Since grading standards are different at PCGS from those at NGC, and prices received for coins in these slabs reflect these differences, how will CAC handle this? Will a stickered PCGS MS65 have the same value as a stickered NGC MS66 as is the case in many series currently sans stickers?
<< <i>Are you saying that a coin stickered as an upgrade can be entered in the registry at a grade higher than the holder label?
That would depend on what you mean when you say the registry.
If so, does this mean that PCGS has agreed to do this?
I highly doubt it since HRH rejected the idea long ago - tho it certainly makes sense to give Registry stickers to lock upgrades and even to other TPG holdered coins that won't cross. >>
Okay, then what exactly are you talking about when you say "I also like the idea of being able to enter a coin on the Registry at a competition grade while retaining it in a rattler or OGH to prove the stability of the color". Is the CAC creating a registry?
Russ, NCNE >>
Yes. Where any stickered coin from any [accepted] TPG can compete apples to apples. If a significant coin can't be stickered, it will be given a Registry grade so it can participate. No more worrying that a coin won't cross so it can be entered into a Registry.
Expressing concerns and criticisms about a business idea is wailing? Or is it that the concerns and criticisms are "wailing" simply because they come from people who don't operate in the same rarified air as you? Hey, yeah, I'm just a widget collector. But, you know what? I've been in the business world a long time, and fundamental business concepts and realities transcend industry type.
Expressing concerns and criticisms about a business idea is wailing? Or is it that the concerns and criticisms are "wailing" simply because they come from people who don't operate in the same rarified air as you? Hey, yeah, I'm just a widget collector. But, you know what? I've been in the business world a long time, and fundamental business concepts and realities transcend industry type.
Russ, NCNE >>
Russ: 'wailing' in this context is accusing the CAC of attempting to cherry off upgrade candidates for their own profit and then when it becomes apparent they aren't going to do that, railing on them for how they aren't doing it.
The concept of "crack me out" stickers, I think, has made it harder for me to keep a "wait and see" approach. If I have a good eye for finding exceptional quality for the grade, I don't see how it benefits me to be forced to pay up a lot more for that quality if it has an "upgrade me" sticker on it. That helps dealers (more money trading hands, more confidence in sight-unseen coin buying). That helps collectors who have more money than coin grading skills. That helps pure investors. It does not seem to help knowledgeable collectors of moderate means.
Sorry, but the only way you're going to buy a lock upgrade for less than the coin is worth is to rip a collector's heir. Identifying those coins is a public service.
<< <i>Keep seeing this mentioned, where is that info coming from? >>
Well, TDN says he's in for a million. Taking him at his word, that leaves another $24 million. Silent partners, perhaps? >>
So, how is it even germane? How much does it take to look at and sticker slabs? >>
>>
If I remember correctly, I think I saw in the Coin World article that they are acquiring $10 million worth of PQ material to sticker with another $15 million available for more.
Expressing concerns and criticisms about a business idea is wailing? Or is it that the concerns and criticisms are "wailing" simply because they come from people who don't operate in the same rarified air as you? Hey, yeah, I'm just a widget collector. But, you know what? I've been in the business world a long time, and fundamental business concepts and realities transcend industry type.
Russ, NCNE >>
Russ: 'wailing' in this context is accusing the CAC of attempting to cherry off upgrade candidates for their own profit and then when it becomes apparent they aren't going to do that, railing on them for how they aren't doing it. >>
I never leveled that accusation. In fact, based on my conversations with Mark Feld I was in "wait and see, give them a chance" mode. However, that was before this new confusing "upgrade" sticker was added to the mix. The CAC is not only complicating the process by adding this, they are identifying the crackout candidates. It's a bad idea. They should just KISS it.
<< <i>Sorry, but the only way you're going to buy a lock upgrade for less than the coin is worth is to rip a collector's heir. Identifying those coins is a public service. >>
You missed the point by a mile, IMO. Nice job spinning this concern into stopping something unethical, though. IMO, that's exactly the problem with most of your responses on this topic.
The point is: The CAC will -- even if indirectly -- be redefining what the coin is worth.
It's not a "rip" if I pay $1200 for a nice 64 with upgrade potential if the sheet lists it for $900 -- as may happen today even in an auction with a lot of knowledgeable people participating and looking at the coin. Today, with a public auction of savvy buyers, $1200 is what the coin is worth -- the market has said so.
But put a "crack me out" sticker on it, and what will it sell for? A hell of a lot more than that -- probably, MUCH closer to full 65 money, even among (mostly) the same auction participants! The sticker will redefine what the market says it's worth.
You make it sound like predatory collectors are looking to rip a clueless widow for pennies on the dollar. IMO, that's shameful.
