Cost to submit coins to CAC?

[EZ_E]

I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps these first generation CAC stickers will be a collector's item.

[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.

 

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)

Mike, those seem like fair points to me and I appreciate the gentlemanly way in which you expressed them.

[DC Dawg]

I will answer two people here because I have to get on a plane soon...

 

TradeDollarnut: I wet to law school for two years. I dropped out the third year when my first wife was dying of cancer. After she died I never went back to finish and I do not think I want to at this point. Secondly, I was 3 years old when JFK was assassinated. I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but I do believe in calling a spade a spade. One thing I did learn in law school was that during questioning, if someone protests too much and too vigorously without professing innocence, they may be hiding something. What are you hiding?

 

As to your other comment on why you are involved with the CAC... there's a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

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.

If the CAC and people directly associated with CAC are buying and trading in its own products, that is market manipulation regardless of how they do it. In the stock market, they call it insider trading. Under the Sherman Act, it's called price manipulation.

 

Was what I said over the top? Maybe... but it got the discussion on to the issues I think are important--and that's the transparency and the potential market manipulation by the principals are just plain wrong. The service needs independence for credibility.

 

For the record, I do not HATE the CAC, I just do not think the way its doing is work is in the best interest of the industry. I am concerned with its lack of transparency, its lack of real independence, and lack of proof that whatever its mission is, it is being accomplished. I t hink a service that is trying to position itself as the supreme authority needs to prove itself by opening up and showing its worth. I have never deviated from my desire to see the statistics before I would believe their worth. Prove that the service is worth something and I'll be their biggest supporter. Keep it secret and hide behind supposition and innuendo, and I'll continue to be a detractor.

 

Boarding call... I'm going to see my mother who is in the hospital and may not make it to her next birthday. In the mean time, keep it coming. It takes more than accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist to get to me!!

 

Scott

[Treeman]

"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. "

 

Your last sentence does have a bit of a "walks on water" ring to it, wouldn't you say? I don't believe that JA has "grading expertise" in every series. I also find it rather hard to believe that he personally examines every coin. I also find the little sticker to be rather detrimental to the appearance of the slab. It does not add eye appeal to the coin, it simply states that someone else found it appealing, or acceptable, or whatever. If the coin is appealing to the buyer, no other opinion really matters much. If CAC were stickering slabs other than the top two, it may be useful, but I'd still remove those ugly little stickers :-)

[DC Dawg]

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.

Give me an example of who you refer.

 

BTW: The shots are not "vicious." I made an accusation based on the evidence at hand. I have no insider knowledge of what's behind the veiled curtain at the CAC. If this is what I am seeing as an outsider, maybe there is a perception problem they need to fix. Didn't you say you had an association with the CAC? Maybe you and Tradedollarnut should tell your partners that alternate views of what they are doing does not look good and that they should consider altering some of their outward practices.

 

Scott

[MarkFeld]

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.

Give me an example of who you refer.

 

BTW: The shots are not "vicious." I made an accusation based on the evidence at hand. I have no insider knowledge of what's behind the veiled curtain at the CAC. If this is what I am seeing as an outsider, maybe there is a perception problem they need to fix. Didn't you say you had an association with the CAC? Maybe you and Tradedollarnut should tell your partners that alternate views of what they are doing does not look good and that they should consider altering some of their outward practices.

 

Scott

As for the examples you requested, how about NGC and PCGS?

 

I have no affiliation with CAC other than as a (non-financial) supporter, and I hope to provide coin evaluation assistance at a future date.

 

You also stated in another post:

If the CAC and people directly associated with CAC are buying and trading in its own products, that is market manipulation regardless of how they do it. In the stock market, they call it insider trading. Under the Sherman Act, it's called price manipulation.

As stated, that is inaccurate/incorrect. I'm sure you know that, subject to certain restrictions, individuals are allowed to buy and sell stock in their own companies and it's not automatically deemed to be market manipulation. You have strayed badly from your normal pattern of stating and dealing with facts. And a so-called attempt to stimulate discussion is frankly, an extremely poor excuse.

