The Point Most Hobbyists are Missing about CAC

[CTcollector1]

You will not find any waxed, puttied, smoked, lasered, soldered, color enhanced, or otherwise doctored coins achieving stickers status. In my opinion, that is the more important value CAC will contribute to the hobby versus the intricacies of whether a coin is solid or PQ for the grade.

 

As more problematic coins are identified and put back to the grading companies, simple economics will force the TPG's into better quality control. Hopefully, that will result in coin doctors and less reputable dealers finding a new line of work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gmarguli]

You will not find any waxed, puttied, smoked, lasered, soldered, color enhanced, or otherwise doctored coins achieving stickers status. In my opinion, that is the more important value CAC will contribute to the hobby versus the intricacies of whether a coin is solid or PQ for the grade.

 

I completely disagree. If these coins slipped thru the TPG, then why wouldn't they slip thru the CAC? Is the CAC grader(s?) that much better than those at the TPG that all these items will be detected now? Doubtful. The only way they wouldn't slip thru is if they turned in the slab.

 

Remember that the CAC grader used to work for PCGS & NGC. Don't you think these coins slipped thru these services when he worked there? What's changed?

 

 

 

As more problematic coins are identified and put back to the grading companies, simple economics will force the TPG's into better quality control. Hopefully, that will result in coin doctors and less reputable dealers finding a new line of work.

 

Again, I disagree. The TPG do an excellent job of weeding out the "bad" coins. If there was a way for them to make more money by doing this better, they would be doing it. Right now they are happy buying back a certain percentage of the coins as that is the most profitable for them.

[goldrarities.com-migration]

I completely disagree. If these coins slipped thru the TPG, then why wouldn't they slip thru the CAC?

 

 

That's an easy one- there is not a grader at either service that's as good as Albanese, and that is a widely accepted fact.

[MarkFeld]

I completely disagree. If these coins slipped thru the TPG, then why wouldn't they slip thru the CAC?

 

 

That's an easy one- there is not a grader at either service that's as good as Albanese, and that is a widely accepted fact.

Al, I probably have as much respect for John's ability as anyone else does. However, statements like that just beg for an argument, and can't be proved, even to non-skeptics. Also, while I agree with CTcollector1 that CAC will catch a lot of the problem coins, they won't be able to catch all of them. In my view, that is setting the bar impossibly high.

[CTcollector1]

You will not find any waxed, puttied, smoked, lasered, soldered, color enhanced, or otherwise doctored coins achieving stickers status. In my opinion, that is the more important value CAC will contribute to the hobby versus the intricacies of whether a coin is solid or PQ for the grade.

 

I completely disagree. If these coins slipped thru the TPG, then why wouldn't they slip thru the CAC? Is the CAC grader(s?) that much better than those at the TPG that all these items will be detected now? Doubtful. The only way they wouldn't slip thru is if they turned in the slab.

 

Remember that the CAC grader used to work for PCGS & NGC. Don't you think these coins slipped thru these services when he worked there? What's changed?

 

 

 

As more problematic coins are identified and put back to the grading companies, simple economics will force the TPG's into better quality control. Hopefully, that will result in coin doctors and less reputable dealers finding a new line of work.

 

Again, I disagree. The TPG do an excellent job of weeding out the "bad" coins. If there was a way for them to make more money by doing this better, they would be doing it. Right now they are happy buying back a certain percentage of the coins as that is the most profitable for them.

 

Fortunately, I have facts on my side as I am privy to a couple of instances where CAC identified a problematic coin that was missed by TPG, Dealer, and Collector. As an added bonus, the collectors are now financially whole.

[MikeInFL]

I look at it like this.... When you're faced with a disease/affliction, it is very common to go to another doctor for a second opinion. The CAC, to me, is nothing more than another opinion.

 

While all that I hear is that JA has a great eye, in the end he's human just like the graders at NGC/PCGS, and subject to the same failings of humans and human nature.

 

I'm always wary of using terms like "never" or "you will not find" as is the case here and for the above reasons...Mike

 

p.s. your last point is a very valid one, and bears repeating:

 

As more problematic coins are identified and put back to the grading companies, simple economics will force the TPG's into better quality control. Hopefully, that will result in coin doctors and less reputable dealers finding a new line of work.

 

I think many share this opinion/hope, myself included, and because the issue you raise is such a huge and problematic one, it is part of the reason why I'm among those who hope the CAC succeeds.

