Be honest......

[mumu]

And I've seen these new PCGS Secure Plus slabs. From what I understand, they boost the coins value and help detect alterations that people wouldn't really do. (If the coin is MS65 why would someone open the slab and putty the coin?) Does this thing from PCGS do the same thing a CAC label does?? Boosts the value of the coin? Maybe its another marketing idea? I know it wont matter to me at all, especially because in the Secure Plus FAQ the first question reads this

"Q: Does the laser scanning detect doctoring such as puttying more reliably than other methods? Is the technology similar to what is used for Lasik vision correction surgery (although obviously nothing is being vaporized here)?

DW: The technology uses lasers but I don't think they are anything like Lasik. They are designed to help detect coin doctoring."

 

I'm going to assume the methods are not different at all from what every other TPG uses to grade and authenticate coins.

CAC has nothing to do with Secure Plus.

 

CAC relies on the opinions of a few select graders, including John Albanese, to determine if a TPG-graded coin is PQ.

 

SecurePlus uses a fingerprinting tool to record a coin's image. It compares the image to others in its database to see if it was previously submitted and maybe screwed with. The Sniffer tool is also used, to check for the presence of artificial enhancements like Blue Ribbon or nose grease.

 

I guess you could say both CAC and SP are meant to improve a coin's value. But then, that's business.

Lance.

 

Lance has given you a good answer, but I will elaborate a little. Many are already aware that I support the idea of CAC and I will cut-and-paste an answer I have given on the PCGS and NGC boards numerous times-

 

"CAC is a tool that is available to all and, as such, it is quite similar to knowing how to use a loupe; having the knowledge to spot counterfeit pieces; understanding what manipulated and original coinage should look like or how they will likely appear; being able to interpret printed guide prices and auction results; understanding how to grade according to the ANA standards and how this grading differs from the various TPG grading standards; and learning all the options for buying and selling within the market.

 

Sadly, the vast majority of collectors ignore their study of coinage and thus are not truly numismatists. However, some folks pursue this knowledge and will happily listen to other opinions, regardless of whether or not they agree with those opinions. CAC can help all, but will help those who are willing to accept their help the most."

 

What I have seen on both the PCGS and NGC boards is what I term "internet testosterone" where many folks, some of whom are knowledgeable and some not so much, dismiss CAC as handholding that they do not require. This can be true for various people within certain series and grade ranges, but what it reminds me of more would be the initial resistance from so many in the hobby-industry at the advent of third party grading, which of course we now call NGC and PCGS. Truly, NGC and PCGS have been of great value to thousands of folks in this hobby-industry over the years and, while CAC does not perform the exact same slate of services as NGC and PCGS, there is plenty left to benefit from when one uses CAC.

 

I dont see how cac is a tool in the same way any of those others things are a tool. Cac is purely a marketing tool. Maybe you can water it down and call it a tool in the same way that a crutch is a tool. It caught on and added value to certain coins that used to be opportunties for those that have the same tools as the cac-ers(those tools you mentioned) . Unless you are stating or accepting someone elses statement that CAC knows best and trumps the TPGs, then except for undergraded gold bean old holder coins are the only place where I see a use for cac and even then all its doing again is replacing the skill of grading coins that used graders from a different standard/era.

 

Heres how cac is a tool. If a cac sticker tells you whether you like a coin or not, then you have a lot of learning to do. Id rather collect scratch and sniff stickers, they are much more fun.

[lehigh96]

I dont see how cac is a tool in the same way any of those others things are a tool. Cac is purely a marketing tool. Maybe you can water it down and call it a tool in the same way that a crutch is a tool. It caught on and added value to certain coins that used to be opportunties for those that have the same tools as the cac-ers(those tools you mentioned) . Unless you are stating or accepting someone elses statement that CAC knows best and trumps the TPGs, then except for undergraded gold bean old holder coins are the only place where I see a use for cac and even then all its doing again is replacing the skill of grading coins that used graders from a different standard/era.

 

Heres how cac is a tool. If a cac sticker tells you whether you like a coin or not, then you have a lot of learning to do. Id rather collect scratch and sniff stickers, they are much more fun.

 

Have you ever considered that the CAC performs a service that appeals to certain collectors but not to others? For example, I would not expect a collector of MS63 Peace Dollars to care much about the CAC. On the other hand, a person who is assembling a very high end type set might find the CAC's service invaluable.

 

Perhaps you don't think gradeflation is real. Perhaps you don't collect expensive coins. Perhaps you think you are an expert grader of every series and don't really need the TPG's much less the CAC. Perhaps you like to ignore the financial aspects of coin collecting because you think it should be a fun hobby. I don't know, but telling others that they have a lot to learn because they decide to practice financial prudence and use all of the tools available to them strikes me as a very ironic statement.

[lcoopie]

who here feels that he/she is as knowledgeable as CAC?

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

who here feels that he/she is as knowledgeable as CAC?

 

 

On the series I specialize in, I do. Not only that, but CAC is absolutely worthless for Franklins - they accept the PCGS definition of FBL and use only the bottom set of lines. So, the only possible reason I could have thought of for using CAC (verify PCGS FBL's), is out the door.

