MarkFeld

Since so many people here seem to think that Mr. Albanese is the greatest grader in the history of numismatics and the ultimate savior of the industry from over grading why shouldn’t we concerned about his exit from the two firms he started?

Bill, please cite just a single source/example for your above statement. I bet you can't, because you have exaggerated what others have said in order to make your point.

 

I guess you have not bothered to read one post after another in this string and elsewhere that indicate that Mr. Albanese can do no wrong. I’ve never seen such glowing remarks made about anyone in this business, including some of the great authors who given us some wonderful books. Read the messages; don’t yell at me. Mr. Albanese almost looks like a cult figure.

 

It's clear that if CAC succeeds his company will invalidate the PCGS and NGC grades on great many expensive coins if those pieces are not presented to and approved by his minions. It is disappointing that you are unable or unwilling to grasp that concept. When someone reaches into other people’s pocketbooks don’t expect those who are harmed financially to thank him for it.

Bill, I have read a great many posts in various CAC threads, yet haven't seen a single one/person praise Mr. Albanese in the exaggerated way that you stated. Again, please cite just a single source/example for your above statement - it should be easy, if, as you say, it's in "one post after another".

 

And I didn't "yell" at you - I accused you of exaggerating to make your point, and I stand by that now. Lastly, I didn't see anyone asking you or anyone else "to thank him for it" - another exaggeration on your part.

Since so many people here seem to think that Mr. Albanese is the greatest grader in the history of numismatics and the ultimate savior of the industry from over grading why shouldn’t we concerned about his exit from the two firms he started?

Bill, please cite just a single source/example for your above statement. I bet you can't, because you have exaggerated what others have said in order to make your point.

Then we have a situation where there has been talk of going to a 100 point grading scale. Albanese has already increased it by the A B and C

Once again, you are leaping to unfounded conclusions. I heard of coins being given an A, B or C rating as long as 20 years ago.

Since this is the case then it seems that JA is saying that his graders are better

Bologna. PCGS and NGC could screen their coins too in the same manner if they cared to.

 

Why just take a sentence out my whole paragraph and then try to disassemble it?

I quoted the whole area where JA said that "graders are not perfect and that they all make mistakes". My question was two fold.

 

1. What need is there for CAC if all the graders make mistakes?Does that mean that we also have to have another such entity as CAC to minimize their mistakes?

2. or does JA feel that his graders are better or put another way less prone to mistakes?

 

Everybody knows that you you are a big backer of CAC but how about responding to the whole thing instead of one sentence?

Even without reiterating your entire paragraph, I didn't take your out of context in refuting it.

 

In answer to your two (actually three) questions:

 

1) As has already been stated, there is no "need" for CAC - some people prefer to make use of their services, while others don't care about it. The fact that graders make mistakes doesn't mean the service isn't of any benefit. If perfect grading were required for a service to be worth utilizing, we wouldn't have any grading companies.

 

2) No, an imperfect CAC obviously doesn't mean "we also have to have another such entity as CAC to minimize their mistakes".

 

3) Ask John A. if he feels CAC is less prone to mistakes, but in the mean time, I haven't seen any comment from him indicating he feels that way. I feel that way, however, if for no other reason, because of a much lower volume of coins to assess than NGC and PCGS grade on a monthly basis. And, because CAC is screening coins that have already been screened by experts.

My goodness, Mark, if you think I owe someone an apology I will immediately apologize and will keep my opinions to my self from now on. Bruce sorry.

Jim

Jim, opinions are great, but I don't understand your opinion/comment as it pertained to the post you responded to in such a facetious manner.

 

If you feel up to it, please read Bruce's post and then yours, and let us know how you arrived at the opinion you stated?

CAC is a trading network backed with $25M in capital. Stickered coins are eligible for subsequently sight unseen bids from CAC and its member dealers

 

Thanks, TDN. I now understand the purpose of CAC and I agree wholeheartedly with its premise. Its for private members only, as in a private club which can do as it pleases among its members. See, I was under the misunderstanding that it was established for the whole collector society. It's kind of like PCGS's forum, they are backing it with their money and should be able to run it as they see fit and darn anyone who says different. I truly have no problem with private clubs. I think they are an American way of life. Some are good and some are bad. Don't join if you don't believe in their concepts. (thumbs u

Jim

Jim, perhaps you misread TDN's comment - your post sure reads that way. Those sight unseen bids will apply to anyone who has such coins to sell and are merely being POSTED by CAC and its member dealers. There's nothing exclusive in that, and personally, I think you owe Bruce an apology.