 

More importantly than any of this stuff, however, I hope you have a good visit with your mother.

[Tradedollarnut]

If the CAC and people directly associated with CAC are buying and trading in its own products, that is market manipulation regardless of how they do it. In the stock market, they call it insider trading. Under the Sherman Act, it's called price manipulation.

 

I am utterly aghast that any learned person could possibly slant the facts in such a way. As written, your legal opinion is a crock of crapola.

 

 

Maybe you and Tradedollarnut should tell your partners that alternate views of what they are doing does not look good and that they should consider altering some of their outward practices.

 

Nah. Knee jerk reactions to internet ravings are rarely beneficial.

 

 

 

 

[MikeInFL]

BTW: The shots are not "vicious." I made an accusation based on the evidence at hand. I have no insider knowledge of what's behind the veiled curtain at the CAC.

 

Scott,

 

To accuse people of fraud and market manipulation without any evidence whatsoever is vicious, IMO. You have no evidence whastoever of your allegations, other than you don't have enough information to disprove them....

 

How would you feel if someone accused you of being fraudulent and manipulating the market because of your coin blog. After all, you are providing an opinion on the coin market, and we don't know what's behind your veiled curtain? Accusing people of things because you don't have evidence to the contrary is diametrically opposed to the foundation this country is built on -- you know, that presumption of innocence -- and I'm sure you learned that in your 2+ years of law school.

 

While I agree with you there are issues around conflicts of interest and transparency (which frankly are no different than those with the Eagle Eye Photoseal and the TPGs), to accuse people of market manipulation and fraud without any evidence to support your allegations is both unfounded and hurtful, IMO....Mike

 

p.s. you and your Mother are in my thoughts & prayers.

[Tradedollarnut]

BTW: The shots are not "vicious." I made an accusation based on the evidence at hand. I have no insider knowledge of what's behind the veiled curtain at the CAC.

 

Scott,

 

To accuse people of fraud and market manipulation without any evidence whatsoever is vicious, IMO. You have no evidence whatsoever of your allegations, other than you don't have enough information to disprove them....

 

How would you feel if someone accused you of being fraudulent and manipulating the market because of your coin blog. After all, you are providing an opinion on the coin market, and we don't know what's behind your veiled curtain? Accusing people of things because you don't have evidence to the contrary is diametrically opposed to the foundation this country is built on -- you know, that presumption of innocence -- and I'm sure you learned that in your 2+ years of law school.

 

While I agree with you there are issues around conflicts of interest and transparency (which frankly are no different than those with the Eagle Eye Photoseal and the TPGs), to accuse people of market manipulation and fraud is both unfounded and hurtful, IMO....Mike

 

p.s. you and your Mother are in my thoughts & prayers.

 

Very well stated, Mike.

[James_OldeTowne]

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.

Wow, I just thought I'd wander back into this thread, and saw this question by TomB.

 

YES, the paradigms are drastically different. Rick Snow is a recognized authority on FEs and IHCs. This is not just because he proclaimed himself to be, but rather because he has actually researched the series, understands die variations, striking considerations and production difficulties for coins of this series. He has researched mint records, studied engraving techniques and quality issues involved with the mint at that time. In short, he is an expert in the series, and his opinions carry tremendous weight, irrelevant to marketing issues. His contributions to numismatics are considerable and not grounded in just a "marketing" paradigm.

 

In the case of CAC, I have still yet to see a single book or research pamphlet or white paper written by John Albanese or any other principle of CAC (whose names I am not even aware of). What did he do to advance numismatics? Where are his contributions to the research body of work that supports our hobby? What is the basis of his expertise? Has he mastered the intricacies of every series approved by CAC? It doesn't seem realistic.

 

In short, his only qualification that I've seen mentioned is that of being a co-founder of NGC. The only other qualification I've seen has been "trust me, he's the best grader in the business". Therefore, I don't really understand how he became the arbiter of all grading standards - again, especially when those "standards" are not written or discussed anywhere.

