@Zoins said: @keets I'll keep enjoying my So-Called Dollars, medals and tokens
GOOD FOR YOU !!!
AND.... GOOD FOR ANYONE WHO LIKES ANYTHING ABOUT THE COINS THEY BUY!!
There's a lot to be said for enjoying the coins that ...POP.... in your stash.
@MrEureka said:
CAC hurt the market for coins that didn’t bean and helped the market for those that did.
The intent, bluntly espoused by several high-end dealers (and one 'dealeress'), was to put distance between A coins and B/C ones. They succeeded, after years of complaining that low-end coins were dragging down the prices of choice ones. In some cases, one might wonder if CAC saved their business models.
Isn't it to put distance between A/B coins and C ones?
If a dealer's model was focusing on A/B coins and not C coins, I can see the service helping. Otherwise, there would be no way to distinguish.
Zoins,
You are correct. I should have proofread my post first.
I went swimming for an hour, and came back to see 24 new posts.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
Since we are on a coin forum, I figured I post a coin which has this disclaimer so we have something concrete to talk about.
1879 Morgan Dollar Pattern J-1616 - PCGS PR67+BN POP 1/0 CAC - Ex-Shepherd
The top TrueView is from Larry's website when it was sold with the disclaimer. The bottom coin is the current TrueView and cert number. The dealer TrueView seems enhanced given the background comparison with the new one.
Larry sold this for $38,500 and then Heritage sold it for $21,600 at FUN in Jan 2018 so it lost 44% of its value before seller fees. It wasn't CAC at FUN but is now. I don't think the Heritage photos did the coin any favors.
Senseless to call them a grading service. All they do is express their opinion (by affixing a bean) that a coin falls into the upper end of an assigned grade, or is worthy of a higher grade. Period. They affix nothing to indicate that they feel that a coin does not meet those criteria, or that a coin is overgraded, or that a coin is not genuine, or that a coin has been altered. Those coins simply get returned to the submitter with no indication that they have ever been submitted. Since there is no way to determine whether an unbeaned coin has ever been submitted, there is no way to know that CAC has or has not passed judgement on that coin.
You know, I’ve never actually seen the rationale for why CAC doesn’t indicate whether a particular coin was submitted and not beaned. Perhaps they have stated it but I haven’t run across it. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation for why they won’t?
@TurtleCat said:
You know, I’ve never actually seen the rationale for why CAC doesn’t indicate whether a particular coin was submitted and not beaned. Perhaps they have stated it but I haven’t run across it. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation for why they won’t?
The wording of the title is strange. A "CAC disclaimer" would seem to be CAC, itself, making a disclaimer about something.
Rather, from the context of the OP, it is a "disclaimer ABOUT CAC".
That said, dealers, and collectors, are within their rights to not like something. I, personally, think, as a collector, it is short-sighted and ignorant to think of only non-CAC coins. Just as it would be to ONLY think of CAC coins.
For a dealer to make that type of statement, it makes me think they had coins that were money coins to them that they tried to get CAC'ed and it didn't happen, for whatever reason. Made someone mad and they still wanted to sell the coins for all the money anyway but, if they didn't have stickers and others did, they would be questioned about it and stronger negotiations on those coins would happen....or nothing about those coins, at those prices, would happen.
Not a big news story, to me at least, as there are people who feel very strongly about it and, well to be blunt, dealers want to make the most money they can in most instances and CAC can put a damper on that if some coins won't sticker for the dealers that have them.....
@TurtleCat said:
You know, I’ve never actually seen the rationale for why CAC doesn’t indicate whether a particular coin was submitted and not beaned. Perhaps they have stated it but I haven’t run across it. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation for why they won’t?
I believe, years ago when it was starting and the question was asked, the answer was that it wasn't the right thing to do. The coin may still be a nice, good, coin, but it just didn't meet what JA wanted to see. Rather than stigmatize the coin, they prefer to NOT publicly show that it failed (THEY keep internal records, so they will know if it had been previously submitted in the same holder/cert#).
@TurtleCat said:
You know, I’ve never actually seen the rationale for why CAC doesn’t indicate whether a particular coin was submitted and not beaned. Perhaps they have stated it but I haven’t run across it. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation for why they won’t?
It would discourage submissions, most likely.
They don't feel the need to badmouth or disparage coins that don't meet their standards.
Curious if anyone here has made it a practice to acquire CAC stickered coins and then break them out and submit to 3rd party grading services to see if they get grade bumps?
Could be a winning strategy.
Could also be a losing strategy as well. It happened to me inadvertently after a PCGA w/ CAC coin was sent back to PCGS and CAC for regrading when the holder arrived damaged in the mail (no damage to the coin). The coin came back from PCGS and CAC stickered at a lower grade level. No gold bean, either.
What apparently happened is the coin was close to the line between grades when first graded and PCGS had tightened their standards since then. The coin didn't change, though, so I'm fine with the grade change.