[mumu]

I dont see how cac is a tool in the same way any of those others things are a tool. Cac is purely a marketing tool. Maybe you can water it down and call it a tool in the same way that a crutch is a tool. It caught on and added value to certain coins that used to be opportunties for those that have the same tools as the cac-ers(those tools you mentioned) . Unless you are stating or accepting someone elses statement that CAC knows best and trumps the TPGs, then except for undergraded gold bean old holder coins are the only place where I see a use for cac and even then all its doing again is replacing the skill of grading coins that used graders from a different standard/era.

 

Heres how cac is a tool. If a cac sticker tells you whether you like a coin or not, then you have a lot of learning to do. Id rather collect scratch and sniff stickers, they are much more fun.

 

Have you ever considered that the CAC performs a service that appeals to certain collectors but not to others? For example, I would not expect a collector of MS63 Peace Dollars to care much about the CAC. On the other hand, a person who is assembling a very high end type set might find the CAC's service invaluable.

 

Perhaps you don't think gradeflation is real. Perhaps you don't collect expensive coins. Perhaps you think you are an expert grader of every series and don't really need the TPG's much less the CAC. Perhaps you like to ignore the financial aspects of coin collecting because you think it should be a fun hobby. I don't know, but telling others that they have a lot to learn because they decide to practice financial prudence and use all of the tools available to them strikes me as a very ironic statement.

 

Well by this logic where does it end? We need a slab on the coin, a sticker on the slab, why then not another sticker on the sticker, then a sticker on the sticker on the sticker. When is enough enough? Or is the argument being made that CAC is GOD?

[MarkFeld]

who here feels that he/she is as knowledgeable as CAC?

 

 

Certainly not I.

 

But it is great to know that many collectors are apparently so knowledgeable that they couldn't possibly benefit from CAC's expertise.

[mumu]

who here feels that he/she is as knowledgeable as CAC?

 

 

Certainly not I.

 

But it is great to know that many collectors are apparently so knowledgeable that they couldn't possibly benefit from CAC's expertise.

 

I rely heavily on on TPGs because I am no expert. They verify authenticity, damage, errors, varities and give an approximation of grade that has been deemed by the majority of experts to be extremely accurate. Without them I would lose a lot of money attempting to enjoy this hobby. CAC gives a sticker. The sticker is suppose to mean this particular expert agrees with everything the TPG has determined from the list i listed above. Who is this expert? Why is he better than the other 100s of experts that dont give stickers out? Should I get their opinions too? Im sure for 10$ just about any expert in the world will look at my coin for 3 seconds and give a thumbs up or down. Should I seek them all down to prove my unworthiness and admit I am not as knowledgeble as them? Certainly not accepting their thoughts is no differnt than not accepting a sticker is it not? Or is the actual magical sticker the oracle of the coin industry today?

 

Do I see value for a service like CAC? Yes, if they stickered ICG coins, NNC coins...et cetera. But even then if I felt a coin in those holders needed further verification, I would just send to NGC or PCGS

[MarkFeld]

who here feels that he/she is as knowledgeable as CAC?

 

 

Certainly not I.

 

But it is great to know that many collectors are apparently so knowledgeable that they couldn't possibly benefit from CAC's expertise.

 

I rely heavily on on TPGs because I am no expert. They verify authenticity, damage, errors, varities and give an approximation of grade that has been deemed by the majority of experts to be extremely accurate. Without them I would lose a lot of money attempting to enjoy this hobby. CAC gives a sticker. The sticker is suppose to mean this particular expert agrees with everything the TPG has determined from the list i listed above. Who is this expert? Why is he better than the other 100s of experts that dont give stickers out? Should I get their opinions too? Im sure for 10$ just about any expert in the world will look at my coin for 3 seconds and give a thumbs up or down. Should I seek them all down to prove my unworthiness and admit I am not as knowledgeble as them? Certainly not accepting their thoughts is no differnt than not accepting a sticker is it not? Or is the actual magical sticker the oracle of the coin industry today?

 

Do I see value for a service like CAC? Yes, if they stickered ICG coins, NNC coins...et cetera. But even then if I felt a coin in those holders needed further verification, I would just send to NGC or PCGS

 

Based on your questions (Who is this expert? Why is he better than the other 100s of experts that dont give stickers out? Should I get their opinions too? ) it sounds like you don't know much at all about John Albanese. And, instead of dismissing him, you might consider finding out who he is and what his credentials and reputation are.

[dimefreak]

Believe it or not I didn't mean to start a war here. I came across a coin that seemed dark, but had a CAC sticker. Many of you guys here said that CAC doesnt sticker dark coins. Therefore I found myself looking in CAC'S records for the first time. I was just curious how many of you all look to make sure the sticker is legit.

[TomB]

And I've seen these new PCGS Secure Plus slabs. From what I understand, they boost the coins value and help detect alterations that people wouldn't really do. (If the coin is MS65 why would someone open the slab and putty the coin?) Does this thing from PCGS do the same thing a CAC label does?? Boosts the value of the coin? Maybe its another marketing idea? I know it wont matter to me at all, especially because in the Secure Plus FAQ the first question reads this

"Q: Does the laser scanning detect doctoring such as puttying more reliably than other methods? Is the technology similar to what is used for Lasik vision correction surgery (although obviously nothing is being vaporized here)?

DW: The technology uses lasers but I don't think they are anything like Lasik. They are designed to help detect coin doctoring."

