The CAC Needs To Communicate Effectively Before It Slips Past The Irrelevant

[TomB]

I apologize for the length of this post and for bringing up a subject that many folks might be tired of, however, I believe that a series of pointed, direct questions to those who represent the CAC might elicit a response that could at least partially clarify the confusion surrounding the enterprise. Those tired of the subject are invited to move on without wasting additional time on the thread, those who think I am a wrong about certain points, that I am not very bright or that I am simply a jerk are invited to state such and those who have credible knowledge of the CAC paradigm are invited to share that knowledge with the collectors who read this thread. Portions of this post have either been written by me in previous posts or have been sent to one or more of the named members of the CAC as observations or questions. As might be surmised, since I am posting these questions and observations again as a new thread, there has been little substantive information shared with me.

 

I will start my observations by telling you that initially I had wanted the CAC, or an entity that works the way I assumed the CAC would work, to succeed in the hobby-industry. The CAC might become an important acquisition tool for collectors and an important selling tool for dealers if it is explained, understood and accepted. Unfortunately, the public communication of the group has thus far been awful. We all remember when RYK (SageRed) posted the Doug Winter announcement on the PCGS boards that contained the CAC information in it and the firestorm that resulted. Of course, we cannot go back and read those threads because they have all been deleted by PCGS. However, one thing we can do is to examine the reaction of the CAC and its central authority after the news of its arrival. Similar to many others, I was someone who was primarily an observer of these threads and I was shocked that there was no official CAC representative response to all the theories, accusations and hyperbole that was thrown about on the boards. How could the CAC allow itself to be caught without public representation when it was so close to implementation and when contradictory and competing statements were being made about it publicly? The old adage about only having one opportunity to make a good first impression is painfully applicable here because the opportunity was lost and the group allowed itself to be portrayed as one without central authority or a well thought out plan.

 

The lack of information directly from the CAC has resulted in many folks having the impression that the CAC was dedicated to identifying high-end or premium quality coins within a grade. This was what I understood to be the goal of the CAC from the disorganized series of deleted threads started by many folks where the only quasi-official information was posted by RYK as secondhand information from John Albanese (JA). Therefore, when I attended the Coinfest show, my interpretation of the CAC mandate was that only those coins that were superior or high-end for the grade (aka premium quality) would receive a CAC sticker. My personal observation based upon my personal grading standards indicated to me that low-end coins for the grade were included in the pool of those that received the CAC sticker. This left me confused and made me think that either I did not understand the mission of the CAC or that the CAC's standards simply mirrored those of PCGS. This partially explains why I wrote the pseudo-caution regarding the CAC in my show report posted on the NGC boards and later deleted by PCGS from the PCGS boards.

 

Why might I think that CAC would only identify premium quality coins within a grade? The reason is fairly straightforward and lies within the CAC website. The CAC website contains these three statements-

 

Now there's an easy way to identify premium quality coins within any particular grade.

 

That's why leading members of the numismatic community formed CAC - to identify and formalize the existence of premium quality coins.

 

We only consider previously graded coins, submitted by CAC Submission Centers, and will only award our sticker to those coins that meet our standards for premium quality.

 

The emphasis in bold was added by me. I believe that most intelligent and reasonable folks who read these statements would stand a good chance of thinking that only the better coins within any grade range would receive the CAC sticker. To put it another way, if you were to place 100 PCGS and NGC MS65 classic commems in front of me and ask me to pick out those that are accurately graded then I would likely have a pile with a certain number of coins in it. However, if you were to put the same 100 PCGS and NGC MS65 classic commems in front of me and ask me to pick out those that are premium quality for the grade then I would likely have a pile that is much smaller than the previous pile. Therefore, premium quality infers, and its usage is accepted to mean, that there is a pool of accurately graded material that will fall short of this high-end segment.

 

Obviously, I appear to be mistaken in my interpretation that the CAC will only sticker high-end coins within any grade. I write this because TDN, who has truly put forth a strong effort as a liaison for the CAC, has written the following statements on the NGC board, which pertain to a hypothetical coin grading MS65-

 

64.7 - 65.1 [no sticker]

65.0 - 65.9 [sticker]

 

According to JA, these days solid for the grade *IS* 'premium quality'. He stated that the crackout artists routinely resubmit anything solid for the grade until only dreck is in holders.

