Cost to submit coins to CAC?

[MarkFeld]

I have one anecdotal observation about the CAC sticker process with respect to possible value of a coin and another anecdotal observation with respect to liquidity.

 

The first observation pertains to my 1892 Barber half in a PCGS OGH and graded MS66. This coin had been brought to Baltimore previously as part of show-and-tell and several folks who deal in coins of this type asked what I paid for the piece. I had paid approximately $6k for it, which is quite a bit higher than the approximately $4k that an overgraded, no eye appeal dog that has no business in a PCGS MS66 holder yet somehow finds itself in a PCGS MS66 holder would fetch. Folks thought this was strong, yet fair. Once the coin received a CAC gold sticker and was shown to those same folks, or others in the niche, the response was that this coin was worth $12k-$14k (dealer 1) and $15k (dealer 2). Therefore, I think the presence of the gold CAC sticker on this coin made dealers value it more in line with an MS67.

 

The other observation is in relation to liquidity and also happened at the last Baltimore show. I had offered a very nice type coin to two dealers who are high profile, but neither wanted the coin near Greysheet. I then brought the coin to Legend (a high profile CAC backer) and offered the coin to them. It was purchased immediately once they saw the CAC sticker and I received my price.

 

By the way, the CAC sticker process was done for free.

 

If TomB can get his coins done for free, why is BillJones always harping about the cost? Maybe he just likes to complain about things?

In fairness to Bill (see Bill, I don't always pick on you for your griping), I think Tom B. lives a lot closer to CAC's office than Bill does. And I think Tom B. attends Coinfest, but that Bill doesn't.

[Tradedollarnut]

Well, I have good news for him. The fact that coins with CAC stickers have higher liquidity and prices flows down to nice coins even without the sticker. If a dealer such as Legend or yourself believes the coin will sticker, they will pay more for his coins unstickered than they otherwise would have.

 

So in the end he benefits from CAC even if he doesn't patronize it.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Well, I have good news for him. The fact that coins with CAC stickers have higher liquidity and prices flows down to nice coins even without the sticker. If a dealer such as Legend or yourself believes the coin will sticker, they will pay more for his coins unstickered than they otherwise would have.

 

So in the end he benefits from CAC even if he doesn't patronize it.

 

Bruce, that certainly makes sense to me. In fact, I have formulated my bid and/or buy prices for certain coins with that in mind. But please don't spoil Bill's fun.

[gmarguli]

Well, I have good news for him. The fact that coins with CAC stickers have higher liquidity and prices flows down to nice coins even without the sticker. If a dealer such as Legend or yourself believes the coin will sticker, they will pay more for his coins unstickered than they otherwise would have.

 

So in the end he benefits from CAC even if he doesn't patronize it.

 

Bruce, that certainly makes sense to me. In fact, I have formulated my bid and/or buy prices for certain coins with that in mind. But please don't spoil Bill's fun.

 

I'll spoil both your fun. If what you two say is true, when Bill buys a nice coin for his collection, he'll now have to pay more for it. Oh the fun!!!

[MarkFeld]

Well, I have good news for him. The fact that coins with CAC stickers have higher liquidity and prices flows down to nice coins even without the sticker. If a dealer such as Legend or yourself believes the coin will sticker, they will pay more for his coins unstickered than they otherwise would have.

 

So in the end he benefits from CAC even if he doesn't patronize it.

 

Bruce, that certainly makes sense to me. In fact, I have formulated my bid and/or buy prices for certain coins with that in mind. But please don't spoil Bill's fun.

 

I'll spoil both your fun. If what you two say is true, when Bill buys a nice coin for his collection, he'll now have to pay more for it. Oh the fun!!!

Greg, I'm sure you know, it will depend upon the sellers, just as when he sells, it will depend upon the buyers.

[Tradedollarnut]

Well, I have good news for him. The fact that coins with CAC stickers have higher liquidity and prices flows down to nice coins even without the sticker. If a dealer such as Legend or yourself believes the coin will sticker, they will pay more for his coins unstickered than they otherwise would have.

 

So in the end he benefits from CAC even if he doesn't patronize it.

 

Bruce, that certainly makes sense to me. In fact, I have formulated my bid and/or buy prices for certain coins with that in mind. But please don't spoil Bill's fun.