 

I'm going to assume the methods are not different at all from what every other TPG uses to grade and authenticate coins.

CAC has nothing to do with Secure Plus.

 

CAC relies on the opinions of a few select graders, including John Albanese, to determine if a TPG-graded coin is PQ.

 

SecurePlus uses a fingerprinting tool to record a coin's image. It compares the image to others in its database to see if it was previously submitted and maybe screwed with. The Sniffer tool is also used, to check for the presence of artificial enhancements like Blue Ribbon or nose grease.

 

I guess you could say both CAC and SP are meant to improve a coin's value. But then, that's business.

Lance.

 

Lance has given you a good answer, but I will elaborate a little. Many are already aware that I support the idea of CAC and I will cut-and-paste an answer I have given on the PCGS and NGC boards numerous times-

 

"CAC is a tool that is available to all and, as such, it is quite similar to knowing how to use a loupe; having the knowledge to spot counterfeit pieces; understanding what manipulated and original coinage should look like or how they will likely appear; being able to interpret printed guide prices and auction results; understanding how to grade according to the ANA standards and how this grading differs from the various TPG grading standards; and learning all the options for buying and selling within the market.

 

Sadly, the vast majority of collectors ignore their study of coinage and thus are not truly numismatists. However, some folks pursue this knowledge and will happily listen to other opinions, regardless of whether or not they agree with those opinions. CAC can help all, but will help those who are willing to accept their help the most."

 

What I have seen on both the PCGS and NGC boards is what I term "internet testosterone" where many folks, some of whom are knowledgeable and some not so much, dismiss CAC as handholding that they do not require. This can be true for various people within certain series and grade ranges, but what it reminds me of more would be the initial resistance from so many in the hobby-industry at the advent of third party grading, which of course we now call NGC and PCGS. Truly, NGC and PCGS have been of great value to thousands of folks in this hobby-industry over the years and, while CAC does not perform the exact same slate of services as NGC and PCGS, there is plenty left to benefit from when one uses CAC.

 

I dont see how cac is a tool in the same way any of those others things are a tool. Cac is purely a marketing tool. Maybe you can water it down and call it a tool in the same way that a crutch is a tool. It caught on and added value to certain coins that used to be opportunties for those that have the same tools as the cac-ers(those tools you mentioned) . Unless you are stating or accepting someone elses statement that CAC knows best and trumps the TPGs, then except for undergraded gold bean old holder coins are the only place where I see a use for cac and even then all its doing again is replacing the skill of grading coins that used graders from a different standard/era.

 

Heres how cac is a tool. If a cac sticker tells you whether you like a coin or not, then you have a lot of learning to do. Id rather collect scratch and sniff stickers, they are much more fun.

 

Like I wrote above, people have various levels of expertise and also differing levels of self-awareness with respect to what they may need to know in order to be as fully educated as possible. However, to give you more information, which you are free to use or ignore as pleases you, there are certain modifications or alterations to coins that had slipped past the TPGs in previous years, but that can be spotted now by CAC. To be fair, there are, of course, others who can also spot these already certified problem coins. This is not the case for everyone, and the CAC education gained from even one or two instances in this field is quite valuable to those who are willing to learn.

[TomB]

Believe it or not I didn't mean to start a war here. I came across a coin that seemed dark, but had a CAC sticker. Many of you guys here said that CAC doesnt sticker dark coins. Therefore I found myself looking in CAC'S records for the first time. I was just curious how many of you all look to make sure the sticker is legit.

 

I have plenty of dark coins that CAC has stickered.

[jom]

Heres how cac is a tool. If a cac sticker tells you whether you like a coin or not, then you have a lot of learning to do. Id rather collect scratch and sniff stickers, they are much more fun.

 

I don't know, but telling others that they have a lot to learn because they decide to practice financial prudence and use all of the tools available to them strikes me as a very ironic statement.

 

In his defense, mumu said that if you need CAC too tell you whether you like a coin or not you have a lot to learn. IMO, I agree with this statement. There seems to be a section of the collecting community who have to have this "blessing" from CAC. I think there are TONS of coins out there that anyone could like that aren't CAC'd. I own quite a few myself. Being guided what to buy by some label can possibly be a detriment in my opinion. That's not a knock on CAC at all...they seem to do a fine job...but still. With both CAC and the TPGs they can be certain dependencies created in collectors that isn't healthy (such as not learning to grade yourself...etc etc).

 

jom

[TomB]

Heres how cac is a tool. If a cac sticker tells you whether you like a coin or not, then you have a lot of learning to do. Id rather collect scratch and sniff stickers, they are much more fun.

 

I don't know, but telling others that they have a lot to learn because they decide to practice financial prudence and use all of the tools available to them strikes me as a very ironic statement.

 

In his defense, mumu said that if you need CAC too tell you whether you like a coin or not you have a lot to learn. IMO, I agree with this statement. There seems to be a section of the collecting community who have to have this "blessing" from CAC. I think there are TONS of coins out there that anyone could like that aren't CAC'd. I own quite a few myself. Being guided what to buy by some label can possibly be a detriment in my opinion. That's not a knock on CAC at all...they seem to do a fine job...but still. With both CAC and the TPGs they can be certain dependencies created in collectors that isn't healthy (such as not learning to grade yourself...etc etc).