@TurtleCat said:
You know, I’ve never actually seen the rationale for why CAC doesn’t indicate whether a particular coin was submitted and not beaned. Perhaps they have stated it but I haven’t run across it. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation for why they won’t?
It would discourage submissions, most likely.
Because it would create potential litigation with PCGS or NGC. It would be a public thumbs down on a grade. They might as well hang a scarlet "C" on the coin.
@TurtleCat said:
You know, I’ve never actually seen the rationale for why CAC doesn’t indicate whether a particular coin was submitted and not beaned. Perhaps they have stated it but I haven’t run across it. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation for why they won’t?
It would discourage submissions, most likely.
Because it would create potential litigation with PCGS or NGC. It would be a public thumbs down on a grade. They might as well hang a scarlet "C" on the coin.
Yeah, good luck with that lawsuit. "Your honor, this man (JA) publicly stated that in his opinion certain coins slabbed by my client were not above average quality for their assigned grades."
@TurtleCat said:
You know, I’ve never actually seen the rationale for why CAC doesn’t indicate whether a particular coin was submitted and not beaned. Perhaps they have stated it but I haven’t run across it. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation for why they won’t?
It would discourage submissions, most likely.
Because it would create potential litigation with PCGS or NGC. It would be a public thumbs down on a grade. They might as well hang a scarlet "C" on the coin.
Yeah, good luck with that lawsuit. "Your honor, this man (JA) publicly stated that in his opinion certain coins slabbed by my client were not above average quality for their assigned grades."
A lawsuit need not be successful in order to cause pain and enormous costs. You may also not receive an award for your attorney’s fee.
@amwldcoin said:
LOL! They are grading another service's grade so they are a grading service.
@Zoins said:
Whether CAC are, or are not, a grading service depends on the definition one chooses.
They certainly are not a grading service in the traditional sense and I think that is the distinction that CAC is making when they write:
We verify previously graded coins
For those that chose to call CAC a grading service, what would you call PCGS to distinguish them, or would you not distinguish them?
Perhaps you don’t mean it that way, but your frequent use of “LOL” when you disagree with other, comes across as
disrespectful and rude.
When has Mark ever attacked you? I have seen you attack forum members including one running for political office and then somehow made yourself the “victim” in all of it.
@TurtleCat said:
You know, I’ve never actually seen the rationale for why CAC doesn’t indicate whether a particular coin was submitted and not beaned. Perhaps they have stated it but I haven’t run across it. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation for why they won’t?
It would discourage submissions, most likely.
Because it would create potential litigation with PCGS or NGC. It would be a public thumbs down on a grade. They might as well hang a scarlet "C" on the coin.
Yeah, good luck with that lawsuit. "Your honor, this man (JA) publicly stated that in his opinion certain coins slabbed by my client were not above average quality for their assigned grades."
A lawsuit need not be successful in order to cause pain and enormous costs. You may also not receive an award for your attorney’s fee.
If CAC had decided that it would be advantageous long-term for them to disclose failed submissions, a frivolous lawsuit (or two) would have been a small price to pay, IMHO. An open-and-shut hearing would not cause "enormous pain or costs". On what grounds could a case even be brought?
@amwldcoin said:
LOL! They are grading another service's grade so they are a grading service.
@Zoins said:
Whether CAC are, or are not, a grading service depends on the definition one chooses.
They certainly are not a grading service in the traditional sense and I think that is the distinction that CAC is making when they write:
We verify previously graded coins
For those that chose to call CAC a grading service, what would you call PCGS to distinguish them, or would you not distinguish them?
Perhaps you don’t mean it that way, but your frequent use of “LOL” when you disagree with other, comes across as
disrespectful and rude.
When has Mark ever attacked you? I have seen you attack forum members including one running for political office and then somehow made yourself the “victim” in all of it.
@TurtleCat said:
You know, I’ve never actually seen the rationale for why CAC doesn’t indicate whether a particular coin was submitted and not beaned. Perhaps they have stated it but I haven’t run across it. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation for why they won’t?
I believe, years ago when it was starting and the question was asked, the answer was that it wasn't the right thing to do. The coin may still be a nice, good, coin, but it just didn't meet what JA wanted to see. Rather than stigmatize the coin, they prefer to NOT publicly show that it failed (THEY keep internal records, so they will know if it had been previously submitted in the same holder/cert#).
I still find it an interesting choice of theirs. It also increases the odds that they will see some of the same coins over and over. While they don’t currently charge for failed beans it does cost the owner shipping and insurance x number of owners. Seems wasteful.
Would it not be in the prospective buyer’s best interest to know it was attempted? The coin may be “stigmatized” by not having a bean when it may not have been submitted.
