CAC Stickered Coin Rejected for PVC
This is not my coin, it’s a screenshot of a post that I saw on Instagram recently that I thought was worthy of discussion.
From what I gather it’s a previously green stickered coin that was sent into CAC for gold sticker reconsideration, and failed for PVC as noted on the red label.
That raises at least a few questions for me.
1. how did it pass CAC in the first place?
2. if it’s a red sticker “problem coin”, why wouldn’t CAC revoke the green sticker?
3. Is there some level of PVC that’s acceptable for a green sticker, but not a gold?
Comments
-
Based on the information provided, I’m surprised that CAC didn’t remove the sticker and compensate the owner, accordingly. However, perhaps there is more to the story.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
6 -
Ask CAC.
1 -
- It may not have been visible initially.
- They should have.
- ABSOLUTELY NOT.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
2 -
It also may not be a completely accurate or true story. FWIW
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
0 -
@POCKETCHANGE, I contacted John Albanese to make him aware of the situation. He asked that (paraphrased) if you or someone can get in touch with the submitter, he’d appreciate it if you or they would ask him to please call CAC so that John can talk to him about this.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
14 -
Coins can go bad in a holder at any time. TPG grading or stickering is a point in time.
Consequently look at any possible new purchases carefully. Stickered or not.
I pass on ugly tarnished, spotted coins.
Investor7 -
Just a wild guess here, but
- They either missed it the first time around or it developed later. No one will ever know, probably.
- To give the owner the option of flipping it, perhaps. Removing the sticker may penalize the current owner. Better to communicate but then the value doesn’t justify a whole lot of back and forth with or without the bean.
- Heck no.
0 -
Low value coin, $50 or so, hardly merits a grading submission in the first place; screening process was not as rigorous as it could have been. Probably not a major "pvc" issue, but enough to trigger their red label. Why was a low value coin like that sent back for an upgrade which would not have been much of a money incentive in the first place?
2 -
@MFeld said:
@POCKETCHANGE, I contacted John Albanese to make him aware of the situation. He asked that (paraphrased) if you or someone can get in touch with the submitter, he’d appreciate it if you or they would ask him to please call CAC so that John can talk to him about this.I messaged the account that posted the image in my OP, and made them aware of JA's offer and shared a link to this post. I'll provide an update (with that person's permission) if anything comes from it.
12 -
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
@MFeld said:
@POCKETCHANGE, I contacted John Albanese to make him aware of the situation. He asked that (paraphrased) if you or someone can get in touch with the submitter, he’d appreciate it if you or they would ask him to please call CAC so that John can talk to him about this.I messaged the account that posted the image in my OP, and made them aware of JA's offer and shared a link to this post. I'll provide an update (with that person's permission) if anything comes from it.
Thank you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
3 -
I’m sure JA will make it right, but they should have just pulled the sticker and compensated the submitter. Cheap enough coin.
I’m sure JA will ask if he can buy the coin back.
Collector of Original Early Gold with beginnings in Proof Morgan collecting.0 -
Not to be overly critical. Just musing.
When CAC started it was embraced as a way to get JA's coveted approval on coins.
As it has grown immensely, do you know who is approving your coin?
I doubt JA looks at every coin.
Is their opinion valued to you?Honest questions as I don't keep up with it at all. I know the market still perceives CAC approved coins at a higher level, quality and price wise.
Can that continue?0 -
@Flatwoods said: As it has grown immensely, do you know who is approving your coin?
I doubt JA looks at every coin.A few years ago I dropped off several dozen commems to their NJ office. At that time there were two well respected dealers helping JA evaluate coins, I know one well and ran into him in the office.
Dr Mikey
Commems and Early Type1 -
@Flatwoods said:
Not to be overly critical. Just musing.When CAC started it was embraced as a way to get JA's coveted approval on coins.
As it has grown immensely, do you know who is approving your coin?
I doubt JA looks at every coin.
Is their opinion valued to you?Honest questions as I don't keep up with it at all. I know the market still perceives CAC approved coins at a higher level, quality and price wise.
Can that continue?I believe that J.A. views every coin that’s submitted for stickering. And CAC has made efforts to reduce the submissions for stickering, while encouraging submissions for CACG grading.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
7 -
@CommemDude said:
@Flatwoods said: As it has grown immensely, do you know who is approving your coin?
I doubt JA looks at every coin.A few years ago I dropped off several dozen commems to their NJ office. At that time there were two well respected dealers helping JA evaluate coins, I know one well and ran into him in the office.
Good to know. Thank you for the reply.
Like I said, I have no concern either way just musing.