 

I don't want to dissolve into more diatribe, but basically, to me, there's a world of difference between what Rick Snow and John Albanese bring to the table.

 

(By the way, this is no knock on John at a personal level - he has been exceptionally pleasant and approachable when I've spoken with him.)

[Treeman]

James, I think another point is that Rick Snow is dealing with his area of expertise, whereas JA is being considered as expert in all areas...

[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.

Wow, I just thought I'd wander back into this thread, and saw this question by TomB.

 

YES, the paradigms are drastically different. Rick Snow is a recognized authority on FEs and IHCs. This is not just because he proclaimed himself to be, but rather because he has actually researched the series, understands die variations, striking considerations and production difficulties for coins of this series. He has researched mint records, studied engraving techniques and quality issues involved with the mint at that time. In short, he is an expert in the series, and his opinions carry tremendous weight, irrelevant to marketing issues. His contributions to numismatics are considerable and not grounded in "marketing".

 

In the case of CAC, I have still yet to see a single book or research pamphlet or white paper written by John Albanese or any other principle of CAC (whose names I am not even aware of). What did he do to advance numismatics? Where are his contributions to the research body of work that supports our hobby?

 

In short, his only qualification that I've seen mentioned is that of being a co-founder of NGC. The only other qualification I've seen has been "trust me, he's the best grader in the business". Therefore, I don't really understand how he became the arbiter of all grading standards - again, especially when those "standards" are not written or discussed anywhere.

 

I don't want to dissolve into more diatribe, but basically, to me, there's a world of difference between what Rick Snow and John Albanese bring to the table.

 

(By the way, this is no knock on John at a personal level - he has been exceptionally pleasant and approachable when I've spoken with him.)

James, the differences that you describe don't adequately address the original question regarding the similarities in evaluations, stickering, market-making, etc.

 

And you can talk/complain all you want to about John Albanese not being published and what you do or don't know about him as an expert/grader. But that wont change the fact, that among the top coin grading experts in the country, there is virtually unanimous agreement that he is right up there with the very best. People don't magically, undeservedly acquire reputations like that - they are earned.

[Tradedollarnut]

Just because you don't want something to be true, doesn't mean it is.

[MarkFeld]

100!

Really? maybe you ARE trying to manipulate things.

[BillJones]

James, I think another point is that Rick Snow is dealing with his area of expertise, whereas JA is being considered as expert in all areas...

 

If JA is an expert in all areas, where are his books, articles and other contributions to the hobby? I’m leery of anyone who claims to be the grand expert in all areas or anyone who said to an expert in all areas by other people. I’ve grown to respect many historical figures such as Lincoln and Washington, but not one biography I’ve ever read made anyone perfect. I am very suspect of the proposition that one man should control the market for grading all significant U.S. coins. I’ve yet to meet any grader or authenticator who was that good.

[Tradedollarnut]

100!

Really? maybe you ARE trying to manipulate things.

 

Well - it was when I started to post!

[Tradedollarnut]

YES, the paradigms are drastically different. Rick Snow is a recognized authority on FEs and IHCs. This is not just because he proclaimed himself to be, but rather because he has actually researched the series, understands die variations, striking considerations and production difficulties for coins of this series. He has researched mint records, studied engraving techniques and quality issues involved with the mint at that time. In short, he is an expert in the series, and his opinions carry tremendous weight, irrelevant to marketing issues. His contributions to numismatics are considerable and not grounded in just a "marketing" paradigm.

 

Nowhere in there do you state that he can grade the series consistently.

 

[James_OldeTowne]

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.

Wow, I just thought I'd wander back into this thread, and saw this question by TomB.

 

YES, the paradigms are drastically different. Rick Snow is a recognized authority on FEs and IHCs. This is not just because he proclaimed himself to be, but rather because he has actually researched the series, understands die variations, striking considerations and production difficulties for coins of this series. He has researched mint records, studied engraving techniques and quality issues involved with the mint at that time. In short, he is an expert in the series, and his opinions carry tremendous weight, irrelevant to marketing issues. His contributions to numismatics are considerable and not grounded in "marketing".