As an aside... I doubt most of my slabbed coins have ever been submitted. I know because I was the original submitter for slabbing on some of them and others were acquired before CAC was rumored. I thought about a CAC collector membership but I don’t know who all would notarize my application so to speak. So they’ll probably stay unsubmitted. Hopefully people won’t stigmatize them in the future if I sell any...
@TurtleCat said:
You know, I’ve never actually seen the rationale for why CAC doesn’t indicate whether a particular coin was submitted and not beaned. Perhaps they have stated it but I haven’t run across it. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation for why they won’t?
I believe, years ago when it was starting and the question was asked, the answer was that it wasn't the right thing to do. The coin may still be a nice, good, coin, but it just didn't meet what JA wanted to see. Rather than stigmatize the coin, they prefer to NOT publicly show that it failed (THEY keep internal records, so they will know if it had been previously submitted in the same holder/cert#).
I still find it an interesting choice of theirs. It also increases the odds that they will see some of the same coins over and over. While they don’t currently charge for failed beans it does cost the owner shipping and insurance x number of owners. Seems wasteful.
Would it not be in the prospective buyer’s best interest to know it was attempted? The coin may be “stigmatized” by not having a bean when it may not have been submitted.
As an aside... I doubt most of my slabbed coins have ever been submitted. I know because I was the original submitter for slabbing on some of them and others were acquired before CAC was rumored. I thought about a CAC collector membership but I don’t know who all would notarize my application so to speak. So they’ll probably stay unsubmitted. Hopefully people won’t stigmatize them in the future if I sell any...
Do you feel the same way about PCGS and NGC not making a public record of which coins fail to cross to the others’ holders? Yes, buyers would like to know, but submitters would not want that information made public.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@TurtleCat said:
You know, I’ve never actually seen the rationale for why CAC doesn’t indicate whether a particular coin was submitted and not beaned. Perhaps they have stated it but I haven’t run across it. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation for why they won’t?
I believe, years ago when it was starting and the question was asked, the answer was that it wasn't the right thing to do. The coin may still be a nice, good, coin, but it just didn't meet what JA wanted to see. Rather than stigmatize the coin, they prefer to NOT publicly show that it failed (THEY keep internal records, so they will know if it had been previously submitted in the same holder/cert#).
I still find it an interesting choice of theirs. It also increases the odds that they will see some of the same coins over and over. While they don’t currently charge for failed beans it does cost the owner shipping and insurance x number of owners. Seems wasteful.
Would it not be in the prospective buyer’s best interest to know it was attempted? The coin may be “stigmatized” by not having a bean when it may not have been submitted.
As an aside... I doubt most of my slabbed coins have ever been submitted. I know because I was the original submitter for slabbing on some of them and others were acquired before CAC was rumored. I thought about a CAC collector membership but I don’t know who all would notarize my application so to speak. So they’ll probably stay unsubmitted. Hopefully people won’t stigmatize them in the future if I sell any...
I may be wrong but I believe a dealer is charged for every submission whether it passes or not. I believe you are referring to collector submissions
Larry does buy CAC coins and has some in his inventory but doesn't promote it's stickered. Evan Gale for years also had a CAC disclaimer on his site and did not mention if a coin was stickered. There's probably about 10 other top dealers although they do not have a CAC disclaimer do not mention if something is stickered nor submit anything to CAC,
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
@TurtleCat said:
You know, I’ve never actually seen the rationale for why CAC doesn’t indicate whether a particular coin was submitted and not beaned. Perhaps they have stated it but I haven’t run across it. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation for why they won’t?
I believe, years ago when it was starting and the question was asked, the answer was that it wasn't the right thing to do. The coin may still be a nice, good, coin, but it just didn't meet what JA wanted to see. Rather than stigmatize the coin, they prefer to NOT publicly show that it failed (THEY keep internal records, so they will know if it had been previously submitted in the same holder/cert#).
I still find it an interesting choice of theirs. It also increases the odds that they will see some of the same coins over and over. While they don’t currently charge for failed beans it does cost the owner shipping and insurance x number of owners. Seems wasteful.
Would it not be in the prospective buyer’s best interest to know it was attempted? The coin may be “stigmatized” by not having a bean when it may not have been submitted.
As an aside... I doubt most of my slabbed coins have ever been submitted. I know because I was the original submitter for slabbing on some of them and others were acquired before CAC was rumored. I thought about a CAC collector membership but I don’t know who all would notarize my application so to speak. So they’ll probably stay unsubmitted. Hopefully people won’t stigmatize them in the future if I sell any...
Do you feel the same way about PCGS and NGC not making a public record of which coins fail to cross to the others’ holders? Yes, buyers would like to know, but submitters would not want that information made public.
Actually, I do. There’s no reason to hide it in my opinion. I only speak for myself but every time I’ve tried to cross I’ve shared the results. I’ve seen others share as well. So clearly some submitters are comfortable sharing that information in public.
