is. However, the good has far outweighed the price fall out of unstickered coins in my opinion. One has to still make informed decisions as always. Every coin is basically unique and needs to be evaluated that way. Personally I rest a little easier knowing that John has seen and detected more monkied with coins then anyone I’m aware of. That is a huge reason why I’m pro CAC. Other experts go to him if they have a question. JA has seen it all, all day, everyday. If one doesn’t believe that then so be it.
Man did I drop a lot of analogies in this post
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......
@ms70 said:
Has everyone lost their minds? I don't give a rat's butt what the coin is or what it's worth. Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent.
You must be a new collector with stars in your eyes. This has been going on for decades and it was even worse before the first TPGS (INSAB) and second TPGS (ANACS) included grading to their authentication services in the late1970's.
@ms70 said:
Has everyone lost their minds? I don't give a rat's butt what the coin is or what it's worth. Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent.
You must be a new collector with stars in your eyes. This has been going on for decades and it was even worse before the first TPGS (INSAB) and second TPGS (ANACS) included grading to their authentication services in the late1970's.
@ms70 said:
Has everyone lost their minds? I don't give a rat's butt what the coin is or what it's worth. Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent.
You must be a new collector with stars in your eyes. This has been going on for decades and it was even worse before the first TPGS (INSAB) and second TPGS (ANACS) included grading to their authentication services in the late1970's.
That doesn't make it kosher. There are a number of sketchy practices that have happened for a long time.
Look, we all used to wonder what would PCGS be like w/out Hall, or heritage without Jim and Steve. ALL WILL survive.
I still say unless JA does pick a successor (which I know he has been looking for), the value of all CAC coins would rise as they would be at an even more stronger premium. Forget this BS about one man having too much power, that power has saved many people lots of money. One wannbe here thinks he is better then JA-well JA paid his dues over the years and has earned the ultimate in respect from his peers. You think that is easy? NO ONE else has done it.
For now, just be glad CAC exists. I know I would hate to see CAC end because of no qualified successor. At least I have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of CAC coins in peoples hands. Again, the premiums will sky rocket if they close.
@specialist said:
Again, the premiums will sky rocket if they close.
Why? Are you arguing that the stickers will become collectibles in their own right?
P.S. Unlike PCGS and NGC which offer guarantees that survive their founders, there is no CAC guarantee. If CAC closes shop, will Legend step up to fulfill its market maker function sight unseen?
It would be neat if DLRC would step up with Mr. Hansen's backing. They could create a competitor sticker which might make pricing even more competitive/higher for PQ coins and would create a group that could be logical successors. I'm not sure they would be interested though.
Who's to say he hasn't retired.
He is not the only person that puts stickers on CAC coins.
There is a group of 2 or 3 that help with putting on CAC and always have been from my understanding.
It is JA's opinion that is, and has been, significant, and he is the source of CAC credibility. CAC is a business that is based upon the significance of one coin grader. When JA is gone, his shoes may be impossible to fill. When JA is no longer involved with CAC, CAC may still agree to buy coins that they have endorsed........but at what price???? Grey sheet may not be much compensation for collectors. FWIW
@TheDukeK said:
Who's to say he hasn't retired.
He is not the only person that puts stickers on CAC coins.
There is a group of 2 or 3 that help with putting on CAC and always have been from my understanding.
John still finalizes every singje coin to my knowledge. He always did
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......
@ms70 said:
Has everyone lost their minds? I don't give a rat's butt what the coin is or what it's worth. Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent.
You must be a new collector with stars in your eyes. This has been going on for decades and it was even worse before the first TPGS (INSAB) and second TPGS (ANACS) included grading to their authentication services in the late1970's.
Yup, that's me alright. Being all stupid and naive, expecting honestly and integrity.....
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@ms70 said:
Has everyone lost their minds? I don't give a rat's butt what the coin is or what it's worth. Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent.
It's no more fraudulent than calling a circulated coin 62. The difference is that the 64 will tend to have less wear and be better looking.
And use your imagination. How little wear would a coin need to have and how pretty would it need to be before you would consider it equal to the typical 64? We're talking about an unusual coin, but they do exist. The concept requires less imagination at the 61-62 level, but the principle is exactly the same.
Remember, wear can be almost imperceptible.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
One thing I take away from this discussion, and my view may be wrong, but possible. If one is into the CAC brand with a plethora of coinage they better transfer the IMPORTANCE of the CAC brand to the up and coming numismatists/collectors. For, if they do not see it the same way as the current crop of numismatists/collectors, they may have their own idea of what a CAC type coin is and start a rival service to suit THEIR needs, much like the current formula suits the needs/sense of value of the current crop of the collecting world. If this scenario should take place, in part this could render some/most CAC slabbed coins obsolete as they, CAC, would not fit the mold of the new breed. This is what would worry me long term.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@MrEureka said:
-64s into 65s and 66s will be the result.
@ms70 said:
Has everyone lost their minds? I don't give a rat's butt what the coin is or what it's worth. Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent.
It's no more fraudulent than calling a circulated coin 62. The difference is that the 64 will tend to have less wear and be better looking.