 

jom

 

This is an excellent point brought up by jom. If one requires a CAC sticker to like a coin, then that might not be the most healthy way of being in this hobby-industry. Similarly, if one requires a coin to be certified by NGC or PCGS to like that coin, then they are pretty much in the same boat.

[Kamillion]

im so glad i dont even understand CAC enough to care.

[mumu]

Heres how cac is a tool. If a cac sticker tells you whether you like a coin or not, then you have a lot of learning to do. Id rather collect scratch and sniff stickers, they are much more fun.

 

I don't know, but telling others that they have a lot to learn because they decide to practice financial prudence and use all of the tools available to them strikes me as a very ironic statement.

 

In his defense, mumu said that if you need CAC too tell you whether you like a coin or not you have a lot to learn. IMO, I agree with this statement. There seems to be a section of the collecting community who have to have this "blessing" from CAC. I think there are TONS of coins out there that anyone could like that aren't CAC'd. I own quite a few myself. Being guided what to buy by some label can possibly be a detriment in my opinion. That's not a knock on CAC at all...they seem to do a fine job...but still. With both CAC and the TPGs they can be certain dependencies created in collectors that isn't healthy (such as not learning to grade yourself...etc etc).

 

jom

 

This is an excellent point brought up by jom. If one requires a CAC sticker to like a coin, then that might not be the most healthy way of being in this hobby-industry. Similarly, if one requires a coin to be certified by NGC or PCGS to like that coin, then they are pretty much in the same boat.

 

..anything but give credit to the guy you dont like huh?

[mumu]

And I've seen these new PCGS Secure Plus slabs. From what I understand, they boost the coins value and help detect alterations that people wouldn't really do. (If the coin is MS65 why would someone open the slab and putty the coin?) Does this thing from PCGS do the same thing a CAC label does?? Boosts the value of the coin? Maybe its another marketing idea? I know it wont matter to me at all, especially because in the Secure Plus FAQ the first question reads this

"Q: Does the laser scanning detect doctoring such as puttying more reliably than other methods? Is the technology similar to what is used for Lasik vision correction surgery (although obviously nothing is being vaporized here)?

DW: The technology uses lasers but I don't think they are anything like Lasik. They are designed to help detect coin doctoring."

 

I'm going to assume the methods are not different at all from what every other TPG uses to grade and authenticate coins.

CAC has nothing to do with Secure Plus.

 

CAC relies on the opinions of a few select graders, including John Albanese, to determine if a TPG-graded coin is PQ.

 

SecurePlus uses a fingerprinting tool to record a coin's image. It compares the image to others in its database to see if it was previously submitted and maybe screwed with. The Sniffer tool is also used, to check for the presence of artificial enhancements like Blue Ribbon or nose grease.

 

I guess you could say both CAC and SP are meant to improve a coin's value. But then, that's business.

Lance.

 

Lance has given you a good answer, but I will elaborate a little. Many are already aware that I support the idea of CAC and I will cut-and-paste an answer I have given on the PCGS and NGC boards numerous times-

 

"CAC is a tool that is available to all and, as such, it is quite similar to knowing how to use a loupe; having the knowledge to spot counterfeit pieces; understanding what manipulated and original coinage should look like or how they will likely appear; being able to interpret printed guide prices and auction results; understanding how to grade according to the ANA standards and how this grading differs from the various TPG grading standards; and learning all the options for buying and selling within the market.

 

Sadly, the vast majority of collectors ignore their study of coinage and thus are not truly numismatists. However, some folks pursue this knowledge and will happily listen to other opinions, regardless of whether or not they agree with those opinions. CAC can help all, but will help those who are willing to accept their help the most."

 

What I have seen on both the PCGS and NGC boards is what I term "internet testosterone" where many folks, some of whom are knowledgeable and some not so much, dismiss CAC as handholding that they do not require. This can be true for various people within certain series and grade ranges, but what it reminds me of more would be the initial resistance from so many in the hobby-industry at the advent of third party grading, which of course we now call NGC and PCGS. Truly, NGC and PCGS have been of great value to thousands of folks in this hobby-industry over the years and, while CAC does not perform the exact same slate of services as NGC and PCGS, there is plenty left to benefit from when one uses CAC.

 

I dont see how cac is a tool in the same way any of those others things are a tool. Cac is purely a marketing tool. Maybe you can water it down and call it a tool in the same way that a crutch is a tool. It caught on and added value to certain coins that used to be opportunties for those that have the same tools as the cac-ers(those tools you mentioned) . Unless you are stating or accepting someone elses statement that CAC knows best and trumps the TPGs, then except for undergraded gold bean old holder coins are the only place where I see a use for cac and even then all its doing again is replacing the skill of grading coins that used graders from a different standard/era.

 

Heres how cac is a tool. If a cac sticker tells you whether you like a coin or not, then you have a lot of learning to do. Id rather collect scratch and sniff stickers, they are much more fun.

 

Like I wrote above, people have various levels of expertise and also differing levels of self-awareness with respect to what they may need to know in order to be as fully educated as possible. However, to give you more information, which you are free to use or ignore as pleases you, there are certain modifications or alterations to coins that had slipped past the TPGs in previous years, but that can be spotted now by CAC. To be fair, there are, of course, others who can also spot these already certified problem coins. This is not the case for everyone, and the CAC education gained from even one or two instances in this field is quite valuable to those who are willing to learn.

