You canNOT say CAC labeled coins are ipso facto PQ

[IGWT]

hm

[MarkFeld]

Really, I'm not aware of any censoring of CAC on this board, including Carson City's several month rant!

 

A thread on the topic of the CAC detecting a forum member's puttied coin was poofed earlier today. I am not sure what triggered the mods to poof it, but there were criticisms of the CAC, PCGS, Heritage, dealers, and others. Everyone had a black eye except NGC.

 

That is very odd indeed....I wonder why...

 

Perhaps the original poster requested it be deleted?

I have been told - and this is not a quote - that the notation of puttying was meant to be an internal comment within CAC, but that it was inadvertently sent out along with the coin. Because it is not normal CAC procedure to comment in that way, they asked that the thread be deleted.

[IGWT]

I have been told - and this is not a quote - that the notation of puttying was meant to be an internal comment within CAC, but that it was inadvertently sent out along with the coin. Because it is not normal CAC procedure to comment in that way, they asked that the thread be deleted.

 

That's surprising. I know of other instances where CAC refused the sticker because of doctoring; and, in those cases, the submitters were told the reason. Are you saying that CAC doesn't provide the information necessary for the owner to deal with the problem? Why keep the owner in the dark if a coin has been doctored?

[MarkFeld]

I have been told - and this is not a quote - that the notation of puttying was meant to be an internal comment within CAC, but that it was inadvertently sent out along with the coin. Because it is not normal CAC procedure to comment in that way, they asked that the thread be deleted.

 

That's surprising. I know of other instances where CAC refused the sticker because of doctoring; and, in those cases, the submitters were told the reason. Are you saying that CAC doesn't provide the information necessary for the owner to deal with the problem? Why keep the owner in the dark if a coin has been doctored?

I'm saying what I already said based on a very brief conversation I had.

 

Hypothetically speaking, however, if CAC returned large groups of coins and included notes affixed to them indicating that they were puttied, AT'd, whatever, I can just imagine the outrage coming from some people, proclaiming "How dare they do such a thing!" I can guarantee you that no matter how things are done, someone will be displeased.

[coinman1794]

I wonder what the legal considerations are at CAC that might have something to do with their proceedures. For instance, they don't put any kind of sticker on coins that they don't think meet the assigned grade. If they were to put a sticker of dissapproval on overgraded coins, would that be infringing on the marketability and reputation of the original grading service? On the other hand, stickering only coins that meet or exceed the assigned grade is a win-win situation for CAC and the original host company.

[TomB]

I have been told - and this is not a quote - that the notation of puttying was meant to be an internal comment within CAC, but that it was inadvertently sent out along with the coin. Because it is not normal CAC procedure to comment in that way, they asked that the thread be deleted.

 

That's surprising. I know of other instances where CAC refused the sticker because of doctoring; and, in those cases, the submitters were told the reason. Are you saying that CAC doesn't provide the information necessary for the owner to deal with the problem? Why keep the owner in the dark if a coin has been doctored?

I'm saying what I already said based on a very brief conversation I had.

 

Hypothetically speaking, however, if CAC returned large groups of coins and included notes affixed to them indicating that they were puttied, AT'd, whatever, I can just imagine the outrage coming from some people, proclaiming "How dare they do such a thing!" I can guarantee you that no matter how things are done, someone will be displeased.

I'm more disappointed in NGC than anyone else for removing a thread simply because the CAC made an internal error. Do you know who it was from CAC that complained?

[Houston Investor]

There are many, upon receiving a rejected coin from CAC, that the reason for the rejection was puttying - would not comment on a message board. They would quietly and quickly get rid of the coin thru ebay or teletrade. They would want to minimize their financial loss as much as possible and not call attention to the problem.

[TomB]

There are many, upon receiving a rejected coin from CAC, that the reason for the rejection was puttying - would not comment on a message board. They would quietly and quickly get rid of the coin thru ebay or teletrade. They would want to minimize their financial loss as much as possible and not call attention to the problem.

I agree with you completely, but it just seems odd that NGC allows threads that point out errors by PCGS and NGC while it removes a thread that writes about an error by CAC.

[IGWT]

I'm more disappointed in NGC than anyone else for removing a thread simply because the CAC made an internal error. Do you know who it was from CAC that complained?

It sure is unfortunate.

 

There are many, upon receiving a rejected coin from CAC, that the reason for the rejection was puttying - would not comment on a message board. They would quietly and quickly get rid of the coin thru ebay or teletrade. They would want to minimize their financial loss as much as possible and not call attention to the problem.

 

That's true, and it's to Tom P's credit and our benefit that he posted the information. Certainly, it seems as though he was perfectly within his rights to share the information about a coin that he owns.

[MikeInFL]

My my my my my my my

 

Oh my

[MikeInFL]

So presumably the CAC...perhaps to protect their interests, perhaps at the request of the current owner or other third party...had NGC bam the thread.

 

 

[MikeInFL]

My my my my my my my

 

Ohy!

[PerryHall]

There are many, upon receiving a rejected coin from CAC, that the reason for the rejection was puttying - would not comment on a message board. They would quietly and quickly get rid of the coin thru ebay or teletrade. They would want to minimize their financial loss as much as possible and not call attention to the problem.

 

I would think most people would return it to the grading service for their review under their guaranty.

[MikeKing]

There are many, upon receiving a rejected coin from CAC, that the reason for the rejection was puttying - would not comment on a message board. They would quietly and quickly get rid of the coin thru ebay or teletrade. They would want to minimize their financial loss as much as possible and not call attention to the problem.

 

I would think most people would return it to the grading service for their review under their guaranty.

 

perhaps this is part of the reason why that post was poofed.

if CAC notified everyone of their puttied coins, the TPG's would have to pay out for that. I suspect between the three of them, unwritten agreements will be reached.

[DirtyGoldMan]

I can guarantee you that no matter how things are done, someone will be displeased.

 

Ain't that the truth!

 

This thread has taken a very interesting turn. I am surprised to hear that there is some level of cooperation between NGC and the CAC.

[IGWT]

This thread has taken a very interesting turn. I am surprised to hear that there is some level of cooperation between NGC and the CAC.

 

On a PCGS-graded coin. We have plenty of raw materials to build an intriguing conspiracy.

[EZ_E]

This thread has taken a very interesting turn. I am surprised to hear that there is some level of cooperation between NGC and the CAC.

 

On a PCGS-graded coin. We have plenty of raw materials to build an intriguing conspiracy.

 

[font:Comic Sans MS]And Dena is the Evil Plot-Meister behind it all![/font]

[coinman1794]

Conspiracy or not, if a coin has putty on it you send it back for review.

[DirtyGoldMan]

Conspiracy or not, if a coin has putty on it you send it back for review.

 

I disagree. If a coin has putty on it, you don't buy it in the first place.

[Oldtrader3]

I agree that you should not buy it in the first place, if you are able to see the putty! It seems that some puttied coins get through the TPG's and fool mostly all of the collector community. The greatest threat of skillfully puttied coins, is identifying them before they have oxidized.

[coinman1794]

Conspiracy or not, if a coin has putty on it you send it back for review.

 

I disagree. If a coin has putty on it, you don't buy it in the first place.

 

Well, that would certainly solve it too! haha