It's no less fraudulent either.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
The original topic of this thread is well worth considering, regarding the potential future value of CACed coins in the absence of the master. Nobody has yet mentioned that the perceived value will precipitously decline without the continuance of the current website allowing easy verification of CAC approval. A major decline will also follow if the two most prestigious current grading entities become obsolete and are replaced by others with other standards. Or if the grading scale is seriously altered. Or if a novel coin evaluation mechanism appears, perhaps using something other than removable stickers on the outsides of slabs. Or if a much improved counterfeit operation reproduces coins, slabs and stickers virtually undetectably. These and other possible future developments may render CAC stickers almost irrelevant. Overall, and over time, my opinion is that without the continued presence of the master, CAC added perceived value is almost sure to either gradually or rapidly decline.
@cameonut2011 replied to this reply I made to MS-70: "You must be a new collector with stars in your eyes. This has been going on for decades and it was even worse before the first TPGS (INSAB) and second TPGS (ANACS) included grading to their authentication services in the late1970's."
That doesn't make it kosher. There are a number of sketchy practices that have happened for a long time.
LOL. The market TRUMP'S you and your opinion of fraud. You can go with the flow and leave money on the table or **go crazy fighting a loosing, idealistic battle!
PS You can also join myself and Bill Jones fussing about this situation as long as you bring your own lance.
@Insider2 said:
Stupid question out of ignorance...Do you need to be a CAC Club member to submit coins? What does the club offer? Perhaps CAC tries to weed out coins w/no chance of stickering. The answer may be on their website. Color me lazy and requesting help.
....you are indeed lazy and need help ; may I recommend a shrink ?
LOL! I neglected to say MY stupid question out of MY ignorance. I mistakenly thought my post would be clear. I forgot this is not the 1950's and 60's when I was educated.
@TheDukeK said:
Who's to say he hasn't retired.
He is not the only person that puts stickers on CAC coins.
There is a group of 2 or 3 that help with putting on CAC and always have been from my understanding.
John still finalizes every singje coin to my knowledge. He always did
m
this isn't true and you know it .
Really? He told me just that a few weeks ago...where’s the meat to your assertion?
@Insider2 said: @cameonut2011 replied to this reply I made to MS-70: "You must be a new collector with stars in your eyes. This has been going on for decades and it was even worse before the first TPGS (INSAB) and second TPGS (ANACS) included grading to their authentication services in the late1970's."
That doesn't make it kosher. There are a number of sketchy practices that have happened for a long time.
LOL. The market TRUMP'S you and your opinion of fraud. You can go with the flow and leave money on the table or **go cIrazy fighting a loosing, idealistic battle!
PS You can also join myself and Bill Jones fussing about this situation as long as you bring your own lance.
The definition of fraud and fraudulent date back hundreds of years and have a precise legal definition irrespective of what a segment (even if a majority) of the current coin market thinks. Very few in the coin market think for themselves.
I don't understand your "leave money on the table comment." When I sell a coin, I don't usually offer my personal opinions unless they are extremely favorable. Instead I use language to the effect of: up for sale is XYZ coin graded ABC by PCGS or the like. That is a factually true statement and expresses no opinion on my part as to whether the grade is justified. Put another way, I have made no material misstatements of fact.
@Insider2 said:
LOL. The market TRUMP'S you and your opinion of fraud. You can go with the flow and leave money on the table or **go crazy fighting a loosing, idealistic battle!
PS You can also join myself and Bill Jones fussing about this situation as long as you bring your own lance.
After 29 years in law enforcement It's possible I just might know a little something about what fraud is. But you don't need my opinion, I encourage you to simply look up the definition of fraud. No need to be a lawyer to figure it out.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@specialist said:
Darn, I leave for a few hours and....
But I think JA is in a league of his own and would have zero problems getting traction with a new grading service. What I would love more than anything is for John to split CAC into two different companies owned by the same parent corporation: (1)one that could function as a grading service to compete with NGC and PCGS and (2) a second arm that is blindly managed to run the market maker end. As long as the two are separate and it is done blindly (i.e. by an independent person overseeing the second arm), I don't think there would be conflicts/problems.
I don't think John wants to grade coins any longer. He stickers the ones he is willing to buy and does a brisk wholesale trade in these coins. He adds integrity to the market and makes some money at the same time. That said, the people who know best how to market the stickered coins do the best.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
I thought about another potential case study for comparison this afternoon. What happened to Stuppler's (sp?) PQ sticker? It never seems to have gained currency. Why? Did Stuppler not have the capitalization or willingness to expend capital to be a strong market maker? If he did have a strong market maker arm, then it would suggest that the grader himself (i.e. Albanese) may be responsible solely or at least in large part for CAC's success. In that instance, it would seem that the market would take a hit after JA's retirement especially if CAC continues to use the same sticker for coins that John never sees.
Also, look at the NGC old no line fatty era coins. If my memory and recollection are correct, JA was the finalizer for the coins. Why haven't these been given a boost? Of course a few may be lower end, but JA still attested that they were original and problem free. Those coins haven't done much better than average ones "post JA."
@Insider2 said:
LOL. The market TRUMP'S you and your opinion of fraud. You can go with the flow and leave money on the table or **go crazy fighting a loosing, idealistic battle!
