@BryceM said:
I’ve been ruminating and formulating a hypothesis about this for a while. It’s not a simple concept, but I’ll try to explain it when I get home after work today. The basic idea to my thoughts is that there is a market perception that stickered coins are somehow better than non-stickered coins in a way that has nothing to do with grading. Said another way, there is a perception that there is something wrong with all coins that don’t get a sticker.
That perception sounds very similar to how many market participants feel about non-PCGS coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@BryceM said:
I’ve been ruminating and formulating a hypothesis about this for a while. It’s not a simple concept, but I’ll try to explain it when I get home after work today. The basic idea to my thoughts is that there is a market perception that stickered coins are somehow better than non-stickered coins in a way that has nothing to do with grading. Said another way, there is a perception that there is something wrong with all coins that don’t get a sticker.
I don't think it is the same thing.
"...there is a market perception that stickered coins are somehow better than non-stickered coins in a way that has nothing to do with grading."
That's because THEY ARE better, for several reasons including some that have nothing to do with their grade.
"... there is a perception that there is something wrong with all coins that don’t get a sticker"
This appears to be true also. That's unfortunate. In any case, both of your ideas are true but necessarily connected only because we are posting about CAC.
@BryceM said:
I’ve been ruminating and formulating a hypothesis about this for a while. It’s not a simple concept, but I’ll try to explain it when I get home after work today. The basic idea to my thoughts is that there is a market perception that stickered coins are somehow better than non-stickered coins in a way that has nothing to do with grading. Said another way, there is a perception that there is something wrong with all coins that don’t get a sticker.
I think you're right, and I don't think JA could foresee much of it. CAC was never intended to be used as a substitute grading service.
@BryceM said:
I’ve been ruminating and formulating a hypothesis about this for a while. It’s not a simple concept, but I’ll try to explain it when I get home after work today. The basic idea to my thoughts is that there is a market perception that stickered coins are somehow better than non-stickered coins in a way that has nothing to do with grading. Said another way, there is a perception that there is something wrong with all coins that don’t get a sticker.
That perception sounds very similar to how many market participants feel about non-PCGS coins.
It is but with each new level of refinement, more coins are "lost" or discounted and the market distortions become even more exaggerated.
3.) The grading services whose reputations have now been questioned and undermined by the need to have someone audit their work because of implied lack of ability to do so on their own part;
How so? CAC doesn’t give it a scarlet letter if it thinks it is over graded. It doesn't declare that the grade should be lower. The coin could very well be properly graded. It might just be the lower end of the scale. It make sense that all 65’s aren’t created equal. The same can be said within every grade.
The fact that PCGS allows CAC threads is testament to the fact that they don’t feel undermined or questioned or threatened.
I know I’m certainly glad CAC exists. Do you?
There is currently a HUGE scandal in the sportscard world. It involves TPG’s, a crooked dealer and a huge EBay seller. It involves doctoring sportcards. Lots of sports cards. It could shake and shock the market and bring it to its knees. The industry could have used a John Albanese CAC service for graded cards. My biggest reason for supporting CAC is knowing that someone is double checking for monkey business. That is the most important thing for me. John has seen it all.
I also like knowing that several graders and an industry legend all give a coin a thumbs up. The nominal fee for CAC is a no brainer IMHO.
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......
I can understand cac's criteria of; no problem coins, original, a "certain" look, a certain type of 'snob appeal' as well. I would like to hear concerns about their rejections at the duopoly of grading services and their graders and finalizers that we are living under. So if a coin is not a solid 'B' and is below what they consider premium for grade their rejection is pretty final and damning for those who own them? Recently I had an expensive coin they rejected telling me what the "issue" was which necessitated another series of conservation actions costing me a lot of money.
@BryceM said:
I’ve been ruminating and formulating a hypothesis about this for a while. It’s not a simple concept, but I’ll try to explain it when I get home after work today. The basic idea to my thoughts is that there is a market perception that stickered coins are somehow better than non-stickered coins in a way that has nothing to do with grading. Said another way, there is a perception that there is something wrong with all coins that don’t get a sticker.
That perception sounds very similar to how many market participants feel about non-PCGS coins.
Especially raw. A sadly large group of people fell that any raw coin had a problem or it would be in a holder already
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
3.) The grading services whose reputations have now been questioned and undermined by the need to have someone audit their work because of implied lack of ability to do so on their own part;
How so? CAC doesn’t give it a scarlet letter if it thinks it is over graded. It doesn't declare that the grade should be lower. The coin could very well be properly graded. It might just be the lower end of the scale. It make sense that all 65’s aren’t created equal. The same can be said within every grade.
I am not referencing CAC's official policy. I am referencing the market's interpretation and the mantra spread by many of its most vocal promoters who have declared that CAC is always right; that all coins without stickers are over graded garbage or problem coins; and have accused the TPGSs of fraud, implied special favors, or quid pro quos, and suggested that the services can't be trusted to get it right on their own. That's not my selective gloss or interpretation. The first two were close paraphrases and the word "fraud" was actually used here. I made a list of CAC quotes from the forums floating around here somewhere if it wasn't deleted. The larger market also seems to have adopted some of this thinking as many write off non-CAC coins as over graded/problem coins, an idea which even JA seems to disagree with.
The fact that PCGS allows CAC threads is testament to the fact that they don’t feel undermined or questioned.
It wasn't always this way. Surely you remember the days when CAC threads were grounds for being banned, and CAC threads were deleted immediately. As CAC gained more and more market dominance, PCGS didn't have much of a choice if it wanted to stay relevant.
I know I’m certainly glad CAC exists. Do you?
I have no problems with CAC as it was originally intended. I have stated repeatedly that it can be a valuable learning and sales tool when used properly. Nevertheless, it has generated many consequences that I don't think JA anticipated. I'm not sure whether those consequences outweigh the benefits or not.
There is certainly a huge sandal in the sportscard world. It involves TPG’s, a crooked dealer and a huge EBay seller. It involves doctoring sportcards. The industry could have used a John Albanese CAC service for graded cards. My biggest reason for supporting CAC is knowing that someone is double checking for monkey business. That is the most important thing for me. John has seen it all.
I also like knowing that several graders and an industry legend all give a coin a thumbs up. The nominal fee for CAC is a no brainer IMHO.
m
CAC is a superficial band-aid that is not addressing the real problem. It is creating unintended (I think) consequences that are also problems.
@cameonut2011 said: "CAC is a superficial band-aid that is not addressing the REAL PROBLEM. It is creating unintended (I think) consequences that are also problems."
???? What exactly is the real problem? If you respond with an answer. Please tell us how you would address whatever it is. Thanks in advance.
Arright. This is going to be along post. Probably someone could say the exact same thing in a few sentences, but here goes:
For starters, let's set some ground rules for this though experiment:
Single grading events or single auctions sales are meaningless. Weird things happen. We're not talking about that.
Perception and reality are often different. The market generally acts on perception.
Coin grading is as much art as science. If you disagree, leave now.
Let's assume that we can, by some method, assign coins to a "consensus" grade. Pretend we had each coin graded 100 times and averaged the result to come up with the "true grade" for each coin, accurate to 0.1 of a grade.
I posted much of this in 2014, and I'll recycle some of the same graphics.
Let's take John Albanese (JA) at his word. He says that they sticker A and B coins while they do not sticker C coins.
JA says that many C coins are properly graded.
Let's leave classic gold out of it. JA and the TPGs obviously have very different views here, as the sticker rate is drastically lower than for classic silver, nickel, and copper.
In my earlier example, I used 1922 Peace dollars. I took some liberties with distributing these to 0.1 of a grade. From pop reports, the extant population in PCGS holders looks something like this :
On a logarithmic scale, it looks like this:
This doesn't account for crackouts, but there is obviously a huge drop in populations in higher grades. Now, let's assume that we can line up all 108,000 or so of these coins and start dividing them into "A" coins, "B" coins, and "C" coins. Let's say 65.0-65.5 = "C", 65.6-65.7 = "B", and 66.8-66.9 = "A".
Now, let's look at what the market thinks. Green stickers = "blessed, outstanding, desirable treasures", no sticker = "disease-prone, contaminated, polluted, scuzzy, icky, slimy dreck.
This looks something like this, again assuming that all are graded "correctly".
Hmmmm. Here's our first problem. The nicest 64.9 coin has a sticker while the lowliest 65.0 coin does not. The nicest 65.6 coin does not have a sticker but the lowliest 66.6 coin does. The market price for the 64.9 CAC and the 65.0 coin may be quite different, but with no real justification. The market price difference for the 66.5 non-CAC and 66.6 CAC coin will often be quite large with even less justification.
Take this to its absurd conclusion:
Apart from the die-hard Kool-aide drinkers, I don't think any of us really believe this, but the broader market acts like it does.