<< <i>Sorry, but the only way you're going to buy a lock upgrade for less than the coin is worth is to rip a collector's heir. Identifying those coins is a public service. >>
You missed the point by a mile, IMO. Nice job spinning this concern into stopping something unethical, though.
The point is: The CAC will -- even if indirectly -- be redefining what the coin is worth.
It's not a "rip" if I pay $1200 for a nice 64 with upgrade potential if the sheet lists it for $900 -- as may happen today even in an auction with a lot of knowledgeable people participating and looking at the coin. Today, with a public auction of savvy buyers, $1200 is what the coin is worth -- the market has said so.
But put a "crack me out" sticker on it, and what will it sell for? A hell of a lot more than that -- probably, MUCH closer to full 65 money, even among (mostly) the same auction participants! >>
You are grossly mistaken in your assumptions. Only lock upgrades will receive such a sticker. 90%+ of these will undoubtably be in very early certified holders and more likely than not reside in some collector's collection right now. Identifying such for the collector or his heirs is a public service.
Call it 'spin' all you want, but that's why it's being done. So collectors and their heirs don't get ripped off. That and so collectors may choose to keep their coins in early holders and participate in a Registry apples to apples. It's being done for the collector, plain and simple.
Expressing concerns and criticisms about a business idea is wailing? Or is it that the concerns and criticisms are "wailing" simply because they come from people who don't operate in the same rarified air as you? Hey, yeah, I'm just a widget collector. But, you know what? I've been in the business world a long time, and fundamental business concepts and realities transcend industry type.
Russ, NCNE >>
Russ: 'wailing' in this context is accusing the CAC of attempting to cherry off upgrade candidates for their own profit and then when it becomes apparent they aren't going to do that, railing on them for how they aren't doing it. >>
TDN, are you saying that the Coin World article saying that the CAC is acquiring $10 million in PQ coins to be stickered is incorrect?
"It's not a "rip" if I pay $1200 for a nice 64 with upgrade potential if the sheet lists it for $900 -- as may happen today even in an auction with a lot of knowledgeable people participating and looking at the coin. "
Right but if the coin is $3-4,000 in 65 a PQ high end coin is worth alot more than $1200. If a collector knows they have a PQ/possible upgrade sticker on the coin they will be better informed when negotiating rather than just getting $300 over sheet when they can get more over sheet. Your example above is exactly what the extra sticker is trying to prevent.
I read all the comments, considered the angles fully.
This idea will hurt everyone including the consortium.
In one word this grand idea is " BUNK". I don't care if they go ahead with their plans, it won't hurt me when they waste their time and money. There are just too many things that will disrupt their etophia. Count me out.
I am also in the "wait and see" camp, but I think that it is deleterious for the venture to drop little bits of information here and there, some of which turns out to be misinformation (in the Coin World article) and/or confusing (in the Bluesheet article). As one who is predisposed to be in favor of the service, my confidence in it is being undermined before it gets off the ground.
I know that, by reputation, John A is a fair, concerned, and well-intentioned numismatist. I wonder if collectors* have actually participated in the discussions and building of this new business. Has John A involved collectors? It might be worth considering, before getting off the ground, as it appears that the collectors here have quite a few interesting ideas about how things could/should be run, for mutual benefit to the numismatic community.
<< <i>Right but if the coin is $3-4,000 in 65 a PQ high end coin is worth alot more than $1200. If a collector knows they have a PQ coin they will be better informed when negotiating rather than just getting $300 over sheet when they can get more over sheet. >>
That's fine and good, but it's still not a benefit to the average collector. That's the point I was trying to make. The average collector who likes to buy nice coins will just get stretched out more.
This all sounds like "we're with the government, we're here to help you." There are valid reasons for doing some of this, but it's mostly not for the benefit or protection of average collectors, at least not those who are still "net buyers" of coins and who already have a good eye for avoiding schlock. That's becoming more obvious every time more details emerge.
<< <i> I am also in the "wait and see" camp, but I think that it is deleterious for the venture to drop little bits of information here and there, some of which turns out to be misinformation (in the Coin World article) and/or confusing (in the Bluesheet article). As one who is predisposed to be in favor of the service, my confidence in it is being undermined before it gets off the ground. >>
Truth be told, though I could be way off base, some of these "leaks" could be trial balloons to gauge responses and (possibly) to address them in some way before the service launches. Marketing departments have certainly done that many times in the business world.
<< <i>I know that, by reputation, John A is a fair, concerned, and well-intentioned numismatist. I wonder if collectors* have actually participated in the discussions and building of this new business. Has John A involved collectors? It might be worth considering, before getting off the ground, as it appears that the collectors here have quite a few interesting ideas about how things could/should be run, for mutual benefit to the numismatic community. >>
Agreed. I think it's the integrity of the people involved that has prevented a lot more rabid opposition from the get-go. And see above regarding 'trial balloons.' Maybe this is an indirect way to get feedback? Maybe, maybe not...