 

Not exactly how I would state it, but he does have a point. CAC is stickering solid for the grade and up with the same sticker [unless the coin is a lock upgrade ... which right now is running 4 out of 1,000].

 

TDN added the bold text in the above quotes. This is contrary to the inference on the CAC website and has been rationalized by stating that accurately graded coins should be considered premium quality, which is a statement that I can never recall reading or hearing prior to the launch of this venture. One thing to keep in mind with this rationalization is that most folks will not make this step on their own and will have to be told that this is the CAC paradigm. Of course, if one assumes that the CAC website and TDN are in agreement with one another regarding the new definition of premium quality then one would still has to divine the definition of the term from Laura Sperber on the Legend website. Laura wrote, and then subsequently deleted, on her website-

 

We read one comment from someone on a gossip forum who thought CAC had stickered low end coins in its first few groups. NOT! Ask ANY major dealer who had seen some of the first CAC stickered coins, they were tight and the coins did look good.

 

The entire text is in bold because Laura put this part in bold and may very well have been written in response to my show report. I would assert that if a coin were to grade MS65.0 then, according to the CAC website and the text by TDN, this coin would be considered premium quality using the CAC definition of the term and would result in the coin obtaining a CAC sticker. However, we can all agree that an MS65.0 is low-end for the MS65.0-MS65.9 grade range. You will immediately note the problem that this flies directly counter to what Laura Sperber has written in bold text and has emphasized additionally with the eloquent use of the follow up NOT!

 

This leads us to the question of where are we with the CAC? Does the CAC want to sticker only high-end (65.7-65.9) coins for the grade? Does the CAC want to sticker solid for the grade and high-end (65.3-65.9) coins for the grade? Does the CAC want to sticker low-end (but accurately graded), solid for the grade and high-end (65.0-65.9) coins for the grade? The use of hobby-industry accepted terminology on the CAC website infers high-end only, TDN specifically states the inclusion of low-end and solid for the grade coins in addition to high-end while Laura Sperber on the Legend website specifically excludes low-end coins. A reasonable, observant and intelligent person might wonder what is going on with the CAC. Perhaps a FAQ section on the CAC homepage could define the new usage of the term premium quality so that folks would understand that the term is being used by the CAC in a matter inconsistent with its accepted usage. Additionally, perhaps there could be an official spokesperson for CAC so that TDN and Mark Feld are not issuing informal guidelines, interpretations and definitions on the NGC boards while Laura Sperber might be using definitions that do not mesh with those written by the other members of this group.

 

The fact is that the CAC was given a second chance to make a first impression by participating at the Coinfest show and that this impression, while quite positive to many, left open many doors and questions regarding the entity. It has now been a month since the Coinfest show and I still have not seen an authoritative response from the CAC regarding the definition of their terminology, neither has there been the establishment of a FAQ page associated with the CAC website where the new definition of accepted hobby-industry terminology can be defined and shared. These should be addressed and fixed before it is too late.

 

An additional mystery associated with the CAC is the sight-unseen market for these CAC-stickered coins. This market would seem to be, for the most part, non-existent or, at least, not what one would want to engage in as a seller. What I am getting at is that the sight-unseen levels will likely be lower than Greysheet bid levels for each issue while still being higher than Bluesheet levels. For some coins Bluesheet can be useful since it goes into grading areas that the Greysheet does not tread, but for many issues the Bluesheet might be thought of as a level where truly low-end, difficult to move or overgraded coins might be priced. Greysheet, on the other hand, is dedicated to pricing for accurately graded coinage whether it is raw or slabbed. Perhaps a synonymous term for "accurately graded" coinage would be "solid for the grade" coinage. However, the CAC has redefined the term "premium quality" to use in-house to mean "solid for the grade", which therefore means that the CAC will sticker coinage that meets or exceeds Greysheet standards. I base my hypothesis of a sub-Greysheet CAC sight-unseen bid upon the fact that Greysheet is for sight-seen trades that can be declined once the coin is viewed in-hand whereas the CAC system is a sight-unseen system, which infers that the coin is sold without the right of return once the coin in question is sent at the CAC bid level. Therefore, most dealers would likely limit their financial exposure on sight-unseen transactions by issuing a lower bid price in these instances. Since the CAC has offered no public explanation for some of the facets of the business, we in the hobby-industry who are being asked to support the venture must interpret the CAC business plan using our experience in the hobby-industry.