 

I'll spoil both your fun. If what you two say is true, when Bill buys a nice coin for his collection, he'll now have to pay more for it. Oh the fun!!!

 

No, he won't - he'll just buy it cheap from a fellow member of the 'CAC sucks' fan club.

[Tradedollarnut]

I'll spoil both your fun. If what you two say is true, when Bill buys a nice coin for his collection, he'll now have to pay more for it. Oh the fun!!!

 

While what you say is probably going to be true down the road [ie: prices on nice coins go up, on just made its go down], since the vast majority of nice coins are in collectors' hands the net increase in value predominantly benefits collectors.

[Treeman]

I'm pretty sure that everyone would agree on one simple fact: A coin is what it is.

A million little stickers on a coin won't change it, it will still be a coin. On the other hand, a really nice coin will still be a really nice coin, regardless of whether or not someone stuck a sticker on it or not. I can't help but side with Bill on this, as I, personally, prefer a coin that I LIKE, not a coin that someone else stickers as PQ, no wait, I mean accurately graded, no wait, I mean better than the worst possible for the grade, but not PQ for the grade, or possibly PQ for the grade, or maybe someone's making a buck sticking little stickers on slabs that professionals have already graded. Then again, I guess the graders at the TPG's don't walk on water like the little sticker guys do....

If James really did start a "sticker the sticker" service, would you guys pay even more for a double stickered slab? All the CAC supporting arguments I have read lead me to believe you would. Eventually, the coin wouldn't matter anyway, it would just be a matter of how many stickers covered the slab.....

[DC Dawg]

BUY THE COIN, NOT THE HOLDER OR THE STUPID STICKER!!!

 

It is the mindset that the sticker means something. It's a sticker saying that someone's opinion agrees with the opinion of others. In the end, if the coin in the holder that was stickered looks like then you have a crappy coin that someone thinks was accurately graded.

 

They already admit the sticker is a sham. Didn't I read somewhere that if the coin is at the "lower end for the grade" then it doesn't get a sticker. Therefore, they are not determining whether the coin is accurately graded but if the coin "meets their stringent grading standards." What are the grading standards? Since they are not published we have no way to determine whether their "standards" are accurate

 

I am alleging that this is a fraud on the market to create a market and drive up the prices, especially since dealers are involved with this venture. Price manipulation is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act and since the CAC is in New Jersey, there are consumer protection laws against price manipulation (I once lived in Jersey). Since they cross state lines with their service, I wonder if the Federal Trade Commission would be interested?

 

Scott

[MarkFeld]

I'm pretty sure that everyone would agree on one simple fact: A coin is what it is.

A million little stickers on a coin won't change it, it will still be a coin. On the other hand, a really nice coin will still be a really nice coin, regardless of whether or not someone stuck a sticker on it or not. I can't help but side with Bill on this, as I, personally, prefer a coin that I LIKE, not a coin that someone else stickers as PQ, no wait, I mean accurately graded, no wait, I mean better than the worst possible for the grade, but not PQ for the grade, or possibly PQ for the grade, or maybe someone's making a buck sticking little stickers on slabs that professionals have already graded. Then again, I guess the graders at the TPG's don't walk on water like the little sticker guys do....

If James really did start a "sticker the sticker" service, would you guys pay even more for a double stickered slab? All the CAC supporting arguments I have read lead me to believe you would. Eventually, the coin wouldn't matter anyway, it would just be a matter of how many stickers covered the slab.....

You used a straw man argument to make your point, as no one has said that CAC walks on water. And I firmly believe that if they wanted to, NGC and PCGS would be perfectly capable of weeding out inferior coins, too.

 

Hopefully, you are consistent and have the same attitude about someone trying to cross a PCGS coin to NGC or an NGC coin to PCGS, as you do about CAC. In each case, typically, an additional expert opinion is being sought. Sometimes it is for registry set purposes, though often, it is in pursuit of greater liquidity and/or a (potentially) higher selling price.

 

Lastly, no offense to James, but he doesn't have the reputation or grading expertise that Mr. Albanese does.

[gmarguli]

Lastly, no offense to James, but he doesn't have the reputation or grading expertise that Mr. Albanese does.

 

Correct. James wasn't one of the principal people responsible for this so-called mess of grading we have now.

