Things are changing across the street …

[BillJones]

A list, by service and certification #, of the coins which were "rejected" by CAC and the specific issue which caused such rejection. I am fairly certain such a list undoubtedly exists and is possibly being used by CAC insiders in their day to day coin buying.

 

If CAC did this, they would be sued, and frankly I think rightly so. We don't need a black listing of coins because opinion of one grading group.

 

Let's put it this way. I've had coins body bagged by NGC and graded by PCGS. I've also had coins graded by NGC and body bagged by PCGS. Would it be fair to have those coins black listed because one of the two major services refused to grade it? Does one rejection condemn a coin to a perpetual black list?

 

In this case we are taking about coins that were graded not even body bagged. And the reason for the CAC rejection could be a simple as an over grade, not doctoring. People need to be able to make some judgments for themselves. If you want to avoid risk, sell you collection and put the proceeds into a bank account with FDIC insurance.

 

[TomB]

A list, by service and certification #, of the coins which were "rejected" by CAC and the specific issue which caused such rejection. I am fairly certain such a list undoubtedly exists and is possibly being used by CAC insiders in their day to day coin buying.

 

If CAC did this, they would be sued, and frankly I think rightly so. We don't need a black listing of coins because opinion of one grading group.

 

Let's put it this way. I've had coins body bagged by NGC and graded by PCGS. I've also had coins graded by NGC and body bagged by PCGS. Would it be fair to have those coins black listed because one of the two major services refused to grade it? Does one rejection condemn a coin to a perpetual black list?

 

In this case we are taking about coins that were graded not even body bagged. And the reason for the CAC rejection could be a simple as an over grade, not doctoring. People need to be able to make some judgments for themselves. If you want to avoid risk, sell you collection and put the proceeds into a bank account with FDIC insurance.

I agree with Bill on this one. CAC would be instantly and correctly sued. They would be potentially harming the liquidity and value of coinage that they do not own and would only have their opinion as a defense. A coin can be problem-free, attractive and accurately graded and still be rejected by CAC. Of the three coins that I submitted that were not given a passing grade I had three different reasons-

 

1) One coin was accurately graded and might have been completely original, but the toning was not characteristic for the series so it was rejected as "questionable toning" instead of the more negative "artificial toning". JA told me that he thought the coin might be fine, but it was too unusual for him to sticker.

 

2) The second coin was accurately graded, but JA and BS thought it might have had another substance applied to it at one point in its long history so they did not put a sticker on it. The evidence they had was only a small portion of the coin near the rim, but they "decided to go conservative" on the coin and spent more time on that coin than the rest of my 76-coin submission combined.

 

3) The last coin was accurately graded, problem-free, attractive and had terrific surfaces and color yet was rejected because they thought the coin, which was hypothetically in a PR66 holder, was a PR66.3 instead of a PR66.4 and so just missed the cutoff for a sticker.

[MarkFeld]

As a collector who can see the merits of CAC but would likely not actively seek out use of the service, I just want to add that the green football would be infinitely more valuable if we, as the ultimate consumers of their product, had access to the following information:

 

A list, by service and certification #, of the coins which were "rejected" by CAC and the specific issue which caused such rejection. I am fairly certain such a list undoubtedly exists and is possibly being used by CAC insiders in their day to day coin buying.

 

Until such a list is made public, CAC insiders and the rest of us are not on an even playing field. Even of this is not true, the perception is there, and sometimes that is more important.

No such list is available to any dealers/"insiders". I have seen "insiders' get plenty of their coins rejected. And I have seen collectors with much higher success rates on their coins than the "insiders" you (mistakenly) think have the advantage. The playing field is even, whether you prefer to believe otherwise or not.

 

Edited to add: I seriously doubt that even CAC's internal records include the reasons that various coins are rejected.

[BillJones]

3) The last coin was accurately graded, problem-free, attractive and had terrific surfaces and color yet was rejected because they thought the coin, which was hypothetically in a PR66 holder, was a PR66.3 instead of a PR66.4 and so just missed the cutoff for a sticker.