 

In the case of CAC, I have still yet to see a single book or research pamphlet or white paper written by John Albanese or any other principle of CAC (whose names I am not even aware of). What did he do to advance numismatics? Where are his contributions to the research body of work that supports our hobby?

 

In short, his only qualification that I've seen mentioned is that of being a co-founder of NGC. The only other qualification I've seen has been "trust me, he's the best grader in the business". Therefore, I don't really understand how he became the arbiter of all grading standards - again, especially when those "standards" are not written or discussed anywhere.

 

I don't want to dissolve into more diatribe, but basically, to me, there's a world of difference between what Rick Snow and John Albanese bring to the table.

 

(By the way, this is no knock on John at a personal level - he has been exceptionally pleasant and approachable when I've spoken with him.)

James, the differences that you describe don't adequately address the original question regarding the similarities in evaluations, stickering, market-making, etc.

 

And you can talk/complain all you want to about John Albanese not being published and what you do or don't know about him as an expert/grader. But that wont change the fact, that among the top coin grading experts in the country, there is virtually unanimous agreement that he is right up there with the very best. People don't magically, undeservedly acquire reputations like that - they are earned.

Mark, can you please provide links showing where folks (other than CAC or Blanchard principles) have discussed John's considerable virtues in being an expert at all series (at least those CAC approves)?

 

And when you say "up there with the very best", what exactly does that mean? He IS the best? or in the top 10? top 100?

 

My humble opinion is that this lack of name recognition really is a crucial factor in some of the resistance to CAC acceptance.

 

People don't magically, undeservedly acquire reputations like that - they are earned.

By the way, that is EXACTLY what I'm talking about! To some observers, it is as if John Albanese "magically" acquired this sudden magnificent reputation out of thin air. I would submit that hardly anybody knew of him as a "top grader" prior to formation of CAC. The reputation was just suddenly "there".

[Tradedollarnut]

James - could you please provide exactly the same information on Mark Salzberg, Miles Standish, Rick Montgomery, David Hall and all the other graders at PCGS and NGC.

 

Why have you never questioned their abilities in the same fashion?

[MikeInFL]

YES, the paradigms are drastically different. Rick Snow is a recognized authority on FEs and IHCs. This is not just because he proclaimed himself to be, but rather because he has actually researched the series, understands die variations, striking considerations and production difficulties for coins of this series. He has researched mint records, studied engraving techniques and quality issues involved with the mint at that time. In short, he is an expert in the series, and his opinions carry tremendous weight, irrelevant to marketing issues. His contributions to numismatics are considerable and not grounded in just a "marketing" paradigm.

 

They said the same thing about Walter Breen, too. I'm not comparing Rick to Walter, but writing books (that some would argue do much to reinforce his FE/IHC business) says nothing about the veracity/integrity of the individual or their ability to grade accurately and consistently.

[MarkFeld]

James, I think another point is that Rick Snow is dealing with his area of expertise, whereas JA is being considered as expert in all areas...

 

If JA is an expert in all areas, where are his books, articles and other contributions to the hobby? I’m leery of anyone who claims to be the grand expert in all areas or anyone who said to an expert in all areas by other people. I’ve grown to respect many historical figures such as Lincoln and Washington, but not one biography I’ve ever read made anyone perfect. I am very suspect of the proposition that one man should control the market for grading all significant U.S. coins. I’ve yet to meet any grader or authenticator who was that good.

Just about everyone (yourself included) who examines coins as potential acquisitions, forms opinions about the coins themselves, as well as whether the grading company got it right. So in essence, we all second guess the experts. And, right or wrong, we are allowed to do so without having been published or contributed to numismatics in the specific way that you and James prefer.

 

One major difference with CAC, however, is that it is willing to make sight-unseen markets for many of the coins that it has expressed its (expert) opinions on. If you don't feel that their service is worth the price they charge, simply don't utilize it. But you continue to complain about them, saying you are suspect, etc. while at the same time making note of their effect on the market. You seem to want it both ways. So tell me, which is it?