@TurtleCat said:
You know, I’ve never actually seen the rationale for why CAC doesn’t indicate whether a particular coin was submitted and not beaned. Perhaps they have stated it but I haven’t run across it. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation for why they won’t?
I believe, years ago when it was starting and the question was asked, the answer was that it wasn't the right thing to do. The coin may still be a nice, good, coin, but it just didn't meet what JA wanted to see. Rather than stigmatize the coin, they prefer to NOT publicly show that it failed (THEY keep internal records, so they will know if it had been previously submitted in the same holder/cert#).
I still find it an interesting choice of theirs. It also increases the odds that they will see some of the same coins over and over. While they don’t currently charge for failed beans it does cost the owner shipping and insurance x number of owners. Seems wasteful.
Would it not be in the prospective buyer’s best interest to know it was attempted? The coin may be “stigmatized” by not having a bean when it may not have been submitted.
As an aside... I doubt most of my slabbed coins have ever been submitted. I know because I was the original submitter for slabbing on some of them and others were acquired before CAC was rumored. I thought about a CAC collector membership but I don’t know who all would notarize my application so to speak. So they’ll probably stay unsubmitted. Hopefully people won’t stigmatize them in the future if I sell any...
I may be wrong but I believe a dealer is charged for every submission whether it passes or not. I believe you are referring to collector submissions
I was as that’s what I’ve looked at. So even more wasteful for dealers not to know.
@TurtleCat said:
You know, I’ve never actually seen the rationale for why CAC doesn’t indicate whether a particular coin was submitted and not beaned. Perhaps they have stated it but I haven’t run across it. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation for why they won’t?
It would discourage submissions, most likely.
Because it would create potential litigation with PCGS or NGC. It would be a public thumbs down on a grade. They might as well hang a scarlet "C" on the coin.
Yeah, good luck with that lawsuit. "Your honor, this man (JA) publicly stated that in his opinion certain coins slabbed by my client were not above average quality for their assigned grades."
A lawsuit need not be successful in order to cause pain and enormous costs. You may also not receive an award for your attorney’s fee.
If CAC had decided that it would be advantageous long-term for them to disclose failed submissions, a frivolous lawsuit (or two) would have been a small price to pay, IMHO. An open-and-shut hearing would not cause "enormous pain or costs". On what grounds could a case even be brought?
It doesn’t have to be 100% factually accurate; the allegations just need to be colorable on their face to survive a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion or whatever the state analog is if brought in state court. Otherwise it would be a question for the fact finder (likely a jury). Dismissal or summary judgment would be inappropriate if there are contested material facts, the pleading makes at least plausible allegations satisfying the elements for that cause of action, and if there are no procedural hurdles (e.g. jurisdiction, etc.). For determining whether the allegations are plausible a court will look only at whether those statements, if taken as truth, support the cause of action alleged.
Ex 1. Mythical Dealer A* deals with toned copper. CAC’s self appointed mouth piece Dealer B accuses Dealer A of being a coin doctor without evidence and goes on one of her vitriolic tirades. She clearly has a vendetta against Dealer A, or it at least plausibly appears so from her message board posts. Dealer B owned or owns a financial interest in CAC and maintains close contacts with it. Dealer B even helps promote its product and was instrumental in the price guide on CAC’s website. CAC rejects a pricey submission worth 6-7 figures of Dealer A’s coins. The results are posted for all to see by CAC. Customers now see that most or many of Dealer’s A coins have failed CAC. Dealer A is pissed and sues alleging common law conspiracy, tortious interference with a business relationship, and libel per se with CAC’s posted rejections being alleged to be a continuation of the alleged libelous statements made by Dealer B/insider and part of that conspiracy to harm Dealer A.
Ex 2. CAC has many financial backers. One notorious backer, Dealer C, trashes non-CAC coins. Dealer C then brags about his/her ability to buy the non-CAC coins cheaply, downgrade those coins in PCGS holders, sticker the coins, and then flip the coins for large profits. Dealer C also maintains that dealers who do not abide by this model are “crack out artists” and are unethical or sleazy. Several “crack out artists” file suit one by one all across the country. They allege a conspiracy and collusion to drive down prices at auction for CAC rejects so CAC’s principals can buy them (like Dealer C) for deep discounts, down grade them, and flip for profits. They sue based on the conspiracy/collusion rationale along with counts for unjust enrichment, tortious interference, etc. They also allege that wire and mail were used to collude/fix prices to their advantage. They allege enough facts/discrete violations to satisfy the requirements for two predicate offenses and also include a RICO count with request for monetary and injunctive relief.
*Dealer A and the story line is fictionalized although some elements sound familiar.
I believe both of these hypotheticals would be unfounded. I think CAC is beyond reproach. I also think both hypothetical suits would also survive summary judgment and motions to dismiss.