PS You can also join myself and Bill Jones fussing about this situation as long as you bring your own lance.
After 29 years in law enforcement It's possible I just might know a little something about what fraud is. But you don't need my opinion, I encourage you to simply look up the definition of fraud. No need to be a lawyer to figure it out.
I guess what has gone on and is going on has not gotten through to you. What you know about fraud means ABSOLUTLY NOTHING with regard to what we are discussing. While I thank you for your service to the community and encourage your numismatic pursuits, the coin business has different rules. If you don't like it, go on a personal crusade with the Federal Trade Commission. There have been many times that one determined person has changed the world before. GOOD LUCK.
PS You can spend your life on this mission or seek to understand how coins are graded in the real world. Best of all, each of us has the opportunity to use OUR OWN interpretation of any so-called "grading standard" practiced by anyone else.
@cameonut2011 said: "I don't understand your "leave money on the table comment."
Definition of "leave money on the table." I am an "expert" at it as I've had my eyes ""plucked out" by some of the best in the business.
When I sell a coin at an AU price $$$ because it is an AU coin and the person who buys it (he knows more than I will ever know) grades it commercial MS and sells it for $$$$, I have **"left money on the table." ** Sorry, I should have explained this hard-to-grasp concept more clearly in the first place.
@Insider2 said:
LOL. The market TRUMP'S you and your opinion of fraud. You can go with the flow and leave money on the table or **go crazy fighting a loosing, idealistic battle!
PS You can also join myself and Bill Jones fussing about this situation as long as you bring your own lance.
After 29 years in law enforcement It's possible I just might know a little something about what fraud is. But you don't need my opinion, I encourage you to simply look up the definition of fraud. No need to be a lawyer to figure it out.
I guess what has gone on and is going on has not gotten through to you. What you know about fraud means ABSOLUTLY NOTHING with regard to what we are discussing. While I thank you for your service to the community and encourage your numismatic pursuits, the coin business has different rules. If you don't like it, go on a personal crusade with the Federal Trade Commission. There have been many times that one determined person has changed the world before. GOOD LUCK.
PS You can spend your life on this mission or seek to understand how coins are graded in the real world. Best of all, each of us has the opportunity to use OUR OWN interpretation of any so-called "grading standard" practiced by anyone else.
LOL... "spend my life on this mission"... I'm retired and this is the extent of my "mission" unless it personally affects me. That said, I'd refer anyone with specific knowledge of people KNOWINGLY mis-grading coins under the banner of being a professional to the Numismatic Crime Information Center.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@TheDukeK said:
Who's to say he hasn't retired.
He is not the only person that puts stickers on CAC coins.
There is a group of 2 or 3 that help with putting on CAC and always have been from my understanding.
John still finalizes every singje coin to my knowledge. He always did
m
this isn't true and you know it .
Really? He told me just that a few weeks ago...where’s the meat to your assertion?
If you look at Thor11's profile and the posts he's made that have been flagged, you'll know that he is a troll.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@Insider2 said:
LOL. The market TRUMP'S you and your opinion of fraud. You can go with the flow and leave money on the table or **go crazy fighting a loosing, idealistic battle!
PS You can also join myself and Bill Jones fussing about this situation as long as you bring your own lance.
After 29 years in law enforcement It's possible I just might know a little something about what fraud is. But you don't need my opinion, I encourage you to simply look up the definition of fraud. No need to be a lawyer to figure it out.
I guess what has gone on and is going on has not gotten through to you. What you know about fraud means ABSOLUTLY NOTHING with regard to what we are discussing. While I thank you for your service to the community and encourage your numismatic pursuits, the coin business has different rules. If you don't like it, go on a personal crusade with the Federal Trade Commission. There have been many times that one determined person has changed the world before. GOOD LUCK.
PS You can spend your life on this mission or seek to understand how coins are graded in the real world. Best of all, each of us has the opportunity to use OUR OWN interpretation of any so-called "grading standard" practiced by anyone else.
His point is that the emperor has no clothes. The grading services brought a lot of money into this hobby because of supposedly well defined, objective, and non-changing grading standards, and through the process of grade inflation, they are driving a lot of money out of this hobby. Calling something anything other than what it is is dishonest and sets the stage for further erosion of the market as its underlying fundamentals are questioned more and more. Don't believe me? Then why do we have such a reliance on CAC? It is because a large portion of the market no longer trusts the grading services to get it right anymore and not merely looking for "A" or "B" quality coins. This is why we have so many with a CAC only mentality. Sadly the issue also goes beyond merely inflated grades, but more and more doctored crap is making it through sadly.
In reading how this thread has unfolded, please think about how this dialog effects the future of coin collecting and the public perception of the hobby before posting.
Folks...this reads as bad as tariffs on ketchup.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@coinkat said:
In reading how this thread has unfolded, please think about how this dialog effects the future of coin collecting and the public perception of the hobby before posting.
Folks...this reads as bad as tariffs on ketchup.
I doubt anyone changed their opinions based on anything that I or anyone else stated in this thread.
I just got off the phone with JA after discussing this topic which, from its inception, has been among his most serious concerns in protecting the integrity of the CAC stickering and market-making models.