 

CAC’s reason for rejecting this coin is patently absurd. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE that consistent in grading coins down to a tenth of a point.

[TomB]

I understand about the small chance of being able to grade consistently down to the tenth of a point, but this falls in line with the A, B and C theory of coins within a grading scale. At some point the best "C" coins, in the eye of one person, will be pushing hard against the "B" population, again in the eyes of that person. This is what happened with my coin.

[Tradedollarnut]

3) The last coin was accurately graded, problem-free, attractive and had terrific surfaces and color yet was rejected because they thought the coin, which was hypothetically in a PR66 holder, was a PR66.3 instead of a PR66.4 and so just missed the cutoff for a sticker.

 

CAC’s reason for rejecting this coin is patently absurd. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE that consistent in grading coins down to a tenth of a point.

 

Gotta agree with Bill on this. More likely than not, it just wasn't quite good enough for the sticker.... whether or not tenths of a point come into play.

[mommam17]

If CAC is going to divide a grade into A, B, and C coins, then tenths come into play. MS 65 C coins would be 65, 65.1, 65.2 and 65.3. Only when a coin is a just miss would it be called a 65.3.

[RWB]

Opinion is not quantifiable.

[gpnyc]

 

Edited to add: I seriously doubt that even CAC's internal records include the reasons that various coins are rejected.

 

If this is true, and I have no evidence to the contrary, why doesn't CAC come out and say so?

 

I am inclined to believe that these records exist simply because it would be the logical thing to do (in the event a coin gets submitted twice). I'm sure CAC doesn't want to risk rendering two opposing opinions on the same coin - which would hurt their credibility and business model. Hence if you keep track of what coins you've seen, this risk is eliminated.

 

If its a matter of company policy to not keep such records, then CAC should go on the record and say so publicly.

[MarkFeld]

 

Edited to add: I seriously doubt that even CAC's internal records include the reasons that various coins are rejected.

 

If this is true, and I have no evidence to the contrary, why doesn't CAC come out and say so?

 

I am inclined to believe that these records exist simply because it would be the logical thing to do (in the event a coin gets submitted twice). I'm sure CAC doesn't want to risk rendering two opposing opinions on the same coin - which would hurt their credibility and business model. Hence if you keep track of what coins you've seen, this risk is eliminated.

 

If its a matter of company policy to not keep such records, then CAC should go on the record and say so publicly.

I believe they have publicly stated that they keep records of the ID numbers of coins which have been submitted. Either way, they certainly haven't made any secret of the fact that they do that.

 

One of my points in reply to your previous post was that those records most likely don't include the reasons that the coins have been rejected. With the ID number recorded, the specific reason for rejection wouldn't be needed in order to avoid "rendering two opposing opinions on the same coin".

[gmarguli]

I believe they have publicly stated that they keep records of the ID numbers of coins which have been submitted. Either way, they certainly haven't made any secret of the fact that they do that.

 

Is this fact posted on their web site? Or was this fact posted by some forum member that talked to them at a show last year and kind of remembers the answer?

 

Publicly disclosing information is not one of the strong points of CAC so far. Allowing little bits to dribble out here and there thru various people - many unrelated to CAC - seems to be their MO.

 

Regardless of how you feel about the need for CAC, they do an extremely poor job of communicating with the public.

[Tradedollarnut]

I believe they have publicly stated that they keep records of the ID numbers of coins which have been submitted. Either way, they certainly haven't made any secret of the fact that they do that.

 

Is this fact posted on their web site? Or was this fact posted by some forum member that talked to them at a show last year and kind of remembers the answer?

 

Publicly disclosing information is not one of the strong points of CAC so far. Allowing little bits to dribble out here and there thru various people - many unrelated to CAC - seems to be their MO.

 

Regardless of how you feel about the need for CAC, they do an extremely poor job of communicating with the public.

 

I'm curious, Greg - does PCGS record the serial numbers of the coins they reject for crossover and do they utilize that list for subsequent submissions? If you don't know this, why do you expect CAC to divulge exactly what it does?