"The average collector who likes to buy nice coins will just get stretched out more."
I do understand where you are coming from but at the same time the average collector is not going to be able to buy an above average coin at a discount anyway, more often than not they end up buying a coin than the dealer convinces them is PQ when in fact it is not.
<< <i>"The average collector who likes to buy nice coins will just get stretched out more."
I do understand where you are coming from but at the same time the average collector is not going to be able to buy an above average coin at a discount anyway >>
This is true. We usually pay a premium today already -- I just think it looks like that "quality tax" is about to go a lot higher.
<< <i>more often than not they end up buying a coin than the dealer convinces them is PQ when in fact it is not. >>
I agree, but that's why I qualified my statement about collectors who have limited means but very good eyes for evaluating coins. I already acknowledged that collectors with more money than coin evaluation skills will benefit from this; better to overpay for quality than to overpay for junk. But for collectors with more coin savvy than money, ones who are already good at avoiding the schlock, I just see their costs for the good stuff going way up.
Possibly, here we are seeing an evolution of the concept, presumably based upon feedback and further discussion. The specifics being elucidated today are an interesting view into the way the group thinks and then formulates strategies and solutions.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>This thread is a perfect example of why I work on the Lightside and play on the Darkside. >>
Can't argue with that. I've tried to get excited about the Darkside, but I just can't. I wish I did. There seems to be a lot less of the BS that exists in the U.S. coin market.
This has been utterly amazing to watch unfold. It will be even more interesting once it gets off the ground. One thing is for certain: one can learn a lot by hanging out here. I have seen some REALLY interesting points thrown around by both sides of this debate.
You know what it should make the average collector do? LEARN TO GRADE.
I heard it said (by TDN I think) that he would not want their coin forever tainted by being in a rejected database. As a collector with limited means, I understand that.
HOWEVER, a database of rejected coins would REALLY be putting their money where there mouth is in my opinion. If there were no possibility of a resubmission (in the submitted holder of course), I think it would help collectors to understand they need to REALLY look at a coin before they buy it.
MAYBE just MAYBE, the crap coins we all complain about would start to be absorbed and quality really would rise to the top. The fact that coins can be infinitely submitted to the services is one of the main reasons we are where we are today.
Granted, the coin can be cracked out and resubmitted so I think a PHOTO (or some other means of IDing the coin) needs to accompany the rejected database so help minimize that.
Think how powerful that would be! I think grading companies might tighten up, collectors would learn more etc. Without that database and ID, I see too many potential pitfalls.
<< <i>Granted, the coin can be cracked out and resubmitted so I think a PHOTO (or some other means of IDing the coin) needs to accompany the rejected database so help minimize that. >>
This would work for some coins. But once your database contains images of a thousand rejected 1881-S Morgans, it's pretty hard to identify a resubmitted one.
Just think ..a decent grade semi-key semi ..Modern.. Washington Quarter getting the boot***REJECT*** and tossed aside to the pile along with the rest of the million or so 59d plain old Lincoln cents......Pathetic...!!
edit... mercury dimes...you can't even make a phone call with them...!!
Well, this thread has knocked me 'off the fence'..... This is a for profit business... layering on top of the TPG's... providing an opinion of an opinion. Once again.. the real future lies in computer grading. Cheers, RickO
<< <i>HOWEVER, a database of rejected coins would REALLY be putting their money where there mouth is in my opinion. >>
Maybe they are afraid that some bigwig Johnny Cochran type attn. would construe a class action suit wherein the TPG's would be required to payout for the rejected coins.
That would cause hard feelings and the TPG's principals could no longer play 16 holes with the CAC's principals. Or even worse, Laura and HRH would not be able to Jam together onstage!!
"Wars are really ugly! They're dirty and they're cold. I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole." Mary
<< <i>That would cause hard feelings and the TPG's principals could no longer play 16 holes with the CAC's principals. >>
16? >>
Sure. That's how I shoot a 72 every round.
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Ahab Ahab is the tyrannical captain of the Pequod who is driven by a monomaniacal desire to kill Moby Dick, the whale that maimed him on his last whaling voyage. A Quaker, he seeks revenge in direct opposition to his religion's well-known pacifism. Ahab's name comes directly from the Bible (see 1 Kings 18-22).
In Ishmael's first encounter with Ahab's name, he responds "When that wicked king was slain, the dogs, did they not lick his blood?" (Moby-Dick, Chapter 16). The character Elijah (named for the Biblical prophet, Elijah, who portends Ahab's fate) warns Ishmael and Queequeg that by signing on to Ahab's ship they have effectively signed away their souls.