Since this is the case then it seems that JA is saying that his graders are better

Bologna. PCGS and NGC could screen their coins too in the same manner if they cared to.

James, I believe that meaningful written grading standards are possible only for circulated coins and literally perfect, MS/PR 70 coins. Anything which is written to tell people how to distinguish between 2 different numerical grades between MS60 and MS69 is too vague/general/imprecise to allow one to know the difference.

 

Please select any two grades in the MS/PR 60-69 range, provide us with PCGS' or ANACS' published grading standards and tell us how in the heck to apply them in order to tell the difference between those two grades.

Mark, your argument leads me back to a question I posed elsewhere, but which I believe you belittled : If there is no standard which can be conveyed to coin collectors (and let's just focus on the 60-69 range you mentioned), then why do we need stickers at all? What is their purpose? Does a sticker have any meaning or usefulness whatsoever if, in fact, it conveys no new information, since there is no standard by which to judge that information?

 

Below are five quotes (my bolds) from the CAC website. I would submit to you that these imply some body of set standards by which the CAC is abiding. If this is so, then why has it been deemed inappropriate to explain them? And if there are in fact no CAC stringent grading standards, then why imply that there are?

 

The green CAC label placed on this holder denotes that this coin has met CAC' stringent grading standards.

 

The CAC GREEN Label signifies that a coin has met Certified Acceptance Corporation's stringent grading standards.

 

CAC holds coins to a higher standard so you can be confident in the value of yours. We verify previously graded coins and award our sticker only to those coins that meet the standard for today’s sophisticated buyer

 

Your coin has been verified as meeting the standard for strict quality within its grade.

 

The CAC examines coins that have already been graded and encapsulated by one of the two leading grading services, the PCGS and the NGC. Each submitted coin that meets the standards of the CAC receives a green sticker.

However imprecise and/or inconsistent one wants to argue that grading "standards" are, I believe that they are at least conveyed through the actual grading of coins by experts. And that is so, even if those standards don't lend themselves to published explanations which which can't account for anywhere near all of the differences in various coins. So, it's not that there aren't standards, only that they can't be explained on paper in a meaningful way with respect to distinguishing one precise grade from another.

Be sure to let us know when you find the clear and concise explanation of NGC's grading standards.

I don't know about NGC, but PCGS does describe their standards in a widely available book. At the very least, NGC has a considerable volume of work that seemingly implies a standard (loose though it may be).

 

It just seems that since "grading standards" evidently plays the pivotal role in CAC's existence, the least they would do is explain what standards are being used (but apparently not guaranteed). To put it another way, how is it advantageous to those who want to use the CAC to be kept uninformed of the actual standards being used to evaluate their coins? Wouldn't CAC want to give buyers of CAC coins every possible advantage in understanding the grading process?

James, I believe that meaningful written grading standards are possible only for circulated coins and literally perfect, MS/PR 70 coins. Anything which is written to tell people how to distinguish between 2 different numerical grades between MS60 and MS69 is too vague/general/imprecise to allow one to know the difference.

 

Please select any two grades in the MS/PR 60-69 range, provide us with PCGS' or ANACS' published grading standards and tell us how in the heck to apply them in order to tell the difference between those two grades.

Why don't you get Mr A to make an appearance to answer the questions.

 

 

It's my understanding that you and TDN don't officially speak for the CAC so lets get answers from an official source.

 

 

This is not the pcgs board and I am sure that Mr A would be given his due respects,.

Patrick, it is my understanding that (using my own words) Mr. Albanese would not feel it appropriate to post here or on the PCGS forum on this topic. However, regardless of one's views on CAC, I believe that there is quite a bit of information and many answers to be obtained by reading the interview first mentioned in this thread.