[MarkFeld]

I believe they have publicly stated that they keep records of the ID numbers of coins which have been submitted. Either way, they certainly haven't made any secret of the fact that they do that.

 

Is this fact posted on their web site? Or was this fact posted by some forum member that talked to them at a show last year and kind of remembers the answer?

 

Publicly disclosing information is not one of the strong points of CAC so far. Allowing little bits to dribble out here and there thru various people - many unrelated to CAC - seems to be their MO.

 

Regardless of how you feel about the need for CAC, they do an extremely poor job of communicating with the public.

Greg, in answer to your two questions, I don't know (and don't want to look it up). And I am in general agreement with your comments, though I feel that the communication is improving.

[MikeInFL]

A list, by service and certification #, of the coins which were "rejected" by CAC and the specific issue which caused such rejection. I am fairly certain such a list undoubtedly exists and is possibly being used by CAC insiders in their day to day coin buying.

 

If CAC did this, they would be sued, and frankly I think rightly so. We don't need a black listing of coins because opinion of one grading group.

 

Let's put it this way. I've had coins body bagged by NGC and graded by PCGS. I've also had coins graded by NGC and body bagged by PCGS. Would it be fair to have those coins black listed because one of the two major services refused to grade it? Does one rejection condemn a coin to a perpetual black list?

 

In this case we are taking about coins that were graded not even body bagged. And the reason for the CAC rejection could be a simple as an over grade, not doctoring. People need to be able to make some judgments for themselves. If you want to avoid risk, sell you collection and put the proceeds into a bank account with FDIC insurance.

I agree with Bill on this one. CAC would be instantly and correctly sued. They would be potentially harming the liquidity and value of coinage that they do not own and would only have their opinion as a defense.

 

While they might be sued -- there's nothing to stop it from happeneing -- I'm not so sure that argument holds water....

 

For instance, in the stock market, there are plenty of analysts that post publically their opinion of a stock. Frequently downgrades on stocks lead to a lowering of the price of that stock. However, you don't see lawsuits there, and the results are much more tangible in a market that is far more regulated than coins.

 

Since the CAC is only providing an opinion, and last time I checked providing an opinion, positive or negative, their actions aren't against the law but rather protected by the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.

[gmarguli]

I believe they have publicly stated that they keep records of the ID numbers of coins which have been submitted. Either way, they certainly haven't made any secret of the fact that they do that.

 

Is this fact posted on their web site? Or was this fact posted by some forum member that talked to them at a show last year and kind of remembers the answer?

 

Publicly disclosing information is not one of the strong points of CAC so far. Allowing little bits to dribble out here and there thru various people - many unrelated to CAC - seems to be their MO.

 

Regardless of how you feel about the need for CAC, they do an extremely poor job of communicating with the public.

 

I'm curious, Greg - does PCGS record the serial numbers of the coins they reject for crossover and do they utilize that list for subsequent submissions? If you don't know this, why do you expect CAC to divulge exactly what it does?

 

Yes, PCGS records the serial numbers on crossovers. No, they do not use that on subsequent submissions.

 

It really doesn't matter to me if CAC keeps records or if PCGS or NGC keep records on this type of stuff. It still doesn't change the fact that CAC is horrible at communicating to the public. After all, Mark is one of their biggest cheerleaders and he's saying that CAC has "publicly stated that they keep records of the ID numbers of coins which have been submitted. Either way, they certainly haven't made any secret of the fact that they do that." yet that info is not on their web site that I can find. How public was this statement?

[Tradedollarnut]

Yes, PCGS records the serial numbers on crossovers. No, they do not use that on subsequent submissions.

 

Is this on their website? How was this information made public?

 

I don't disagree that CAC doesn't come right out and say a lot of things that people would like to know, but then again a lot of things that people are asking for really isn't divulged by very many companies in the first place.

 

[Just Bob]

Since the CAC is only providing an opinion, and last time I checked providing an opinion, positive or negative, their actions aren't against the law but rather protected by the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.

 

Does this mean that they have armed citizens guarding CAC?