Try posting a collection of weak-for-the-grade coins and see if you get a lot of nice comments here. Is a weak 65 really better than a nice 64+? Really? Really? Do we really agree? Show off a stellar 65.9+ coin in a rattler with a sticker and nice toning and your post gets 100 likes. Share a weak 66 in yesterday's holder with no sticker and you'll get a few half-hearted comments, even if the 66 is actually a nicer coin. Have you ever been offered a "barely-there" coin at a reduced price on the bourse?
Of course, all of this is hyperbole, but possibly some food for thought.
When I boil it down I get this:
The average collector and dealer aren't as good at grading consistently as professional graders, all other things being equal.
Markets like certainty. Grades and slabs are reassuring to those who take a risk. Stickers are even more reassuring.
The market does not favor accurately graded "C" coins without stickers.
The market fears that coins without stickers might have problems beyond what is contained in the coin's grade.
The market is reassured that coins with a sticker are superior beyond what is contained in the coin's numerical grade.
The market assumes that JA can identify problems more accurately than the TPGs.
The advent of TPGs and CAC have produced unintended (and unfair) results in many circumstances.
It's pretty obvious that coins frequently sell at prices that numerical grades can't explain (rainbow toning, special holders, vintage holders, etc.).
If you know the market and know coins, there are LOADS of opportunity for arbitrage.
Let's not forget that the coins are what they are. The first time I had a coin upgrade I was excited to open the box and see it in its new holder. I was momentarily shocked that it looked no better than I remembered, LOL.
It's easy to forget that it's a hobby! Repeat, it's a hobby.
To keep this coin related, find a nice "C" coin , buy it at a nice "C" price, and enjoy it!
@Insider2 said: @cameonut2011 said: "CAC is a superficial band-aid that is not addressing the REAL PROBLEM. It is creating unintended (I think) consequences that are also problems."
???? What exactly is the real problem? If you respond with an answer. Please tell us how you would address whatever it is. Thanks in advance.
We've discussed this before multiple times. Grade inflation has not gone away. Inconsistency is still a problem. Wholesale shifts in grading standards have occurred, and I don't see an end in sight. Unless and until the services create a fixed standard and collectors/the industry hold them to that standard, the problems will continue. My issue with CAC is that there is too much collateral damage. I could say a lot more, but I would be banned.
You weren’t kidding Bryce! I can’t wait to look at this in detail after game 7 Stanley Cup which is on now. But I will quickly say that there are plenty of opportunity to snatch nice C coins at current valuations. That’s a good thing for buyers.
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......
Bryce--appreciate your thoughtful comments. One immediate comment. You compare a weak 65 vs a 64.9. I think even though the 65 is nicer it gets compared to other 65s and looks bad. On the other hand the 64.9 looks terrific against other 64s.
So something JA said that to me was an 'aha!' moment. He talked about how he perceived numerical grades, too many AU grades, too many MS grades, well, too many numeric grades period. I was always wondering why a coin in say, 63 or 55, could be an A/B coin to him, then they upgrade to 64 and 58 respectively, and are still A/B coins in those grades to him. After sending in 100s, I always felt that the grade, being say 53 that on one day may be a 50 and the next a 55 in the grading room, did not seem to matter in the CAC evaluation. Blatantly obvious overgrades or undergrades sure, the overs if a couple grades lower won't bean even if pristine surfaces, the unders get Gold stickers if they are obviously a couple grades higher and have pristine surfaces. So that, reading between the lines, supports what I surmised with my submissions and how they are judged. It is the surfaces for most of the coins, not the numeric grade, he looks for human tampering and assistance. As long as the numeric grade is OK, then next step is to evaluate the surfaces. If the surfaces pass, put on that sticker, if the surfaces don't because of a human tamper/assistance issue, they don't. I am guessing 90% of the coins seen by CAC are about this and only a few% on each side of the overs and unders are about the numeric grade. JMHO after listening to the podcast and my experience with CAC submissions.
@Gazes said:
Bryce--appreciate your thoughtful comments. One immediate comment. You compare a weak 65 vs a 64.9. I think even though the 65 is nicer it gets compared to other 65s and looks bad. On the other hand the 64.9 looks terrific against other 64s.
Yes, this.
CAC isn't comparing 65s to 64s, it's comparing 65s to 65s.
The price differential is harder to "calculate" no matter what the assumptions. And I will agree that you do see some strange things at auction. The 64 Green CAC should not be worth more than the 65 NO CAC (assuming of course they are both in the correct holder). Now, you do sometimes see auction results that seem to assume the 64 CAC is an automatic upgrade and it sells for 65 money (or more), but that is counter to everything JA and CAC say about themselves.
I'm not sure we can blame CAC for the misinterpretation of their mission.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@BryceM said:
I’ve always thought the CAC grading process looked something like this:
Quick look - “I like it” = maybe. “I don’t like it” = no sticker.
Quick look at the label “seems about right” = sticker. “Ummmmmm it’s not great” = no sticker. “Were they blind?” = gold sticker.
Of course the whole A/B/C thing doesn’t correlate with this theory.
I sat in with/for CAC at a single show (Coinfest) several years ago. As a I recall, the process was simpler than that.
It went something like this: “Is this coin solid for the grade?” If so, it gets a sticker and if not, not. I don’t remember any particular discussions about gold stickers. But my general feeling is that in order to earn one, a coin has to look like what I would call a “no-brainer upgrade”.
Of course, we - the four of us who were present - had occasional differences of opinion. In those instances, we hit each other over the head with chairs, arm-wrestled, cussed at each other and reached amicable decisions. 😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I was at that Coinfest show, and was too stupid I guess to realize the cac revolution was underway to get the stickers and extra $$$. Instead I had a table and others looked for cherries I had unbeknownst to yours truly.
Here in politically correct CT arguments and differences are resolved cautiously. I hear in the wild and wooly parts of the country like Nevada collectors just pull out their six shooters, poke others in the chest to make their points and end the arguments!
@CJ's market rules - incomplete exceptions and over-generalizations abound. @CJ's Forum rules. - I don't make no stinking rules. I'm just tossing out a few ideas interrupted by White Castle sliders in the hopes that OCD sufferers will understand I am not really addressing them at all, but in hopes that as many as eleven lurkers might find succor, .
For the buyer - Your most valuable assets are money and power, the latter of which is, to a strong degree, exercised through leverage of your knowledge.
1) Knowing how to grade is the single most important asset in a buyer's skill set. The amount of time necessary to master grading (outside of a grading room) will inevitably bring, to most, access to the best sources for the many attributes of the many coins in any particular series. So history and mintages and idiosyncratic yet trackable date variation coalesces into what knowledge-acquisition psychologists describe as "crystallized intelligence". Nuclear science fan-boys might relate to "critical mass". You need not be able to tell which specific neurons or neutrons are firing; it's enough that the result just coalesces into your lens.
1a) Not so good at grading? If you can't get within a 0.75 point variance in both directions you should step way back. Find a rep who can do it to 0.35. There are an easy 50 people out there worth their buck for that alone. For all I know there could be 300.
2) Other "due diligence". Lawyers love this term. Non-lawyers love it more. Coin pros call it research. You should too.
I will not enumerate the wide variety of tools available to be accessed with relative ease. If you are a numbers geek or have a trick memory it's a lucky talent. No? I'm both of the previous but take note long-hand.
2a) Whether you do your own due diligence or not, get a rep who does more. Have him teach you how to do the "more" that he is doing for you.
3) Your representation. Could it be you like DMPL Morgans and Full Head Quarters?. You might also have a Lincoln guy who knows Indians. Wm. Stafford has an exquisite warning about not "following the wrong gods home, or you may miss your star" but, to draw my extreme case, John Albanese knows enough about Full Bells Franklins to know he is not in any way a sensible participant in that niche. Numismatic polytheism is not a sin.
4) Nobody's grading advice is as good as your own gut, as untrained and unsophisticated as it might be. Only let your reach exceed your grasp by a bit. Chew carefully and enjoy reaching again. If someone wants to convince you, you should have them put a couple of live examples in your hand. Nothing whatsoever between any two people exists without maintaining the dream of a common language. Don't get hung up over imprecisions and overlaps.
5) Summarizing my experiences over 40 years as a pro, I'll for the moment only state competencies that made me instrumental in early grading at NGC as their first full-time grader, honed before and after with trading Rembrandts and Picassos, and a vocabulary that helped me teach Intro and Intermediate Grading at ANA Summer Seminar. Heed my utterances. Also see "following the wrong gods home"
5a) If you plan to spend $25,000 in the next year and don't invest in an ANA grading course, what exactly is your problem.
6) The more of a dumb-ass you present as, and are, the more you're going to get charged (sometimes). Human nature for sellers to high-maintenance buyers. See: "due diligence"
7) 90% of the grading discussions here are just yammering. Do your work and you won't get screwed. Do it better and you'll likely do quite well. @CJ's final advice on grading recapitulates, for those who have found their "Love Supreme", John Coltrane's warning that "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture".