@TurtleCat said:
You know, I’ve never actually seen the rationale for why CAC doesn’t indicate whether a particular coin was submitted and not beaned. Perhaps they have stated it but I haven’t run across it. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation for why they won’t?
It would discourage submissions, most likely.
Because it would create potential litigation with PCGS or NGC. It would be a public thumbs down on a grade. They might as well hang a scarlet "C" on the coin.
Yeah, good luck with that lawsuit. "Your honor, this man (JA) publicly stated that in his opinion certain coins slabbed by my client were not above average quality for their assigned grades."
That's not the way it need work. Cameonut laid out some complex cases. Could even be simpler. Collector could go after PCGS or NGC for having inflated the grade.
Just because you think the lawsuit us specious doesn't mean it won't get filed.
You've also got potential impairment of coins in auction. Do you think heritage or stacks want coins in their auctions painted with scarlet letters?
@TurtleCat said:
You know, I’ve never actually seen the rationale for why CAC doesn’t indicate whether a particular coin was submitted and not beaned. Perhaps they have stated it but I haven’t run across it. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation for why they won’t?
It would discourage submissions, most likely.
Because it would create potential litigation with PCGS or NGC. It would be a public thumbs down on a grade. They might as well hang a scarlet "C" on the coin.
Yeah, good luck with that lawsuit. "Your honor, this man (JA) publicly stated that in his opinion certain coins slabbed by my client were not above average quality for their assigned grades."
That's not the way it need work. Cameonut laid out some complex cases. Could even be simpler. Collector could go after PCGS or NGC for having inflated the grade.
Just because you think the lawsuit us specious doesn't mean it won't get filed.
Admittedly I'm not a lawyer (or even close), but I'm not claiming a specious lawsuit wouldn't get filed, just that it presumably wouldn't be protracted and costly to the defendant.
You've also got potential impairment of coins in auction. Do you think heritage or stacks want coins in their auctions painted with scarlet letters?
Come now. Do you think any coin worth upwards of (say) $5-10k that appears in a major auction nowadays without a sticker isn't presumed by pretty much everyone to have failed CAC? While a tiny percentage actually may never have been sent, none will be given the benefit of the doubt.
I read the entire thread and managed to somehow not learn anything new
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......
So much drama over one little sticker. It seems that CAC makes some dealers out there nervous and or angry. I'm sure these are the same ones who made a nice profit in the crack out game.
@keets said: I don’t understand the biased standards part.
it is probably directed to the fact that one opinion decides the sticker
More likely, Larry is thinking that CAC is biased against blue copper. Probably true, but maybe a justifiable bias.
I've had conversations with Larry about this, who thinks that CAC is biased against toned copper, not just blue copper. I think there is some justification for that view, as grading toned copper is not CAC's strong suit.
Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.
@chesterb said:
So much drama over one little sticker. It seems that CAC makes some dealers out there nervous and or angry. I'm sure these are the same ones who made a nice profit in the crack out game.
Many of CAC’s biggest proponents are crack out artists albeit in a slightly different form. Buy, downgrade/crack, sticker, and churn. It goes both ways. I don’t get the animus with crack outs - we all do it.
I’ve also have had long drawn out conversations with Larry on the subject. We don’t agree so we no longer discuss it. I’ve mentioned this before but he was one of my two mentors and held my hand before I ever bought my first coin. In fact Larry and I sat together the night JA unleashed the CAC mission statement to a group of us at a paid event in Colorado Springs. Who knew that this was going to be such a game changer.
Larry is a toned commem and Indian cent guru. Most “experts” don’t like being second guessed. This could be part of the rub.
The great thing about coin collecting is it’s not a one size fits all hobby. It’s an individual pursuit. Do it how you want. All my eligible coins are stickered now. That’s my jam. I don’t judge how others collect. It doesn’t effect me. I will say that a few of my coins didn’t sticker at one point and I made sure I learned why not. It opened my eyes. I couldn’t argue because is these cases he was 100% right. I missed some things. It made me more savvy or at least I think so.
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:
I read the entire thread and managed to somehow not learn anything new
m
Are you honestly surprised?
Need a “nope” button
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......
Another true statement is that there would not be a ton of posts if every CAC thread wasn't regarded as a mine field.
The service is a valid element in the coin arena.
I also have learned nothing new but I think if there were less controversy and the topic wasn't a sure "poof" some of the discussion ...could...be educational.
@topstuf said:
Another true statement is that there would not be a ton of posts if every CAC thread wasn't regarded as a mine field.
The service is a valid element in the coin arena.
I also have learned nothing new but I think if there were less controversy and the topic wasn't a sure "poof" some of the discussion ...could...be educational.
Who knew collectors were such a sensitive lot.
Agree on your statements. Most people seemed to have dug their heels in on the subject and it’s become almost fruitless to discuss it at this point.
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......