 

( I think that you must have meant the 1st amendment. - freedom of speech.)

[physics-fan3.14]

Since the CAC is only providing an opinion, and last time I checked providing an opinion, positive or negative, their actions aren't against the law but rather protected by the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.

 

Does this mean that they have armed citizens guarding CAC?

 

( I think that you must have meant the 1st amendment. - freedom of speech.)

 

Well, I hope they have armed citizens guarding all those high dollar coins. I would hope security is very strong at any of the Third- Fourth- etc. Party Graders.

[Bugmann1974]

I believe they have publicly stated that they keep records of the ID numbers of coins which have been submitted. Either way, they certainly haven't made any secret of the fact that they do that.

 

Is this fact posted on their web site? Or was this fact posted by some forum member that talked to them at a show last year and kind of remembers the answer?

 

Publicly disclosing information is not one of the strong points of CAC so far. Allowing little bits to dribble out here and there thru various people - many unrelated to CAC - seems to be their MO.

 

Regardless of how you feel about the need for CAC, they do an extremely poor job of communicating with the public.

Greg, in answer to your two questions, I don't know (and don't want to look it up). And I am in general agreement with your comments, though I feel that the communication is improving.

 

I sent CAC an e-mail with a couple of questions.

 

I got a reply telling me that "Just call this number and ask for John Albanese. he would be happy to answer your questions over the phone."

 

Do Wha!?

 

I sent her a reply saying that I would rather not take up a busy mans time right in the middle of his work day to talk to me on the phone, and asked her to forward the e-mail to him so that he could reply at his own leisure.

[TomB]

I believe they have publicly stated that they keep records of the ID numbers of coins which have been submitted. Either way, they certainly haven't made any secret of the fact that they do that.

 

Is this fact posted on their web site? Or was this fact posted by some forum member that talked to them at a show last year and kind of remembers the answer?

 

Publicly disclosing information is not one of the strong points of CAC so far. Allowing little bits to dribble out here and there thru various people - many unrelated to CAC - seems to be their MO.

 

Regardless of how you feel about the need for CAC, they do an extremely poor job of communicating with the public.

I agree with you, Greg. CAC has historically done a poor job, in my opinion, of stating their case and providing information in one centralized area of their website. This should be done, again in my opinion, but I wonder if it is a priority.

[MikeInFL]

Since the CAC is only providing an opinion, and last time I checked providing an opinion, positive or negative, their actions aren't against the law but rather protected by the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.

 

Does this mean that they have armed citizens guarding CAC?

 

( I think that you must have meant the 1st amendment. - freedom of speech.)

 

Thanks for the correction. Been spending too much time on the NRA site recently, I suppose.

[BillJones]

Free spech does not give you the right to destroy the value of other people's property in civil court.

[gpnyc]

Free speak does not give you the right to destroy the value of other people's property in civil court.

 

This is a service the owner of a coin is asking for (and most likely paying for). The situation is different. Auction houses talk down problem coins all the time and they do not get sued. If a coin is doctored and CAC says so publicly, they cannot be sued either (unless they made a mistake).

 

Here's my problem in a nutshell. If CAC renders a positive opinion on a coin, that fact is out in the world for all to see and base their decisions on. If CAC renders a negative opinion its under lock and key.

 

Until this is changed I can't view CAC as the public service they purport to be. I simply view it as another business. If that's what they are, then good for them and I wish them well.

[BillJones]

My take is different. After reading about TomB's experience of having a coin that they agreed graded PR-66 and not giving it a sticker because it did not make "66.4," I'll continue to view them as a cartel. If you bought coin that makes the stated grade on the holder, it should be stickered PERIOD. Taking any other action smacks of controlling the supply in an effort to push up prices.

[mommam17]

Tom`s coin did not get stickered because John thought it was a C coin, just missing being a B/stickered coin. CAC is making a market for nice coins and will buy them at a good price.

[MarkFeld]

My take is different. After reading about TomB's experience of having a coin that they agreed graded PR-66 and not giving it a sticker because it did not make "66.4," I'll continue to view them as a cartel. If you bought coin that makes the stated grade on the holder, it should be stickered PERIOD. Taking any other action smacks of controlling the supply in an effort to push up prices.