[BillJones]

I'll spoil both your fun. If what you two say is true, when Bill buys a nice coin for his collection, he'll now have to pay more for it. Oh the fun!!!

 

I've already had that experience. In a recent auction, a coin that sold for X amount last September was sold to me for X + $2,300. Last September it was in a green label PCGS holder. It was subsequently cracked out and is now in a new PCGS holder with the same grade and a CAC sticker.

 

With economy where it is, it's hard to believe that demand for this coin has actually increased since last September. And, yes, the coin is a low pop item so that's why I paid the freight. Perhaps the collector bug bit too hard.

[TomB]

Greg, I see fairly large quantities of CAC stickered coins at most shows that I attend - roughly 15 per year - as well as in major coin auctions.

I don't usually agree with Mark on these matters, but on this one I have to agree with him. I saw a significant amount of CAC stickered coins this past weekend in Baltimore. When I sat at the Bowers and Merena table looking at some auction lots, I think all but one coin was CAC stickered.

 

Since I decided to change some collecting goals, most of what I am looking for does not qualify for CAC (e.g., Israeli currency)

 

I resent the fact that a so-called coin grading guru, with a bunch of disciples, can set himself up in a business with very little capital and offer an opinions only service that involves no financial risk to him. Yet his opinions and those who are associated with him carry the potential of lowering for value of every coin that has not received his service’s blessing. CAC offers no guarantees as to the grade of a coin or even its authenticity. If the coin does not measure up, and it’s got their seal of approval, it’s no problem for the CAC stakeholders.

Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism. As long as the profession has no professional licensing requirements, anyone can hang a shingle, call themselves an expert, and sell their service. It is up to you, as the consumer, to accept or reject their work.

 

If the CAC ownership were offering the Rolls Royce of grading services with all of the benefits and a full assumption of risk, I would not be critical. But all they are doing is looking at coin and deciding if it gets their sticker. And all that amounts to is no risk for them, but potential losses in value for those who are not playing their game.

The wonderful world of capitalism is a two-way street. If you do not like it, don't buy the coin. If the price is too high, don't over pay, just leave it on the table. If enough people do that, then whatever perceived premium they allegedly command will diminish. Voting with your wallet is the best way to make your feelings known.

 

As an aside, if you read this page, there is a statement on the left size under "WHAT THE CAC STICKER MEANS" that says, "Guaranteed. CAC stands behind our verification by making markets in most actively traded coins." Also, on this page, Albanese says, "We offer a buy-back guarantee. If I agree that the coin shouldn’t be labeled, I take it off the market, remove the label and sell it for a loss."

 

There are two problems with these statements: (1) There is no stated guarantee on their terms of service. Implied guarantees are a slippery slope. The terms of any guarantee should be clearly stated or they are just asking for trouble. If you have any doubts, look up the word "guarantee" for the site. For assistance, you can click here to take you to Google that will search for guarantee site:caccoin.com.

 

(2) The statement "If I agree that the coin shouldn't be labeled..." is putting his opinion over others. In a legal situation, I can parade the experts from the grading service that slabbed the coin to controvert his opinion. The expert versus expert sparring is done all of the time. Look at the case of Langboard v. US Mint on the ten 1933 Double Eagles Joan Langboard found in her father's, Israel Switt, belongings. In that case, lawyers argued that Q. David Bowers is not a sufficient expert for this case and had no material information in support or against the claim! When there are competing experts that provide credible testimony, the court my discount any aspects of that part of a case as being equal because it cannot be determined if there was an injured party. If an expert is controverted on the record, it will be used as precedence at least through the next three years (statute of limitations).

 

The business risk here is phenomenal! Albanese is creating a market based on his "say so" with the recourse based on his "say so." This may not technically violate antitrust laws but it may fall under the "Rule of Reason" alleging that CAC's actions are tantamount to price fixing and market manipulation. Although I am looking at it from a policy perspective since I am not an attorney, one could look at market trends, interviews with those involved with CAC, and some of the perceived conflicts of interest that surround CAC to being to begin form a case alleging a market fixing conspiracy to claim that the CAC may be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

 

This might be an interesting case to pursue. Too bad I have not bought any CAC stickered coins!