Ahab ultimately dooms the crew of the Pequod (excepting Ishmael) to death due to his obsession with Moby Dick.
TDN said: "Where any stickered coin from any [accepted] TPG can compete apples to apples. If a significant coin can't be stickered, it will be given a Registry grade so it can participate. No more worrying that a coin won't cross so it can be entered into a Registry. "
Here is a direct admission that CAC WILL be grading coins. I think what we're seeing here is the beginning of a new TPG. First they get name recognition and market acceptance though the use of their stickers, and THEN they start slabbing. I think this is the only way they've got a chance at being considered a 1st-tier service upon commencement of slabbing activities. From that perspective, while their stated intent is to help the collector, the end result is more money for them.
Ricko said: "Once again.. the real future lies in computer grading."
I agree with this statement even more today than I did before I read this thread.
<< <i>TDN said: "Where any stickered coin from any [accepted] TPG can compete apples to apples. If a significant coin can't be stickered, it will be given a Registry grade so it can participate. No more worrying that a coin won't cross so it can be entered into a Registry. "
Here is a direct admission that CAC WILL be grading coins. I think what we're seeing here is the beginning of a new TPG. >>
Not only that, but there are apparently multiple standards -- one for the "significant" coins of the wealthy and one for the coins we the unwashed masses are more likely to own. Another case in point that this initiative doesn't seem to be about helping the average collector.
The evaluators at CAC are professional numismatists.
So are the evaluators at PCGS, NGC, ANA, ICG, PCI, and SEGS.
None of the named services are perfect and neither will CAC, but it will give you an additional opinion.
That is what submitters will receive from CAC, but coins that get the A or B sticker will be able to find buy sell spreads for these coins from CAC.
The very rarest coins, IMHO, will not get any more aggressive bids on their exchange than is available on any other exchanges. I am sure that the bidders on other exchanges will have bids for CAC approved coins, as well, but the rarer coins really shouldn't be sold to a market bidder, IMHO, because they should be marketed the same way that a great painting or antique is marketed.
If you want an additional opinion on coins, then ask a trusted dealer.
As I have said before and will say again:
Numismatics is a hobby and really should not be treated as a financial tool.
Fabulous collections have been built for over a century by sophisticated numismatists in the United States. The only reason that the TPG's and now the CAC are popular is so that less sophisticated people can participate in our spectacular hobby and believe that they have found a fool proof financial tool. It just ain't so!!
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
<< <i>Keep seeing this mentioned, where is that info coming from? >>
Well, TDN says he's in for a million. Taking him at his word, that leaves another $24 million. Silent partners, perhaps? >>
So, how is it even germane? How much does it take to look at and sticker slabs? >>
>>
If I remember correctly, I think I saw in the Coin World article that they are acquiring $10 million worth of PQ material to sticker with another $15 million available for more. >>
Is that true, is CAC already buying up coins to be stickered?
It is not exactly cheating, I prefer to consider it creative problem solving!!!
<< <i>The only reason that the TPG's and now the CAC are popular is so that less sophisticated people can participate in our spectacular hobby and believe that they have found a fool proof financial tool. It just ain't so!! >>
Julian, this is basically what I've been saying, albeit paraphrased. This seems like a good thing for people with a LOT of money and not much coin savvy. It seems to do little more than price middle-class collectors with strong eyes for quality out of those coins as they'll be competing against more big money that is more willing to bid with confidence. If the investors/speculators perceive that a lot of the uncertainty has been taking out of throwing money at coins they know little about, they could price out the ones who do know about the coins but don't have deep pockets.
In other words, numismatic education and learning to grade and evaluate coins for yourself are seeming to become less important, at least in the higher-end, usually-slabbed segment of the coin market.
I applaud efforts to crack the whip on overgrading, grade inflation and coin doctoring. But for an intermediate to advanced-intermediate collector of moderate means, it may be coming at an awfully high price.
I really want this thing to work, but as more details come out it just seems like collectors like me are getting messed with here. This sort of thing shows no sign of slowing down (barring a repeat of the crash of '89), and that's part of the reason I have refocused my collection in areas where slabbing and "CAC approval" are sure to be less of an issue. Dealers win. Investors win. Collectors with a lot of money but little coin savvy win. Collectors with coin savvy but limited budgets get skewered. That's at least how it looks. I hope I'm wrong.
Are they effectively grading coins themselves? Well, they are apparently refining the grade shown on the slab according to the TPG's own standards (presumably PCGS'). But that's about it. One could call the practice "grading," but I see that as more wordplay rather than an issue to be concerned about. The CAC sounds like they are using the argument that they are reviewing the grade rather than grading it. <shrug>
I can imagine that the CAC won't be blacklisting the lower end coins for obvious reasons. How eager would you be to submit a coin that is obviously not an upgrade or even high-end, but one that you feel is "solid for the grade?"