 

How is putting a sticker, or not putting a sticker, doing anything to help that situation? With no explanation or details over those problems how is anyone being educated?

[TomB]

Heres how cac is a tool. If a cac sticker tells you whether you like a coin or not, then you have a lot of learning to do. Id rather collect scratch and sniff stickers, they are much more fun.

 

I don't know, but telling others that they have a lot to learn because they decide to practice financial prudence and use all of the tools available to them strikes me as a very ironic statement.

 

In his defense, mumu said that if you need CAC too tell you whether you like a coin or not you have a lot to learn. IMO, I agree with this statement. There seems to be a section of the collecting community who have to have this "blessing" from CAC. I think there are TONS of coins out there that anyone could like that aren't CAC'd. I own quite a few myself. Being guided what to buy by some label can possibly be a detriment in my opinion. That's not a knock on CAC at all...they seem to do a fine job...but still. With both CAC and the TPGs they can be certain dependencies created in collectors that isn't healthy (such as not learning to grade yourself...etc etc).

 

jom

 

This is an excellent point brought up by jom. If one requires a CAC sticker to like a coin, then that might not be the most healthy way of being in this hobby-industry. Similarly, if one requires a coin to be certified by NGC or PCGS to like that coin, then they are pretty much in the same boat.

 

..anything but give credit to the guy you dont like huh?

 

Just to be clear; I think you are ignorant, but I do not dislike you. I gave jom credit for his post because it was a concise post with an expanded description of what you had touched upon in your previous post. If you had explained the situation like this then I would have previously written the same toward you.

[MarkFeld]

And I've seen these new PCGS Secure Plus slabs. From what I understand, they boost the coins value and help detect alterations that people wouldn't really do. (If the coin is MS65 why would someone open the slab and putty the coin?) Does this thing from PCGS do the same thing a CAC label does?? Boosts the value of the coin? Maybe its another marketing idea? I know it wont matter to me at all, especially because in the Secure Plus FAQ the first question reads this

"Q: Does the laser scanning detect doctoring such as puttying more reliably than other methods? Is the technology similar to what is used for Lasik vision correction surgery (although obviously nothing is being vaporized here)?

DW: The technology uses lasers but I don't think they are anything like Lasik. They are designed to help detect coin doctoring."

 

I'm going to assume the methods are not different at all from what every other TPG uses to grade and authenticate coins.

CAC has nothing to do with Secure Plus.

 

CAC relies on the opinions of a few select graders, including John Albanese, to determine if a TPG-graded coin is PQ.

 

SecurePlus uses a fingerprinting tool to record a coin's image. It compares the image to others in its database to see if it was previously submitted and maybe screwed with. The Sniffer tool is also used, to check for the presence of artificial enhancements like Blue Ribbon or nose grease.

 

I guess you could say both CAC and SP are meant to improve a coin's value. But then, that's business.

Lance.

 

Lance has given you a good answer, but I will elaborate a little. Many are already aware that I support the idea of CAC and I will cut-and-paste an answer I have given on the PCGS and NGC boards numerous times-

 

"CAC is a tool that is available to all and, as such, it is quite similar to knowing how to use a loupe; having the knowledge to spot counterfeit pieces; understanding what manipulated and original coinage should look like or how they will likely appear; being able to interpret printed guide prices and auction results; understanding how to grade according to the ANA standards and how this grading differs from the various TPG grading standards; and learning all the options for buying and selling within the market.

 

Sadly, the vast majority of collectors ignore their study of coinage and thus are not truly numismatists. However, some folks pursue this knowledge and will happily listen to other opinions, regardless of whether or not they agree with those opinions. CAC can help all, but will help those who are willing to accept their help the most."

 

What I have seen on both the PCGS and NGC boards is what I term "internet testosterone" where many folks, some of whom are knowledgeable and some not so much, dismiss CAC as handholding that they do not require. This can be true for various people within certain series and grade ranges, but what it reminds me of more would be the initial resistance from so many in the hobby-industry at the advent of third party grading, which of course we now call NGC and PCGS. Truly, NGC and PCGS have been of great value to thousands of folks in this hobby-industry over the years and, while CAC does not perform the exact same slate of services as NGC and PCGS, there is plenty left to benefit from when one uses CAC.

 

I dont see how cac is a tool in the same way any of those others things are a tool. Cac is purely a marketing tool. Maybe you can water it down and call it a tool in the same way that a crutch is a tool. It caught on and added value to certain coins that used to be opportunties for those that have the same tools as the cac-ers(those tools you mentioned) . Unless you are stating or accepting someone elses statement that CAC knows best and trumps the TPGs, then except for undergraded gold bean old holder coins are the only place where I see a use for cac and even then all its doing again is replacing the skill of grading coins that used graders from a different standard/era.

 

Heres how cac is a tool. If a cac sticker tells you whether you like a coin or not, then you have a lot of learning to do. Id rather collect scratch and sniff stickers, they are much more fun.

 

Like I wrote above, people have various levels of expertise and also differing levels of self-awareness with respect to what they may need to know in order to be as fully educated as possible. However, to give you more information, which you are free to use or ignore as pleases you, there are certain modifications or alterations to coins that had slipped past the TPGs in previous years, but that can be spotted now by CAC. To be fair, there are, of course, others who can also spot these already certified problem coins. This is not the case for everyone, and the CAC education gained from even one or two instances in this field is quite valuable to those who are willing to learn.