8) If you're buying primarily for investment and haven't acquired a little passion in two years, do yourself a favor and get out at your 8% loss instead of waiting for a 4% loss two years later. You already can figure that.
9) The people that might comment subsequently have been trolled by themselves. Some with good intentions are still not so well informed that.... Eh.... listen, if at all, with discrimination.
Edited to add: I just noticed this is a CAC thread. Good podcast, same old attendant horsepucky. Name any three-month period in the last decade that doesn't qualify for the Captain Obvious Award by the end of that cycle.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@Justacommeman said: "Rick, I agree the podcast was very good. This thread was given me a headache. I disagreed with 7 extraneous points that @Insider2 injected in this thread gratuitously. No way I’m I telling him which ones."
That's surprising to read from you. I think you could teach all of us something.
I'm developing a increasingly greater sense that it's worthless to bother.
A great post by the OP of a interview that answers many simple questions and uncomplicates some misconceptions.
Then, posters like @jmlanzaf, who evidently has some awareness of his problem, continues to ..... never mind ....
m, I edited your post for clarity. I counted nine, which will likely makes the learned troll feel even more fulfilled Are there any further developments in your experiments with The Beast on the effects of canine digestive acids upon hammered English silver? Have you ever tried a proof Roosie using a pork chop for a delivery system?
Cam the destroyer just ejected a pair of Tracy’s panties from her gullet. No one is speaking right now. Tracy told me to shut up before I could rain down one liners on her from now until Friday. Really good stuff. The things that l have had to pull out of her butt has been epic. Cams, not Tracy’s you weirdos
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......
@Justacommeman said: "Rick, I agree the podcast was very good. This thread was given me a headache. I disagreed with 7 extraneous points that @Insider2 injected in this thread gratuitously. No way I’m I telling him which ones."
That's surprising to read from you. I think you could teach all of us something.
I'm developing a increasingly greater sense that it's worthless to bother.
A great post by the OP of a interview that answers many simple questions and uncomplicates some misconceptions.
Then, posters like @jmlanzaf, who evidently has some awareness of his problem, continues to ..... never mind ....
m, I edited your post for clarity. I counted nine, which will likely makes the learned troll feel even more fulfilled Are there any further developments in your experiments with The Beast on the effects of canine digestive acids upon hammered English silver? Have you ever tried a proof Roosie using a pork chop for a delivery system?
Cam the destroyer just ejected a pair of Tracy’s panties from her gullet. No one is speaking right now. Tracy told me to shut up before I could rain down one liners on her from now until Friday. Really good stuff. The things that l have had to pull out of her butt has been epic. Cams, not Tracy’s you weirdos
m
The poor dog is going to need emergency surgery some day. I would have thought that she would have grown out of it by now.
@jmlanzaf said:
I'm not sure we can blame CAC for the misinterpretation of their mission.
Who is blaming JA or CAC? The criticisms are targeted at market participants.
As soon as you say "the problem with CAC", aren't you implicitly blaming them? Most of the discussion has been about what CAC has done to the market. Am I to read that as what the market has done to itself?
As for market participants, the customer is always right. I would never spend $30 to slab a modern commem in a fancy labeled holder. But Mr. Market is always King.
If someone wants to pay 2x for a slab with a green sticker, then that's what it is worth. You are free to play along or ignore them.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@jmlanzaf said:
I'm not sure we can blame CAC for the misinterpretation of their mission.
Who is blaming JA or CAC? The criticisms are targeted at market participants.
As soon as you say "the problem with CAC", aren't you implicitly blaming them? Most of the discussion has been about what CAC has done to the market. Am I to read that as what the market has done to itself?
I don't see the phrase "the problem with CAC." I don't blame CAC for people that overreact, ignore the text and standards on the CAC website, and use CAC as something that it was never intended to serve as (a full grading service). The distinction is not trivial. I can sell you a good or service and if you use it for unintended and abusive purposes that were not foreseeable, then that is not a reflection on me.
As for market participants, the customer is always right. I would never spend $30 to slab a modern commem in a fancy labeled holder. But Mr. Market is always King.
If someone wants to pay 2x for a clean with a green sticker, then that's what it is worth. You are free to play along or ignore them.
Inefficiencies and problems in the market always result in adjustments eventually. In this case, the anticipated adjustments are not positive long term. For those responsible, I feel no sympathy for them at all. For the rest of the market orbiting around them, I do. Collectors and markets do not operate in a vacuum.
@BryceM said:
Arright. This is going to be along post. Probably someone could say the exact same thing in a few sentences, but here goes:
For starters, let's set some ground rules for this though experiment:
Single grading events or single auctions sales are meaningless. Weird things happen. We're not talking about that.
Perception and reality are often different. The market generally acts on perception.
Coin grading is as much art as science. If you disagree, leave now.
Let's assume that we can, by some method, assign coins to a "consensus" grade. Pretend we had each coin graded 100 times and averaged the result to come up with the "true grade" for each coin, accurate to 0.1 of a grade.
I posted much of this in 2014, and I'll recycle some of the same graphics.
Let's take John Albanese (JA) at his word. He says that they sticker A and B coins while they do not sticker C coins.
JA says that many C coins are properly graded.
Let's leave classic gold out of it. JA and the TPGs obviously have very different views here, as the sticker rate is drastically lower than for classic silver, nickel, and copper.
In my earlier example, I used 1922 Peace dollars. I took some liberties with distributing these to 0.1 of a grade. From pop reports, the extant population in PCGS holders looks something like this :
On a logarithmic scale, it looks like this:
This doesn't account for crackouts, but there is obviously a huge drop in populations in higher grades. Now, let's assume that we can line up all 108,000 or so of these coins and start dividing them into "A" coins, "B" coins, and "C" coins. Let's say 65.0-65.5 = "C", 65.6-65.7 = "B", and 66.8-66.9 = "A".
Now, let's look at what the market thinks. Green stickers = "blessed, outstanding, desirable treasures", no sticker = "disease-prone, contaminated, polluted, scuzzy, icky, slimy dreck.
This looks something like this, again assuming that all are graded "correctly".
Hmmmm. Here's our first problem. The nicest 64.9 coin has a sticker while the lowliest 65.0 coin does not. The nicest 65.6 coin does not have a sticker but the lowliest 66.6 coin does. The market price for the 64.9 CAC and the 65.0 coin may be quite different, but with no real justification. The market price difference for the 66.5 non-CAC and 66.6 CAC coin will often be quite large with even less justification.
Take this to its absurd conclusion:
Apart from the die-hard Kool-aide drinkers, I don't think any of us really believe this, but the broader market acts like it does.
Try posting a collection of weak-for-the-grade coins and see if you get a lot of nice comments here. Is a weak 65 really better than a nice 64+? Really? Really? Do we really agree? Show off a stellar 65.9+ coin in a rattler with a sticker and nice toning and your post gets 100 likes. Share a weak 66 in yesterday's holder with no sticker and you'll get a few half-hearted comments, even if the 66 is actually a nicer coin. Have you ever been offered a "barely-there" coin at a reduced price on the bourse?
Of course, all of this is hyperbole, but possibly some food for thought.
When I boil it down I get this:
The average collector and dealer aren't as good at grading consistently as professional graders, all other things being equal.
Markets like certainty. Grades and slabs are reassuring to those who take a risk. Stickers are even more reassuring.
The market does not favor accurately graded "C" coins without stickers.
The market fears that coins without stickers might have problems beyond what is contained in the coin's grade.
The market is reassured that coins with a sticker are superior beyond what is contained in the coin's numerical grade.
The market assumes that JA can identify problems more accurately than the TPGs.
The advent of TPGs and CAC have produced unintended (and unfair) results in many circumstances.
It's pretty obvious that coins frequently sell at prices that numerical grades can't explain (rainbow toning, special holders, vintage holders, etc.).
If you know the market and know coins, there are LOADS of opportunity for arbitrage.
Let's not forget that the coins are what they are. The first time I had a coin upgrade I was excited to open the box and see it in its new holder. I was momentarily shocked that it looked no better than I remembered, LOL.
It's easy to forget that it's a hobby! Repeat, it's a hobby.
To keep this coin related, find a nice "C" coin , buy it at a nice "C" price, and enjoy it!
Thanks, your post took some time to compile.
So...would you rather have a 1893-S dollar in a 65 slab w/o a bean (sent in but considered a "C" each time) or would you rather have an 1893-S dollar in a 64 slab with a bean? If you answer the way I believe most would, than a "C" in a higher grade (which is solid for the grade) should virtually always be better than the best coin in the lower grade.
All bets are off when the 64 bean finally gets into a 65 slab. LOL.
Apart from that, in actuality, it would depend on my goals, available cash, asking price, the opinion of a trusted expert (at that level for sure), and above everything else, my opinion of the actual coins. There are plenty of times when the lower-graded coin is the better coin for me.
Everything else being equal, we would all take the (appropriately graded) better coin.