I think it's a leap to judgment to assume that the upgrade stickers will worsen the crackout practice. We could just as well assume that the CAC is not going to identify a coin as promotable merely from 65A to 66C. It would be the 65A to 66B that would get the second sticker, or else the CAC would be defeating their own purpose.
If you must assume that this is all about avarice, well, there's not much reasoning that will affect your opinion. It sounds like you don't enjoy working with dealers in general, which must be a bummer for your enjoyment of the hobby.
Comments
Who is John Galt?
<< <i>
<< <i>Are you saying that a coin stickered as an upgrade can be entered in the registry at a grade higher than the holder label?
That would depend on what you mean when you say the registry.
If so, does this mean that PCGS has agreed to do this?
I highly doubt it since HRH rejected the idea long ago - tho it certainly makes sense to give Registry stickers to lock upgrades and even to other TPG holdered coins that won't cross. >>
Okay, then what exactly are you talking about when you say "I also like the idea of being able to enter a coin on the Registry at a competition grade while retaining it in a rattler or OGH to prove the stability of the color". Is the CAC creating a registry?
Russ, NCNE >>
Yes. Where any stickered coin from any [accepted] TPG can compete apples to apples. If a significant coin can't be stickered, it will be given a Registry grade so it can participate. No more worrying that a coin won't cross so it can be entered into a Registry.
<< <i>More wailing.... >>
Expressing concerns and criticisms about a business idea is wailing? Or is it that the concerns and criticisms are "wailing" simply because they come from people who don't operate in the same rarified air as you? Hey, yeah, I'm just a widget collector. But, you know what? I've been in the business world a long time, and fundamental business concepts and realities transcend industry type.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>More wailing.... >>
Expressing concerns and criticisms about a business idea is wailing? Or is it that the concerns and criticisms are "wailing" simply because they come from people who don't operate in the same rarified air as you? Hey, yeah, I'm just a widget collector. But, you know what? I've been in the business world a long time, and fundamental business concepts and realities transcend industry type.
Russ, NCNE >>
Russ: 'wailing' in this context is accusing the CAC of attempting to cherry off upgrade candidates for their own profit and then when it becomes apparent they aren't going to do that, railing on them for how they aren't doing it.
Sorry, but the only way you're going to buy a lock upgrade for less than the coin is worth is to rip a collector's heir. Identifying those coins is a public service.
<< <i>
<< <i>Keep seeing this mentioned, where is that info coming from? >>
Well, TDN says he's in for a million. Taking him at his word, that leaves another $24 million. Silent partners, perhaps? >>
So, how is it even germane? How much does it take to look at and sticker slabs? >>
>>
If I remember correctly, I think I saw in the Coin World article that they are acquiring $10 million worth of PQ material to sticker with another $15 million available for more.
<< <i><< More wailing.... >>
Expressing concerns and criticisms about a business idea is wailing? Or is it that the concerns and criticisms are "wailing" simply because they come from people who don't operate in the same rarified air as you? Hey, yeah, I'm just a widget collector. But, you know what? I've been in the business world a long time, and fundamental business concepts and realities transcend industry type.
Russ, NCNE >>
Russ: 'wailing' in this context is accusing the CAC of attempting to cherry off upgrade candidates for their own profit and then when it becomes apparent they aren't going to do that, railing on them for how they aren't doing it. >>
I never leveled that accusation. In fact, based on my conversations with Mark Feld I was in "wait and see, give them a chance" mode. However, that was before this new confusing "upgrade" sticker was added to the mix. The CAC is not only complicating the process by adding this, they are identifying the crackout candidates. It's a bad idea. They should just KISS it.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Sorry, but the only way you're going to buy a lock upgrade for less than the coin is worth is to rip a collector's heir. Identifying those coins is a public service. >>
You missed the point by a mile, IMO. Nice job spinning this concern into stopping something unethical, though. IMO, that's exactly the problem with most of your responses on this topic.
The point is: The CAC will -- even if indirectly -- be redefining what the coin is worth.
It's not a "rip" if I pay $1200 for a nice 64 with upgrade potential if the sheet lists it for $900 -- as may happen today even in an auction with a lot of knowledgeable people participating and looking at the coin. Today, with a public auction of savvy buyers, $1200 is what the coin is worth -- the market has said so.
But put a "crack me out" sticker on it, and what will it sell for? A hell of a lot more than that -- probably, MUCH closer to full 65 money, even among (mostly) the same auction participants! The sticker will redefine what the market says it's worth.