Its a far reaching question when you think about it.0 -
@Proofmorgan said:
I’m sure JA will make it right, but they should have just pulled the sticker and compensated the submitter. Cheap enough coin.I’m sure JA will ask if he can buy the coin back.
I think CACG and other TPGs should and would not take this authoritarian approach. It is still the submitter's property, doing what you suggested is a good way to end up in a lawsuit regardless of the value of the coin. In this case what they did was the correct thing to do although it fell short of the optimal thing to do which would have been to accompany the coin with or pro-actively reach out the submitter and offer to purchase the coin under the guarantee program.
4 -
@MFeld said:
@Flatwoods said:
Not to be overly critical. Just musing.When CAC started it was embraced as a way to get JA's coveted approval on coins.
As it has grown immensely, do you know who is approving your coin?
I doubt JA looks at every coin.
Is their opinion valued to you?Honest questions as I don't keep up with it at all. I know the market still perceives CAC approved coins at a higher level, quality and price wise.
Can that continue?I believe that J.A. views every coin that’s submitted for stickering. And CAC has made efforts to reduce the submissions for stickering, while encouraging submissions for CACG grading.
Another good thing to know.
I wasn't aware.
He's a busy man.0 -
@ProofCollection said:
I think CACG and other TPGs should and would not take this authoritarian approach. It is still the submitter's property, doing what you suggested is a good way to end up in a lawsuit regardless of the value of the coin. In this case what they did was the correct thing to do although it fell short of the optimal thing to do which would have been to accompany the coin with or pro-actively reach out the submitter and offer to purchase the coin under the guarantee program.This is a logical and sensible approach. However, by virtue of submitting the coin for evaluation, does that open the submitter to a potential negative outcome in addition to the possibility of an upgrade?
As a more extreme analogy, suppose PCGS receives a coin for Reconsideration that they previously authenticated but now determine to be counterfeit. Should the buyback offer be optional or mandatory?
0 -
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
@ProofCollection said:
I think CACG and other TPGs should and would not take this authoritarian approach. It is still the submitter's property, doing what you suggested is a good way to end up in a lawsuit regardless of the value of the coin. In this case what they did was the correct thing to do although it fell short of the optimal thing to do which would have been to accompany the coin with or pro-actively reach out the submitter and offer to purchase the coin under the guarantee program.This is a logical and sensible approach. However, by virtue of submitting the coin for evaluation, does that open the submitter to a potential negative outcome in addition to the possibility of an upgrade?
As a more extreme analogy, suppose PCGS receives a coin for Reconsideration that they previously authenticated but now determine to be counterfeit. Should the buyback offer be optional or mandatory?
I believe that's all spelled out in the Terms and Conditions so the submitter knows what they are getting into when they send in a coin. I'm sure the TPGs shy away from language about confiscating coins that are submitted and allow the owners to make the final decision - it's probably better for business. For instance, if the collector vehemently disagrees that it is authentic, this could lead to quite a lawsuit and it's a friendlier policy.
0 -
@ProofCollection said:
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
@ProofCollection said:
I think CACG and other TPGs should and would not take this authoritarian approach. It is still the submitter's property, doing what you suggested is a good way to end up in a lawsuit regardless of the value of the coin. In this case what they did was the correct thing to do although it fell short of the optimal thing to do which would have been to accompany the coin with or pro-actively reach out the submitter and offer to purchase the coin under the guarantee program.This is a logical and sensible approach. However, by virtue of submitting the coin for evaluation, does that open the submitter to a potential negative outcome in addition to the possibility of an upgrade?
As a more extreme analogy, suppose PCGS receives a coin for Reconsideration that they previously authenticated but now determine to be counterfeit. Should the buyback offer be optional or mandatory?
I believe that's all spelled out in the Terms and Conditions so the submitter knows what they are getting into when they send in a coin. I'm sure the TPGs shy away from language about confiscating coins that are submitted and allow the owners to make the final decision - it's probably better for business. For instance, if the collector vehemently disagrees that it is authentic, this could lead to quite a lawsuit and it's a friendlier policy.
For a counterfeit coin, or any other problem, they could just pull the cert or insert a notation.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
0 -
Just keep sending it in and repaying the fees. Eventually you just might get the stickers you want. RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Wooooha! Did someone just say it's officially "TACO™" Tuesday????
Retiring at 55, what day is today?
2 -
@logger7 said:
Low value coin, $50 or so, hardly merits a grading submission in the first place; screening process was not as rigorous as it could have been. Probably not a major "pvc" issue, but enough to trigger their red label. Why was a low value coin like that sent back for an upgrade which would not have been much of a money incentive in the first place?In case you are not aware that is a Gen 2.1 holder, PCGS used that for only three months at the end of 1989. Grading and the cost to grade were a bit different then than now. Additionally, Merc dimes with gold beans routinely sell for $400 -$500 so yes it most certainly was worth the attempt to submit for a review and try for a gold bean.