The important thing for me is to not pay “A” prices for “C” coins. At that level, the difference can be quite significant.
In the market, funny as it is, you’re often better off paying a strong price for a 64+ coin with a CAC sticker than a mushy price for a “C” 65. One is FAR more liquid at sale time. Besides, they ALL get sold eventually.
@Insider 2 said:
So...would you rather have a 1893-S dollar in a 65 slab w/o a bean (sent in but considered a "C" each time) or would you rather have an 1893-S dollar in a 64 slab with a bean? If you answer the way I believe most would, than a "C" in a higher grade (which is solid for the grade) should virtually always be better than the best coin in the lower grade.
How can your question be answered intelligently, (among other considerations) without knowing the price of each coin?
Also, you referred to the 65C coin as "which is solid for the grade", which sounds like a possible contradiction. If it were solid for the grade, wouldn't it be a 65B or 65A coin?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@BryceM said:
I’ll take either 93-S in the giveaway, thank you.
Apart from that, in actuality, it would depend on my goals, available cash, asking price, the opinion of a trusted expert (at that level for sure), and above everything else, my opinion of the actual coins. There are plenty of times when the lower-graded coin is the better coin for me.
Everything else being equal, we would all take the (appropriately graded) better coin.
The important thing for me is to not pay “A” prices for “C” coins. At that level, the difference can be quite significant.
In the market, funny as it is, you’re often better off paying a strong price for a 64+ coin with a CAC sticker than a mushy price for a “C” 65. One is FAR more liquid at sale time. Besides, they ALL get sold eventually.
Thank you. edited to short, sweet, and to the point: Everything else being equal, we would all take the (appropriately graded) better coin.
@MFeld said: @Insider 2 said:
So...would you rather have a 1893-S dollar in a 65 slab w/o a bean (sent in but considered a "C" each time) or would you rather have an 1893-S dollar in a 64 slab with a bean? If you answer the way I believe most would, than a "C" in a higher grade (which is solid for the grade) should virtually always be better than the best coin in the lower grade.
How can your question be answered intelligently, (among other considerations) without knowing the price of each coin?
Also, you referred to the 65C coin as "which is solid for the grade", which sounds like a possible contradiction. If it were solid for the grade, wouldn't it be a 65B or 65A coin?
This is the kind of post that gets discussions off track. There are so many variables in my question that all of us could probably add at lest two more as you did. the simple and to the point answer hidden in the post above yours:
Everything else being equal, we would all take the (appropriately graded) better coin!
ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (the price would probably not be so it is not included. The eye appeal or the color is not included. Neither is the luster BECAUSE a brilliant white headlight, fully struck, rainbow toned 63 "A" beaned "monster" that you had to look hard to find out why only 63 would probably blow away the other two examples for me yet the price of that coin would be close or above the others in the example.
Also, (I could be wrong) I believe JA included "solid for the grade" to mean it is correctly graded! So a solid for the grade 63 is one that is graded correctly yet did notget a bean because it is not an "A" or "B."
I liked his pod cast and found it a good listen. Major points he made pertinent to me: He stickers A&B coins not C. Where the spread higher between the CAC (bid or value) and non CAC bid (I use the sheet as reference) the more likely the coin has been to CAC. My take: A-PQ, B-solid for grade, C-lacking or what I have seen used average quality (low end sight unseen).
Obviously players will be trawling the bourse at shows or auctions seeking material which will CAC and then bank. These will likely be coins where there is a considerable spread between the CAC and non CAC (bid) value.
Challenge: Finding the coin, buying it right, then getting all the money (on the sale).
@MFeld said: @Insider 2 said:
So...would you rather have a 1893-S dollar in a 65 slab w/o a bean (sent in but considered a "C" each time) or would you rather have an 1893-S dollar in a 64 slab with a bean? If you answer the way I believe most would, than a "C" in a higher grade (which is solid for the grade) should virtually always be better than the best coin in the lower grade.
How can your question be answered intelligently, (among other considerations) without knowing the price of each coin?
Also, you referred to the 65C coin as "which is solid for the grade", which sounds like a possible contradiction. If it were solid for the grade, wouldn't it be a 65B or 65A coin?
This is the kind of post that gets discussions off track. There are so many variables in my question that all of us could probably add at lest two more as you did. the simple and to the point answer hidden in the post above yours:
Everything else being equal, we would all take the (appropriately graded) better coin!
ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (the price would probably not be so it is not included. The eye appeal or the color is not included. Neither is the luster BECAUSE a brilliant white headlight, fully struck, rainbow toned 63 "A" beaned "monster" that you had to look hard to find out why only 63 would probably blow away the other two examples for me yet the price of that coin would be close or above the others in the example.
Also, (I could be wrong) I believe JA included "solid for the grade" to mean it is correctly graded! So a solid for the grade 63 is one that is graded correctly yet did notget a bean because it is not an "A" or "B."
I think "solid for the grade" sounds too much like A/B coins. The entire problem with C coins as JA discusses is that they are (my word) marginal for the grade and dragging down the entire market.
I agree with Mark. The question is meaningless without the price. Even assuming they are all appropriately graded and the 65 coin is the "better" coin (eye appeal and preservation), if one coin is $500k (95-S 65 greysheet bid) and the other coin is $200k (30% less than 64 greysheet bid) I might be the slightly lesser coin at the much better price. If the coins are closer in price, maybe $500k vs $425k, then I'm more prone to take the better coin.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
See, off track as I thought would happen...just as on previous pages when I questioned something. I'm guilty!
So let's take out "solid for the grade" and change my comment to "correctly graded." I believe, JA said plenty of "C" coins are graded correctly, they just don't get the bean.
Furthermore, PRICE is the MAIN reason that a simple operation - grading a coin - is so subjective and screwed up. Folks like JA, DH, JD, MS, LS, JH, and so many more posting here (MF, RS, AL etc.) are out of our league as graders because of "PRICE."
Don't make it more complicated. Everything else being EQUAL, we would all take the (appropriately graded) better coin!
@MFeld said: @Insider 2 said:
So...would you rather have a 1893-S dollar in a 65 slab w/o a bean (sent in but considered a "C" each time) or would you rather have an 1893-S dollar in a 64 slab with a bean? If you answer the way I believe most would, than a "C" in a higher grade (which is solid for the grade) should virtually always be better than the best coin in the lower grade.
How can your question be answered intelligently, (among other considerations) without knowing the price of each coin?
Also, you referred to the 65C coin as "which is solid for the grade", which sounds like a possible contradiction. If it were solid for the grade, wouldn't it be a 65B or 65A coin?
This is the kind of post that gets discussions off track. There are so many variables in my question that all of us could probably add at lest two more as you did. the simple and to the point answer hidden in the post above yours:
Everything else being equal, we would all take the (appropriately graded) better coin!
ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (the price would probably not be so it is not included. The eye appeal or the color is not included. Neither is the luster BECAUSE a brilliant white headlight, fully struck, rainbow toned 63 "A" beaned "monster" that you had to look hard to find out why only 63 would probably blow away the other two examples for me yet the price of that coin would be close or above the others in the example.
Also, (I could be wrong) I believe JA included "solid for the grade" to mean it is correctly graded! So a solid for the grade 63 is one that is graded correctly yet did notget a bean because it is not an "A" or "B."
Sorry, but based on the way your hypothetical was phrased, I think it's impossible to get on track, in the first place. Never mind worrying about getting off track.
Additionally, I don't equate a "C coin" with "solid for the grade" and doubt that JA does, either.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'll go back and find that just because a coin graded MS-63 does not have a bean does not indicate that it is not correctly graded (solid for the grade) by the TPGS as MS-63.
I'll go back and find that just because a coin graded MS-63 does not have a bean does not indicate that it is not correctly graded (solid for the grade) by the TPGS as MS-63.
I believe that a “C coin” would be considered accurately graded, but low end. I don’t think that’s the same thing as “solid for the grade”. If it were, how would you describe a “B coin”?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'll go back and find that just because a coin graded MS-63 does not have a bean does not indicate that it is not correctly graded (solid for the grade) by the TPGS as MS-63.
I believe that a “C coin” would be considered accurately graded, but low end. I don’t think that’s the same thing as “solid for the grade”. If it were, how would you describe a “B coin”?
I think we are in agreement. "I believe that a “C coin” would be considered accurately graded,"
As I understand it "A" and "B" are at the higher end of the SAME ACCURATE GRADE CONTINUUM as a "C." However, JA does not "bean" accurately graded "C" coins.
I'll go back and find that just because a coin graded MS-63 does not have a bean does not indicate that it is not correctly graded (solid for the grade) by the TPGS as MS-63.
I believe that a “C coin” would be considered accurately graded, but low end. I don’t think that’s the same thing as “solid for the grade”. If it were, how would you describe a “B coin”?