[jackson64]

I would like to politely ask my fellow board members to please keep the CAC threads to Numismatic Tangents...I have purposefully not entered that area of the boards for weeks so as to avoid threads like this...

 

I sincerely ask this in all kindness..and do not wish any controversy or outrage from those who are prominent members of these boards..but also financially invested in the issue....

 

I am just a humble collector who wishes to see what my fellow collectors are collecting...and share our thoughts and opinions about COINS............

 

Thank you, Jackson

[MarkFeld]

I would like to politely ask my fellow board members to please keep the CAC threads to Numismatic Tangents...I have purposefully not entered that area of the boards for weeks so as to avoid threads like this...

 

I sincerely ask this in all kindness..and do not wish any controversy or outrage from those who are prominent members of these boards..but also financially invested in the issue....

 

I am just a humble collector who wishes to see what my fellow collectors are collecting...and share our thoughts and opinions about COINS............

 

Thank you, Jackson

That sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, it is not just CAC threads that end up on the U.S. Coins forum instead of the tangents one. And in fact, I think I occasionally see threads about U.S. coins on the tangents forum, instead - it can get confusing!

 

Edited to add:

 

Fortunately, I have facts on my side as I am privy to a couple of instances where CAC identified a problematic coin that was missed by TPG, Dealer, and Collector. As an added bonus, the collectors are now financially whole.

 

 

I expect that there will be quite a bit of that. And let's not forget that, to a large degree, TPG's have a strong financial disincentive to identify such coins in their own holders.

[gmarguli]

I completely disagree. If these coins slipped thru the TPG, then why wouldn't they slip thru the CAC?

 

 

That's an easy one- there is not a grader at either service that's as good as Albanese, and that is a widely accepted fact.

 

I noticed you missed the last line in that section of my post. Here is it again for you:

 

Remember that the CAC grader used to work for PCGS & NGC. Don't you think these coins slipped thru these services when he worked there? What's changed?

 

 

Please, take of your rose colored glasses. (thumbs u

[Tradedollarnut]

Since you're being so insistent, Greg: How many problem coins do you see in holders from the era that you are referencing? That would be rattlers at PCGS and fatties at NGC.

 

How does the number you've observed compare to those in newer holders?

[MarkFeld]

I completely disagree. If these coins slipped thru the TPG, then why wouldn't they slip thru the CAC?

 

 

That's an easy one- there is not a grader at either service that's as good as Albanese, and that is a widely accepted fact.

 

I noticed you missed the last line in that section of my post. Here is it again for you:

 

Remember that the CAC grader used to work for PCGS & NGC. Don't you think these coins slipped thru these services when he worked there? What's changed?

 

 

Please, take of your rose colored glasses. (thumbs u

Perhaps far fewer such coins "slipped thru" while he was at PCGS (which I think was for only a brief time) and NGC?

 

While it might just be a matter of perception, it certainly seems that things have gotten worse during the past several years. John Albanese hasn't been at PCGS for roughly 18(?) years and NGC for almost 10(?).

[bsshog40]

Since you're being so insistent, Greg: How many problem coins do you see in holders from the era that you are referencing? That would be rattlers at PCGS and fatties at NGC.

 

How does the number you've observed compare to those in newer holders?

 

That's actually a good point TDN. I've seen more people looking for the old rattlers and fatties more than the modern slabs.

[gmarguli]

Since you're being so insistent, Greg: How many problem coins do you see in holders from the era that you are referencing? That would be rattlers at PCGS and fatties at NGC.

 

How does the number you've observed compare to those in newer holders?

 

I do not consider a small sample size that has been repeatedly picked over to remove the nice examples, as well as had significant time to allow the TPG to remove the awful examples, to be a good indication of what one grader will be able to accomplish today.

 

My point was very clear, the CAC shill, goldrarities, has made a clearly false statement and CTcollector1 has made a wildly optimistic statement.

 

BTW, remember when someone was using dental epoxy to hide hairlines on proofs? Wasn't JA working at NGC during this time? I'm sure he is an exceptional grader, but if he missed problem coins back then, he'll miss some today.

 

[James_OldeTowne]

You will not find any waxed, puttied, smoked, lasered, soldered, color enhanced, or otherwise doctored coins achieving stickers status. In my opinion, that is the more important value CAC will contribute to the hobby versus the intricacies of whether a coin is solid or PQ for the grade.

 

As more problematic coins are identified and put back to the grading companies, simple economics will force the TPG's into better quality control. Hopefully, that will result in coin doctors and less reputable dealers finding a new line of work.