I'm going to try to NOT to put words in his mouth.
Succession plans have been formulated in both discrete areas.
The trading model wasn't a relevant part of our discussion.
When JA retires as a grader, a new sticker will be utilized to indicate coins subsequently graded.
I tried to tease out some names by mentioning than I thought @BillJones was a little sloppy on FBL Frankies, but evidently he considers @Bill to have other gifts No other names came up
When I asked him how often he fondled the new sticker, he indicated "not that often, but usually on Fridays".
His object of contemplation has a different hologram "blink" than the current one, but still the same appearance head-on:
A constructive comment about MS grades. Around 10-20 years ago I had a collection of capped bust halves, some were TPG graded MS 62-64, and all of these had some friction, rub, marks - wear. I honestly don't believe any circulated in commerce.
Lets take the probable life of an 1818 half dollar PCGS MS63. For the first few decades, most likely bounced around in bank bags - many bust halves were held in banks and were not released to circulation, there is contemporary documentation of this. Around 1880, it was owned by a collector, and not handled by its edges. Shuffled around in a desk drawer, gaining more marks and cabinet friction. In 1930, was thumb-pressed into a National Coin album. In 1950, was put into a paper envelope - more handling and friction. Not until 1988 did it land into a TPG holder.
For 170 of 200 years, the 1818 50c was raw, unprotected, and exposed through many generations, but never circulated in commerce - uncirculated. How could a coin this old not have any wear? Some of these coins, that had less handling, are graded MS65 and up. All have some wear.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
@cameonut2011 said: "His point is that the emperor has no clothes. Actually that was NOT his point. His expressed point was: "Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent." This is something I do on occasion. Lucky for me, my instructions are to call 'em as I see 'em - archaic standards or not.
@cameonut2011 continues: "The grading services brought a lot of money into this hobby because of supposedly well defined, objective, and non-changing grading standards,…"" This statement is pure nonsense (Oh, IMHO).
Wherever did you get that idea? Did you read it somewhere? The only thing close to true in that "fairytale" is the word "objective" and that's not entirely true. Better to say they rendered an opinion backed by a guarantee.
..."and through the process of grade inflation, they are driving a lot of money out of this hobby.**
I'm sorry to hear your business may be down. I don't have a finger on the market as you claim to have but if money is leaving the hobby, bring it on. The place I work is having its best year ever with no slowdown in sight!
@cameonut2011 said: " Calling something anything other than what it is is dishonest [take off your rose colored glasses and idealistic mindset. Do you think you are qualified to judge MY PERSONAL GRADING STANDARDS or those of any professional grader or dealer? Let's take crooks out of the equation as they don't last for long in this business. I personally have seen several of the biggest over-grading crooks in this business become conservative graders due to industry pressure. That leaves the rest of us with our best honest opinion. Same goes for the TPGS's.] and sets the stage for further erosion of the market as its underlying fundamentals are questioned more and more. Don't believe me? Then why do we have such a reliance on CAC? [LOL, Ah, because collectors and dealers want their coins?] It is because a large portion of the market no longer trusts the grading services to get it right anymore and not merely looking for "A" or "B" quality coins. This is why we have so many with a CAC only mentality. Sadly the issue also goes beyond merely inflated grades, but more and more doctored crap is making it through sadly." [I disagree, as I've seen fewer doctored coin in the holders of other TPGS's]
@Insider2 said: @cameonut2011 said: "His point is that the emperor has no clothes. Actually that was NOT his point. His expressed point was: "Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent." This is something I do on occasion. Lucky for me, my instructions are to call 'em as I see 'em - archaic standards or not.
If you disagree with a scale, then redefine it in a transparent manner. Do not hijack an existing scale which purportedly did make a wear/friction distinction (rightly or wrongly) and then apply meanings contrary to the plain and obvious meaning of those labels/standards. I'm not alleging a nefarious intent, but it is misleading to call something other than what it plainly is. A true "mint state" does not have wear of any kind be it from rubbing in a dealer's cabinet or drawer or from heavy circulation in commerce.
@cameonut2011 continues: "The grading services brought a lot of money into this hobby because of supposedly well defined, objective, and non-changing grading standards,…"" This statement is pure nonsense (Oh, IMHO).
Wherever did you get that idea? Did you read it somewhere? The only thing close to true in that "fairytale" is the word "objective" and that's not entirely true. Better to say they rendered an opinion backed by a guarantee.
..."and through the process of grade inflation, they are driving a lot of money out of this hobby.**'
The grading services did bring in a lot of investors into this market through sight unseen exchanges and the market reflected that. The grading standards were touted as objective and consistent. That was actually stated, and not my personal gloss. The FTC, in addressing the 1990 market crash and in targeting various services, came to the same conclusions that I did.
I'm sorry to hear your business may be down. I don't have a finger on the market as you claim to have but if money is leaving the hobby, bring it on. The place I work is having its best year ever with no slowdown in sight!
The market speaks for itself. Things are better than they were a couple of years ago, but most issues have taken a good hit (20-30+% or better) in recent times. We can argue about etiology all day, but I think grade inflation is clearly part of it.