 

What does all this mean? Well, it might mean that the CAC will buy CAC-stickered coins below Greysheet levels even though those coins meet fully the current leading grading standard and might be better priced at Greysheet levels. It is possible that if one had a premium quality aka solid for the grade aka accurately graded coin that was difficult to move because of the market niche then the CAC network would come in handy provided that CAC members would buy the coin. Since no information regarding the CAC sight-unseen network has been shared, I do not know if CAC members are required to post bids on issues that have a CAC population and I do not know if those members are required to buy those coins that are produced at their bid levels. This means that I cannot tell you if the CAC sight-unseen system is worth anything. Alternatively, selling a relatively liquid or easy to sell CAC-stickered coin within the CAC sight-unseen system would seem to be folly if one did not need the money immediately and if the CAC sight-unseen system were producing dealer bids lower than Greysheet.

 

The well-intentioned explanation previously offered by Mark Feld regarding the price levels of the CAC sight-unseen network revolved around the idea that the CAC would establish prices once the quality of coins within the CAC network became established. At first blush this sounds reasonable until one realizes that the CAC should already know full well the quality of coinage that it will sticker and, therefore, dealer members should know the price levels that they are willing to pay for this quality. The offered explanation that the quality of accepted coinage is not yet known indicates that the CAC truly does not at this time know what quality of coinage should be accepted by the entity, which is something that does not fill me with confidence.

 

The problems that I have with the CAC are at least four and these are-

 

1) The lack of information as to the workings of the sight-unseen CAC dealer network

 

2) The lack of published price levels associated with the sight-unseen CAC dealer network

 

3) The lack of communication of pertinent facts regarding the CAC from the CAC itself

 

4) The unilateral changing of accepted numismatic terminology to include average coins into the premium quality fold.

 

The CAC had a very generous offer at the Coinfest show where the group would evaluate twenty PCGS or NGC certified coins without charge for collectors. I declined this invitation even though I own a number of very nice coins and even though I brought some of them with me. It was declined because I view the submission of coins to the CAC as tacit approval of the entity and the subsequent display of such coinage would infer support of the entity. At this time, I cannot approve of the CAC strategy if it is not shared with the collecting public, neither can I support the group as long as its public face is more along the lines of “We know what’s good for you, so do it” instead of one such as “This is our plan to help folks, let’s work together”. I had previously held very high hopes for the CAC, but at this time will reserve judgment until the dust settles.

 

One may consider me to be someone who knows just enough to be dangerous. That is, I know something about grading coins, I know something about working a table as a dealer and I know something about the TPGs. However, I have never had to make a living grading coins, working as a dealer or working at a TPG. I try to be honest, I try to be reasonable, I try to be analytical and I try to enter a situation without firmly set or entrenched ideas. This may work to my benefit in some cases, but might work against me in others. In truth, I would be delighted if one could show me where I am wrong regarding the CAC as currently construed and would be happy to have you link the relevant CAC information issued from the CAC that indicates I am wrong. Absent that, everyone in the hobby-industry is left to guess as to how the CAC will run its business.

 

Thank you for your time reading this extraordinarily long message and for your consideration of its contents.

 

[realone]

After reading your entire dialogue I wholeheartedly agree with everything that you stated and would like to have the CAC answer these important questions. You have made excellent points that need answers. I would never use the CAC until these questions are indeed answered otherwise I would be just another fool for falling for their pseudo added service. Thanks Tom for taking the time to express your well written thoughts on this important subject matter, someone needs to say this to the new tpg on the block.

[MAULEMALL]

Excellent post Tom and although at first glance some looks to be critical I believe it to be a positive post and something the CAC should look to for a basic guideline to get off the defensive and back to their original role..

 

[WinstonWare]

Eloquently written (thumbs u I’m not all that concerned with CAC myself but I always read your posts. This was another nice read.