@keets said: I don’t understand the biased standards part.
it is probably directed to the fact that one opinion decides the sticker
More likely, Larry is thinking that CAC is biased against blue copper. Probably true, but maybe a justifiable bias.
I've had conversations with Larry about this, who thinks that CAC is biased against toned copper, not just blue copper. I think there is some justification for that view, as grading toned copper is not CAC's strong suit.
Based on a phone conversation I had with JA years ago (post-CAC creation though), that was true at that time and could still be true. I sent a few handfuls of proof IHCs and requested a phone call post evaluation. It happened, we talked.
Even after that, and not all of my IHCs (some of them very nicely toned...and NOT blue) being stickered, I still respect JA and the service....mainly for non-toned copper
Outside of this forum I have seen indifference at best on CAC. I admit that I do not collect ultra high end coins or deal with large high end dealers.
Much of the coin market does not seem to care all that much about stickers as it is below a price-point that the sticker adds a large amount of value. At the level of the largest part of the market resides the sticker companies do hold much sway at all. Most collectors do not participate in registry sets, or hold coins of great value.
Here and across the street are many people who seem to think that the level of which I speak is unimportant to the market, but it is by far the largest part, and what keeps many dealers in business, of the market. The dealer mentioned may not be wrong that CAC is harmful as it adds an unnecessary layer that many collectors do not understand and raises expectations to the under informed.
Comments
GOOD FOR YOU !!!
AND.... GOOD FOR ANYONE WHO LIKES ANYTHING ABOUT THE COINS THEY BUY!!
There's a lot to be said for enjoying the coins that ...POP.... in your stash.
Fun thread
My YouTube Channel
Zoins,
You are correct. I should have proofread my post first.
I went swimming for an hour, and came back to see 24 new posts.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Since we are on a coin forum, I figured I post a coin which has this disclaimer so we have something concrete to talk about.
1879 Morgan Dollar Pattern J-1616 - PCGS PR67+BN POP 1/0 CAC - Ex-Shepherd
The top TrueView is from Larry's website when it was sold with the disclaimer. The bottom coin is the current TrueView and cert number. The dealer TrueView seems enhanced given the background comparison with the new one.
Larry sold this for $38,500 and then Heritage sold it for $21,600 at FUN in Jan 2018 so it lost 44% of its value before seller fees. It wasn't CAC at FUN but is now. I don't think the Heritage photos did the coin any favors.
Senseless to call them a grading service. All they do is express their opinion (by affixing a bean) that a coin falls into the upper end of an assigned grade, or is worthy of a higher grade. Period. They affix nothing to indicate that they feel that a coin does not meet those criteria, or that a coin is overgraded, or that a coin is not genuine, or that a coin has been altered. Those coins simply get returned to the submitter with no indication that they have ever been submitted. Since there is no way to determine whether an unbeaned coin has ever been submitted, there is no way to know that CAC has or has not passed judgement on that coin.
Coinlearner, Ahrensdad, Nolawyer, RG, coinlieutenant, Yorkshireman, lordmarcovan, Soldi, masscrew, JimTyler, Relaxn, jclovescoins, justindan, doubleeagle07
Now listen boy, I'm tryin' to teach you sumthin' . . . . that ain't no optical illusion, it only looks like an optical illusion.
My mind reader refuses to charge me. . . . . . .
You know, I’ve never actually seen the rationale for why CAC doesn’t indicate whether a particular coin was submitted and not beaned. Perhaps they have stated it but I haven’t run across it. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation for why they won’t?
It would discourage submissions, most likely.
CAC is a Second Opinion service who just agrees or disagrees with the Grade.
Kinda like hiring a mechanic to glance at a used car before you purchase.
The wording of the title is strange. A "CAC disclaimer" would seem to be CAC, itself, making a disclaimer about something.
Rather, from the context of the OP, it is a "disclaimer ABOUT CAC".
That said, dealers, and collectors, are within their rights to not like something. I, personally, think, as a collector, it is short-sighted and ignorant to think of only non-CAC coins. Just as it would be to ONLY think of CAC coins.
For a dealer to make that type of statement, it makes me think they had coins that were money coins to them that they tried to get CAC'ed and it didn't happen, for whatever reason. Made someone mad and they still wanted to sell the coins for all the money anyway but, if they didn't have stickers and others did, they would be questioned about it and stronger negotiations on those coins would happen....or nothing about those coins, at those prices, would happen.
Not a big news story, to me at least, as there are people who feel very strongly about it and, well to be blunt, dealers want to make the most money they can in most instances and CAC can put a damper on that if some coins won't sticker for the dealers that have them.....
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 believe, years ago when it was starting and the question was asked, the answer was that it wasn't the right thing to do. The coin may still be a nice, good, coin, but it just didn't meet what JA wanted to see. Rather than stigmatize the coin, they prefer to NOT publicly show that it failed (THEY keep internal records, so they will know if it had been previously submitted in the same holder/cert#).
