Has CAC always used the same criteria since they started?
topstuf
Posts: 14,803 ✭✭✭✭✭
IOW... did they at first look mostly at wear and then at surfaces?
I notice now that most references to "CAC or not?" focus mostly on state of the surface.
And yet I always thought that the system was to rate the position the coin would hold within the grade itself.
???
0
Comments
I'd write a nice long, well considered answer but this thread is zapper-bait.
My Saint Set
I am under the impression that they generally like well struck, original coins. I have seen a number of exceptions to this.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
just great , another CAC thread to rile up those dormant passions
Not really. Just asking if the criteria has always been the same.
If it's a taboo name that can't be discussed, it should be in the "rules" that it can't be mentioned.
Like this. Yes I agree but it's still talking about "originality" which is a surface issue. I never thought strike altered grading for wear.
Shh relax topstuf - this was in jest - I'm all for the taboo.
Seriously, believe CAC has never changed criteria overall what JA liked decade ago he likes or not today, or so it seems to most.
edited for typos
This will be missed as it sounds very educational.
Here is something to think about. IMO, it can be demonstrated that coin grading has evolved since 1986. Anyone who disagrees is not well informed.
Here is the rub. I can understand and agree that it is possible for someone not to change their PERSONAL grading standards EXCEPT in cases where they learn/see more as they become more experienced. That describes my personal grading standards that have changed extremely little over the decades. My "market grading" standards have evolved BIG TIME - enough to understand that AU's are MS and levels of ignored problems are "market acceptable."
Because of this, I am forced to conclude that a possibility exists that there could be a small evolution in the CAC standard from where they started in order to keep up with acceptable changes made by the TPGS's.
I'm probably alone on this but here it goes.
I think PCGS was grading saints about one grade too harshly to start out.
Everything looks pretty good now and the pop reports have a nice distribution.
Others would call that grade-flation...I prefer "grade-adjustment."
So far as CAC goes on saints...We shall see if I'm in agreement or not
)
(everybody is holding their breath I know
My Saint Set
I will let others weigh in on whether it has changed over the past decade but I would point out that it is unlikely to change going forward. JA has stated that at some point there will be very few coins to sticker anymore. That tells me that his standards going forward will not change and is one reason I am fan of CAC.
Are you referring to cac-flation? It absolutely exists.
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Wooooha! Did someone just say it's officially "TACO™" Tuesday????
@ReadyFireAim said: "I think PCGS was grading saints about one grade too harshly to start out. Everything looks pretty good now and the pop reports have a nice distribution. Others would call that grade-flation...I prefer "grade-adjustment."
I guess it all depends what was going on in 1986. IMO, an opening for PCGS came along because the two major grading services at the time at ANACS in CO, and INSAB in DC were grading too strictly.
Example: Sending a gem,red 1955/55 cent back to the collector with a note stating:
1. This is the finest 1955/55 we've ever seen!
2. Don't bother looking for a better one.
3. The dealer sold you a "gem" and what ever you paid for the coin does not matter - it's worth it.
4. and finally, We are sorry we had to grade your coin AU-58 because of the slightest trace of wear on the jaw!
Is that nuts or what?
The other thing both grading services were doing was not giving a coin's strike or eye appeal much weight. A flatly struck 84-O dollar could still grade MS-65 the highest grade at the time. At INS at least, we were not putting a value on a coin. This was completely opposite to what most expected a coin's grade to represent. Is it authentic and what's it worth is all that's important.
Therefore, from my point of view PCGS was NOT strict at all; however, they were much stricter before the "grade-adjustment" took place. Speaking of a grade adjustment, the ANACS had a massive and well publicized one to become more in line with the "marketplace." INS did not make any changes from the true technical system until I left. A few years later, the first TPGS went the way of the Trilobites making ANACS the oldest TPGS..
JA said that if CAC becomes the Crack-out-Dealer's best friend then it has lost its original intent.
Meaning presumably, if the goalposts move too far there will be no beans on slabs because they will all have been upgraded.
Also, presumably...CAC must "move" with the goalposts...Maybe???
My Saint Set
It's not that it can't be discussed, it's that these threads always become Holy Wars between rival religions.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
If the criteria has changed, then that will spur a deluge of re-submissions....just as has happened with slabbing services....oh those evolving opinions...
Cheers, RickO
No idea. Does a black hole remain the same size? I just try buy material which makes sense to me Plus can move quickly and not be the end user.
Sounds like a liquor store.
The criteria is always to make more than the guy you're teaching.
Does CAC offer tuition assistance ?
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Are you suggesting CACflation?
No as in the beginning they placed the stickers on the left side of the slab insert.
No I'm not. I'm asking if anyone knows if they have tended to give more consideration to the surfaces than to the wear of the coin. I don't recall many posts about "originality" in the earlier days of CAC discussion.
The emphasis used to seem to be whether the wear on the coin was A B or C in comparison to others.
JA has always been the finalizer. He likes original skin.
I'm not sure why we are separating the "wear" from the "surfaces" as those matter to any coin grader. Unless by "surfaces" you are referring to only color.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
There have been some changes in standards. JA wrote somewhere that there were thick, darker toned original coins in higher grades that stickered early on that wouldn't sticker today as the standards changed/tightened in response to the feedback received. CAC no longer stickers copper with the controversial MS70 look. I think those are fairly clear cut.