[MarkFeld]

Hi Tom and thanks for your comments. For now, at least, I will address one of your points:

 

...and I was shocked that there was no official CAC representative response to all the theories, accusations and hyperbole that was thrown about on the boards. How could the CAC allow itself to be caught without public representation when it was so close to implementation and when contradictory and competing statements were being made about it publicly?

In my view it was extremely unfortunate that the news about CAC broke the way it did, due to a premature and (despite what some individuals want to believe) unintentional leak of an announcement. However, as much as I believe John Albanese might have wanted to have a question and answer thread, both here and on the PCGS forum, it is my understanding that he did not think that would be appropriate or welcomed by NGC and PCGS.

 

And, while I try to address questions and comments about CAC here from time to time, I am not entirely comfortable doing so, since this is NGC's, not CAC's forum. Consequently, for every post you see me make, there have been many others that I thought about writing but decided not to.

 

In addition to that, even if I or someone else wanted to post more, it is almost impossible to keep up with all of the questions. I suspect that even if everything there is to know about CAC were perfectly explained in one thread, there would still be numerous questions. That seems to be the norm for groups of people and internet chat forums, regardless of the subject matter.

 

So, I encourage anyone who has questions, comments, concerns, suggestions, complaints, etc, to contact John Albanese directly. He's a heck of a nice guy, fun to talk to and cares deeply about our hobby - yes I know certain people will never believe that. You might or might not get a response that way, but I can just about guarantee you that he won't be posting here. By the way, please don't tell him that I suggested you get in touch with him.

 

[mommam17]

We went to Coinfest with 40 classic commems and had CAC look at them. 34 now have stickers on them. But the 6 that did not sticker are nice coins. NGC or PCGS called them gems. My OPINION, because of my experience with them, is they are stickering PQ coins, not solid for the grade. When CAC gets going, I`m sure many collectors will have coins not sticker that they think should. Don`t be fooled by the high percentage that stickered at Coinfest, it will drop alot.

[jesbroken]

Thank you, Tom, for an extremely well thought out and written statement regarding the esoteric views of the CAC. Were their views not privately held unto theirselves your post would have been unwarranted. I believe that I hold with most of your remarks, as does most likely the public, just not able to make such an erudite commentary as you have. Why they have not made any of your points public is beyond me, as it only leads to more questions and hypothesizing by interested parties. I have always been of the opinion that freely flowing information clears obstacles that otherwise stalement enterprise. As always, JMHO.

[physics-fan3.14]

Thanks Tom. That was without question the best, most thought out, eloquently written thread on the CAC we have ever seen. Now if only we could get some answers....

[TomB]

I'm delighted that you took the time to read through and post to this thread, Mark. After all, I had not told you I was going to write on this topic and you must have thought to yourself something like "Ugh...he wrote forever..."

 

One thing I did not mention in my initial post, likely because I had not realized the point was not addressed, is that I have never had a negative experience in my interactions with Mark Feld, TDN or Laura Sperber and that in my limited experience with Doug Winter he is a fine person, too. Additionally, I have heard nothing but universal praise for the integrity of John Albanese and his knowledge.

 

I also believe that the announcement of CAC was an unplanned event that took the overall group by surprise. However, a single FAQ page on the CAC website would go a long way to answering the questions that I posed as well as dismissing the sometimes wild hypotheses that have been floated previously. Additionally, I'm glad to see that this thread has remained so civil and has not turned into a gang attack on any individual or any entity.

[gmarguli]

An exceptional post by TomB. It summed up very well exactly what I was thinking, but didn't care enough to write myself. The more I hear about the CAC, the less I know about CAC.

 

CAC: Restating the Obvious™

 

In my view it was extremely unfortunate that the news about CAC broke the way it did, due to a premature and (despite what some individuals want to believe) unintentional leak of an announcement. However, as much as I believe John Albanese might have wanted to have a question and answer thread, both here and on the PCGS forum, it is my understanding that he did not think that would be appropriate or welcomed by NGC and PCGS.

This doesn't excuse the fact that there is no information on the CAC website. In fact, I can't even figure out if the CAC has a website. Do they? The two results found thru search engines produces dead links that are owned by a coin dealer in NJ.