[EZ_E]

James, I can understand what you're saying about the lack of published works by JA but I don't support it as an argument.

 

Academia is full of games that revolve around being published. Big deal. A vast majority of my professors were boneheads who I had little intellectual respect for. Being published does not make one a genius or an expert.

 

David Bowers is an incredible man. He is addicted to writing and he is well respected yet, his qualifications as an "expert witness" in the 1933 double eagle case is being questioned.

 

Even so called experts in many fields of science are only engaged in guess work, speculation and story telling. That doesn't make them above reproach, IMO.

 

My point is, having published works is by no means a litmus test of qualifications or ability.

[James_OldeTowne]

James - could you please provide exactly the same information on Mark Salzberg, Miles Standish, Rick Montgomery, David Hall and all the other graders at PCGS and NGC.

 

Why have you never questioned their abilities in the same fashion?

TDN, I'm not sure why this would surprise you since I do not abide by those folks' opinions. I would surmise, however, that each of those persons has written a number of articles regarding numismatics, and in fact, I'm positive I've read work by Mark Salzberg and Rick Montgomery. And hasn't Miles Standish provided numerous discussions on grading of coins?

 

I DO believe that Rick Snow truly is an expert and a specialist in his chosen field. I have spoken with Rick on a couple of occasions and regret that those opportunities were fleeting. He is an astonishing well of knowledge for Indian head cents.

 

Again, please understand that I am not saying John ISN'T the best grader (or one of them) in the world, just that I had no knowledge of this prior to formation of CAC. For all I know, maybe there have been pages of accolades about him. And I am saying that I believe CAC would be better accepted if such accolades were a little better promoted (which is why I asked Mark for a link or two).

[James_OldeTowne]

YES, the paradigms are drastically different. Rick Snow is a recognized authority on FEs and IHCs. This is not just because he proclaimed himself to be, but rather because he has actually researched the series, understands die variations, striking considerations and production difficulties for coins of this series. He has researched mint records, studied engraving techniques and quality issues involved with the mint at that time. In short, he is an expert in the series, and his opinions carry tremendous weight, irrelevant to marketing issues. His contributions to numismatics are considerable and not grounded in just a "marketing" paradigm.

 

They said the same thing about Walter Breen, too. I'm not comparing Rick to Walter, but writing books (that some would argue do much to reinforce his FE/IHC business) says nothing about the veracity/integrity of the individual or their ability to grade accurately and consistently.

 

Mike, have you ever seen grading certificates by Walter Breen? I have seen a number of them, and I would put forth to you that he was an exceptional grader, based on a limited sample size.

 

Edited to add:

My point is, having published works is by no means a litmus test of qualifications or ability.

Victor, I quite agree. It is not the only mark of an expert, and I regret if it came across that way. My point was to point out that there are differences (right or wrong) between the Rick Snow paradigm and the John Albanese paradigm.

 

Rick's work is pretty darned well known to IHC and FE collectors. We may gather and discuss his opinions and knowledge of the subject, and hold him accountable to his opinons, since we have a background for them. We could not do the same regarding John Albanese.

 

Again, please remember that I may very well simply be unaware of his vast reputation, so my confusion could undoubtedly be "all on me"!

[Tradedollarnut]

He is an astonishing well of knowledge for Indian head cents.

 

I agree. But why do you accept his grading of them with no proof of his abilities?

 

[James_OldeTowne]

He is an astonishing well of knowledge for Indian head cents.

 

I agree. But why do you accept his grading of them with no proof of his abilities?

I don't think he grades them. He approves the grade, as CAC does. (Or am I wrong about this?)

 

But I have a much higher comfort level with Rick's opinions because has studied the series to such an extent that he knows the impact of dies, production variables and manufacturing processes for every issue in this one series. Is it possible that John Albanese understands these same factors for every series? I suppose it is possible, but that would lead me back to questioning why he has never shared such valuable knowledge in the form of books, etc.

[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.

Wow, I just thought I'd wander back into this thread, and saw this question by TomB.