You make it sound like predatory collectors are looking to rip a clueless widow for pennies on the dollar. IMO, that's shameful.
<< <i>
<< <i>Sorry, but the only way you're going to buy a lock upgrade for less than the coin is worth is to rip a collector's heir. Identifying those coins is a public service. >>
You missed the point by a mile, IMO. Nice job spinning this concern into stopping something unethical, though.
The point is: The CAC will -- even if indirectly -- be redefining what the coin is worth.
It's not a "rip" if I pay $1200 for a nice 64 with upgrade potential if the sheet lists it for $900 -- as may happen today even in an auction with a lot of knowledgeable people participating and looking at the coin. Today, with a public auction of savvy buyers, $1200 is what the coin is worth -- the market has said so.
But put a "crack me out" sticker on it, and what will it sell for? A hell of a lot more than that -- probably, MUCH closer to full 65 money, even among (mostly) the same auction participants! >>
You are grossly mistaken in your assumptions. Only lock upgrades will receive such a sticker. 90%+ of these will undoubtably be in very early certified holders and more likely than not reside in some collector's collection right now. Identifying such for the collector or his heirs is a public service.
Call it 'spin' all you want, but that's why it's being done. So collectors and their heirs don't get ripped off. That and so collectors may choose to keep their coins in early holders and participate in a Registry apples to apples. It's being done for the collector, plain and simple.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>More wailing.... >>
Expressing concerns and criticisms about a business idea is wailing? Or is it that the concerns and criticisms are "wailing" simply because they come from people who don't operate in the same rarified air as you? Hey, yeah, I'm just a widget collector. But, you know what? I've been in the business world a long time, and fundamental business concepts and realities transcend industry type.
Russ, NCNE >>
Russ: 'wailing' in this context is accusing the CAC of attempting to cherry off upgrade candidates for their own profit and then when it becomes apparent they aren't going to do that, railing on them for how they aren't doing it. >>
TDN, are you saying that the Coin World article saying that the CAC is acquiring $10 million in PQ coins to be stickered is incorrect?
Right but if the coin is $3-4,000 in 65 a PQ high end coin is worth alot more than $1200. If a collector knows they have a PQ/possible upgrade sticker on the coin they will be better informed when negotiating rather than just getting $300 over sheet when they can get more over sheet. Your example above is exactly what the extra sticker is trying to prevent.
I read all the comments, considered the angles fully.
This idea will hurt everyone including the consortium.
In one word this grand idea is " BUNK". I don't care if they go ahead with their plans, it won't hurt me when they waste their time and money. There are just too many things that will disrupt their etophia. Count me out.
I know that, by reputation, John A is a fair, concerned, and well-intentioned numismatist. I wonder if collectors* have actually participated in the discussions and building of this new business. Has John A involved collectors? It might be worth considering, before getting off the ground, as it appears that the collectors here have quite a few interesting ideas about how things could/should be run, for mutual benefit to the numismatic community.
<< <i>Right but if the coin is $3-4,000 in 65 a PQ high end coin is worth alot more than $1200. If a collector knows they have a PQ coin they will be better informed when negotiating rather than just getting $300 over sheet when they can get more over sheet. >>
That's fine and good, but it's still not a benefit to the average collector. That's the point I was trying to make. The average collector who likes to buy nice coins will just get stretched out more.
This all sounds like "we're with the government, we're here to help you." There are valid reasons for doing some of this, but it's mostly not for the benefit or protection of average collectors, at least not those who are still "net buyers" of coins and who already have a good eye for avoiding schlock. That's becoming more obvious every time more details emerge.
<< <i> I am also in the "wait and see" camp, but I think that it is deleterious for the venture to drop little bits of information here and there, some of which turns out to be misinformation (in the Coin World article) and/or confusing (in the Bluesheet article). As one who is predisposed to be in favor of the service, my confidence in it is being undermined before it gets off the ground. >>
Truth be told, though I could be way off base, some of these "leaks" could be trial balloons to gauge responses and (possibly) to address them in some way before the service launches. Marketing departments have certainly done that many times in the business world.
<< <i>I know that, by reputation, John A is a fair, concerned, and well-intentioned numismatist. I wonder if collectors* have actually participated in the discussions and building of this new business. Has John A involved collectors? It might be worth considering, before getting off the ground, as it appears that the collectors here have quite a few interesting ideas about how things could/should be run, for mutual benefit to the numismatic community. >>
Agreed. I think it's the integrity of the people involved that has prevented a lot more rabid opposition from the get-go. And see above regarding 'trial balloons.' Maybe this is an indirect way to get feedback? Maybe, maybe not...
I do understand where you are coming from but at the same time the average collector is not going to be able to buy an above average coin at a discount anyway, more often than not they end up buying a coin than the dealer convinces them is PQ when in fact it is not.