 

It would be very easy for John to read these forums and take the questions off them and answer them on the CAC website - should he have a website.

 

[TomB]

Greg, thanks for the kind words about the post. This link should take you to the CAC website, which I believe is a real website and not a spoof. If, however, it is a spoof then some of the content of my post might be inaccurate, too.

[IGWT]

That's the genuine website. The original URL was www.collectorsacceptancecorp.com (per J. Albanese's business card), and that address redirected to caccoin.com for a period of time.

[mommam17]

They will be moving into their new offices in a week or 2. I`m sure things will be alot clearer then. Be patient.

[James_OldeTowne]

A brilliant and well thought out discussion, in my opinion. You have written virtually my exact thoughts.

 

I will add this.

 

There is a fatal weakness in the CAC plan that is difficult to put into concrete terms, but is what has so far, in my opinion, generated most all of the negative reaction. That is, rather than helping collectors learn for themselves how to determine what is "premium quality" (or whatever term is used, it doesn't matter), they have chosen to dictate what is premium quality.

 

By definition, this philosophy runs counter to the whole purpose of this hobby - or any hobby - and that is the desire to learn and decide for one's self what is desirable and what is not.

[JamminJ]

Great post Tom.

 

Much more eloquent than my "laughably obvious scam" reaction. (thumbs u

[Hoot]

A brilliant and well thought out discussion, in my opinion. You have written virtually my exact thoughts.

 

I will add this.

 

There is a fatal weakness in the CAC plan that is difficult to put into concrete terms, but is what has so far, in my opinion, generated most all of the negative reaction. That is, rather than helping collectors learn for themselves how to determine what is "premium quality" (or whatever term is used, it doesn't matter), they have chosen to dictate what is premium quality.

 

By definition, this philosophy runs counter to the whole purpose of this hobby - or any hobby - and that is the desire to learn and decide for one's self what is desirable and what is not.

 

Yes, excellent post Tom. I'd also agree with James, and add that CAC, in its very conception, could only appeal to a small population of coin collectors. Coin collectors, as a whole, are much more diverse than the folks who hang out on coin boards, attend major shows, involve themselves in a numismatic specialty, or center themselves in the antiquarianism of numismatics. The popultion is largely comprised of people who buy coins quite ignorantly (often haphazardly), and more than anything, want to believe their coins are nice, PQ, great, pretty, excellent, valuable, etc., etc., no matter what the small nucleus in the center of numismatics thinks. And belief is the single most potent motivation of those who are determined, no matter what their intentions may be. Moreover, accepted conventions (as "strandards" does not apply) of modern grading have a history that walks hand-in-hand with the populace. Consequently, the CAC cannot speak widely to the populace or swim against their mighty current.

 

Hoot

[michael]

Thanks Tom. That was without question the best, most thought out, eloquently written thread on the CAC we have ever seen. Now if only we could get some answers....

 

(thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u

 

 

 

[michael]

A brilliant and well thought out discussion, in my opinion. You have written virtually my exact thoughts.

 

I will add this.

 

There is a fatal weakness in the CAC plan that is difficult to put into concrete terms, but is what has so far, in my opinion, generated most all of the negative reaction. That is, rather than helping collectors learn for themselves how to determine what is "premium quality" (or whatever term is used, it doesn't matter), they have chosen to dictate what is premium quality.

 

By definition, this philosophy runs counter to the whole purpose of this hobby - or any hobby - and that is the desire to learn and decide for one's self what is desirable and what is not.

 

(thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u

[leeg]

"Super" post Tom that raises some valid points that need to be addressed by CAC. I'm still in the wait and see mode. The CAC coins I've seen in holders have been priced well above recent prices realized. Not sure they warrant it. I'm also concerned about the mix of CAC stickered coins and non CAC stickered coins in dealers inventory. Non stickered coins are slug's?

[IGWT]

Moreover, accepted conventions (as "strandards" does not apply) . . . .

 

I've never before heard the concept of grading explained as "accepted conventions" instead of as "standards." There's so much truth in those few words that they're almost profound.

[pbfloyd-migration]

I believe anything that bolsters the confidence of those thinking about buying a coin

is great for the industry. The grading services have proven this. There are people out there who like to have some of their money in coins. The CAC ,and it's market

will likely bring more investors into the mix. While I can see how the advanced collector would frown on this idea, I cannot see anything but good happening.

