Cost to submit coins to CAC?

[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.

 

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.

 

James, Did you judge his ability to grade by his reputation as an author or on the merits of his grading certificates?

 

To answer your question directly, I have seen his grading certificates. I've also seen some of the attributions he's done, and to be honest, there was much to question about Walter's numismatic integrity that someone who judged him on his numismatic reputation as an author would look past -- which was the point of my response.

 

So rather than looking at someone's reputation or the books they've written, wouldn't the better conclusion be drawn through looking at the actual stickers and the backing of those stickers by bids? Because at least to me, scholarship != grading skill, and putting your money where your mouth is means a lot.

 

Respectfully...Mike

[MarkFeld]

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.

Greg, if you prefer to call that sight-seen, that's OK with me. However, once the coin has been stickered, there is no requirement that it be seen again in the future in order to be eligible for any applicable bid. Likewise, when I offer to buy coins (that I have sold) back from my clients, I do so under what I refer to as a sight-unseen basis. But yes, I saw the coins once previously, so if you think it's more accurate to label my offers sight-seen, I wont quibble.

[MikeInFL]

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.

 

I think an equally interesting question is does this educated perspective really result in better grading skills? While on the surface, it would seem so, but that presumes the market also has this level of built-in knowledge, which to me seems like an incorrect assumption. Said a bit more directly, just because one knows that an issue comes weakly struck doesn't mean squat when it comes to grading the coin in the eyes of the market -- it is how the market reacts to the coin that REALLY matters, IMO.

[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...

 

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.

 

 

Bill, that was exactly my point, that's why I said JA is being CONSIDERED as expert in all areas... I agree that nobody is that good. As for the TPG's, they get MORE THAN ONE "expert" to agree, and, even then, they get it wrong on occasion.

[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.

 

 

Bill, that was exactly my point, that's why I said JA is being CONSIDERED as expert in all areas... I agree that nobody is that good. As for the TPG's, they get MORE THAN ONE "expert" to agree, and, even then, they get it wrong on occasion.

Collectors and dealers around the world pass judgment on NGC and PCGS coins, on a daily basis. And in many cases, the same person does so for a wide variety of coin types and dates.

 

If/once a person has the ability to grade one type of coin, often he can learn to grade other types equally well. It's a matter of being exposed to the right coins, in quantities and working with or for other experts who have the willingness and ability to share/ teach.

 

One need not be able to "walk on water" in order to provide expert opinions regarding which NGC and PCGS coins are above or below average for the assigned grade. Some are, no doubt, easy calls, while others are much more difficult. And of course, you and others are free to disagree with such opinions and/or not submit your coins in order to obtain those opinions.

[James_OldeTowne]

Then let me put my final post into this thread by stating this. SINCE John Albanese is such a towering figure in the world of numismatics, THEN I believe he would serve the numismatic community far more productively by writing research papers, books on grading, articles on recognizing doctored coins, and perhaps even filming problem coins and what it is one should watch out for. If he really, truly is in the thick of things for the overall good (and I am sure he is), and for purposes of combating overgraded and doctored coins, this seems like a far more productive way to get the good word out than to start a controversial 4PG service. I sincerely believe that would elevate his standing throughout the entire numismatic world, and not just within the realm of "graders", where I am told his reputation speaks for itself. We would come to "know the person", or "know the expert" as the case may be.

 

Take a look at what folks like Rick Snow, Q. David Bowers, Eric P. Newman, Robert Kravitz, Al Overton, Jules Reiver, Brian Greer, David Lange, and yes, Walter Breen have accomplished, and think of what you would be missing out on if any of them had merely "started a grading service". And yes, I believe those kinds of authors HAVE contributed mightily to the process of grading coins, in addition to their other obvious numismatic accomplishments.

 

I realize that in this small numismatic community, I'm pretty much a nobody, and I look up to folks who share their wealth of numismatic treasure with me. It makes me a far better collector than I would be as someone who can grade with perfect precision, but knows nothing about what I am grading. Please take the above as the constructive criticism it was intended to be. Thanks for the discussion, guys!

[Tradedollarnut]

Maybe he just loves to look at coins. Maybe he just cares about the integrity of the hobby enough to take action against grade inflation and coin doctors. Maybe he doesn't like to do research or write papers.

 

Maybe he should just do what he wants to do and ignore all the chirping.

[WinstonWare]

Maybe he just loves to look at coins. Maybe he just cares about the integrity of the hobby enough to take action against grade inflation and coin doctors. Maybe he doesn't like to do research or write papers.