<< <i>"The average collector who likes to buy nice coins will just get stretched out more."
I do understand where you are coming from but at the same time the average collector is not going to be able to buy an above average coin at a discount anyway >>
This is true. We usually pay a premium today already -- I just think it looks like that "quality tax" is about to go a lot higher.
<< <i>more often than not they end up buying a coin than the dealer convinces them is PQ when in fact it is not. >>
I agree, but that's why I qualified my statement about collectors who have limited means but very good eyes for evaluating coins. I already acknowledged that collectors with more money than coin evaluation skills will benefit from this; better to overpay for quality than to overpay for junk. But for collectors with more coin savvy than money, ones who are already good at avoiding the schlock, I just see their costs for the good stuff going way up.
Russ, NCNE
That certainly wouldn't be as easy if the CAC published cert#'s of failed submissions. JMO
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>That certainly wouldn't be as easy if the CAC published cert#'s of failed submissions. JMO >>
Then again, if they just bought the coins with the stickers on them already they wouldn't have to wonder.
<< <i><< That certainly wouldn't be as easy if the CAC published cert#'s of failed submissions. JMO >>
Then again, if they just bought the coins with the stickers on them already they wouldn't have to wonder. >>
You should run for political office. You have obfuscation and misdirection down to a science.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>That certainly wouldn't be as easy if the CAC published cert#'s of failed submissions. JMO >>
Then again, if they just bought the coins with the stickers on them already they wouldn't have to wonder. >>
Spoken like a true coin dealer.
And yet we get branded as wailers for seeking clarification!?
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>This thread is a perfect example of why I work on the Lightside and play on the Darkside. >>
Can't argue with that. I've tried to get excited about the Darkside, but I just can't. I wish I did. There seems to be a lot less of the BS that exists in the U.S. coin market.
You know what it should make the average collector do? LEARN TO GRADE.
I heard it said (by TDN I think) that he would not want their coin forever tainted by being in a rejected database. As a collector with limited means, I understand that.
HOWEVER, a database of rejected coins would REALLY be putting their money where there mouth is in my opinion.
If there were no possibility of a resubmission (in the submitted holder of course), I think it would help collectors to understand they need to REALLY look at a coin before they buy it.
MAYBE just MAYBE, the crap coins we all complain about would start to be absorbed and quality really would rise to the top. The fact that coins can be infinitely submitted to the services is one of the main reasons we are where we are today.
Granted, the coin can be cracked out and resubmitted so I think a PHOTO (or some other means of IDing the coin) needs to accompany the rejected database so help minimize that.
Think how powerful that would be! I think grading companies might tighten up, collectors would learn more etc. Without that database and ID, I see too many potential pitfalls.
Interesting…very interesting.
<< <i>Granted, the coin can be cracked out and resubmitted so I think a PHOTO (or some other means of IDing the coin) needs to accompany the rejected database so help minimize that. >>
This would work for some coins. But once your database contains images of a thousand rejected 1881-S Morgans, it's pretty hard to identify a resubmitted one.
edit... mercury dimes...you can't even make a phone call with them...!!
<< <i>HOWEVER, a database of rejected coins would REALLY be putting their money where there mouth is in my opinion. >>
Maybe they are afraid that some bigwig Johnny Cochran type attn. would construe a class action suit wherein the TPG's would be required to payout for the rejected coins.
That would cause hard feelings and the TPG's principals could no longer play 16 holes with the CAC's principals. Or even worse, Laura and HRH would not be able to Jam together onstage!!
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>That would cause hard feelings and the TPG's principals could no longer play 16 holes with the CAC's principals. >>
16?
<< <i>
<< <i>That would cause hard feelings and the TPG's principals could no longer play 16 holes with the CAC's principals. >>
16? >>
Sure. That's how I shoot a 72 every round.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>
<< <i>That would cause hard feelings and the TPG's principals could no longer play 16 holes with the CAC's principals. >>
16? >>
Forget it, he's rolling.
Here's a WHALER for ya
Ahab
Ahab is the tyrannical captain of the Pequod who is driven by a monomaniacal desire to kill Moby Dick, the whale that maimed him on his last whaling voyage. A Quaker, he seeks revenge in direct opposition to his religion's well-known pacifism. Ahab's name comes directly from the Bible (see 1 Kings 18-22).
In Ishmael's first encounter with Ahab's name, he responds "When that wicked king was slain, the dogs, did they not lick his blood?" (Moby-Dick, Chapter 16). The character Elijah (named for the Biblical prophet, Elijah, who portends Ahab's fate) warns Ishmael and Queequeg that by signing on to Ahab's ship they have effectively signed away their souls.