"It's a community service and not about the money"

That''s not bad. By the way, I think if you knew Mr. Albanese as I do, you'd understand that it's not about the money for him. However, seeing as how you don't, I don't blame you for your skepticism. Now, what of the "infallible opinions" - who, other than you and a few detractors (as opposed to supporters) used that language?

 

You have, whether intentionally or not, illustrated an important consideration to keep in mind - when one side overdoes it to make a point, often the other side resorts to the same thing to make their counter-point.

a second expert opinion ... just as if/when NGC crosses a PCGS coin or PCGS crosses an NGC coin. Though still obviously subject to errors, in each of those situations there is good reason to feel at least somewhat more secure about the grade of the coin. Personally, I like the option of having that extra layer of insurance at a low cost and the extra potential liquidity for such coins. If you don't, don't bother with it, but that's not a reason to criticize it as a number of people have done.

Those are all of the positive points I've said about CAC. I only disagree with the notion that it's a pure, good-of-heart charity work with no thought of money and that they are made up of infallible opinions (although they clearly can be too conservative, right? right?). I also disagree with the notion of a gold sticker (what is that, A+++++++?) without a balancing "gross overgrade" judgement.

I believe that, in order to make your point, you're exaggerating things quite a bit with references such as "charity work" and "infallible opinions". How many people in support of CAC have used such verbiage?

 

And the gold sticker is apparently applied only in extremely rare situations, meaning that there isn't much to balance by way of issuing "gross over-grade" opinions.

In actuality, for the reasons I mentioned previously, it DOESN'T, or at least SHOULDN'T, count as (an unbiased) " second opinion of the grade as not overgraded". They won't/can't afford to give out nearly as many "over-graded' grades as they should, as it would seriously erode confidence and cost them gobs of money.

So we all might as well self-slab with our best guess of a grade and send it to CAC since that's the ultimate universal unquestionable opinion? If we get the guess right, we saved ourselves a lot of money and time.

I never expressed that particular view of CAC, and, to my knowledge, neither did anyone else, including CAC.

 

I look upon CAC as a second expert opinion, which can be useful to some people for certain coins. If CAC stickers a PCGS or NGC coin, that's a second expert opinion, just as if/when NGC crosses a PCGS coin or PCGS crosses an NGC coin. Though still obviously subject to errors, in each of those situations there is good reason to feel at least somewhat more secure about the grade of the coin. Personally, I like the option of having that extra layer of insurance at a low cost and the extra potential liquidity for such coins. If you don't, don't bother with it, but that's not a reason to criticize it as a number of people have done.

If you meant "to a second TPG", you're either talking about a coin which is cracked out of the original holder or one that is sent for crossover and which the submitter gives permission to cross at a lower grade. What about all of the coins submitted in their holders to the original TPG and which deserve to be down-graded, but aren't? There is no "effective vote for 'overgraded' as a second opinion" on them, either.

A good point, but it counts as a second opinion of the grade as not overgraded. A vote for overgraded would be a lower grade. CAC is not only adding a second opinion, but also designating a specialized 3rd level of precision to the grade. It's no longer just an MS-65, it's either an MS-65-A, B, C, D or worse. Almost similar to a star designation that NGC was already doing. How long until the big TPGs start giving an extra full designation?

In actuality, for the reasons I mentioned previously, it DOESN'T, or at least SHOULDN'T, count as (an unbiased) " second opinion of the grade as not overgraded". They won't/can't afford to give out nearly as many "over-graded' grades as they should, as it would seriously erode confidence and cost them gobs of money.

When someone resubmits to a TPG, there is a chance they get a lower grade, an effective vote for "overgraded" as a second opinion, and not one that can simply be removed like a sticker.

If a coin is resubmitted to the original TPG in the holder as a re-grade (as in for an up-grade), realistically, there isn't any meaningful chance that it will be down-graded, even if it deserves to be. And even those coins which are resubmitted in the holder for down-grade, under a TPG's grade guarantee, aren't down-graded nearly as often as they deserve to be. That's because the TPG gets to be the arbiter of whether they over-graded the coin or not. Also, each down-grade means that a mistake is being admitted to AND results in money out of their pocket. Therefore, there is a large built in bias against down-grades, even those which are well deserved.