 

Maybe he should just do what he wants to do and ignore all the chirping.

 

I agree with this point. You can’t tell a grown man what he should be doing.

[DC Dawg]

This is my last comment on this...

 

MikeInFL: You are the only one to respond in a rational manner. Thank you. However, I did use "alleged" in at least one response. Yes, I may have missed it in others, which may have gone beyond my intent. And you are correct in that I should have toned it down a bit.

 

MarkFeld: There are two answers to your question about the potential conflicts with NGC and PCGS: With NGC, I do not know where there are conflicts or if there are conflicts. From what I have seen of NGC, I have not seen anything to question. I know that because I have not seen anything to question does not mean there may be dirt somewhere!

 

As for PCGS, I do have questions because of their "marketplace" and other things they do. But PCGS is part of Collectors Universe, a public company. There are differences in how certain laws are applied to public companies versus private corporations which could explain how PCGS could operate its model, especially within the guideline of Sarbanes-Oxley, which deals with separation of divisions and disclosures of potential conflicts (amongst other provisions). I have not looked into what SOX may allow or disallow in the PCGS model, especially since I had never taken securities law classes--my concentration was public interest law. However, since Collectors Universe was never on the SEC watch list (meaning they made an inquiry about CLCT's operations), I am assuming they are within compliance.

 

Tradedollarnut: Thou protests too much--and in such a way that leads me to think there is more than meets the eye. I asked before if I hit a nerve. After seeing your responses to me and other (not only here, but in the past), I think it is a different reaction: fight or flight. There is something that you perceive is backing you into a corner. The instinct is to fight or leave the fight behind (flight). Since online communications are not conducive to flight, and since there is a certain anonymity in your postings, you will fight. I am sorry you feel this way and cannot engage in a constructive dialog.

 

My mother was happy to see me. Now that she's asleep, I get to go fix her computer! That's the cost of being the family's technical support... a job I didn't ask for!

 

Scott

[Tradedollarnut]

Tradedollarnut: Thou protests too much--and in such a way that leads me to think there is more than meets the eye. I asked before if I hit a nerve. After seeing your responses to me and other (not only here, but in the past), I think it is a different reaction: fight or flight. There is something that you perceive is backing you into a corner. The instinct is to fight or leave the fight behind (flight). Since online communications are not conducive to flight, and since there is a certain anonymity in your postings, you will fight. I am sorry you feel this way and cannot engage in a constructive dialog.

 

It's as simple as the fact that I don't engage in constructive conversations with people pulling silly theories of nefarious activity out their arse.

 

[James_OldeTowne]

An esteemed board member PMed me several times, stating in strong terms that multiple board members interpreted my previous post as instructions on how John Albanese should run his "life". If that is what was construed, then I sincerely apologize. I am not sure how that came across, but it was not my intent to say he should drop everything he's doing in life and begin writing books.

 

Rather, my intent was to suggest that whatever other numismatic activities and services he offers could be significantly augmented by the dissemination of his vast knowledge of grading and coin doctoring through writing. It seems to me that information is the most powerful weapon in the combating coin doctors and gradeflation. Wouldn't it be incredibly valuable if there were reference material on techniques and cues for recognizing doctored coins?

 

I suggested to the esteemed board member that I could post a public apology if my previous statements were so misconstrued. I trust that when John Albanese reads this thread, this post will suffice.

 

[mommam17]

James- I emailed John Albanese yesterday with a question and he answered it and said they were very busy at CAC in NJ. After the first Coinfest, he went over my 6 commems that did not sticker. Even though I don`t think he is a writer, he is a very good communicator about coins. I`ve collected classic commems for about 30 years and I learned somethings about commems in the 10 minutes I talked to him.

[Tradedollarnut]

James - it did come across as a little preachy, but with that said I'm sure all is fine.

 

John is taking the time to personally discuss problem coins that fail to sticker with collectors who own them. There are numerous instances where he has called or emailed the owner. While this isn't 'writing a book', it is effective communication and education on the problem.

[MarkFeld]

This is my last comment on this...

 

MikeInFL: You are the only one to respond in a rational manner.......

Scott, that's quite a statement, especially coming from you, after the way you posted to this thread - making unfounded accusations, while misstating facts and laws. However, rather than arguing about who responded in a rational manner, since you acknowledge that Mike did so, I will re-post what HE wrote here in reply to YOU:

 

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.