I think we are in agreement. "I believe that a “C coin” would be considered accurately graded,"
As I understand it "A" and "B" are at the higher end of the SAME ACCURATE GRADE CONTINUUM as a "C." However, JA does not "bean" accurately graded "C" coins.
It sounds like you’re getting back on track.😈
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Accurately and appropriately graded is the issue. I know I couldn’t consistently differentiate a “true” 64.9 and a 65.0. In a grading room on any given day either coin could grade 64 or 65. If both graded 64 presumably JA would sticker both. If both graded 65 presumably JA would sticker neither. If there’s not much difference in price it doesn’t matter. But if there’s a substantial difference in price I’d prefer the stickered 64 to the non-stickered 65.
I'm still convinced that individual coin identification and technical grading can be readily and permanently established by AI, and that its establishment would be a great asset to the hobby. Then, it would again be possible for collectors to become confidently familiar with technical grading standards, and the market would again honestly rise to meet taste factors such a toning, eye appeal, and all of that.
I don't agree with JA's argument about garbage in- garbage out with respect to training AI. The issue is that the technical grading has to be SET and CONSISTENT. "Accuracy" would be based on the input provided by existing graded coins. Existing graded coins, after all, were not graded by some celestial infallibility.
I'll go back and find that just because a coin graded MS-63 does not have a bean does not indicate that it is not correctly graded (solid for the grade) by the TPGS as MS-63.
I believe that a “C coin” would be considered accurately graded, but low end. I don’t think that’s the same thing as “solid for the grade”. If it were, how would you describe a “B coin”?
I think we are in agreement. "I believe that a “C coin” would be considered accurately graded,"
As I understand it "A" and "B" are at the higher end of the SAME ACCURATE GRADE CONTINUUM as a "C." However, JA does not "bean" accurately graded "C" coins.
It sounds like you’re getting back on track.😈
No.
A and B coins are not part of any accurate grade continuum whatsoever. They represent elements of the eye-appeal domain.
Take 3 coins of the same date/mm. All are in 65 holders.
The coins grade 65.2 "A", 65.6 "B" and 65.8 "C" - They are "correctly" graded.
The hands-down technical superiority of your 65.8 technical grade is irrelevant. "C" coins are excluded from the "acceptance eligibility hierarchy".
Beyond this point, the more I explain, the more the likelihood some very low probability and/or infrequently occurring exceptions (these two overlap but are NOT the same) might be inferred that obscure the simplicity of the conceptualization.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
I'll go back and find that just because a coin graded MS-63 does not have a bean does not indicate that it is not correctly graded (solid for the grade) by the TPGS as MS-63.
I believe that a “C coin” would be considered accurately graded, but low end. I don’t think that’s the same thing as “solid for the grade”. If it were, how would you describe a “B coin”?
I think we are in agreement. "I believe that a “C coin” would be considered accurately graded,"
As I understand it "A" and "B" are at the higher end of the SAME ACCURATE GRADE CONTINUUM as a "C." However, JA does not "bean" accurately graded "C" coins.
It sounds like you’re getting back on track.😈
No. A and B coins are not part of any accurate grade continuum. They represent elements of the eye-appeal domain.
Take 3 coins of the same date/mm. All are in 65 holders.
The coins grade 65.2 "A", 65.6 "B" and 65.8 "C" - They are "correctly" graded.
The hands-down technical superiority of your 65.8 technical grade is irrelevant. "C" coins are excluded from the "acceptance eligibility hierarchy". Beyond this point, the more I explain, the less you will understand.
Depends on whether the "65.2" as defined by @BryceM includes the CAC criteria and isn't just a technical grade. In order for Bryce's thesis to have any meaning as presented, those numbers have to include the CAC "acceptance eligibility" criteria. I assume that it did, otherwise his whole thesis is undermined.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
I'll go back and find that just because a coin graded MS-63 does not have a bean does not indicate that it is not correctly graded (solid for the grade) by the TPGS as MS-63.
I believe that a “C coin” would be considered accurately graded, but low end. I don’t think that’s the same thing as “solid for the grade”. If it were, how would you describe a “B coin”?
I think we are in agreement. "I believe that a “C coin” would be considered accurately graded,"
As I understand it "A" and "B" are at the higher end of the SAME ACCURATE GRADE CONTINUUM as a "C." However, JA does not "bean" accurately graded "C" coins.
It sounds like you’re getting back on track.😈
No. A and B coins are not part of any accurate grade continuum. They represent elements of the eye-appeal domain.
Take 3 coins of the same date/mm. All are in 65 holders.
The coins grade 65.2 "A", 65.6 "B" and 65.8 "C" - They are "correctly" graded.
The hands-down technical superiority of your 65.8 technical grade is irrelevant. "C" coins are excluded from the "acceptance eligibility hierarchy". Beyond this point, the more I explain, the less you will understand.
> Depends on whether the "65.2" as defined by @BryceM includes the CAC criteria and isn't just a technical grade. In order for Bryce's thesis to have any meaning as presented, those numbers have to include the CAC "acceptance eligibility" criteria. I assume that it did, otherwise his whole thesis is undermined.
I have apparently failed to make clear @CJ's Forum rules. I can't make any. I will now make clear to you what I had hoped to make to clear to you before. Your comments upon what I have to say about grading are, to my mind, the most destructive and confounding, the most nit-picking , the least likely of real-world scenarios super-imposed what I'm trying to teach. Let's not assume I have more experience than you. You are not impressed with my credentials, or certainly not to the degree that would restrain you from disrupting my flow.
Consider this as a point of Forum courtesy. Do not comment upon my topics, thoughts or threads. Make the assumption that, if you do, I will assume you do so not from any sense of a need for intellectual honest discourse, but because, even after displaying your awareness of a compulsive behavior pattern, you continue to indulge it. You know you should shut up, but instead we are informed that you will just produce MORE 1000 word disquisitions. Do not try my patience or this Forum's blithely informing us, as you again impose your opinions, by justifying it with a doctor's note. You have, as a sufferer from mental illness, legal rights but also moral responsibilities. And I'm a retired licensed mental health professional with clinical specialties that would allow me to ask you a broad range of questions and likely formulate a fairly prosaic medication plan. What I am pointing towards is that you have moral responsibility to monitor your behavior, reflect on it as it affects you and how it affects those you socialize with.
There is a form of civility which suggests that there are time when, despite one's personal discomfiture, another's needs or sensibilities are to be placed above one's own. It is never a law, a rule. Call it a greater good for a greater number situationally applied.
However you value my work, do not fail to note that others do so very positively.
I want to vote you off my island. Beyond any reason that might compel you to inject a word or thought into what you see as an open question, a point of extended dialogue, just DO NOT. Concede that there are others who might enjoy or learn more easily what I am trying to impart without your interjections.
I can't vote you off my island. I have no island, no real estate here. I can only appeal to your sense of courtesy, full knowing you will feel some resentment. It's the most natural of reactions to rejection. I am not rejecting you. I am rejecting your behavior. Not all behaviors, But I will assume from this point forward that your inserting and interjecting yourself into "my" discussions is not the result of obsessive and/or compulsive patterns of thought and behavior, but hostility.
I was not in any way, shape or form referring back to BryceM's definition of 65.2. Did you see me quote it anywhere? My point has now been obscured because, by coincidence (65.1 and 63.3 working equally as well as arbitrary points). Only your interjecting the coincidental made any further explication necessary. And the essence of the explication is "If you had not invited yourself in after my not so subtle indication that the content and nature of your interjection was exactly what would muddle things up, this entire post would not have existed".
Do not treat me or my work rudely. It has value. If you don't understand that, at least understand that enough others do value it and that you are performing a public service (on their behalf, not mine) by staying away.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
I was not in any way, shape or form referring back to BryceM's definition of 65.2. Did you see me quote it anywhere? My point has now been obscured because, by coincidence (65.1 and 63.3 working equally as well as arbitrary points). Only your interjecting the coincidental made any further explication necessary. And the essence of the explication is "If you had not invited yourself in after my not so subtle indication that the content and nature of your interjection was exactly what would muddle things up, this entire post would not have existed".
I'm going to ignore the rest of your word salad. It does seem that you continue to commit all the sins you ascribe to me. No matter. You have an ignore button if you want to use it. Rather than craft these little droll jabs, perhaps you could just click the "ignore" and save the entire forum.
I'll take you at your word that you were not using the decimal grades as presented by Bryce. That was confusing when you commented on @MFeld and others who WERE talking about Bryce's continuum. I apologize for my misinterpretation. I'm not sure what your comment is in reference to if not that discussion, but clearly the confusion is mine.
Now, please, go click that ignore button. There is no amount of insult or faux rule making that will make me put away my keyboard. I come here to exchange commentary with people who wish to exchange commentary. If you are really so offended by my commentary, you can spare yourself by proper application of the "ignore" button.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
A and B coins are not part of any accurate grade continuum whatsoever. They represent elements of the eye-appeal domain.
Take 3 coins of the same date/mm. All are in 65 holders.