 

How is putting a sticker, or not putting a sticker, doing anything to help that situation? With no explanation or details over those problems how is anyone being educated?

 

There have been numerous posts in a number of different threads, which have explained the potential benefits of CAC.

 

Either you somehow managed to miss all of them, or you don't really want to understand how CAC can be of assistance to many of us. My hunch is that it is the latter. And either way, it's your choice.

[TomB]

And I've seen these new PCGS Secure Plus slabs. From what I understand, they boost the coins value and help detect alterations that people wouldn't really do. (If the coin is MS65 why would someone open the slab and putty the coin?) Does this thing from PCGS do the same thing a CAC label does?? Boosts the value of the coin? Maybe its another marketing idea? I know it wont matter to me at all, especially because in the Secure Plus FAQ the first question reads this

"Q: Does the laser scanning detect doctoring such as puttying more reliably than other methods? Is the technology similar to what is used for Lasik vision correction surgery (although obviously nothing is being vaporized here)?

DW: The technology uses lasers but I don't think they are anything like Lasik. They are designed to help detect coin doctoring."

 

I'm going to assume the methods are not different at all from what every other TPG uses to grade and authenticate coins.

CAC has nothing to do with Secure Plus.

 

CAC relies on the opinions of a few select graders, including John Albanese, to determine if a TPG-graded coin is PQ.

 

SecurePlus uses a fingerprinting tool to record a coin's image. It compares the image to others in its database to see if it was previously submitted and maybe screwed with. The Sniffer tool is also used, to check for the presence of artificial enhancements like Blue Ribbon or nose grease.

 

I guess you could say both CAC and SP are meant to improve a coin's value. But then, that's business.

Lance.

 

Lance has given you a good answer, but I will elaborate a little. Many are already aware that I support the idea of CAC and I will cut-and-paste an answer I have given on the PCGS and NGC boards numerous times-

 

"CAC is a tool that is available to all and, as such, it is quite similar to knowing how to use a loupe; having the knowledge to spot counterfeit pieces; understanding what manipulated and original coinage should look like or how they will likely appear; being able to interpret printed guide prices and auction results; understanding how to grade according to the ANA standards and how this grading differs from the various TPG grading standards; and learning all the options for buying and selling within the market.

 

Sadly, the vast majority of collectors ignore their study of coinage and thus are not truly numismatists. However, some folks pursue this knowledge and will happily listen to other opinions, regardless of whether or not they agree with those opinions. CAC can help all, but will help those who are willing to accept their help the most."

 

What I have seen on both the PCGS and NGC boards is what I term "internet testosterone" where many folks, some of whom are knowledgeable and some not so much, dismiss CAC as handholding that they do not require. This can be true for various people within certain series and grade ranges, but what it reminds me of more would be the initial resistance from so many in the hobby-industry at the advent of third party grading, which of course we now call NGC and PCGS. Truly, NGC and PCGS have been of great value to thousands of folks in this hobby-industry over the years and, while CAC does not perform the exact same slate of services as NGC and PCGS, there is plenty left to benefit from when one uses CAC.

 

I dont see how cac is a tool in the same way any of those others things are a tool. Cac is purely a marketing tool. Maybe you can water it down and call it a tool in the same way that a crutch is a tool. It caught on and added value to certain coins that used to be opportunties for those that have the same tools as the cac-ers(those tools you mentioned) . Unless you are stating or accepting someone elses statement that CAC knows best and trumps the TPGs, then except for undergraded gold bean old holder coins are the only place where I see a use for cac and even then all its doing again is replacing the skill of grading coins that used graders from a different standard/era.

 

Heres how cac is a tool. If a cac sticker tells you whether you like a coin or not, then you have a lot of learning to do. Id rather collect scratch and sniff stickers, they are much more fun.

 

Like I wrote above, people have various levels of expertise and also differing levels of self-awareness with respect to what they may need to know in order to be as fully educated as possible. However, to give you more information, which you are free to use or ignore as pleases you, there are certain modifications or alterations to coins that had slipped past the TPGs in previous years, but that can be spotted now by CAC. To be fair, there are, of course, others who can also spot these already certified problem coins. This is not the case for everyone, and the CAC education gained from even one or two instances in this field is quite valuable to those who are willing to learn.

 

How is putting a sticker, or not putting a sticker, doing anything to help that situation? With no explanation or details over those problems how is anyone being educated?

 

If you submit a coin and have it fail the CAC evaluation then you may get in touch with CAC and ask why the coin was rejected. Please note, I do not believe they advertise an explanation as part of their service, but I have been told by numerous collectors and dealers that CAC will do so. In my own experience, I have had a few coins fail the process and whenever I have called, and JA has had the time, he has politely let me know what his thought process had been. There have been two coins that I saw as fine, but that CAC rejected, and in both instances I think CAC was right and I believe I learned something about surface manipulation with each explanation. That is a pretty good return on the $12.50 (formerly $10) CAC evaluation fee.