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
A thread on a CAC disclaimer. I'm shocked!
In other words,"CAC has not been very very good TO ME".
They don't feel the need to badmouth or disparage coins that don't meet their standards.
Perhaps you don’t mean it that way, but your frequent use of “LOL” when you disagree with other, comes across as
disrespectful and rude.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Could also be a losing strategy as well. It happened to me inadvertently after a PCGA w/ CAC coin was sent back to PCGS and CAC for regrading when the holder arrived damaged in the mail (no damage to the coin). The coin came back from PCGS and CAC stickered at a lower grade level. No gold bean, either.
What apparently happened is the coin was close to the line between grades when first graded and PCGS had tightened their standards since then. The coin didn't change, though, so I'm fine with the grade change.
LOL! LOL!
Because it would create potential litigation with PCGS or NGC. It would be a public thumbs down on a grade. They might as well hang a scarlet "C" on the coin.
Oh, I think he means it that way.
So, you would also claim that Rick Snow is a grading service?
Yeah, good luck with that lawsuit. "Your honor, this man (JA) publicly stated that in his opinion certain coins slabbed by my client were not above average quality for their assigned grades."
I mentioned to my wife that you attack me on this forum every chance you get. She said you must Love me!
A lawsuit need not be successful in order to cause pain and enormous costs. You may also not receive an award for your attorney’s fee.
When has Mark ever attacked you? I have seen you attack forum members including one running for political office and then somehow made yourself the “victim” in all of it.
If CAC had decided that it would be advantageous long-term for them to disclose failed submissions, a frivolous lawsuit (or two) would have been a small price to pay, IMHO. An open-and-shut hearing would not cause "enormous pain or costs". On what grounds could a case even be brought?
I'll just give you the
Ah well, enjoyed this thread while it lasted. Guess Monday morning we may find it closed.
I still find it an interesting choice of theirs. It also increases the odds that they will see some of the same coins over and over. While they don’t currently charge for failed beans it does cost the owner shipping and insurance x number of owners. Seems wasteful.
Would it not be in the prospective buyer’s best interest to know it was attempted? The coin may be “stigmatized” by not having a bean when it may not have been submitted.
As an aside... I doubt most of my slabbed coins have ever been submitted. I know because I was the original submitter for slabbing on some of them and others were acquired before CAC was rumored. I thought about a CAC collector membership but I don’t know who all would notarize my application so to speak. So they’ll probably stay unsubmitted. Hopefully people won’t stigmatize them in the future if I sell any...
Do you feel the same way about PCGS and NGC not making a public record of which coins fail to cross to the others’ holders? Yes, buyers would like to know, but submitters would not want that information made public.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
E> @TurtleCat said:
I may be wrong but I believe a dealer is charged for every submission whether it passes or not. I believe you are referring to collector submissions
Larry does buy CAC coins and has some in his inventory but doesn't promote it's stickered. Evan Gale for years also had a CAC disclaimer on his site and did not mention if a coin was stickered. There's probably about 10 other top dealers although they do not have a CAC disclaimer do not mention if something is stickered nor submit anything to CAC,
Actually, I do. There’s no reason to hide it in my opinion. I only speak for myself but every time I’ve tried to cross I’ve shared the results. I’ve seen others share as well. So clearly some submitters are comfortable sharing that information in public.
I was as that’s what I’ve looked at. So even more wasteful for dealers not to know.
It doesn’t have to be 100% factually accurate; the allegations just need to be colorable on their face to survive a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion or whatever the state analog is if brought in state court. Otherwise it would be a question for the fact finder (likely a jury). Dismissal or summary judgment would be inappropriate if there are contested material facts, the pleading makes at least plausible allegations satisfying the elements for that cause of action, and if there are no procedural hurdles (e.g. jurisdiction, etc.). For determining whether the allegations are plausible a court will look only at whether those statements, if taken as truth, support the cause of action alleged.
Ex 1. Mythical Dealer A* deals with toned copper. CAC’s self appointed mouth piece Dealer B accuses Dealer A of being a coin doctor without evidence and goes on one of her vitriolic tirades. She clearly has a vendetta against Dealer A, or it at least plausibly appears so from her message board posts. Dealer B owned or owns a financial interest in CAC and maintains close contacts with it. Dealer B even helps promote its product and was instrumental in the price guide on CAC’s website. CAC rejects a pricey submission worth 6-7 figures of Dealer A’s coins. The results are posted for all to see by CAC. Customers now see that most or many of Dealer’s A coins have failed CAC. Dealer A is pissed and sues alleging common law conspiracy, tortious interference with a business relationship, and libel per se with CAC’s posted rejections being alleged to be a continuation of the alleged libelous statements made by Dealer B/insider and part of that conspiracy to harm Dealer A.