The coins grade 65.2 "A", 65.6 "B" and 65.8 "C" - They are "correctly" graded.
The hands-down technical superiority of your 65.8 technical grade is irrelevant. "C" coins are excluded from the "acceptance eligibility hierarchy".
Beyond this point, the more I explain, the more the likelihood some very low probability and/or infrequently occurring exceptions (these two overlap but are NOT the same) might be inferred that obscure the simplicity of the conceptualization.
Now that you have clarified that this comment is NOT referring to Bryce's continuum, let me comment simply:
You are partly correct.
Technical grade alone does not explain CAC A/B/C. However, it is PART of the criteria. Next time you talk to John, please ask him whether a Technical 65.8 with good but not exceptional eye appeal is more or less likely to CAC than a 65.2 with exceptional eye appeal. I think we'd all like to know.
I suggest that to avoid further confusion @BryceM, @insider2, @MFeld, that in the future we not simply use numbers. Please specify either Technical 65.2 or CAC 65.2. We don't want to confuse fellow forum members or obfuscate the relevant points.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Comments
That perception sounds very similar to how many market participants feel about non-PCGS coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don't think it is the same thing.
That's because THEY ARE better, for several reasons including some that have nothing to do with their grade.
This appears to be true also. That's unfortunate. In any case, both of your ideas are true but necessarily connected only because we are posting about CAC.
double post
I think you're right, and I don't think JA could foresee much of it. CAC was never intended to be used as a substitute grading service.
It is but with each new level of refinement, more coins are "lost" or discounted and the market distortions become even more exaggerated.
How so? CAC doesn’t give it a scarlet letter if it thinks it is over graded. It doesn't declare that the grade should be lower. The coin could very well be properly graded. It might just be the lower end of the scale. It make sense that all 65’s aren’t created equal. The same can be said within every grade.
The fact that PCGS allows CAC threads is testament to the fact that they don’t feel undermined or questioned or threatened.
I know I’m certainly glad CAC exists. Do you?
There is currently a HUGE scandal in the sportscard world. It involves TPG’s, a crooked dealer and a huge EBay seller. It involves doctoring sportcards. Lots of sports cards. It could shake and shock the market and bring it to its knees. The industry could have used a John Albanese CAC service for graded cards. My biggest reason for supporting CAC is knowing that someone is double checking for monkey business. That is the most important thing for me. John has seen it all.
I also like knowing that several graders and an industry legend all give a coin a thumbs up. The nominal fee for CAC is a no brainer IMHO.
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......
I can understand cac's criteria of; no problem coins, original, a "certain" look, a certain type of 'snob appeal' as well. I would like to hear concerns about their rejections at the duopoly of grading services and their graders and finalizers that we are living under. So if a coin is not a solid 'B' and is below what they consider premium for grade their rejection is pretty final and damning for those who own them? Recently I had an expensive coin they rejected telling me what the "issue" was which necessitated another series of conservation actions costing me a lot of money.
Especially raw. A sadly large group of people fell that any raw coin had a problem or it would be in a holder already
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
I am not referencing CAC's official policy. I am referencing the market's interpretation and the mantra spread by many of its most vocal promoters who have declared that CAC is always right; that all coins without stickers are over graded garbage or problem coins; and have accused the TPGSs of fraud, implied special favors, or quid pro quos, and suggested that the services can't be trusted to get it right on their own. That's not my selective gloss or interpretation. The first two were close paraphrases and the word "fraud" was actually used here. I made a list of CAC quotes from the forums floating around here somewhere if it wasn't deleted. The larger market also seems to have adopted some of this thinking as many write off non-CAC coins as over graded/problem coins, an idea which even JA seems to disagree with.
It wasn't always this way. Surely you remember the days when CAC threads were grounds for being banned, and CAC threads were deleted immediately. As CAC gained more and more market dominance, PCGS didn't have much of a choice if it wanted to stay relevant.
I have no problems with CAC as it was originally intended. I have stated repeatedly that it can be a valuable learning and sales tool when used properly. Nevertheless, it has generated many consequences that I don't think JA anticipated. I'm not sure whether those consequences outweigh the benefits or not.
CAC is a superficial band-aid that is not addressing the real problem. It is creating unintended (I think) consequences that are also problems.
@cameonut2011 said: "CAC is a superficial band-aid that is not addressing the REAL PROBLEM. It is creating unintended (I think) consequences that are also problems."
???? What exactly is the real problem? If you respond with an answer. Please tell us how you would address whatever it is. Thanks in advance.
Arright. This is going to be along post. Probably someone could say the exact same thing in a few sentences, but here goes:
For starters, let's set some ground rules for this though experiment:
In my earlier example, I used 1922 Peace dollars. I took some liberties with distributing these to 0.1 of a grade. From pop reports, the extant population in PCGS holders looks something like this :
On a logarithmic scale, it looks like this:
This doesn't account for crackouts, but there is obviously a huge drop in populations in higher grades. Now, let's assume that we can line up all 108,000 or so of these coins and start dividing them into "A" coins, "B" coins, and "C" coins. Let's say 65.0-65.5 = "C", 65.6-65.7 = "B", and 66.8-66.9 = "A".
Now, let's look at what the market thinks. Green stickers = "blessed, outstanding, desirable treasures", no sticker = "disease-prone, contaminated, polluted, scuzzy, icky, slimy dreck.
This looks something like this, again assuming that all are graded "correctly".
Hmmmm. Here's our first problem. The nicest 64.9 coin has a sticker while the lowliest 65.0 coin does not. The nicest 65.6 coin does not have a sticker but the lowliest 66.6 coin does. The market price for the 64.9 CAC and the 65.0 coin may be quite different, but with no real justification. The market price difference for the 66.5 non-CAC and 66.6 CAC coin will often be quite large with even less justification.
Take this to its absurd conclusion:
Apart from the die-hard Kool-aide drinkers, I don't think any of us really believe this, but the broader market acts like it does.
Try posting a collection of weak-for-the-grade coins and see if you get a lot of nice comments here. Is a weak 65 really better than a nice 64+? Really? Really? Do we really agree? Show off a stellar 65.9+ coin in a rattler with a sticker and nice toning and your post gets 100 likes. Share a weak 66 in yesterday's holder with no sticker and you'll get a few half-hearted comments, even if the 66 is actually a nicer coin. Have you ever been offered a "barely-there" coin at a reduced price on the bourse?
Of course, all of this is hyperbole, but possibly some food for thought.
When I boil it down I get this:
To keep this coin related, find a nice "C" coin , buy it at a nice "C" price, and enjoy it!
We've discussed this before multiple times. Grade inflation has not gone away. Inconsistency is still a problem. Wholesale shifts in grading standards have occurred, and I don't see an end in sight. Unless and until the services create a fixed standard and collectors/the industry hold them to that standard, the problems will continue. My issue with CAC is that there is too much collateral damage. I could say a lot more, but I would be banned.
You weren’t kidding Bryce! I can’t wait to look at this in detail after game 7 Stanley Cup which is on now. But I will quickly say that there are plenty of opportunity to snatch nice C coins at current valuations. That’s a good thing for buyers.
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......
Bryce--appreciate your thoughtful comments. One immediate comment. You compare a weak 65 vs a 64.9. I think even though the 65 is nicer it gets compared to other 65s and looks bad. On the other hand the 64.9 looks terrific against other 64s.
I think JA is spot on with the idea of having fewer grades and letting the market sort out the rest.
So something JA said that to me was an 'aha!' moment. He talked about how he perceived numerical grades, too many AU grades, too many MS grades, well, too many numeric grades period. I was always wondering why a coin in say, 63 or 55, could be an A/B coin to him, then they upgrade to 64 and 58 respectively, and are still A/B coins in those grades to him. After sending in 100s, I always felt that the grade, being say 53 that on one day may be a 50 and the next a 55 in the grading room, did not seem to matter in the CAC evaluation. Blatantly obvious overgrades or undergrades sure, the overs if a couple grades lower won't bean even if pristine surfaces, the unders get Gold stickers if they are obviously a couple grades higher and have pristine surfaces. So that, reading between the lines, supports what I surmised with my submissions and how they are judged. It is the surfaces for most of the coins, not the numeric grade, he looks for human tampering and assistance. As long as the numeric grade is OK, then next step is to evaluate the surfaces. If the surfaces pass, put on that sticker, if the surfaces don't because of a human tamper/assistance issue, they don't. I am guessing 90% of the coins seen by CAC are about this and only a few% on each side of the overs and unders are about the numeric grade. JMHO after listening to the podcast and my experience with CAC submissions.
Thanks for posting the link!
Best, SH
Yes, this.
CAC isn't comparing 65s to 64s, it's comparing 65s to 65s.