I meant to a second TPG, as a second opinion just as what is happening with CAC.

 

Better make that 733, TDN.

Mature.

If you meant "to a second TPG", you're either talking about a coin which is cracked out of the original holder or one that is sent for crossover and which the submitter gives permission to cross at a lower grade. What about all of the coins submitted in their holders to the original TPG and which deserve to be down-graded, but aren't? There is no "effective vote for 'overgraded' as a second opinion" on them, either.

When someone resubmits to a TPG, there is a chance they get a lower grade, an effective vote for "overgraded" as a second opinion, and not one that can simply be removed like a sticker.

If a coin is resubmitted to the original TPG in the holder as a re-grade (as in for an up-grade), realistically, there isn't any meaningful chance that it will be down-graded, even if it deserves to be. And even those coins which are resubmitted in the holder for down-grade, under a TPG's grade guarantee, aren't down-graded nearly as often as they deserve to be. That's because the TPG gets to be the arbiter of whether they over-graded the coin or not. Also, each down-grade means that a mistake is being admitted to AND results in money out of their pocket. Therefore, there is a large built in bias against down-grades, even those which are well deserved.

see that it's not "all about the money".

 

Sadly, yes it is. It's a proven fact that if something is repeated 647 times on the internet, it becomes truth. We're up to 732, so truth it is!

I stand corrected and won't even demand a recount

Very extremely interesting read. Finally, the purpose of the CAC, the reasoning behind it, and a glimpse at the modus operandi, all straight from the horse's mouth, as it were. I read the whole thing, and I recomend that serious collectors and those interested in the future of our hobby do the same - its long, but carve out an hour for yourself, get a coke, and read it.

 

(thumbs u

I suspect that a lot of CAC detractors won't bother to read it, because it's a lot more fun to circulate rumors and bash without having information/facts. But those who do take the time, should be able to understand the motivations and thought process of Mr. Albanese and see that it's not "all about the money".

Hello,

 

I just received a slabbed coin I bough on EBAY.

I was graded proof 69 Ultra Cameo.

There is eaither a speck of dust in the slab, a defect in the slab.or horrors,a defect in the coin. It is hard to tell even under magnification.

There is no way this coin is a 69 if the defect is in the coin.

Is there a way a slab could have been opened and resealed so a coin could be switched without leaving obvoius signs?

 

 

Thanks

Jon

Hi Jon and welcome. I'm a bit confused by your comments. If it's " hard to tell even under magnification" and it might be "a speck of dust in the slab", how can it follow that "There is no way this coin is a 69 if the defect is in the coin"? Even if the defect is on the coin, if it's that small/unobtrusive, it sounds s if the coin could still be a 69.

It looks to me like you fellows are saying crossovers should not be attempted, simply break out the coin and submit it to the new grading service. Am I reading correctly?

Actually, most of the discussion has been about re-grades, not cross-overs. Even with respect to cross-overs, however, it depends upon how big of a gambler you are, as you have more upside AND downside in cracking the coins out.

I notice that some grading companies allow you to send in a coin in a holder that you think is undergraded, and they'll consider regrading it for a fee.

 

On the other hand, you can break a coin out of its holder and send it in as if it were being initially graded.

 

Which approach is better, in the sense that it's more likely to result in a higher grade?

Removing the coin from its holder likely gives you a considerably better chance for an up-grade. However, in doing so, you lose the protection of the grade guarantee and subject yourself to the risk of a down-grade or no-grade. Either of those bad outcomes/surprises can occur no matter how good the coin might look. It's a matter of potential reward and risk and how big of a gambler you are.

 

Hey Mark, what happens if you send the coin still in its currents slab, let's say Anacs for arguments sake and the graders believe it will cross, so they crack it out. Once out of the slab they see something that changes their minds, what do they do then. The coin will not cross, yet it's already out of the original slab.

 

JJ

JJ, while I have heard of that happening on very rare occasions it hasn't happened to me, so I can't answer based upon personal experience.

 

That said, I believe that the fairest thing to do would be to see if the submitter could get the coin back into its original holder and if unsuccessful, that he be compensated in some way by the company that cracked the coin out.