 

Scott

Scott, is the CAC paradigm materially different than what Rick Snow has done for nearly two decades with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal system? Rick will evaluate PCGS and NGC certified FEs and IHCs for a fee and will place his sticker on the slabs that house coins that he believes are accurately graded and essentially problem-free. He then attempts to make a market for those pieces by having a buy price that is dedicated to slabs with the seal, but excludes slabs without the seal.

[EZ_E]

I've seen Eagle Eye coins that I would never want to own. I've seen NGC and PCGS coins that I would never want to own. I'm sure that there's CAC coins that I would never want to own. That doesn't make any of the services bad, just fallible.

 

I certainly appreciate the backup that these services offer but it boils down to the fact that the collector must take responsibility for his own purchases.

[Tradedollarnut]

I'm pretty sure that everyone would agree on one simple fact: A coin is what it is.

A million little stickers on a coin won't change it, it will still be a coin. On the other hand, a really nice coin will still be a really nice coin, regardless of whether or not someone stuck a sticker on it or not. I can't help but side with Bill on this, as I, personally, prefer a coin that I LIKE, not a coin that someone else stickers as PQ, no wait, I mean accurately graded, no wait, I mean better than the worst possible for the grade, but not PQ for the grade, or possibly PQ for the grade, or maybe someone's making a buck sticking little stickers on slabs that professionals have already graded. Then again, I guess the graders at the TPG's don't walk on water like the little sticker guys do....

If James really did start a "sticker the sticker" service, would you guys pay even more for a double stickered slab? All the CAC supporting arguments I have read lead me to believe you would. Eventually, the coin wouldn't matter anyway, it would just be a matter of how many stickers covered the slab.....

 

No - because pardon me for being blunt but James isn't even in the same school, let alone the same classroom as John Albanese when it comes to grading ability.

 

For that matter, I'd wager a good 85-90% of the collectors claiming that they don't need no darn sticker couldn't identify a well done problem coin if it reached up and goosed them in the arse. I know I can't - and I've been collecting 40 years and won the PCGS grading contest the first year and placed second the next.

 

But I guess ignorance can be bliss.

[Tradedollarnut]

BUY THE COIN, NOT THE HOLDER OR THE STUPID STICKER!!!

 

It is the mindset that the sticker means something. It's a sticker saying that someone's opinion agrees with the opinion of others. In the end, if the coin in the holder that was stickered looks like then you have a crappy coin that someone thinks was accurately graded.

 

They already admit the sticker is a sham. Didn't I read somewhere that if the coin is at the "lower end for the grade" then it doesn't get a sticker. Therefore, they are not determining whether the coin is accurately graded but if the coin "meets their stringent grading standards." What are the grading standards? Since they are not published we have no way to determine whether their "standards" are accurate

 

I am alleging that this is a fraud on the market to create a market and drive up the prices, especially since dealers are involved with this venture. Price manipulation is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act and since the CAC is in New Jersey, there are consumer protection laws against price manipulation (I once lived in Jersey). Since they cross state lines with their service, I wonder if the Federal Trade Commission would be interested?

 

Scott

 

Oh, puh-leeze - another internet lawyer. Don't quit your day job.

[MarkFeld]

I'll spoil both your fun. If what you two say is true, when Bill buys a nice coin for his collection, he'll now have to pay more for it. Oh the fun!!!

 

I've already had that experience. In a recent auction, a coin that sold for X amount last September was sold to me for X + $2,300. Last September it was in a green label PCGS holder. It was subsequently cracked out and is now in a new PCGS holder with the same grade and a CAC sticker.

 

With economy where it is, it's hard to believe that demand for this coin has actually increased since last September. And, yes, the coin is a low pop item so that's why I paid the freight. Perhaps the collector bug bit too hard.

Perhaps it did Bill. We have no way of knowing what it would have sold for if you had passed on it. And I hope that's not your evidence that you had to pay more for it due to the CAC sticker.

[DC Dawg]

BUY THE COIN, NOT THE HOLDER OR THE STUPID STICKER!!!

 

It is the mindset that the sticker means something. It's a sticker saying that someone's opinion agrees with the opinion of others. In the end, if the coin in the holder that was stickered looks like then you have a crappy coin that someone thinks was accurately graded.