The price differential is harder to "calculate" no matter what the assumptions. And I will agree that you do see some strange things at auction. The 64 Green CAC should not be worth more than the 65 NO CAC (assuming of course they are both in the correct holder). Now, you do sometimes see auction results that seem to assume the 64 CAC is an automatic upgrade and it sells for 65 money (or more), but that is counter to everything JA and CAC say about themselves.
I'm not sure we can blame CAC for the misinterpretation of their mission.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
I’ve always thought the CAC grading process looked something like this:
Quick look - “I like it” = maybe. “I don’t like it” = no sticker.
Quick look at the label “seems about right” = sticker. “Ummmmmm it’s not great” = no sticker. “Were they blind?” = gold sticker.
Of course the whole A/B/C thing doesn’t correlate with this theory.
The A,B,C thing was handy.
I sat in with/for CAC at a single show (Coinfest) several years ago. As a I recall, the process was simpler than that.
It went something like this: “Is this coin solid for the grade?” If so, it gets a sticker and if not, not. I don’t remember any particular discussions about gold stickers. But my general feeling is that in order to earn one, a coin has to look like what I would call a “no-brainer upgrade”.
Of course, we - the four of us who were present - had occasional differences of opinion. In those instances, we hit each other over the head with chairs, arm-wrestled, cussed at each other and reached amicable decisions. 😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Sorry for another duplicate post.🙁
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I was at that Coinfest show, and was too stupid I guess to realize the cac revolution was underway to get the stickers and extra $$$. Instead I had a table and others looked for cherries I had unbeknownst to yours truly.
Here in politically correct CT arguments and differences are resolved cautiously. I hear in the wild and wooly parts of the country like Nevada collectors just pull out their six shooters, poke others in the chest to make their points and end the arguments!
@CJ's market rules - incomplete exceptions and over-generalizations abound.
@CJ's Forum rules. - I don't make no stinking rules. I'm just tossing out a few ideas interrupted by White Castle sliders in the hopes that OCD sufferers will understand I am not really addressing them at all, but in hopes that as many as eleven lurkers might find succor, .
For the buyer - Your most valuable assets are money and power, the latter of which is, to a strong degree, exercised through leverage of your knowledge.
1) Knowing how to grade is the single most important asset in a buyer's skill set. The amount of time necessary to master grading (outside of a grading room) will inevitably bring, to most, access to the best sources for the many attributes of the many coins in any particular series. So history and mintages and idiosyncratic yet trackable date variation coalesces into what knowledge-acquisition psychologists describe as "crystallized intelligence". Nuclear science fan-boys might relate to "critical mass". You need not be able to tell which specific neurons or neutrons are firing; it's enough that the result just coalesces into your lens.
1a) Not so good at grading? If you can't get within a 0.75 point variance in both directions you should step way back. Find a rep who can do it to 0.35. There are an easy 50 people out there worth their buck for that alone. For all I know there could be 300.
2) Other "due diligence". Lawyers love this term. Non-lawyers love it more. Coin pros call it research. You should too.
I will not enumerate the wide variety of tools available to be accessed with relative ease. If you are a numbers geek or have a trick memory it's a lucky talent. No? I'm both of the previous but take note long-hand.
2a) Whether you do your own due diligence or not, get a rep who does more. Have him teach you how to do the "more" that he is doing for you.
3) Your representation. Could it be you like DMPL Morgans and Full Head Quarters?. You might also have a Lincoln guy who knows Indians. Wm. Stafford has an exquisite warning about not "following the wrong gods home, or you may miss your star" but, to draw my extreme case, John Albanese knows enough about Full Bells Franklins to know he is not in any way a sensible participant in that niche. Numismatic polytheism is not a sin.
4) Nobody's grading advice is as good as your own gut, as untrained and unsophisticated as it might be. Only let your reach exceed your grasp by a bit. Chew carefully and enjoy reaching again. If someone wants to convince you, you should have them put a couple of live examples in your hand. Nothing whatsoever between any two people exists without maintaining the dream of a common language. Don't get hung up over imprecisions and overlaps.
5) Summarizing my experiences over 40 years as a pro, I'll for the moment only state competencies that made me instrumental in early grading at NGC as their first full-time grader, honed before and after with trading Rembrandts and Picassos, and a vocabulary that helped me teach Intro and Intermediate Grading at ANA Summer Seminar. Heed my utterances. Also see "following the wrong gods home"
5a) If you plan to spend $25,000 in the next year and don't invest in an ANA grading course, what exactly is your problem.
6) The more of a dumb-ass you present as, and are, the more you're going to get charged (sometimes). Human nature for sellers to high-maintenance buyers. See: "due diligence"
7) 90% of the grading discussions here are just yammering. Do your work and you won't get screwed. Do it better and you'll likely do quite well. @CJ's final advice on grading recapitulates, for those who have found their "Love Supreme", John Coltrane's warning that "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture".
8) If you're buying primarily for investment and haven't acquired a little passion in two years, do yourself a favor and get out at your 8% loss instead of waiting for a 4% loss two years later. You already can figure that.
9) The people that might comment subsequently have been trolled by themselves. Some with good intentions are still not so well informed that.... Eh.... listen, if at all, with discrimination.
Edited to add: I just noticed this is a CAC thread.
Good podcast, same old attendant horsepucky. Name any three-month period in the last decade that doesn't qualify for the Captain Obvious Award by the end of that cycle.
Cam the destroyer just ejected a pair of Tracy’s panties from her gullet. No one is speaking right now. Tracy told me to shut up before I could rain down one liners on her from now until Friday. Really good stuff. The things that l have had to pull out of her butt has been epic. Cams, not Tracy’s you weirdos
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......
Who is blaming JA or CAC? The criticisms are targeted at market participants.
The poor dog is going to need emergency surgery some day. I would have thought that she would have grown out of it by now.
As soon as you say "the problem with CAC", aren't you implicitly blaming them? Most of the discussion has been about what CAC has done to the market. Am I to read that as what the market has done to itself?
As for market participants, the customer is always right. I would never spend $30 to slab a modern commem in a fancy labeled holder. But Mr. Market is always King.
If someone wants to pay 2x for a slab with a green sticker, then that's what it is worth. You are free to play along or ignore them.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
I don't see the phrase "the problem with CAC." I don't blame CAC for people that overreact, ignore the text and standards on the CAC website, and use CAC as something that it was never intended to serve as (a full grading service). The distinction is not trivial. I can sell you a good or service and if you use it for unintended and abusive purposes that were not foreseeable, then that is not a reflection on me.
Inefficiencies and problems in the market always result in adjustments eventually. In this case, the anticipated adjustments are not positive long term. For those responsible, I feel no sympathy for them at all. For the rest of the market orbiting around them, I do. Collectors and markets do not operate in a vacuum.
Thanks, your post took some time to compile.
So...would you rather have a 1893-S dollar in a 65 slab w/o a bean (sent in but considered a "C" each time) or would you rather have an 1893-S dollar in a 64 slab with a bean? If you answer the way I believe most would, than a "C" in a higher grade (which is solid for the grade) should virtually always be better than the best coin in the lower grade.
All bets are off when the 64 bean finally gets into a 65 slab. LOL.
I’ll take either 93-S in the giveaway, thank you.
Apart from that, in actuality, it would depend on my goals, available cash, asking price, the opinion of a trusted expert (at that level for sure), and above everything else, my opinion of the actual coins. There are plenty of times when the lower-graded coin is the better coin for me.
Everything else being equal, we would all take the (appropriately graded) better coin.
The important thing for me is to not pay “A” prices for “C” coins. At that level, the difference can be quite significant.
In the market, funny as it is, you’re often better off paying a strong price for a 64+ coin with a CAC sticker than a mushy price for a “C” 65. One is FAR more liquid at sale time. Besides, they ALL get sold eventually.
@Insider 2 said:
So...would you rather have a 1893-S dollar in a 65 slab w/o a bean (sent in but considered a "C" each time) or would you rather have an 1893-S dollar in a 64 slab with a bean? If you answer the way I believe most would, than a "C" in a higher grade (which is solid for the grade) should virtually always be better than the best coin in the lower grade.
How can your question be answered intelligently, (among other considerations) without knowing the price of each coin?
Also, you referred to the 65C coin as "which is solid for the grade", which sounds like a possible contradiction. If it were solid for the grade, wouldn't it be a 65B or 65A coin?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thank you. edited to short, sweet, and to the point: Everything else being equal, we would all take the (appropriately graded) better coin.
This is the kind of post that gets discussions off track. There are so many variables in my question that all of us could probably add at lest two more as you did. the simple and to the point answer hidden in the post above yours:
Everything else being equal, we would all take the (appropriately graded) better coin!
ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (the price would probably not be so it is not included. The eye appeal or the color is not included. Neither is the luster BECAUSE a brilliant white headlight, fully struck, rainbow toned 63 "A" beaned "monster" that you had to look hard to find out why only 63 would probably blow away the other two examples for me yet the price of that coin would be close or above the others in the example.