@cameonut2011 said: " Calling something anything other than what it is is dishonest [take off your rose colored glasses and idealistic mindset. Do you think you are qualified to judge MY PERSONAL GRADING STANDARDS or those of any professional grader or dealer? Let's take crooks out of the equation as they don't last for long in this business. I personally have seen several of the biggest over-grading crooks in this business become conservative graders due to industry pressure. That leaves the rest of us with our best honest opinion. Same goes for the TPGS's.] and sets the stage for further erosion of the market as its underlying fundamentals are questioned more and more. Don't believe me? Then why do we have such a reliance on CAC? [LOL, Ah, because collectors and dealers want their coins?] It is because a large portion of the market no longer trusts the grading services to get it right anymore and not merely looking for "A" or "B" quality coins. This is why we have so many with a CAC only mentality. Sadly the issue also goes beyond merely inflated grades, but more and more doctored crap is making it through sadly." [I disagree, as I've seen fewer doctored coin in the holders of other TPGS's]
A standardless standard is no standard at all. Do you seriously believe the standards are the same as they were in 1986-1988?
@Nysoto said:
A constructive comment about MS grades. Around 10-20 years ago I had a collection of capped bust halves, some were TPG graded MS 62-64, and all of these had some friction, rub, marks - wear. I honestly don't believe any circulated in commerce.
Lets take the probable life of an 1818 half dollar PCGS MS63. For the first few decades, most likely bounced around in bank bags - many bust halves were held in banks and were not released to circulation, there is contemporary documentation of this. Around 1880, it was owned by a collector, and not handled by its edges. Shuffled around in a desk drawer, gaining more marks and cabinet friction. In 1930, was thumb-pressed into a National Coin album. In 1950, was put into a paper envelope - more handling and friction. Not until 1988 did it land into a TPG holder.
For 170 of 200 years, the 1818 50c was raw, unprotected, and exposed through many generations, but never circulated in commerce - uncirculated. How could a coin this old not have any wear? Some of these coins, that had less handling, are graded MS65 and up. All have some wear.
Everything you have said is true. Let's look at another 1818 50c. There are two 200 year old coins on my desk. One is as you describe blazing luster and just a few marks. Unfortunately, as you have described its life, most of the flat areas on the highest points of the relief are a little flat (strike weakness) and have turned a little gray with some microscopic short hairlines going every which way (cabinet friction). The other coin also has blazing luster a few marks and some "flats" on the relief; however, its surfaces are 100% original with "flat strike luster" covering the "flats." One coin is a commercial Unc- say MS-63 while the other is a true technical Unc MS-63. You see, in an academic discussion there actually is a difference. One coin is still in Full Mint State condition no matter if it circulated or not. The other is really ABOUT MINT STATE no matter its past history. Bust Half dollars exist in full MS condition. They are rare.
Now, two stories from me. One day as an authenticator (before professional TPGS's) I saw my first true mint state Barber Half dollar. No marks, hairlines, rub, and blazing white luster. Up until then, they were all the usual off-white, gray, or bright silver (cleaned) stuff that is all over the place. I hardly ever saw any blazing, frosty gold, true MS $2 1/2 or $5 Indians until they came out of the woodwork after PCGS was established.
The history of a coin does not matter. Only its condition of preservation. Since the industry decides that a coin with a little loss of luster due to friction on its high points deserves to be called Uncirculated, so be it. That is the standard [@MS-70], no fraud involved, and both your 1818 and my 1818 grade the same. A savvy collector/dealer can tell the difference and buy/sell/price it accordingly. Everyone is correct.
Comments
did you mean "devolving"?
No.
Some of the guarantees are watered down compared to what they were.
Yes but evolution can be both progressive and regressive in some cases/ways. When you say devolving, I think of the Devolution Revolution of the 1980s.
I meant to write that what you wrote is scary.
Of course, you just might be scary too.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Not deflecting. There’s is just no way of addressing every point in this thread so I gave my POV on a couple of points.
As far as unintended consequences go that book hasn’t been finished yet. The first couple of chapters yes, but the book no. The fact is CAC is part of the slabbed landscape now. I for one would hate to see what gradflation would look like without it. That terrifies me more then collectors or dealers not knowing how to grade.
For sure collateral damage from CAC has been “unstickered” coins. For sure there is some babies being thown out with the bath water. That’s where the educated can still make some hay. Regardless of all of that the CAC train has left the station. I knew CAC would have an effect on non stickered coins but the divergence is more then I expected for good or bad. I’ve personally been rewarded by being picky and not a “price” buyer pre sticker days. It used to rankle me a little when people said I was over paying and they would cite examples of the same grade they got at 50% what I paid. On a spreadsheet they were always ahead and I was always under water according to the price guides. Weaker coins really held back prices of premium coins in the same grade. Thankfully IMO that dynamic has changed and the script has been flipped.
I was originally against CAC. My mentor still is. However, the good has far outweighed the price fall out of unstickered coins in my opinion. One has to still make informed decisions as always. Every coin is basically unique and needs to be evaluated that way. Personally I rest a little easier knowing that John has seen and detected more monkied with coins then anyone I’m aware of. That is a huge reason why I’m pro CAC. Other experts go to him if they have a question. JA has seen it all, all day, everyday. If one doesn’t believe that then so be it.