[mumu]

And I've seen these new PCGS Secure Plus slabs. From what I understand, they boost the coins value and help detect alterations that people wouldn't really do. (If the coin is MS65 why would someone open the slab and putty the coin?) Does this thing from PCGS do the same thing a CAC label does?? Boosts the value of the coin? Maybe its another marketing idea? I know it wont matter to me at all, especially because in the Secure Plus FAQ the first question reads this

"Q: Does the laser scanning detect doctoring such as puttying more reliably than other methods? Is the technology similar to what is used for Lasik vision correction surgery (although obviously nothing is being vaporized here)?

DW: The technology uses lasers but I don't think they are anything like Lasik. They are designed to help detect coin doctoring."

 

I'm going to assume the methods are not different at all from what every other TPG uses to grade and authenticate coins.

CAC has nothing to do with Secure Plus.

 

CAC relies on the opinions of a few select graders, including John Albanese, to determine if a TPG-graded coin is PQ.

 

SecurePlus uses a fingerprinting tool to record a coin's image. It compares the image to others in its database to see if it was previously submitted and maybe screwed with. The Sniffer tool is also used, to check for the presence of artificial enhancements like Blue Ribbon or nose grease.

 

I guess you could say both CAC and SP are meant to improve a coin's value. But then, that's business.

Lance.

 

Lance has given you a good answer, but I will elaborate a little. Many are already aware that I support the idea of CAC and I will cut-and-paste an answer I have given on the PCGS and NGC boards numerous times-

 

"CAC is a tool that is available to all and, as such, it is quite similar to knowing how to use a loupe; having the knowledge to spot counterfeit pieces; understanding what manipulated and original coinage should look like or how they will likely appear; being able to interpret printed guide prices and auction results; understanding how to grade according to the ANA standards and how this grading differs from the various TPG grading standards; and learning all the options for buying and selling within the market.

 

Sadly, the vast majority of collectors ignore their study of coinage and thus are not truly numismatists. However, some folks pursue this knowledge and will happily listen to other opinions, regardless of whether or not they agree with those opinions. CAC can help all, but will help those who are willing to accept their help the most."

 

What I have seen on both the PCGS and NGC boards is what I term "internet testosterone" where many folks, some of whom are knowledgeable and some not so much, dismiss CAC as handholding that they do not require. This can be true for various people within certain series and grade ranges, but what it reminds me of more would be the initial resistance from so many in the hobby-industry at the advent of third party grading, which of course we now call NGC and PCGS. Truly, NGC and PCGS have been of great value to thousands of folks in this hobby-industry over the years and, while CAC does not perform the exact same slate of services as NGC and PCGS, there is plenty left to benefit from when one uses CAC.

 

I dont see how cac is a tool in the same way any of those others things are a tool. Cac is purely a marketing tool. Maybe you can water it down and call it a tool in the same way that a crutch is a tool. It caught on and added value to certain coins that used to be opportunties for those that have the same tools as the cac-ers(those tools you mentioned) . Unless you are stating or accepting someone elses statement that CAC knows best and trumps the TPGs, then except for undergraded gold bean old holder coins are the only place where I see a use for cac and even then all its doing again is replacing the skill of grading coins that used graders from a different standard/era.

 

Heres how cac is a tool. If a cac sticker tells you whether you like a coin or not, then you have a lot of learning to do. Id rather collect scratch and sniff stickers, they are much more fun.

 

Like I wrote above, people have various levels of expertise and also differing levels of self-awareness with respect to what they may need to know in order to be as fully educated as possible. However, to give you more information, which you are free to use or ignore as pleases you, there are certain modifications or alterations to coins that had slipped past the TPGs in previous years, but that can be spotted now by CAC. To be fair, there are, of course, others who can also spot these already certified problem coins. This is not the case for everyone, and the CAC education gained from even one or two instances in this field is quite valuable to those who are willing to learn.

 

How is putting a sticker, or not putting a sticker, doing anything to help that situation? With no explanation or details over those problems how is anyone being educated?

 

If you submit a coin and have it fail the CAC evaluation then you may get in touch with CAC and ask why the coin was rejected. Please note, I do not believe they advertise an explanation as part of their service, but I have been told by numerous collectors and dealers that CAC will do so. In my own experience, I have had a few coins fail the process and whenever I have called, and JA has had the time, he has politely let me know what his thought process had been. There have been two coins that I saw as fine, but that CAC rejected, and in both instances I think CAC was right and I believe I learned something about surface manipulation with each explanation. That is a pretty good return on the $12.50 (formerly $10) CAC evaluation fee.

 

And had JA been a little busier as you alluded, or had the submitter been someone of less prominance than yourself, say someone ignorant and drecky such as myself, that education would have never happened.

[mumu]

I am going to throw out a statement that will surely continue the chants of ignormaous my way but I will stand behind it 100%.

 

I have learned more from coin forums, namely PCGS, than I could ever learn from a service like CAC and as such all CAC did was affix a lazy man's legwork that should be done on forums and other avenues of dilligence, to the slab.

[coinman_23885]

I dont see how cac is a tool in the same way any of those others things are a tool. Cac is purely a marketing tool. Maybe you can water it down and call it a tool in the same way that a crutch is a tool. It caught on and added value to certain coins that used to be opportunties for those that have the same tools as the cac-ers(those tools you mentioned) . Unless you are stating or accepting someone elses statement that CAC knows best and trumps the TPGs, then except for undergraded gold bean old holder coins are the only place where I see a use for cac and even then all its doing again is replacing the skill of grading coins that used graders from a different standard/era.