3 -
@MFeld said:
@POCKETCHANGE, I contacted John Albanese to make him aware of the situation. He asked that (paraphrased) if you or someone can get in touch with the submitter, he’d appreciate it if you or they would ask him to please call CAC so that John can talk to him about this.That coin is in a 2.0 double holder, and graded when? 35 years ago? CAC should be able to tell from cert umber who the submitter was and when it was graded/examined by them.
theknowitalltroll;1 -
Several years ago this issue was raised on the CAC Board.
"There are coins that need obvious conservation and those that could use a quick bath in acetone but would have to be cracked out to do it. For these kind of simple conservation scenarios do you envision the new CAC to communicate with the submitter first and offer it, reject the coin out of hand, or transfer it anyway?"
In October 2022, John Albanese answered referring to the new CAC now known as CACG
"On the PVC front: If an already stickered coin is submitted for crossing and it exhibits PVC, we will contact you and will encourage you to allow us to remove the PVC with a solvent. We already have provisions for this in our building plan as serious ventilation is needed. There will , of course, be no added charge for this. JA "
7 -
@DisneyFan said:
Several years ago this issue was raised on the CAC Board."There are coins that need obvious conservation and those that could use a quick bath in acetone but would have to be cracked out to do it. For these kind of simple conservation scenarios do you envision the new CAC to communicate with the submitter first and offer it, reject the coin out of hand, or transfer it anyway?"
In October 2022, John Albanese answered referring to the new CAC now known as CACG
"On the PVC front: If an already stickered coin is submitted for crossing and it exhibits PVC, we will contact you and will encourage you to allow us to remove the PVC with a solvent. We already have provisions for this in our building plan as serious ventilation is needed. There will , of course, be no added charge for this. JA "
Except this wasn't a cross, it was a reconsideration on the sticker. So, it is CAC and not CACG. They are separate operations even though they are the same company.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
2 -
@Flatwoods said:
@MFeld said:
@Flatwoods said:
Not to be overly critical. Just musing.When CAC started it was embraced as a way to get JA's coveted approval on coins.
As it has grown immensely, do you know who is approving your coin?
I doubt JA looks at every coin.
Is their opinion valued to you?Honest questions as I don't keep up with it at all. I know the market still perceives CAC approved coins at a higher level, quality and price wise.
Can that continue?I believe that J.A. views every coin that’s submitted for stickering. And CAC has made efforts to reduce the submissions for stickering, while encouraging submissions for CACG grading.
Another good thing to know.
I wasn't aware.
He's a busy man.IIRC he is the finalizer.
theknowitalltroll;3 -
@BAJJERFAN said:
@Flatwoods said:
@MFeld said:
@Flatwoods said:
Not to be overly critical. Just musing.When CAC started it was embraced as a way to get JA's coveted approval on coins.
As it has grown immensely, do you know who is approving your coin?
I doubt JA looks at every coin.
Is their opinion valued to you?Honest questions as I don't keep up with it at all. I know the market still perceives CAC approved coins at a higher level, quality and price wise.
Can that continue?I believe that J.A. views every coin that’s submitted for stickering. And CAC has made efforts to reduce the submissions for stickering, while encouraging submissions for CACG grading.
Another good thing to know.
I wasn't aware.
He's a busy man.IIRC he is the finalizer.
That’s correct.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
2 -
They just missed it, CAC, maybe PCGS did too! It could have turned in the holder over 35 years also. I don't think any third party grading service is infallible. looks like a small spot on a small coin...
The court jester does not play, but gently pulls the strings…
1 -
@coinbuf said:
@logger7 said:
Low value coin, $50 or so, hardly merits a grading submission in the first place; screening process was not as rigorous as it could have been. Probably not a major "pvc" issue, but enough to trigger their red label. Why was a low value coin like that sent back for an upgrade which would not have been much of a money incentive in the first place?In case you are not aware that is a Gen 2.1 holder, PCGS used that for only three months at the end of 1989. Grading and the cost to grade were a bit different then than now. Additionally, Merc dimes with gold beans routinely sell for $400 -$500 so yes it most certainly was worth the attempt to submit for a review and try for a gold bean.