 

They already admit the sticker is a sham. Didn't I read somewhere that if the coin is at the "lower end for the grade" then it doesn't get a sticker. Therefore, they are not determining whether the coin is accurately graded but if the coin "meets their stringent grading standards." What are the grading standards? Since they are not published we have no way to determine whether their "standards" are accurate

 

I am alleging that this is a fraud on the market to create a market and drive up the prices, especially since dealers are involved with this venture. Price manipulation is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act and since the CAC is in New Jersey, there are consumer protection laws against price manipulation (I once lived in Jersey). Since they cross state lines with their service, I wonder if the Federal Trade Commission would be interested?

 

Scott

 

Oh, puh-leeze - another internet lawyer. Don't quit your day job.

I have more legal training than you do and do have some experience behind me. So if you have something materially to complain about what I said, bring it on. Until then,

 

EDITED TO ADD: Oh wait... aren't you an investor or otherwise involved with the CAC? If so, are you questioning my assertions because I might have hit a nerve? Maybe I hit upon something?!

 

Scott

[DC Dawg]

Scott, is the CAC paradigm materially different than what Rick Snow has done for nearly two decades with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal system? Rick will evaluate PCGS and NGC certified FEs and IHCs for a fee and will place his sticker on the slabs that house coins that he believes are accurately graded and essentially problem-free. He then attempts to make a market for those pieces by having a buy price that is dedicated to slabs with the seal, but excludes slabs without the seal.

From what I understand about what Rick Snow is doing, he is not masquerading as being an independent authority as a service while being backed by dealers who profit from his work. Snow makes it known he does this. While you may not agree with him, he is up front on what he does.

 

CAC is backed by people with interest in their work. They are not independent and have not proven they are independent. Whether there is a proverbial firewall between the service and the investors, there is the perception of a conflict of interest that exists. Besides, if the CAC does not make money, the investors will not be happy. Thus, it is in CAC's interest to make the investors happy. The fact that it is an incestuous relationship between the service and investors fosters questions of their integrity!

 

Scott

[Tradedollarnut]

BUY THE COIN, NOT THE HOLDER OR THE STUPID STICKER!!!

 

It is the mindset that the sticker means something. It's a sticker saying that someone's opinion agrees with the opinion of others. In the end, if the coin in the holder that was stickered looks like then you have a crappy coin that someone thinks was accurately graded.

 

They already admit the sticker is a sham. Didn't I read somewhere that if the coin is at the "lower end for the grade" then it doesn't get a sticker. Therefore, they are not determining whether the coin is accurately graded but if the coin "meets their stringent grading standards." What are the grading standards? Since they are not published we have no way to determine whether their "standards" are accurate

 

I am alleging that this is a fraud on the market to create a market and drive up the prices, especially since dealers are involved with this venture. Price manipulation is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act and since the CAC is in New Jersey, there are consumer protection laws against price manipulation (I once lived in Jersey). Since they cross state lines with their service, I wonder if the Federal Trade Commission would be interested?

 

Scott

 

Oh, puh-leeze - another internet lawyer. Don't quit your day job.

I have more legal training than you do and do have some experience behind me. So if you have something materially to complain about what I said, bring it on. Until then,

 

EDITED TO ADD: Oh wait... aren't you an investor or otherwise involved with the CAC? If so, are you questioning my assertions because I might have hit a nerve? Maybe I hit upon something?!

 

Scott

 

ROTFLMAO. Hit a nerve? I just think it's one of the stupidest accusations I've ever read on this website is all. Please describe to us your extensive legal training so we can assess your qualifications. And while you're at it - were you in Dallas in November 1963?

[Tradedollarnut]

Scott, is the CAC paradigm materially different than what Rick Snow has done for nearly two decades with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal system? Rick will evaluate PCGS and NGC certified FEs and IHCs for a fee and will place his sticker on the slabs that house coins that he believes are accurately graded and essentially problem-free. He then attempts to make a market for those pieces by having a buy price that is dedicated to slabs with the seal, but excludes slabs without the seal.

From what I understand about what Rick Snow is doing, he is not masquerading as being an independent authority as a service while being backed by dealers who profit from his work. Snow makes it known he does this. While you may not agree with him, he is up front on what he does.