Man did I drop a lot of analogies in this post
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......
You must be a new collector with stars in your eyes. This has been going on for decades and it was even worse before the first TPGS (INSAB) and second TPGS (ANACS) included grading to their authentication services in the late1970's.
That doesn't make it kosher. There are a number of sketchy practices that have happened for a long time.
Look, we all used to wonder what would PCGS be like w/out Hall, or heritage without Jim and Steve. ALL WILL survive.
I still say unless JA does pick a successor (which I know he has been looking for), the value of all CAC coins would rise as they would be at an even more stronger premium. Forget this BS about one man having too much power, that power has saved many people lots of money. One wannbe here thinks he is better then JA-well JA paid his dues over the years and has earned the ultimate in respect from his peers. You think that is easy? NO ONE else has done it.
For now, just be glad CAC exists. I know I would hate to see CAC end because of no qualified successor. At least I have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of CAC coins in peoples hands. Again, the premiums will sky rocket if they close.
I read this whole thread. And I've decided that... I still like turtles.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Why? Are you arguing that the stickers will become collectibles in their own right?
P.S. Unlike PCGS and NGC which offer guarantees that survive their founders, there is no CAC guarantee. If CAC closes shop, will Legend step up to fulfill its market maker function sight unseen?
Not just Legend, any legit dealer who buys and sells CAC today will make a market. I'd bet there would be some panic selling in the beginning
It would be neat if DLRC would step up with Mr. Hansen's backing. They could create a competitor sticker which might make pricing even more competitive/higher for PQ coins and would create a group that could be logical successors. I'm not sure they would be interested though.
Who's to say he hasn't retired.
He is not the only person that puts stickers on CAC coins.
There is a group of 2 or 3 that help with putting on CAC and always have been from my understanding.
It is JA's opinion that is, and has been, significant, and he is the source of CAC credibility. CAC is a business that is based upon the significance of one coin grader. When JA is gone, his shoes may be impossible to fill. When JA is no longer involved with CAC, CAC may still agree to buy coins that they have endorsed........but at what price???? Grey sheet may not be much compensation for collectors. FWIW
OINK
John still finalizes every singje coin to my knowledge. He always did
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......
Yup, that's me alright. Being all stupid and naive, expecting honestly and integrity.....
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
-64s into 65s and 66s will be the result.
It's no more fraudulent than calling a circulated coin 62. The difference is that the 64 will tend to have less wear and be better looking.
And use your imagination. How little wear would a coin need to have and how pretty would it need to be before you would consider it equal to the typical 64? We're talking about an unusual coin, but they do exist. The concept requires less imagination at the 61-62 level, but the principle is exactly the same.
Remember, wear can be almost imperceptible.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
One thing I take away from this discussion, and my view may be wrong, but possible. If one is into the CAC brand with a plethora of coinage they better transfer the IMPORTANCE of the CAC brand to the up and coming numismatists/collectors. For, if they do not see it the same way as the current crop of numismatists/collectors, they may have their own idea of what a CAC type coin is and start a rival service to suit THEIR needs, much like the current formula suits the needs/sense of value of the current crop of the collecting world. If this scenario should take place, in part this could render some/most CAC slabbed coins obsolete as they, CAC, would not fit the mold of the new breed. This is what would worry me long term.
It's no less fraudulent either.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
The original topic of this thread is well worth considering, regarding the potential future value of CACed coins in the absence of the master. Nobody has yet mentioned that the perceived value will precipitously decline without the continuance of the current website allowing easy verification of CAC approval. A major decline will also follow if the two most prestigious current grading entities become obsolete and are replaced by others with other standards. Or if the grading scale is seriously altered. Or if a novel coin evaluation mechanism appears, perhaps using something other than removable stickers on the outsides of slabs. Or if a much improved counterfeit operation reproduces coins, slabs and stickers virtually undetectably. These and other possible future developments may render CAC stickers almost irrelevant. Overall, and over time, my opinion is that without the continued presence of the master, CAC added perceived value is almost sure to either gradually or rapidly decline.
@cameonut2011 replied to this reply I made to MS-70: "You must be a new collector with stars in your eyes. This has been going on for decades and it was even worse before the first TPGS (INSAB) and second TPGS (ANACS) included grading to their authentication services in the late1970's."
That doesn't make it kosher. There are a number of sketchy practices that have happened for a long time.
LOL. The market TRUMP'S you and your opinion of fraud. You can go with the flow and leave money on the table or **go crazy fighting a loosing, idealistic battle!
PS You can also join myself and Bill Jones fussing about this situation as long as you bring your own lance.
LOL! I neglected to say MY stupid question out of MY ignorance. I mistakenly thought my post would be clear. I forgot this is not the 1950's and 60's when I was educated.
Now, can you answer the original question?
Really? He told me just that a few weeks ago...where’s the meat to your assertion?
The definition of fraud and fraudulent date back hundreds of years and have a precise legal definition irrespective of what a segment (even if a majority) of the current coin market thinks. Very few in the coin market think for themselves.