 

[MikeKing]

I apologize for the length of this post...

 

apology accepted

[MikeInFL]

While I think the last six words of the title are little over the top, the body of this post is well said. Thanks Tom, for yet another constructive post...Mike

[Houston Investor]

Premium quality is more a subjective concept (coin high end for the grade) than something someone can sticker with any kind of accuracy. Some people like toned coins while others like brilliant coins. Both the TPG grade and sticker designation by CAC are only an opinion. It is the buyer who ultimately decides.

 

I have to like the coin itself before buying it. Currently I have seen only 3 or 4 CAC stickered coins on ebay. The one coin I may have been interested in, an 1895 PF 65 BN Indian Cent had a spot near the date. I do not consider such spotted coins PQ. I agree, CAC has not communicated effictively, but do they really care? It appears their main target market is well heeled collectors who buy coins in the $1000 range and up. Considering a number of their principals deal in big ticket material I am sure the CAC sticker on their coins is a great two-way synergy for them in roping in some of their big spending customers. Beyond that, they do not seem to have caught on with the rest of the marketplace. Time will tell.

[TomB]

I'll bring this to the top here at NGC because I was just browsing the PCGS site and noticed that the PCGS-posted thread was still there, which surprised me, but then two minutes later it was removed. I guess it's gone, but I had anticipated this and saved the first 90 or so replies on my computer, which contained many thoughtful insights as well as some not-so-thoughtful ones.

[WinstonWare]

I'll bring this to the top here at NGC because I was just browsing the PCGS site and noticed that the PCGS-posted thread was still there, which surprised me, but then two minutes later it was removed. I guess it's gone, but I had anticipated this and saved the first 90 or so replies on my computer, which contained many thoughtful insights as well as some not-so-thoughtful ones.

 

Hahaha. Yeah I noticed that there were some not-so-thoughtful ones. Oh well...

[James_OldeTowne]

I'll bring this to the top here at NGC because I was just browsing the PCGS site and noticed that the PCGS-posted thread was still there, which surprised me, but then two minutes later it was removed. I guess it's gone, but I had anticipated this and saved the first 90 or so replies on my computer, which contained many thoughtful insights as well as some not-so-thoughtful ones.

 

Hahaha. Yeah I noticed that there were some not-so-thoughtful ones. Oh well...

UNBELIEVABLE!

 

I just continue to be astounded at the way PCGS continues to make dreadful decisions on censorship of their site. Surely, SURELY they could see that TomB's post was a well thought out contribution to their forum? Couldn't they?

 

After I saw Winston's post, I went over there and sampled a few threads. I think it's actually gotten better, perhaps a bit cleaned up, but my gosh. Did they really feel the need to yank the thread?

 

I'm just shaking my head in disbelief. Wish I would have had a chance to read it all!

[MarkFeld]

I think it's pathetic that some posters over there insulted/attacked CAC based on an on-line image of a coin. Not to mention that they hadn't seen the coin in person, they ignored the fact that the image was almost certainly not representative of what the coin actually looked like and they didn't indicate that they had any problem with the grading company which had assigned the grade in the first place.

 

There were certainly some good posts with legitimate criticisms, but I believe they were outnumbered by cheap shots. I don't have any objection to honest/fair-minded criticisms, for example, the type of which Tom and Lou post here.

[WinstonWare]

I think some of the folks that post at PCGS would be all for a PCGS-PQ sticker but short of that will degrade anything else.

[James_OldeTowne]

I think it's pathetic that some posters over there insulted/attacked CAC based on an on-line image of a coin. Not to mention that they hadn't seen the coin in person, they ignored the fact that the image was almost certainly not representative of what the coin actually looked like and they didn't indicate that they had any problem with the grading company which had assigned the grade in the first place.

 

There were certainly some good posts with legitimate criticisms, but I believe they were outnumbered by cheap shots. I don't have any objection to honest/fair-minded criticisms, for example, the type of which Tom and Lou post here.

Mark, do you think PCGS saw the criticisms as cheap shots, and that was the reason for yanking it? Or do you suspect other motives?