Random musing about fourth-party slab stickers
lordmarcovan
✭✭✭✭✭
So, if CAC can affirm the grade of a PCGS or NGC certified coin by affixing their trademark logo sticker to the slab label, then hypothetically, who’s to say PCGS and/or NGC couldn’t reciprocate, by affixing their logo stickers to a CACG slab?
For the consumer, it’s all about getting another expert opinion, right? I mean, why couldn’t all the respected/recognized top-tier services check each other’s work?
I’m not a CAC submitter myself. But let’s say I was active on the PCGS Registry (I’m not, anymore) and I had a CACG or NGC coin I wanted PCGS’ opinion on. Let’s imagine that a PCGS sticker on one of those slabs allowed me to include that coin in a PCGS Registry set without needing resubmission or crossover. That would make it worth submitting, for the sticker alone. Would save a lot of hassle, expense, and potential frustration.
I’m sure there are angles I haven’t considered here. Maybe reasons why it might be infeasible, or something the TPGs didn’t want to implement. But this is just some random musing, like I said.
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
Comments
Nothing stopping them. While it doesn't exactly establish a rock-paper-scissors relationship of scrutiny among the grading services, we now have CMQ available to reject CACG slabs.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
“CMQ” is an acronym that eludes me at present. 🤔
Apparently I’ve been on the Dark Side too long. Or simply living under a rock (hey, at least it’s cooler under there).
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
I think you might be about two decades behind the curve here.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
https://cmq.stacksbowers.com/
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
So, if CAC can affirm the grade of a PCGS or NGC certified coin by affixing their trademark logo sticker to the slab label, then hypothetically, who’s to say PCGS and/or NGC couldn’t reciprocate, by affixing their logo stickers to a CACG slab?
Good point! and hope the host here considers/re-considers this because two legitimate grading companies' opinions usually outweigh just one. A portion of the market seems to feel similarly as I know of experienced dealers/collectors who most often value a non-stickered, one graded company coin less than a stickered, two opinion graded coin.
A small cadre of professional numismatists has announced the formation of Premier Evaluation Services (PES). The group believes the current services provided by firms such as Certified Acceptance Corporation (CAC) should have an additional layer of review for collector and dealer confidence in the coin evaluations of Third-Party Grading Services (TPG). This group of professional numismatists has over 300 years of combined grading and evaluation experience.
PES will review coins that have been “stickered” by these companies. After review, if the coin is found to be unacceptable at the assigned grade level, the finalizer will remove the sticker on the holder. A new red sticker will be applied indicating the results of the evaluation. If the grade for the coin is acceptable, a purple sticker will be applied to the back of the holder.
Collectors and dealers will now have the ultimate confidence for purchasing coins that are solid for the assigned grade.
PES is conveniently located in Two Egg, Florida. Submissions are accepted in person every fifth Tuesday of each month from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm EST. There is no charge for this service.
End Systemic Elitism - It Takes All of Us
ANA LM, LSCC, EAC, FUN
I would think there's a philosophical point at play here. NGC and PCGS both believe that they and they alone, or perhaps the two of them collegiately if they're in a generous mood, are the final word on a coin's condition. This is, after all, why you're paying the TPGs the big bucks to do their thing: you are purchasing certainty. If you do not have that certainty from the slab alone, if you have doubts or want another opinion about a coin that's already in one of their slabs, you're supposed to want to send it back to the company that originally graded it for a revision, rather than send it to someone else. That's your money that's going elsewhere and not to PCGS/NGC.
So while they might acknowledge that CAC stickers exist - even to the extent of including CAC stickers in their own registry lists - they at the same time would reject the necessity or validity of their existence. "Stooping to their level" and slapping retaliatory stickers on CACG slabs would, in that sense, be giving CAC stickers a level of legitimacy and authority that PCGS and NGC would believe is not warranted.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded the DPOTD twice.
OMG. OMG. I’m like a giddy teenager. We need a thread for CMQ rejected CACG coins to see how all the companies differ in their standards.
They could but would lose money from the crack out game/resubmissions.
Wouldn’t be the first time. 😂
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
Yes. I did consider that angle.