On a more general and subjective note, I do think CAC inflation is real as there are coins that sticker today that I think would have been rejected early on. YMMV.
Finally, on a purely speculative note and one that may fail to come to fruition, I think the standards will necessarily change as CAC coins are hoarded and the market is depleted. If the standards hold constant, revenue from submissions and stickering will eventually tank as there are fewer submissions (most collectors don't pay for rejected submissions and most dealers are smart enough to selectively submit). Given the hoarding of CAC coins for more expensive/rare coins, there won't be much for CAC to buy and flip. In a twist of irony, CAC could either price itself out of the market as CAC only fans push up prices for limited supply or the coins may not become available leaving CAC with mostly its rejects or uber common coins.
What feedback would that be? My observation is that CAC never liked darker toned original coins, And darker doesn't necessarily mean unattractive.
I'll try to find the source for you. Basically a few dealers commented that eye appeal should have a greater role in the process. My observations are just the opposite of yours though. I have seen ugly coins with darker brown, tobacco juice toning sticker if it is all there otherwise. It isn't all sunshine and rainbows (pun intended).
Not sure we are opposite. I agree that eye appeal should have a greater role. Bad eye appeal should be a negative. Good eye appeal should be a positive. Maybe the negatives were adjusted for, I don't know. I don't think positive eye appeal carries as much weight as it does nowadays at the TPGs. It's old school.
Somebody, fixates on CAC on multiple websites.
What i have found Remarkable abOut CAC is that, whenever i had a question myseLf, i would ask them, and i would get an answer. Heck, JA even answered a fair number of questions AND taLked tOo me abouT a few Of the coins i subMitted. i didn't need to go on multiple websites And get a lot of Speculation and biaSed guesses and opInions.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
I do think its fair to ask the forum their opinion on whether the standard for CAC has changed. May have a different perspective then JA.
Actually, I was asking more about the FOCUS of their examination.
I think we all look first at....something... on a coin. First.
Then move on from there to another aspect of it.
Then finally, take it in its entirety.
But.... lay some aspect as FIRST AND FOREMOST.
I think.
I'd have to say I take the first impression from overall eye appeal.
Then wear, then surface. I guess I'd rate surface above the wear. It's the overall surface that "makes" a coin.
And sure, all of those apply to the eye appeal. To me.
My post was wondering if the first and foremost may have changed as it ...seemed... that a while back, the amount of wear on the coin was more important than the surface.
Oh me oh my..... quicksand.
I think you're overthinking it.
Green means, "I'd buy it (and proudly sell it) sight unseen in the future at the slabbed grade.
Gold means same at one grade higher than slabbed.
There are an Infinite number of Quality combinations that can lead to overall Solid for the grade and Superior for the grade assigned.
All grades are Net grades 😉
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
since CAC does not make money from submissions but instead makes money by identfying coins it would want to purchase, there is no incentive to change standards or have "grade inflation." In fact, it would generally be counter productive. TPG have a much different business model.
My take on this is similar to other responses but I'll say it another way. I think that as TPGs moved toward market grading it was necessary for a fourth party opinion. Then enter CAC to build a market for coins that stand on their own merits
That was true for many years, but I thought Laura posted here that this changed last year or so, and for the first time CAC began to make money from the submission process itself. The buy/sell market making function still generates the most revenue though.
So! Everyone has different tastes in coins...no doubt! It amazes me to see those cowtoe to what JA likes. It's a biased system. If ya wanna collect the look JA likes...go for it. Personally I don't like the look of quite a few Barber Half's I've seen with a bean!
It’s very much like the wine snobs who can’t tell you whether they like a wine until they know Robert Parker’s opinion.
Smitten with DBLCs.
My saints all have to have a perfect face all the way down to MS64
I've seen beaned ones that look really bad & I've seen CAC-rejects that look fantastic.
My Saint Set
Think Robert Parker would look at my coins?
His criteria (JA podcast) is if CAC (JA) considers its A or B coin it gets sticker if not (C coin) then no sticker.
I don’t believe it’s changed.
So if you have the same taste he does everything should be peachy huh?
Otherwise - Take a look at your coins - sort them into 3 groups based on your grading skills plus market knowledge of what sells for what - PQ A, Solid Quality B, Average Quality (low end) C. Then price accordingly.
Why did they get rid of the popcorn imogee...
Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up!
Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
So if your saying JA would want to buy anything he stickers...
That would make him "king of the widgets."
A bean on a saint is almost always and indication that it is below gem.
It makes it easier when you're scanning a case.
My Saint Set
So then, CAC stickers found on the left will be more collectible than those on the right?
JA is willing to buy anything he stickers. He's not necessarily the higher buyer. There's a lot of misunderstanding of CAC and how the CAC marketplace functions. There are a number of coin types where my bids are higher than JAs. Nonetheless, I bet a lot of people would sell to him and not even consider me.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Here's an interesting tale a friend of mine told me. There was a CAC bid on a POP 5 Seated Dollar that none were CAC'd of $60,000 against a Greysheet bid of $40,000. His friend had 1 and said what the heck...submitted and got a bean. The next day after it Cac'd that CAC bid dropped to $38,000.
Jack traded the COW for beans.
Buy the coin. Ignore all the chatter.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5