Also, (I could be wrong) I believe JA included "solid for the grade" to mean it is correctly graded! So a solid for the grade 63 is one that is graded correctly yet did notget a bean because it is not an "A" or "B."
I love
talking grading with all you guys 
!!! It makes me think.
I liked his pod cast and found it a good listen. Major points he made pertinent to me: He stickers A&B coins not C. Where the spread higher between the CAC (bid or value) and non CAC bid (I use the sheet as reference) the more likely the coin has been to CAC. My take: A-PQ, B-solid for grade, C-lacking or what I have seen used average quality (low end sight unseen).
Obviously players will be trawling the bourse at shows or auctions seeking material which will CAC and then bank. These will likely be coins where there is a considerable spread between the CAC and non CAC (bid) value.
Challenge: Finding the coin, buying it right, then getting all the money (on the sale).
I think "solid for the grade" sounds too much like A/B coins. The entire problem with C coins as JA discusses is that they are (my word) marginal for the grade and dragging down the entire market.
I agree with Mark. The question is meaningless without the price. Even assuming they are all appropriately graded and the 65 coin is the "better" coin (eye appeal and preservation), if one coin is $500k (95-S 65 greysheet bid) and the other coin is $200k (30% less than 64 greysheet bid) I might be the slightly lesser coin at the much better price. If the coins are closer in price, maybe $500k vs $425k, then I'm more prone to take the better coin.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
See, off track as I thought would happen...just as on previous pages when I questioned something.
I'm guilty!
So let's take out "solid for the grade" and change my comment to "correctly graded." I believe, JA said plenty of "C" coins are graded correctly, they just don't get the bean.
Furthermore, PRICE is the MAIN reason that a simple operation - grading a coin - is so subjective and screwed up. Folks like JA, DH, JD, MS, LS, JH, and so many more posting here (MF, RS, AL etc.) are out of our league as graders because of "PRICE."
Don't make it more complicated. Everything else being EQUAL, we would all take the (appropriately graded) better coin!
Sorry, but based on the way your hypothetical was phrased, I think it's impossible to get on track, in the first place. Never mind worrying about getting off track.
Additionally, I don't equate a "C coin" with "solid for the grade" and doubt that JA does, either.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'll go back and find that just because a coin graded MS-63 does not have a bean does not indicate that it is not correctly graded (solid for the grade) by the TPGS as MS-63.
I believe that a “C coin” would be considered accurately graded, but low end. I don’t think that’s the same thing as “solid for the grade”. If it were, how would you describe a “B coin”?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I think we are in agreement. "I believe that a “C coin” would be considered accurately graded,"
As I understand it "A" and "B" are at the higher end of the SAME ACCURATE GRADE CONTINUUM as a "C." However, JA does not "bean" accurately graded "C" coins.
It sounds like you’re getting back on track.😈
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Accurately and appropriately graded is the issue. I know I couldn’t consistently differentiate a “true” 64.9 and a 65.0. In a grading room on any given day either coin could grade 64 or 65. If both graded 64 presumably JA would sticker both. If both graded 65 presumably JA would sticker neither. If there’s not much difference in price it doesn’t matter. But if there’s a substantial difference in price I’d prefer the stickered 64 to the non-stickered 65.
AI emerged prominently again in this interview.
I'm still convinced that individual coin identification and technical grading can be readily and permanently established by AI, and that its establishment would be a great asset to the hobby. Then, it would again be possible for collectors to become confidently familiar with technical grading standards, and the market would again honestly rise to meet taste factors such a toning, eye appeal, and all of that.
I don't agree with JA's argument about garbage in- garbage out with respect to training AI. The issue is that the technical grading has to be SET and CONSISTENT. "Accuracy" would be based on the input provided by existing graded coins. Existing graded coins, after all, were not graded by some celestial infallibility.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
No.
A and B coins are not part of any accurate grade continuum whatsoever. They represent elements of the eye-appeal domain.
Take 3 coins of the same date/mm. All are in 65 holders.
The coins grade 65.2 "A", 65.6 "B" and 65.8 "C" - They are "correctly" graded.
The hands-down technical superiority of your 65.8 technical grade is irrelevant. "C" coins are excluded from the "acceptance eligibility hierarchy".
Beyond this point, the more I explain, the more the likelihood some very low probability and/or infrequently occurring exceptions (these two overlap but are NOT the same) might be inferred that obscure the simplicity of the conceptualization.
Depends on whether the "65.2" as defined by @BryceM includes the CAC criteria and isn't just a technical grade. In order for Bryce's thesis to have any meaning as presented, those numbers have to include the CAC "acceptance eligibility" criteria. I assume that it did, otherwise his whole thesis is undermined.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
.> @jmlanzaf said:
> Depends on whether the "65.2" as defined by @BryceM includes the CAC criteria and isn't just a technical grade. In order for Bryce's thesis to have any meaning as presented, those numbers have to include the CAC "acceptance eligibility" criteria. I assume that it did, otherwise his whole thesis is undermined.
I have apparently failed to make clear @CJ's Forum rules. I can't make any. I will now make clear to you what I had hoped to make to clear to you before. Your comments upon what I have to say about grading are, to my mind, the most destructive and confounding, the most nit-picking , the least likely of real-world scenarios super-imposed what I'm trying to teach. Let's not assume I have more experience than you. You are not impressed with my credentials, or certainly not to the degree that would restrain you from disrupting my flow.
Consider this as a point of Forum courtesy. Do not comment upon my topics, thoughts or threads. Make the assumption that, if you do, I will assume you do so not from any sense of a need for intellectual honest discourse, but because, even after displaying your awareness of a compulsive behavior pattern, you continue to indulge it. You know you should shut up, but instead we are informed that you will just produce MORE 1000 word disquisitions. Do not try my patience or this Forum's blithely informing us, as you again impose your opinions, by justifying it with a doctor's note. You have, as a sufferer from mental illness, legal rights but also moral responsibilities. And I'm a retired licensed mental health professional with clinical specialties that would allow me to ask you a broad range of questions and likely formulate a fairly prosaic medication plan. What I am pointing towards is that you have moral responsibility to monitor your behavior, reflect on it as it affects you and how it affects those you socialize with.
There is a form of civility which suggests that there are time when, despite one's personal discomfiture, another's needs or sensibilities are to be placed above one's own. It is never a law, a rule. Call it a greater good for a greater number situationally applied.
However you value my work, do not fail to note that others do so very positively.
I want to vote you off my island. Beyond any reason that might compel you to inject a word or thought into what you see as an open question, a point of extended dialogue, just DO NOT. Concede that there are others who might enjoy or learn more easily what I am trying to impart without your interjections.
I can't vote you off my island. I have no island, no real estate here. I can only appeal to your sense of courtesy, full knowing you will feel some resentment. It's the most natural of reactions to rejection. I am not rejecting you. I am rejecting your behavior. Not all behaviors, But I will assume from this point forward that your inserting and interjecting yourself into "my" discussions is not the result of obsessive and/or compulsive patterns of thought and behavior, but hostility.
I was not in any way, shape or form referring back to BryceM's definition of 65.2. Did you see me quote it anywhere? My point has now been obscured because, by coincidence (65.1 and 63.3 working equally as well as arbitrary points). Only your interjecting the coincidental made any further explication necessary. And the essence of the explication is "If you had not invited yourself in after my not so subtle indication that the content and nature of your interjection was exactly what would muddle things up, this entire post would not have existed".
Do not treat me or my work rudely. It has value. If you don't understand that, at least understand that enough others do value it and that you are performing a public service (on their behalf, not mine) by staying away.
I'm going to ignore the rest of your word salad. It does seem that you continue to commit all the sins you ascribe to me. No matter. You have an ignore button if you want to use it. Rather than craft these little droll jabs, perhaps you could just click the "ignore" and save the entire forum.
I'll take you at your word that you were not using the decimal grades as presented by Bryce. That was confusing when you commented on @MFeld and others who WERE talking about Bryce's continuum. I apologize for my misinterpretation. I'm not sure what your comment is in reference to if not that discussion, but clearly the confusion is mine.
Now, please, go click that ignore button. There is no amount of insult or faux rule making that will make me put away my keyboard. I come here to exchange commentary with people who wish to exchange commentary. If you are really so offended by my commentary, you can spare yourself by proper application of the "ignore" button.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Now that you have clarified that this comment is NOT referring to Bryce's continuum, let me comment simply:
You are partly correct.
Technical grade alone does not explain CAC A/B/C. However, it is PART of the criteria. Next time you talk to John, please ask him whether a Technical 65.8 with good but not exceptional eye appeal is more or less likely to CAC than a 65.2 with exceptional eye appeal. I think we'd all like to know.
I suggest that to avoid further confusion @BryceM, @insider2, @MFeld, that in the future we not simply use numbers. Please specify either Technical 65.2 or CAC 65.2. We don't want to confuse fellow forum members or obfuscate the relevant points.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
I’m confused. Discussion is to technical for me .
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.