 

CAC is backed by people with interest in their work. They are not independent and have not proven they are independent. Whether there is a proverbial firewall between the service and the investors, there is the perception of a conflict of interest that exists. Besides, if the CAC does not make money, the investors will not be happy. Thus, it is in CAC's interest to make the investors happy. The fact that it is an incestuous relationship between the service and investors fosters questions of their integrity!

 

Scott

 

Do you know why I invested in CAC? To stop the coin doctors and rampant grade inflation and other insider going on that I'm not going to describe here. I don't give a damn if CAC makes a penny. So perhaps you should stop making suppositions about things where you have no clue at all whatsoever?

 

There's that grassy knoll again.

[MarkFeld]

BUY THE COIN, NOT THE HOLDER OR THE STUPID STICKER!!!

 

It is the mindset that the sticker means something. It's a sticker saying that someone's opinion agrees with the opinion of others. In the end, if the coin in the holder that was stickered looks like then you have a crappy coin that someone thinks was accurately graded.

 

They already admit the sticker is a sham. Didn't I read somewhere that if the coin is at the "lower end for the grade" then it doesn't get a sticker. Therefore, they are not determining whether the coin is accurately graded but if the coin "meets their stringent grading standards." What are the grading standards? Since they are not published we have no way to determine whether their "standards" are accurate

 

I am alleging that this is a fraud on the market to create a market and drive up the prices, especially since dealers are involved with this venture. Price manipulation is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act and since the CAC is in New Jersey, there are consumer protection laws against price manipulation (I once lived in Jersey). Since they cross state lines with their service, I wonder if the Federal Trade Commission would be interested?

 

Scott

 

Oh, puh-leeze - another internet lawyer. Don't quit your day job.

I have more legal training than you do and do have some experience behind me. So if you have something materially to complain about what I said, bring it on. Until then,

 

Scott

Scott, have you actually examined CAC's bidding activity? I have. They post numerous sight unseen bids which they honor. They raise bids from time to time, and they lower bids, from time to time, just like other bidders on the electronic network. I don't know how/why you would try to equate that with price manipulation. But if you think it is, presumably you feel the same way about anyone who posts bids for certain coins.

[leeg]

To get back on track with the original question:

 

I've read that collectors will be able to submit directly to CAC in the near future. Is this true? And if true, will this drive the submission cost's up?

[rons]

I have no dog in this fight but I do have a question. What happens to CAC if something bad happens to JA and he is no longer able to pass judgement? Is there a committee of graders that also look at the coins or is it a one man show? Thanks for any enlightment you can provide.

[RareSov]

Good question Ron.. I would think the reputation of the company would fall away

[MikeInFL]

From what I understand about what Rick Snow is doing, he is not masquerading as being an independent authority as a service while being backed by dealers who profit from his work. Snow makes it known he does this. While you may not agree with him, he is up front on what he does.

 

Wha? Who is masquerading? The CAC has a website with more information on their services than Rick has. Furthermore, Rick is just as independent as the CAC is, except he has no investors other than himself -- let's remember that Rick isn't a charity and is hardly independent.

 

CAC is backed by people with interest in their work. They are not independent and have not proven they are independent. Whether there is a proverbial firewall between the service and the investors, there is the perception of a conflict of interest that exists. Besides, if the CAC does not make money, the investors will not be happy. Thus, it is in CAC's interest to make the investors happy. The fact that it is an incestuous relationship between the service and investors fosters questions of their integrity!

 

And how is that any different from Rick watching out for his own best interest, except his shareholders are himself, his wife, and his kids?

 

Really, Scott, you are letting your hate for the CAC blind your logic here, and your accusations of fraud and price fixing were borderline delusional IMO....Mike

[MarkFeld]

Scott, is the CAC paradigm materially different than what Rick Snow has done for nearly two decades with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal system? Rick will evaluate PCGS and NGC certified FEs and IHCs for a fee and will place his sticker on the slabs that house coins that he believes are accurately graded and essentially problem-free. He then attempts to make a market for those pieces by having a buy price that is dedicated to slabs with the seal, but excludes slabs without the seal.

From what I understand about what Rick Snow is doing, he is not masquerading as being an independent authority as a service while being backed by dealers who profit from his work. Snow makes it known he does this. While you may not agree with him, he is up front on what he does.