Ex 2. CAC has many financial backers. One notorious backer, Dealer C, trashes non-CAC coins. Dealer C then brags about his/her ability to buy the non-CAC coins cheaply, downgrade those coins in PCGS holders, sticker the coins, and then flip the coins for large profits. Dealer C also maintains that dealers who do not abide by this model are “crack out artists” and are unethical or sleazy. Several “crack out artists” file suit one by one all across the country. They allege a conspiracy and collusion to drive down prices at auction for CAC rejects so CAC’s principals can buy them (like Dealer C) for deep discounts, down grade them, and flip for profits. They sue based on the conspiracy/collusion rationale along with counts for unjust enrichment, tortious interference, etc. They also allege that wire and mail were used to collude/fix prices to their advantage. They allege enough facts/discrete violations to satisfy the requirements for two predicate offenses and also include a RICO count with request for monetary and injunctive relief.
*Dealer A and the story line is fictionalized although some elements sound familiar.
I believe both of these hypotheticals would be unfounded. I think CAC is beyond reproach. I also think both hypothetical suits would also survive summary judgment and motions to dismiss.
That's not the way it need work. Cameonut laid out some complex cases. Could even be simpler. Collector could go after PCGS or NGC for having inflated the grade.
Just because you think the lawsuit us specious doesn't mean it won't get filed.
You've also got potential impairment of coins in auction. Do you think heritage or stacks want coins in their auctions painted with scarlet letters?
Well I never needed Hall, Albanese or QDB to make a buck. That's a fact.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Admittedly I'm not a lawyer (or even close), but I'm not claiming a specious lawsuit wouldn't get filed, just that it presumably wouldn't be protracted and costly to the defendant.
Come now. Do you think any coin worth upwards of (say) $5-10k that appears in a major auction nowadays without a sticker isn't presumed by pretty much everyone to have failed CAC? While a tiny percentage actually may never have been sent, none will be given the benefit of the doubt.
I read the entire thread and managed to somehow not learn anything new
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......
Addendum to my initial post : " although I sure made more because of them "
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
So much drama over one little sticker. It seems that CAC makes some dealers out there nervous and or angry. I'm sure these are the same ones who made a nice profit in the crack out game.
I've had conversations with Larry about this, who thinks that CAC is biased against toned copper, not just blue copper. I think there is some justification for that view, as grading toned copper is not CAC's strong suit.
Are you honestly surprised?
Many of CAC’s biggest proponents are crack out artists albeit in a slightly different form. Buy, downgrade/crack, sticker, and churn. It goes both ways. I don’t get the animus with crack outs - we all do it.
I’ve also have had long drawn out conversations with Larry on the subject. We don’t agree so we no longer discuss it. I’ve mentioned this before but he was one of my two mentors and held my hand before I ever bought my first coin. In fact Larry and I sat together the night JA unleashed the CAC mission statement to a group of us at a paid event in Colorado Springs. Who knew that this was going to be such a game changer.
Larry is a toned commem and Indian cent guru. Most “experts” don’t like being second guessed. This could be part of the rub.
The great thing about coin collecting is it’s not a one size fits all hobby. It’s an individual pursuit. Do it how you want. All my eligible coins are stickered now. That’s my jam. I don’t judge how others collect. It doesn’t effect me. I will say that a few of my coins didn’t sticker at one point and I made sure I learned why not. It opened my eyes. I couldn’t argue because is these cases he was 100% right. I missed some things. It made me more savvy or at least I think so.
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......
Yep
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Need a “nope” button
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 think this is the most true statement in this thread.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Another true statement is that there would not be a ton of posts if every CAC thread wasn't regarded as a mine field.
The service is a valid element in the coin arena.
I also have learned nothing new but I think if there were less controversy and the topic wasn't a sure "poof" some of the discussion ...could...be educational.
Who knew collectors were such a sensitive lot.
Agree on your statements. Most people seemed to have dug their heels in on the subject and it’s become almost fruitless to discuss it at this point.
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......
Based on a phone conversation I had with JA years ago (post-CAC creation though), that was true at that time and could still be true. I sent a few handfuls of proof IHCs and requested a phone call post evaluation. It happened, we talked.
Even after that, and not all of my IHCs (some of them very nicely toned...and NOT blue) being stickered, I still respect JA and the service....mainly for non-toned copper
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
Outside of this forum I have seen indifference at best on CAC. I admit that I do not collect ultra high end coins or deal with large high end dealers.
Much of the coin market does not seem to care all that much about stickers as it is below a price-point that the sticker adds a large amount of value. At the level of the largest part of the market resides the sticker companies do hold much sway at all. Most collectors do not participate in registry sets, or hold coins of great value.
Here and across the street are many people who seem to think that the level of which I speak is unimportant to the market, but it is by far the largest part, and what keeps many dealers in business, of the market. The dealer mentioned may not be wrong that CAC is harmful as it adds an unnecessary layer that many collectors do not understand and raises expectations to the under informed.