Of the 4 "double holder" varieties based on label that is the 2.0. The 2.5 has PCGS on the top and the 3.0 is the doily. There is also a 3.5 [pictured] which has the bar code line and garde line not in sync at the beginning.
theknowitalltroll;3 -
@BAJJERFAN said:
Of the 4 "double holder" varieties based on label that is the 2.0. The 2.5 has PCGS on the top and the 3.0 is the doily. There is also a 3.5 [pictured] which has the bar code line and garde line not in sync at the beginning.If you are using the Conder101 listing yes, I was using the PCGS museum of holders reference which lists this as 2.1. The fact that Conder101 has no 2.1 listed should have been a clue for you.
0 -
@jmlanzaf said:
@DisneyFan said:
Several years ago this issue was raised on the CAC Board."There are coins that need obvious conservation and those that could use a quick bath in acetone but would have to be cracked out to do it. For these kind of simple conservation scenarios do you envision the new CAC to communicate with the submitter first and offer it, reject the coin out of hand, or transfer it anyway?"
In October 2022, John Albanese answered referring to the new CAC now known as CACG
"On the PVC front: If an already stickered coin is submitted for crossing and it exhibits PVC, we will contact you and will encourage you to allow us to remove the PVC with a solvent. We already have provisions for this in our building plan as serious ventilation is needed. There will , of course, be no added charge for this. JA "
Except this wasn't a cross, it was a reconsideration on the sticker. So, it is CAC and not CACG. They are separate operations even though they are the same company.
That was understood. Crossing would be another option for the collector with the CAC PVC coin.
0 -
@coinbuf said:
@BAJJERFAN said:
Of the 4 "double holder" varieties based on label that is the 2.0. The 2.5 has PCGS on the top and the 3.0 is the doily. There is also a 3.5 [pictured] which has the bar code line and garde line not in sync at the beginning.If you are using the Conder101 listing yes, I was using the PCGS museum of holders reference which lists this as 2.1. The fact that Conder101 has no 2.1 listed should have been a clue for you.
I don't have the Condor 101 stuff committed to memory. It's been probably 10 years since I have even been involved with the double holders. There is one type, but 4 varieties based on the label only as I indicated. The example posed by the OP is probably more important in that respect.
theknowitalltroll;0 -
In a roundabout way this should give confidence in CAC. They evidently made a mistake and have now admitted as much by leaving their original Green Sticker on the coin.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
2 -
@Maywood said:
In a roundabout way this should give confidence in CAC. They evidently made a mistake and have now admitted as much by leaving their original Green Sticker on the coin.I would think it best to correct a mistake rather than simply admitting it without further action.
1 -
@RedRocket said:
@Maywood said:
In a roundabout way this should give confidence in CAC. They evidently made a mistake and have now admitted as much by leaving their original Green Sticker on the coin.I would think it best to correct a mistake rather than simply admitting it without further action.
I’m certain that if given the opportunity by the submitter, they’ll gladly correct whatever mistake they made.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
3 -
@MFeld said:
@RedRocket said:
@Maywood said:
In a roundabout way this should give confidence in CAC. They evidently made a mistake and have now admitted as much by leaving their original Green Sticker on the coin.I would think it best to correct a mistake rather than simply admitting it without further action.
I’m certain that if given the opportunity by the submitter, they’ll gladly correct whatever mistake they made.
100%.
I would think though, even without the submitter's approval CAC would remove a CAC sticker on coins that proved- even at a later date- not worthy of it. Obviously there would be a consideration monetarily to the owner. The CAC reputation should arise above all the noise otherwise.
I bet it is what PCGS makes a practice of doing when errors are brought to their attention.0 -
@RedRocket said:
@MFeld said:
@RedRocket said:
@Maywood said:
In a roundabout way this should give confidence in CAC. They evidently made a mistake and have now admitted as much by leaving their original Green Sticker on the coin.I would think it best to correct a mistake rather than simply admitting it without further action.
I’m certain that if given the opportunity by the submitter, they’ll gladly correct whatever mistake they made.
100%.
I would think though, even without the submitter's approval CAC would remove a CAC sticker on coins that proved- even at a later date- not worthy of it. Obviously there would be a consideration monetarily to the owner. The CAC reputation should arise above all the noise otherwise.
I bet it is what PCGS makes a practice of doing when errors are brought to their attention.I think that there should be a conversation between CAC and the submitter prior to removal of a sticker.
On the other hand, I doubt that PCGS removes CAC stickers from holders, with or without the submitter’s approval.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
1 -
The only criticism I have is that CAC should have reached out to the submitter with options rather than just returning with a red sticker. Should be their routine. CAC should absolutely NOT remove a sticker without the submitter’s permission. Given the low value of the coin, I wouldn’t put much shade on CAC, if any.