I emphatically disagree. After all, this is the exact same line of reasoning that coincided with the advent of third-party grading.

 

I must come back to my point that I've posted a couple of other times elsewhere. The only way coin doctoring decreases is when the money to be made decreases, and this can only follow a downturn in overall market value of coins.

 

... which unfortunately will never happen.

[gmarguli]

Since you're being so insistent, Greg: How many problem coins do you see in holders from the era that you are referencing? That would be rattlers at PCGS and fatties at NGC.

 

How does the number you've observed compare to those in newer holders?

 

That's actually a good point TDN. I've seen more people looking for the old rattlers and fatties more than the modern slabs.

 

Because the majority of people are looking for upgrades, not because they are looking for more problem free coins.

[MarkFeld]

and this can only follow a downturn in overall market value of coins.

 

... which unfortunately will never happen.

Of course there will be a downturn. It's only a matter of when.

[MarkFeld]

Greg, are you of the opinion that the number of problem coins in holders has or has not gotten worse, on a relative basis during the past 10 years?

[James_OldeTowne]

and this can only follow a downturn in overall market value of coins.

 

... which unfortunately will never happen.

Of course there will be a downturn. It's only a matter of when.

Mark,

 

I've resigned to the fact that the multi-million dollar coin dealers in this country will never allow a major downturn in the market such that all the bad coins and bad people are flushed out (at least most of them). The M.O. today is to pile more money on every problem. This just plays into the hands of those shysters who know how to play the system.

[gmarguli]

Greg, are you of the opinion that the number of problem coins in holders has or has not gotten worse, on a relative basis during the past 10 years?

 

I think the TPG are letting more coins thru both intentionally and unintentionally. I believe this to be true for all the TPG. Stick JA as a grader at any of the TPG and I do not believe he would be able to detect these unintentional holdered coins at a statistically higher level than that of the other graders.

[CTcollector1]

You will not find any waxed, puttied, smoked, lasered, soldered, color enhanced, or otherwise doctored coins achieving stickers status. In my opinion, that is the more important value CAC will contribute to the hobby versus the intricacies of whether a coin is solid or PQ for the grade.

 

As more problematic coins are identified and put back to the grading companies, simple economics will force the TPG's into better quality control. Hopefully, that will result in coin doctors and less reputable dealers finding a new line of work.

I emphatically disagree. After all, this is the exact same line of reasoning that coincided with the advent of third-party grading.

 

I must come back to my point that I've posted a couple of other times elsewhere. The only way coin doctoring decreases is when the money to be made decreases, and this can only follow a downturn in overall market value of coins.

 

... which unfortunately will never happen.

 

I would just rebut that Doctor's need enablers to make a living. They need to get their coins slabbed and they need a front to sell it. Once those avenues get exposed via CAC enough times things will start to clean up.

 

 

[CTcollector1]

Since you're being so insistent, Greg: How many problem coins do you see in holders from the era that you are referencing? That would be rattlers at PCGS and fatties at NGC.

 

How does the number you've observed compare to those in newer holders?

 

I don't consider my views on this subject inconsistent at all. Nor do I consider a small sample size that has been repeatedly picked over to remove the nice examples, as well as had significant time to allow the TPG to remove the awful examples, to be a good indication of what one grader will be able to accomplish today.

 

My point was very clear, the CAC shill, goldrarities, has made a clearly false statement and CTcollector1 has made a wildly optimistic statement.

 

BTW, remember when someone was using dental epoxy to hide hairlines on proofs? Wasn't JA working at NGC during this time? I'm sure he is an exceptional grader, but if he missed problem coins back then, he'll miss some today.

 

I would rather be "wildly" optimistic versus angry, close minded and predisposed.

[gmarguli]

Since you're being so insistent, Greg: How many problem coins do you see in holders from the era that you are referencing? That would be rattlers at PCGS and fatties at NGC.

 

How does the number you've observed compare to those in newer holders?

 

I don't consider my views on this subject inconsistent at all. Nor do I consider a small sample size that has been repeatedly picked over to remove the nice examples, as well as had significant time to allow the TPG to remove the awful examples, to be a good indication of what one grader will be able to accomplish today.

 

My point was very clear, the CAC shill, goldrarities, has made a clearly false statement and CTcollector1 has made a wildly optimistic statement.

 

BTW, remember when someone was using dental epoxy to hide hairlines on proofs? Wasn't JA working at NGC during this time? I'm sure he is an exceptional grader, but if he missed problem coins back then, he'll miss some today.