Ahab ultimately dooms the crew of the Pequod (excepting Ishmael) to death due to his obsession with Moby Dick.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Here is a direct admission that CAC WILL be grading coins. I think what we're seeing here is the beginning of a new TPG. First they get name recognition and market acceptance though the use of their stickers, and THEN they start slabbing. I think this is the only way they've got a chance at being considered a 1st-tier service upon commencement of slabbing activities. From that perspective, while their stated intent is to help the collector, the end result is more money for them.
Ricko said: "Once again.. the real future lies in computer grading."
I agree with this statement even more today than I did before I read this thread.
<< <i>TDN said: "Where any stickered coin from any [accepted] TPG can compete apples to apples. If a significant coin can't be stickered, it will be given a Registry grade so it can participate. No more worrying that a coin won't cross so it can be entered into a Registry. "
Here is a direct admission that CAC WILL be grading coins. I think what we're seeing here is the beginning of a new TPG. >>
Not only that, but there are apparently multiple standards -- one for the "significant" coins of the wealthy and one for the coins we the unwashed masses are more likely to own. Another case in point that this initiative doesn't seem to be about helping the average collector.
"Another case in point that this initiative doesn't seem to be about helping the average collector. "
More like helping to line some pockets with the collectors $$$.
So are the evaluators at PCGS, NGC, ANA, ICG, PCI, and SEGS.
None of the named services are perfect and neither will CAC, but it will give you an additional opinion.
That is what submitters will receive from CAC, but coins that get the A or B sticker will be able to find buy sell spreads for these coins from CAC.
The very rarest coins, IMHO, will not get any more aggressive bids on their exchange than is available on any other exchanges.
I am sure that the bidders on other exchanges will have bids for CAC approved coins, as well, but the rarer coins really shouldn't be sold to a market bidder, IMHO, because they should be marketed the same way that a great painting or antique is marketed.
If you want an additional opinion on coins, then ask a trusted dealer.
As I have said before and will say again:
Numismatics is a hobby and really should not be treated as a financial tool.
Fabulous collections have been built for over a century by sophisticated numismatists in the United States. The only reason that the TPG's and now the CAC are popular is so that less sophisticated people can participate in our spectacular hobby and believe that they have found a fool proof financial tool. It just ain't so!!
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Keep seeing this mentioned, where is that info coming from? >>
Well, TDN says he's in for a million. Taking him at his word, that leaves another $24 million. Silent partners, perhaps? >>
So, how is it even germane? How much does it take to look at and sticker slabs? >>
>>
If I remember correctly, I think I saw in the Coin World article that they are acquiring $10 million worth of PQ material to sticker with another $15 million available for more. >>
Is that true, is CAC already buying up coins to be stickered?
<< <i>The only reason that the TPG's and now the CAC are popular is so that less sophisticated people can participate in our spectacular hobby and believe that they have found a fool proof financial tool. It just ain't so!! >>
Julian, this is basically what I've been saying, albeit paraphrased. This seems like a good thing for people with a LOT of money and not much coin savvy. It seems to do little more than price middle-class collectors with strong eyes for quality out of those coins as they'll be competing against more big money that is more willing to bid with confidence. If the investors/speculators perceive that a lot of the uncertainty has been taking out of throwing money at coins they know little about, they could price out the ones who do know about the coins but don't have deep pockets.
In other words, numismatic education and learning to grade and evaluate coins for yourself are seeming to become less important, at least in the higher-end, usually-slabbed segment of the coin market.
I applaud efforts to crack the whip on overgrading, grade inflation and coin doctoring. But for an intermediate to advanced-intermediate collector of moderate means, it may be coming at an awfully high price.
I really want this thing to work, but as more details come out it just seems like collectors like me are getting messed with here. This sort of thing shows no sign of slowing down (barring a repeat of the crash of '89), and that's part of the reason I have refocused my collection in areas where slabbing and "CAC approval" are sure to be less of an issue. Dealers win. Investors win. Collectors with a lot of money but little coin savvy win. Collectors with coin savvy but limited budgets get skewered. That's at least how it looks. I hope I'm wrong.
I can imagine that the CAC won't be blacklisting the lower end coins for obvious reasons. How eager would you be to submit a coin that is obviously not an upgrade or even high-end, but one that you feel is "solid for the grade?"
I think it's a leap to judgment to assume that the upgrade stickers will worsen the crackout practice. We could just as well assume that the CAC is not going to identify a coin as promotable merely from 65A to 66C. It would be the 65A to 66B that would get the second sticker, or else the CAC would be defeating their own purpose.
If you must assume that this is all about avarice, well, there's not much reasoning that will affect your opinion. It sounds like you don't enjoy working with dealers in general, which must be a bummer for your enjoyment of the hobby.