No, stcikering a coin that they don't think is solid or better for the assigned grade is contrary to their mission. So it shouldn't be stickered, PERIOD. And if you really think about it with an open mind, you should be able to see that the supply (even of just the "A" and "B" coins) will be too large to "control' for the purpose you stated.

[RareSov]

Then they should introduce a sticker "borderline grade"

 

[steph1942-migration]

I'm neither a modern collector nor one that deals in the older coins. My collection contains both. I happen to like the older gold coins and my interest is slowly moving that way. My comment wasn't one to start an argument nor one to show ignorance. the final few lines weren't even an attack on CAC. I find more interest in the percentage of highly rated coins, usually by NGC. I really would like to see a report by CAC that shows if NGC and PCGS coins really are deserving of their ratings. It appears that CAC does not provide that sort of service/scope. From what I'm reading, CAC apparently just OK's the previous grading given the coin. Since both NGC and PCGS also rate pre 1920 coins (generally speaking), does NGC miss the mark more often? As they seem to have more highly rated coins, you'd think so. I understand that this post does not really fit the CAC issue, but CAC may give me a possible way to satisfy my curiosity. I'd also like to know how CAC appraches the issue of ANACS since they had such a different philosophy. There are times I think they had it right the first time. Sorry for taking up space on this thread.

[BillJones]

Tom`s coin did not get stickered because John thought it was a C coin, just missing being a B/stickered coin. CAC is making a market for nice coins and will buy them at a good price.

 

So a coin that meets that grade as stated on the holder is unacceptable because it is not a coin that grades the beyond number on the slab by some ill defined decimal or letter point system. And yet I had a coin sent to me that missed the grade as stated because of damage I'm bad guy for pointing it out.

 

You people so full of double talk it's not worth debating the issue with you. It's all about money and controlling markets, not consumer protection.

 

[TomB]

I'd also like to weigh in again on a few points in this discussion.

 

I agree that grading to the decimal is neither something I would like to do nor is it something that I think can be done on a wildly consistent basis. However, when one calls a coin a 66.3 and that the requirement for a green sticker is a 66.4 then in actuality what one is saying is that the coin is at the very upper end of the C pool of coins within that grade and just misses the B pool of coins within the grade. The use of a decimal point vs. a letter designation is just nomenclature. While I would have liked my coin to receive a sticker, the truth is that my grade on the coin was very close to the CAC grade on the coin, but we ended up on different sides of the cutoff. Truly, anytime something is measured, judged or valued there will be those instances where whatever is being analyzed will just miss going into the next higher or lower pool. It happens everywhere and all the time. Grading is a complex art and the way I grade is similar to, but not exactly the same, as the way CAC appears to grade. For most coins this does not matter, but for some we will end up on either side of a cutoff.

 

The idea of putting the green sticker on the coin simply because CAC agreed with the grade does not match CAC's public stance on their mission. Therefore, I think they were correct in declining to sticker the coin based upon their opinion of the coin within the grade. Of course my opinion is slightly different, but only by two-tenths of a decimal grade since I would have graded the coin 66.5 and given it a sticker.

 

Additionally, CAC may win or lose any particular civil suit involving the publication of certification numbers that have been rejected, but I think they would be in a difficult position to defend themselves since no where in their site is it stated that rejected certification numbers will be published. I realize that CAC does not explicitly state that there is published list of those coins that have received a sticker, but it does allow one to search their database of coins that received a sticker. Therefore, it can be inferred that the presence of a searchable online database for successful coins and the absence of a similar database for unsuccessful coins means that there will not be a published list in the future of rejected coins. If they were to now start a list or searchable database for rejected coins then it would seem they would be changing their rules in a potentially material manner after a significant number of coins have gone through the process. I would expect this would open them up to legal action that they may not be able to defend. I would imagine this would be analogous to NGC or PCGS publishing a list or searchable database for all coins that were not successfully crossed into their holders.