 

I would rather be "wildly" optimistic versus angry, close minded and predisposed.

 

I'd rather be logical versus "wildly" optimistic.

[IGWT]

I don't consider my views on this subject inconsistent at all.

 

He wrote "insistent," not "inconsistent."

 

Collectors need more protection from doctored coins than the TPGs seem to be providing at this point in time. I would have fewer questions and qualms about CAC if that were its principal goal.

[CTcollector1]

Since you're being so insistent, Greg: How many problem coins do you see in holders from the era that you are referencing? That would be rattlers at PCGS and fatties at NGC.

 

How does the number you've observed compare to those in newer holders?

 

I don't consider my views on this subject inconsistent at all. Nor do I consider a small sample size that has been repeatedly picked over to remove the nice examples, as well as had significant time to allow the TPG to remove the awful examples, to be a good indication of what one grader will be able to accomplish today.

 

My point was very clear, the CAC shill, goldrarities, has made a clearly false statement and CTcollector1 has made a wildly optimistic statement.

 

BTW, remember when someone was using dental epoxy to hide hairlines on proofs? Wasn't JA working at NGC during this time? I'm sure he is an exceptional grader, but if he missed problem coins back then, he'll miss some today.

 

I would rather be "wildly" optimistic versus angry, close minded and predisposed.

 

I'd rather be logical versus "wildly" optimistic.

 

Then maybe you should try it some time...

[James_OldeTowne]

I would just rebut that Doctor's need enablers to make a living. They need to get their coins slabbed and they need a front to sell it. Once those avenues get exposed via CAC enough times things will start to clean up.

Hi CT!

 

I respect your opinion, but from what I've seen, coin doctors have no difficulty whatsoever finding a "front" to either submit or sell their coins (or both). I'm thinking of a couple of coin doctors in particular that PCGS has gone after specifically at the point of submission, and those coin doctors haven't been fazed in the slightest. They just get another buddy to submit for them.

 

Of course, this is just with regard to doctoring. I haven't seen nearly enough "CAC approved" coins to evaluate their skill in that area.

 

Thanks for discussing!

[123cents]

Doesn't miss grading have a lot to do with the time factor? Aren't most coins only looked at about 15 to 20 seconds at the major grading services?

I thought the CAC was formed to give these coins a closer look.

[gmarguli]

Since you're being so insistent, Greg: How many problem coins do you see in holders from the era that you are referencing? That would be rattlers at PCGS and fatties at NGC.

 

How does the number you've observed compare to those in newer holders?

 

I don't consider my views on this subject inconsistent at all. Nor do I consider a small sample size that has been repeatedly picked over to remove the nice examples, as well as had significant time to allow the TPG to remove the awful examples, to be a good indication of what one grader will be able to accomplish today.

 

My point was very clear, the CAC shill, goldrarities, has made a clearly false statement and CTcollector1 has made a wildly optimistic statement.

 

BTW, remember when someone was using dental epoxy to hide hairlines on proofs? Wasn't JA working at NGC during this time? I'm sure he is an exceptional grader, but if he missed problem coins back then, he'll miss some today.

 

I would rather be "wildly" optimistic versus angry, close minded and predisposed.

 

I'd rather be logical versus "wildly" optimistic.

 

Then maybe you should try it some time...

 

I will be right now. I'm putting you on ignore so I won't be able to see any more of your CAC shill posts and whines about why the hobby hasn't been nice to you.

[MarkFeld]

I don't consider my views on this subject inconsistent at all.

 

He wrote "insistent," not "inconsistent."

 

Collectors need more protection from doctored coins than the TPGs seem to be providing at this point in time. I would have fewer questions and qualms about CAC if that were its principal goal.

At the very least, I think that is one of CAC's principal goals.

[gmarguli]

I don't consider my views on this subject inconsistent at all.

 

He wrote "insistent," not "inconsistent."

 

Collectors need more protection from doctored coins than the TPGs seem to be providing at this point in time. I would have fewer questions and qualms about CAC if that were its principal goal.

 

:doh: I changed my post.

[MarkFeld]

I think the TPG are letting more coins thru both intentionally and unintentionally. I believe this to be true for all the TPG. Stick JA as a grader at any of the TPG and I do not believe he would be able to detect these unintentional holdered coins at a statistically higher level than that of the other graders.

Greg, putting aside the "unintentionally" part for the moment, do you think that CAC will be "letting more coins thru .... intentionally"?