I don't understand your "leave money on the table comment." When I sell a coin, I don't usually offer my personal opinions unless they are extremely favorable. Instead I use language to the effect of: up for sale is XYZ coin graded ABC by PCGS or the like. That is a factually true statement and expresses no opinion on my part as to whether the grade is justified. Put another way, I have made no material misstatements of fact.
After 29 years in law enforcement It's possible I just might know a little something about what fraud is. But you don't need my opinion, I encourage you to simply look up the definition of fraud. No need to be a lawyer to figure it out.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I don't think John wants to grade coins any longer. He stickers the ones he is willing to buy and does a brisk wholesale trade in these coins. He adds integrity to the market and makes some money at the same time. That said, the people who know best how to market the stickered coins do the best.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I thought about another potential case study for comparison this afternoon. What happened to Stuppler's (sp?) PQ sticker? It never seems to have gained currency. Why? Did Stuppler not have the capitalization or willingness to expend capital to be a strong market maker? If he did have a strong market maker arm, then it would suggest that the grader himself (i.e. Albanese) may be responsible solely or at least in large part for CAC's success. In that instance, it would seem that the market would take a hit after JA's retirement especially if CAC continues to use the same sticker for coins that John never sees.
Also, look at the NGC old no line fatty era coins. If my memory and recollection are correct, JA was the finalizer for the coins. Why haven't these been given a boost? Of course a few may be lower end, but JA still attested that they were original and problem free. Those coins haven't done much better than average ones "post JA."
I guess what has gone on and is going on has not gotten through to you. What you know about fraud means ABSOLUTLY NOTHING with regard to what we are discussing. While I thank you for your service to the community and encourage your numismatic pursuits, the coin business has different rules. If you don't like it, go on a personal crusade with the Federal Trade Commission. There have been many times that one determined person has changed the world before. GOOD LUCK.
PS You can spend your life on this mission or seek to understand how coins are graded in the real world. Best of all, each of us has the opportunity to use OUR OWN interpretation of any so-called "grading standard" practiced by anyone else.
Any insiders know WHOM he briskly wholesales TO?
I
@cameonut2011 said: "I don't understand your "leave money on the table comment."
Definition of "leave money on the table." I am an "expert" at it as I've had my eyes ""plucked out" by some of the best in the business.
When I sell a coin at an AU price $$$ because it is an AU coin and the person who buys it (he knows more than I will ever know) grades it commercial MS and sells it for $$$$, I have **"left money on the table." ** Sorry, I should have explained this hard-to-grasp concept more clearly in the first place.
LOL... "spend my life on this mission"... I'm retired and this is the extent of my "mission" unless it personally affects me. That said, I'd refer anyone with specific knowledge of people KNOWINGLY mis-grading coins under the banner of being a professional to the Numismatic Crime Information Center.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I am too fast...if you leave money on the table I will take it.
Don't quote me on that.
@ms70 said: "I'm retired and this is the extent of my "mission" unless it personally affects me."
If you buy coins, you are personally affected.
Best Regards
If you look at Thor11's profile and the posts he's made that have been flagged, you'll know that he is a troll.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Blanchard I believe.
His point is that the emperor has no clothes. The grading services brought a lot of money into this hobby because of supposedly well defined, objective, and non-changing grading standards, and through the process of grade inflation, they are driving a lot of money out of this hobby. Calling something anything other than what it is is dishonest and sets the stage for further erosion of the market as its underlying fundamentals are questioned more and more. Don't believe me? Then why do we have such a reliance on CAC? It is because a large portion of the market no longer trusts the grading services to get it right anymore and not merely looking for "A" or "B" quality coins. This is why we have so many with a CAC only mentality. Sadly the issue also goes beyond merely inflated grades, but more and more doctored crap is making it through sadly.
In reading how this thread has unfolded, please think about how this dialog effects the future of coin collecting and the public perception of the hobby before posting.
Folks...this reads as bad as tariffs on ketchup.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I doubt anyone changed their opinions based on anything that I or anyone else stated in this thread.
I just got off the phone with JA after discussing this topic which, from its inception, has been among his most serious concerns in protecting the integrity of the CAC stickering and market-making models.
I'm going to try to NOT to put words in his mouth.
Succession plans have been formulated in both discrete areas.
The trading model wasn't a relevant part of our discussion.
When JA retires as a grader, a new sticker will be utilized to indicate coins subsequently graded.
No other names came up 
I tried to tease out some names by mentioning than I thought @BillJones was a little sloppy on FBL Frankies, but evidently he considers @Bill to have other gifts
When I asked him how often he fondled the new sticker, he indicated "not that often, but usually on Fridays".
His object of contemplation has a different hologram "blink" than the current one, but still the same appearance head-on:
(https://us.v-cdn.net/6027503/uploads/editor/hp/ypqlyt9bi3wz.jpg "")
A constructive comment about MS grades. Around 10-20 years ago I had a collection of capped bust halves, some were TPG graded MS 62-64, and all of these had some friction, rub, marks - wear. I honestly don't believe any circulated in commerce.