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
The crack-out game is a very expensive game to play. I can see there being a demand for the PCGS sticker which would qualify properly graded NGC, ANACS, ICG, and CACG slabbed coins to be included in the PCGS registry. There are many older vintage slabs where the owner doesn't want the slab destroyed just so it can be included in the registry. The start-up cost for PCGS would be negligible (stickers and some computer software) and it would be an easy revenue stream for them.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I agree completely. Was imagining just this sort of thing.
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
Why is it "retaliatory"? When CAC started slabbing coins, was it retaliatory slabbing against NGC and PCGS?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
One could argue that CAC’s founding was, in fact, to retaliate against gradeflation and the erosion of the original standards of the other two TPGs that JA himself founded.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
It seems many of the current coin market participants crave expensive "opinions". The more the better.
There would absolutely be demand for it but think of it this way: Which would net more money? A sticker blessing a 65+ CACG coin tied for finest known or 10 resubmissions to try to make a PCGS 66 (sole top pop)? There are many different permutations of this scenario and it doesn't have to be top pop. Notice now that CACG has come along, CAC too plans to phase out its sticker. That it is revealing to me.
You can argue anything you like, but I do not think it would be a sound argument. CAC too has inflation in grade/sticker inflation. It is amazing that people think CAC and CACG would end differently than PCGS and NGC, both of the latter which were started in part by JA if my recollection is correct.
I’m not talking about where CACG ends up a decade down the line after being bought out by some private equity company because the founding investors want their capital back. I’m talking about the founding mission. And yes, the fact that JA founded all three only supports my hypothetical argument.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
But CAC's standards, by JA's own admissions, have changed while JA is still at the helm. In some areas (for instance thickly toned coins), JA has tightened. Based on the perceptions of many collectors including former owner TDN, there has been some sticker inflation (as opposed to tightening) as well. I think most who have submitted to CAC would agree with that. Why would JA retaliate against what he has, at least to some degree, tacitly endorsed?
And yes, while grade inflation was a consideration in originally starting CAC, I think the greater evil being targeted was doctoring. Many CAC rejects are tied to the latter.
The standards are relative, not chiseled into stone. JA can flex CAC’s standards and yet still be in contention with NGC/PCGS. CAC need not be held to an imaginary immaculate standard for the “retaliatory” argument to hold.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Indeed. And it's alarming as it is a sign of problems in the larger market. I can't think of healthy markets selling assets where multiple opinions are required before someone will consummate a sale.
The real evil is market grading that changes on the whim of the market. That is a standardless standard and will always create inefficiencies and problems as standards change and confuse the markets. No service has really come forward and held the line. CACG appears to have come the closest, but I am not sure it is a financially viable path long term. Services need a continuing stream of submissions for income and to subsidize guarantee claims. The entire model is flawed.
The original iteration of ANACS decades ago run as a non-profit by the ANA would be a better model. But alas, it would likely limit guarantees. Maybe something akin to the old ANACS model with an overlying sticker service to provide the liquidity element would be a fix. Hmm...
All the TPG’s offer what the OP is suggesting, it’s called crossover.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
There is so much that is wrong with this it's difficult to know where to begin. CAC works because a large portion of the market has trust in JA's grading and judgement abilities, please name the person working at PCGS or NGC that has the same level of market trust. If your thought is that this new sticker service would be performed by the regular grading staff how do you expect to see any consistent results as graders come and go? I think everyone understands that nobody is perfect and there will always be some variation of results when humans are involved, but I also think that JA has done a remarkably good job of staying in a very narrow lane of consistency over the years.
CAC came about for a few reasons, one is that JA was using it to prescreen/identify coins that he might want to make a market in, that should not be a goal for a TPG. Second was to identify the gems from all the junk that is slipping past the other TPG's under market grading. So now you want the firms that are letting the junk slip through to review the coins graded by the one TPG that is not market grading, really do not see how that is helpful.
The PCGS registry has always been exclusive, and many members here over the years have written about how much they would dislike PCGS including any other TPG into that registry. If you want inclusion there are places for that, the NGC registry, there is My Collect (which has major issues but is inclusive) even the CACG registry includes more than just CACG examples into that registry.
And as already mentioned the revenue stream losses from the crackout/crossover games would over time be huge for PCGS.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
@coinbuf- OK, that makes sense.
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.