0 -
@oldabeintx said:
The only criticism I have is that CAC should have reached out to the submitter with options rather than just returning with a red sticker. Should be their routine. CAC should absolutely NOT remove a sticker without the submitter’s permission. Given the low value of the coin, I wouldn’t put much shade on CAC, if any.I am of the opinion CAC owns the sticker, the submitter pays for the opinion.
If the sticker is proved to not be warranted on the slab CAC should reserve the right to remove it.
Communications with the submitter would be secondary to this removal.
Perhaps CAC would need to change their bylaws allowing them to do so in the future.1 -
It’s a complex issue but once sticker defunct, obvious coin gone bad in holder it’s simply game over. Perhaps conservation service. Write off loss to opex.
A wholesaler (shop owner) I do business with before show opens (to public) I never had any problems with his material (as no pvc, gone bad in the holder apparent). He probably culls out (doesn’t purchase) that stuff when it comes in his shop.
My approach is to analyze any slabbed coin offered to me for quality and avoid pvc , horribly spotted, low end, low quality material. Many crc today tarnished, spotted dogs that went bad decades ago.
Investor0 -
@MFeld said:
@POCKETCHANGE, I contacted John Albanese to make him aware of the situation. He asked that (paraphrased) if you or someone can get in touch with the submitter, he’d appreciate it if you or they would ask him to please call CAC so that John can talk to him about this.Again CAC can tell who submitted it for recon and there should be contact info. John could just as easily contact him if he wanted to.
ETA: FWIW he would also know if the person who submitted it for recon was the original submitter; not that it should matter.theknowitalltroll;0 -
Did they miss the PVC the first time or did it become evident in the interim? How long between the 2 events? Seems like JA should have contacted the submitter BEFORE returning it. Considering its relatively low value he could have offered to buy it. Not worth the hassle of conserving and reholdering.
In the past I had a circ Walker bagged for PVC. IMO it was green paint and not PVC.
theknowitalltroll;0 -
@BAJJERFAN said:
Did they miss the PVC the first time or did it become evident in the interim? How long between the 2 events? Seems like JA should have contacted the submitter BEFORE returning it. Considering its relatively low value he could have offered to buy it. Not worth the hassle of conserving and reholdering.In the past I had a circ Walker bagged for PVC. IMO it was green paint and not PVC.
Does green paint on your coin qualify said coin to be stickered?
0 -
@Rc5280 said:
@BAJJERFAN said:
Did they miss the PVC the first time or did it become evident in the interim? How long between the 2 events? Seems like JA should have contacted the submitter BEFORE returning it. Considering its relatively low value he could have offered to buy it. Not worth the hassle of conserving and reholdering.In the past I had a circ Walker bagged for PVC. IMO it was green paint and not PVC.
Does green paint on your coin qualify said coin to be stickered?
It was Mint fresh.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
3 -
So you are saying people at CAC are human? Ok. Got it.
0 -
@Rc5280 said:
@BAJJERFAN said:
Did they miss the PVC the first time or did it become evident in the interim? How long between the 2 events? Seems like JA should have contacted the submitter BEFORE returning it. Considering its relatively low value he could have offered to buy it. Not worth the hassle of conserving and reholdering.In the past I had a circ Walker bagged for PVC. IMO it was green paint and not PVC.
Does green paint on your coin qualify said coin to be stickered?
PCGS is the one who bagged it, not CAC. CAC doesn't use body bags, at least I don't recall anyone ever using the term with CAC. The point is they just assumed it was PVC, but I doubt they examined it that closely.
theknowitalltroll;1
Leave a Comment
Categories
- All Categories
- 520.1K Coins and Currency - PCGS
- 328.6K U.S. Coin Forum
- 14.8K PCGS Set Registry Forum
- 5.2K Q & A Forum
- 41.4K World & Ancient Coins Forum
- 3K U.S. & World Currency Forum
- 96.4K Buy, Sell, & Trade - U.S. Coins
- 7.3K Buy, Sell & Trade - World & Ancient Coins
- 1.5K Buy, Sell & Trade - Currency
- 61 Random
- 246.2K Trading Cards, Autographs and Memorabilia - PSA
- 90.3K Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
- 1.7K Autographs Forum
- 16.4K PSA Set Registry Forum
- 22K Sports Talk
- 115K Buy, Sell & Trade - Cards & Memorabilia
- 663 Buy, Sell & Trade - Autographs
- 2.2K Stamps
- 1.5K Stamps Forum
- 670 Buy, Sell & Trade - Stamps
- 83 Coin Shows
- 83 General Coin Show Information and Discussion
- 11.9K Misc
- 11.9K Testing Forum