[James_OldeTowne]

Additional PMs by the same esteemed fourm member suggest that my apology exaggerated some content. Therefore, I am rewording it using his phrases in the hopes that he will deem it more accurate. I apologize for the multiple posts, and have indicated the changes below.

 

An esteemed board member PMed me several three times, stating in strong terms that multiple board members one or two board members in addtion to himself interpreted my previous post as instructions on how John Albanese should run his "life". If that is what was construed, then I sincerely apologize. I am not sure how that came across, but it was not my intent to say he should drop everything he's doing in life and begin writing books.

 

Rather, my intent was to suggest that whatever other numismatic activities and services he offers could be significantly augmented by the dissemination of his vast knowledge of grading and coin doctoring through writing. It seems to me that information is the most powerful weapon in the combating coin doctors and gradeflation. Wouldn't it be incredibly valuable if there were reference material on techniques and cues for recognizing doctored coins?

 

I suggested to the esteemed board member that I could post a public apology if my previous statements were so misconstrued. I trust that when John Albanese reads this thread, this post will suffice.

[WinstonWare]

James, I see what you’re getting at now. Sorry that I misunderstood your earlier post.

[gbsten]

Several - 1. Being of a number more than two or three.

 

Multiple - 1. Having, pertaining to, or consisting of more than one individual, element, part, or other component.

 

 

Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the American Language

 

 

Sheesh...cut the guy some slack!!

[physics-fan3.14]

I hadn't read this thread since page 2, and I just read the whole thing. Wow. It's been a while since we had a good CAC argument.

[DC Dawg]

This is my last comment on this...

 

MikeInFL: You are the only one to respond in a rational manner.......

Scott, that's quite a statement, especially coming from you, after the way you posted to this thread - making unfounded accusations, while misstating facts and laws. However, rather than arguing about who responded in a rational manner, since you acknowledge that Mike did so, I will re-post what HE wrote here in reply to YOU:

 

Look... I am trying NOT to continue this flame fest. It is not doing any of us any good. We all have our opinions and we are not going to change what anyone thinks. The reference I made was not to that post, but to the last few posts that I considered "reasonable." Mike was the only one to boil it down to the issue of transparency and explain it in a manner that everyone thought was "calmer" than I did. That's the reason for the complement.

 

I am trying to move away from the nit picking of every word and phrase because it tends to make the argument personal. Mark, I am not trying to make it personal with you. I think you are wrong on this issue as much as you (probably) think I am wrong. That's fine... we can agree to disagree and end this flame fest before any of us say/write things we may regret later--which is where I feel this is going. We need to just move on.

 

Scott

[MarkFeld]

This is my last comment on this...

 

MikeInFL: You are the only one to respond in a rational manner.......

Scott, that's quite a statement, especially coming from you, after the way you posted to this thread - making unfounded accusations, while misstating facts and laws. However, rather than arguing about who responded in a rational manner, since you acknowledge that Mike did so, I will re-post what HE wrote here in reply to YOU:

 

Look... I am trying NOT to continue this flame fest. It is not doing any of us any good. We all have our opinions and we are not going to change what anyone thinks. The reference I made was not to that post, but to the last few posts that I considered "reasonable." Mike was the only one to boil it down to the issue of transparency and explain it in a manner that everyone thought was "calmer" than I did. That's the reason for the complement.

 

I am trying to move away from the nit picking of every word and phrase because it tends to make the argument personal. Mark, I am not trying to make it personal with you. I think you are wrong on this issue as much as you (probably) think I am wrong. That's fine... we can agree to disagree and end this flame fest before any of us say/write things we may regret later--which is where I feel this is going. We need to just move on.

 

Scott

Just a friendly hint/suggestion, Scott - if in the future, you're "NOT trying to continue this flame fest" and "not trying to make it personal" and really feel that "we need to just move on", you might consider not stating that only one individual has

"responded in a rational manner".

[DC Dawg]

Just a friendly hint/suggestion, Scott - if in the future, you're "NOT trying to continue this flame fest" and "not trying to make it personal" and really feel that "we need to just move on", you might consider not stating that only one individual has "responded in a rational manner".

Point taken and appreciated.

 

Scott

[EZ_E]

RI Al should come to this thread to find musically themed numismatics 'cause I'm just hearing lots of tiny little violins a-playing. Geez, talking about tangents.

 

Besides, this whole thread should be on the tangents board, not on the US Coins thread.

 

Where's a numismatic cop when one is needed.

[BillJones]

Where's a numismatic cop when one is needed.

 

Sorry, but I think that there are too many cops across the street, including a couple I've had a hankering to tell them where to go.