Lets take the probable life of an 1818 half dollar PCGS MS63. For the first few decades, most likely bounced around in bank bags - many bust halves were held in banks and were not released to circulation, there is contemporary documentation of this. Around 1880, it was owned by a collector, and not handled by its edges. Shuffled around in a desk drawer, gaining more marks and cabinet friction. In 1930, was thumb-pressed into a National Coin album. In 1950, was put into a paper envelope - more handling and friction. Not until 1988 did it land into a TPG holder.
For 170 of 200 years, the 1818 50c was raw, unprotected, and exposed through many generations, but never circulated in commerce - uncirculated. How could a coin this old not have any wear? Some of these coins, that had less handling, are graded MS65 and up. All have some wear.
@ColonelJessup
Thank you!
Cameonut2011
Just keep the same mind set that you have...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@cameonut2011 said: "His point is that the emperor has no clothes. Actually that was NOT his point. His expressed point was: "Knowingly grading a circulated coin as uncirculated is fraudulent." This is something I do on occasion. Lucky for me, my instructions are to call 'em as I see 'em - archaic standards or not.
@cameonut2011 continues: "The grading services brought a lot of money into this hobby because of supposedly well defined, objective, and non-changing grading standards,…"" This statement is pure nonsense (Oh, IMHO).
Wherever did you get that idea? Did you read it somewhere? The only thing close to true in that "fairytale" is the word "objective" and that's not entirely true. Better to say they rendered an opinion backed by a guarantee.
..."and through the process of grade inflation, they are driving a lot of money out of this hobby.**
I'm sorry to hear your business may be down. I don't have a finger on the market as you claim to have but if money is leaving the hobby, bring it on. The place I work is having its best year ever with no slowdown in sight!
@cameonut2011 said: " Calling something anything other than what it is is dishonest [take off your rose colored glasses and idealistic mindset. Do you think you are qualified to judge MY PERSONAL GRADING STANDARDS or those of any professional grader or dealer? Let's take crooks out of the equation as they don't last for long in this business. I personally have seen several of the biggest over-grading crooks in this business become conservative graders due to industry pressure. That leaves the rest of us with our best honest opinion. Same goes for the TPGS's.] and sets the stage for further erosion of the market as its underlying fundamentals are questioned more and more. Don't believe me? Then why do we have such a reliance on CAC? [LOL, Ah, because collectors and dealers want their coins?] It is because a large portion of the market no longer trusts the grading services to get it right anymore and not merely looking for "A" or "B" quality coins. This is why we have so many with a CAC only mentality. Sadly the issue also goes beyond merely inflated grades, but more and more doctored crap is making it through sadly." [I disagree, as I've seen fewer doctored coin in the holders of other TPGS's]
Posted on thread for Colonel Jessup.
siliconvalleycoins.com
.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
If you disagree with a scale, then redefine it in a transparent manner. Do not hijack an existing scale which purportedly did make a wear/friction distinction (rightly or wrongly) and then apply meanings contrary to the plain and obvious meaning of those labels/standards. I'm not alleging a nefarious intent, but it is misleading to call something other than what it plainly is. A true "mint state" does not have wear of any kind be it from rubbing in a dealer's cabinet or drawer or from heavy circulation in commerce.
The grading services did bring in a lot of investors into this market through sight unseen exchanges and the market reflected that. The grading standards were touted as objective and consistent. That was actually stated, and not my personal gloss. The FTC, in addressing the 1990 market crash and in targeting various services, came to the same conclusions that I did.
The market speaks for itself. Things are better than they were a couple of years ago, but most issues have taken a good hit (20-30+% or better) in recent times. We can argue about etiology all day, but I think grade inflation is clearly part of it.
A standardless standard is no standard at all. Do you seriously believe the standards are the same as they were in 1986-1988?
Everything you have said is true. Let's look at another 1818 50c. There are two 200 year old coins on my desk. One is as you describe blazing luster and just a few marks. Unfortunately, as you have described its life, most of the flat areas on the highest points of the relief are a little flat (strike weakness) and have turned a little gray with some microscopic short hairlines going every which way (cabinet friction). The other coin also has blazing luster a few marks and some "flats" on the relief; however, its surfaces are 100% original with "flat strike luster" covering the "flats." One coin is a commercial Unc- say MS-63 while the other is a true technical Unc MS-63. You see, in an academic discussion there actually is a difference. One coin is still in Full Mint State condition no matter if it circulated or not. The other is really ABOUT MINT STATE no matter its past history. Bust Half dollars exist in full MS condition. They are rare.
Now, two stories from me. One day as an authenticator (before professional TPGS's) I saw my first true mint state Barber Half dollar. No marks, hairlines, rub, and blazing white luster. Up until then, they were all the usual off-white, gray, or bright silver (cleaned) stuff that is all over the place. I hardly ever saw any blazing, frosty gold, true MS $2 1/2 or $5 Indians until they came out of the woodwork after PCGS was established.
The history of a coin does not matter. Only its condition of preservation. Since the industry decides that a coin with a little loss of luster due to friction on its high points deserves to be called Uncirculated, so be it. That is the standard [@MS-70], no fraud involved, and both your 1818 and my 1818 grade the same. A savvy collector/dealer can tell the difference and buy/sell/price it accordingly. Everyone is correct.