 

CAC is backed by people with interest in their work. They are not independent and have not proven they are independent. Whether there is a proverbial firewall between the service and the investors, there is the perception of a conflict of interest that exists. Besides, if the CAC does not make money, the investors will not be happy. Thus, it is in CAC's interest to make the investors happy. The fact that it is an incestuous relationship between the service and investors fosters questions of their integrity!

 

Scott

Some of the largest and most highly regarded grading companies are also "backed by people with interest in their work", but I haven't seen you take such vicious shots/make such accusations against them.

[MikeInFL]

I have no dog in this fight but I do have a question. What happens to CAC if something bad happens to JA and he is no longer able to pass judgement? Is there a committee of graders that also look at the coins or is it a one man show? Thanks for any enlightment you can provide.

 

That's a very interesting question, on several levels.

[MikeInFL]

Scott, is the CAC paradigm materially different than what Rick Snow has done for nearly two decades with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal system? Rick will evaluate PCGS and NGC certified FEs and IHCs for a fee and will place his sticker on the slabs that house coins that he believes are accurately graded and essentially problem-free. He then attempts to make a market for those pieces by having a buy price that is dedicated to slabs with the seal, but excludes slabs without the seal.

From what I understand about what Rick Snow is doing, he is not masquerading as being an independent authority as a service while being backed by dealers who profit from his work. Snow makes it known he does this. While you may not agree with him, he is up front on what he does.

 

CAC is backed by people with interest in their work. They are not independent and have not proven they are independent. Whether there is a proverbial firewall between the service and the investors, there is the perception of a conflict of interest that exists. Besides, if the CAC does not make money, the investors will not be happy. Thus, it is in CAC's interest to make the investors happy. The fact that it is an incestuous relationship between the service and investors fosters questions of their integrity!

 

Scott

Some of the largest and most highly regarded grading companies are also "backed by people with interest in their work", but I haven't seen you take such vicious shots/make such accusations against them.

 

Mark,

 

While I think Scott's argument is a bit over the top (and "borderline delusional" equally over the top ), in fairness I think there's a bit of truth to Scott's argument. Just hear me out...

 

There is an inherent conflict of interest in the coin game that many ignore, and Mark, you hit on this issue in your "what about the TPG" response. The fact that people who do the grading (or stickering) also profit from that same grading is an undeniable conflict of interest. When I was first introduced to the TPG-dominated coin game of today, I found it incredible that graders/executives in these company also were coin dealers. It simply doesn't pass the blink test, as the guys around the office would say....

 

But the key difference, and the one that Scott hit on in his post, but completely went in the wrong direction (Sorry, Scott), is transparency. Said a bit differently, just release publically the extent/nature of your conflict, and it mitigates the effect of the conflict of interest.

 

But what level of transparency is required to get past this conflict of interest? I think that's the real question here, and once that is worth discussing at least briefly. Some would argue that posting bids on the dealer wires is sufficient -- putting their money where their stickers are, so to speak. Others provide on request quotes for those coins that pass the muster and receive a sticker, relying on the collector to ask for a current quote, but again backing their coins with a bid. However, I think that providing this information to the general public, not just dealers, and would go a long way to increasing confidence in these "bid-backed" stickering services. Additionally, providing a complete list of assets (like the stock analysts have to) would also allay some concern.

 

So while I'll stop way short of price fixing or fraud, there is an undeniable conflict of interest in the TPG and stickering game, and I'm not sure that "we put our money where our mouth is" is sufficient to resolve it, at least in some people's minds.

 

All of the above IMO & respectfully submitted...Mike (who sees value in the TPGs and CAC despite the above conflicts of interest, but think the industry as a whole could do better)

[lehigh96]

I have been a supporter of the CAC since it's inception. Call me naive, call it blind optimism, call it whatever you want, but I think the CAC has done wonders for the sight unseen market. We all know how difficult it is to grade coins from photographs and some of us don't have the luxury to attend major shows to view all of our purchases in hand. The CAC provides a level of confidence to the sight unseen bidder that affords them the opportunity to place winning bids on lots with questionable photos.

 

What I don't understand is how the CAC is hurting any collector. One dissenter stated that the CAC caused his non CAC stickered coins to drop in value while another stated that the CAC has not caused an increase in values? Which one is right?