 

YES, the paradigms are drastically different. Rick Snow is a recognized authority on FEs and IHCs. This is not just because he proclaimed himself to be, but rather because he has actually researched the series, understands die variations, striking considerations and production difficulties for coins of this series. He has researched mint records, studied engraving techniques and quality issues involved with the mint at that time. In short, he is an expert in the series, and his opinions carry tremendous weight, irrelevant to marketing issues. His contributions to numismatics are considerable and not grounded in "marketing".

 

In the case of CAC, I have still yet to see a single book or research pamphlet or white paper written by John Albanese or any other principle of CAC (whose names I am not even aware of). What did he do to advance numismatics? Where are his contributions to the research body of work that supports our hobby?

 

In short, his only qualification that I've seen mentioned is that of being a co-founder of NGC. The only other qualification I've seen has been "trust me, he's the best grader in the business". Therefore, I don't really understand how he became the arbiter of all grading standards - again, especially when those "standards" are not written or discussed anywhere.

 

I don't want to dissolve into more diatribe, but basically, to me, there's a world of difference between what Rick Snow and John Albanese bring to the table.

 

(By the way, this is no knock on John at a personal level - he has been exceptionally pleasant and approachable when I've spoken with him.)

James, the differences that you describe don't adequately address the original question regarding the similarities in evaluations, stickering, market-making, etc.

 

And you can talk/complain all you want to about John Albanese not being published and what you do or don't know about him as an expert/grader. But that wont change the fact, that among the top coin grading experts in the country, there is virtually unanimous agreement that he is right up there with the very best. People don't magically, undeservedly acquire reputations like that - they are earned.

Mark, can you please provide links showing where folks (other than CAC or Blanchard principles) have discussed John's considerable virtues in being an expert at all series (at least those CAC approves)?

 

And when you say "up there with the very best", what exactly does that mean? He IS the best? or in the top 10? top 100?

 

My humble opinion is that this lack of name recognition really is a crucial factor in some of the resistance to CAC acceptance.

 

People don't magically, undeservedly acquire reputations like that - they are earned.

By the way, that is EXACTLY what I'm talking about! To some observers, it is as if John Albanese "magically" acquired this sudden magnificent reputation out of thin air. I would submit that hardly anybody knew of him as a "top grader" prior to formation of CAC. The reputation was just suddenly "there".

James, I entered the coin business in 1979 and John was already extremely highly regarded back then, (let me do the math for you) 30 years ago, long before PCGS, NGC or CAC were around. And I have no desire to look for/provide links for you - I truly don't care if you believe/agree with me or not on the subject of his abilities. But if you really care to find out about him, ask the experts at the top grading companies. I believe that their views will be similar to what I have stated.

[gmarguli]

One major difference with CAC, however, is that it is willing to make sight-unseen markets for many of the coins that it has expressed its (expert) opinions on.

 

Mark, you must have a very different definition of sight-UNSEEN than the rest of the world. The definition means to have not seen. Your definition means to have seen, but be willing to buy it in the future without needing to see it again.

 

Fact: In order for CAC to be willing to purchase the coin, they needed to SEE it at some point in the past. That's not sight-unseen.

[James_OldeTowne]

James, I entered the coin business in 1979 and John was already extremely highly regarded back then, (let me do the math for you) 30 years ago, long before PCGS, NGC or CAC were around. And I have no desire to look for/provide links for you - I truly don't care if you believe/agree with me or not on the subject of his abilities. But if you really care to find out about him, ask the experts at the top grading companies. I believe that their views will be similar to what I have stated.

Really? Well, why in the heck doesn't this guy start a grading company then !!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tradedollarnut]

One major difference with CAC, however, is that it is willing to make sight-unseen markets for many of the coins that it has expressed its (expert) opinions on.

 

Mark, you must have a very different definition of sight-UNSEEN than the rest of the world. The definition means to have not seen. Your definition means to have seen, but be willing to buy it in the future without needing to see it again.

 

Fact: In order for CAC to be willing to purchase the coin, they needed to SEE it at some point in the past. That's not sight-unseen.

 

I think that 'subsequently sight unseen' is a better way of putting it.