 

Heres how cac is a tool. If a cac sticker tells you whether you like a coin or not, then you have a lot of learning to do. Id rather collect scratch and sniff stickers, they are much more fun.

 

Have you ever considered that the CAC performs a service that appeals to certain collectors but not to others? For example, I would not expect a collector of MS63 Peace Dollars to care much about the CAC. On the other hand, a person who is assembling a very high end type set might find the CAC's service invaluable.

 

Perhaps you don't think gradeflation is real. Perhaps you don't collect expensive coins. Perhaps you think you are an expert grader of every series and don't really need the TPG's much less the CAC. Perhaps you like to ignore the financial aspects of coin collecting because you think it should be a fun hobby. I don't know, but telling others that they have a lot to learn because they decide to practice financial prudence and use all of the tools available to them strikes me as a very ironic statement.

 

I agree fully with Lehigh here, and I see CAC as a valuable service. For those claiming that CAC is unnecessary because of third party grading services, I take issue with this. PCGS and NGC are dealing with a huge volume of coins, and even a small percentage of errors (which is inevitable) can translate to a large number of overgraded coins flooding the market. CAC accepts a lower volume of coins; thus, in theory, the error rate should be lower. Moreover, even if one argues against this position, I see nothing wrong with having another set of eyes (especially of the three experts at CAC) to verify a purchase. This also doesn't mean that the buyer is using CAC as a crutch. I am very capable of grading the series that I deal with regularly, but I like the idea of having the cheap insurance (CAC will buy back CAC stickered coins sight unseen). In addition, there are the marketing advantages and CAC verified coins realize more money at auction. As a result, I don't see CAC as being worthless or a crutch only.

[jom]

And had JA been a little busier as you alluded, or had the submitter been someone of less prominance than yourself, say someone ignorant and drecky such as myself, that education would have never happened.

 

I'm not sure if I agree with this. If I ever get approved for CAC I'll let you know.

 

I am going to throw out a statement that will surely continue the chants of ignormaous my way but I will stand behind it 100%.

 

I have learned more from coin forums, namely PCGS, than I could ever learn from a service like CAC and as such all CAC did was affix a lazy man's legwork that should be done on forums and other avenues of dilligence, to the slab.

 

This is possibly true. However, I think education can come from many sources. And, yes, even if you dredge through all of the non-sense at the PCGS forum you can eek out some education there as well.

 

jom

[TomB]

And I've seen these new PCGS Secure Plus slabs. From what I understand, they boost the coins value and help detect alterations that people wouldn't really do. (If the coin is MS65 why would someone open the slab and putty the coin?) Does this thing from PCGS do the same thing a CAC label does?? Boosts the value of the coin? Maybe its another marketing idea? I know it wont matter to me at all, especially because in the Secure Plus FAQ the first question reads this

"Q: Does the laser scanning detect doctoring such as puttying more reliably than other methods? Is the technology similar to what is used for Lasik vision correction surgery (although obviously nothing is being vaporized here)?

DW: The technology uses lasers but I don't think they are anything like Lasik. They are designed to help detect coin doctoring."

 

I'm going to assume the methods are not different at all from what every other TPG uses to grade and authenticate coins.

CAC has nothing to do with Secure Plus.

 

CAC relies on the opinions of a few select graders, including John Albanese, to determine if a TPG-graded coin is PQ.

 

SecurePlus uses a fingerprinting tool to record a coin's image. It compares the image to others in its database to see if it was previously submitted and maybe screwed with. The Sniffer tool is also used, to check for the presence of artificial enhancements like Blue Ribbon or nose grease.

 

I guess you could say both CAC and SP are meant to improve a coin's value. But then, that's business.

Lance.

 

Lance has given you a good answer, but I will elaborate a little. Many are already aware that I support the idea of CAC and I will cut-and-paste an answer I have given on the PCGS and NGC boards numerous times-

 

"CAC is a tool that is available to all and, as such, it is quite similar to knowing how to use a loupe; having the knowledge to spot counterfeit pieces; understanding what manipulated and original coinage should look like or how they will likely appear; being able to interpret printed guide prices and auction results; understanding how to grade according to the ANA standards and how this grading differs from the various TPG grading standards; and learning all the options for buying and selling within the market.

 

Sadly, the vast majority of collectors ignore their study of coinage and thus are not truly numismatists. However, some folks pursue this knowledge and will happily listen to other opinions, regardless of whether or not they agree with those opinions. CAC can help all, but will help those who are willing to accept their help the most."

 

What I have seen on both the PCGS and NGC boards is what I term "internet testosterone" where many folks, some of whom are knowledgeable and some not so much, dismiss CAC as handholding that they do not require. This can be true for various people within certain series and grade ranges, but what it reminds me of more would be the initial resistance from so many in the hobby-industry at the advent of third party grading, which of course we now call NGC and PCGS. Truly, NGC and PCGS have been of great value to thousands of folks in this hobby-industry over the years and, while CAC does not perform the exact same slate of services as NGC and PCGS, there is plenty left to benefit from when one uses CAC.

 

I dont see how cac is a tool in the same way any of those others things are a tool. Cac is purely a marketing tool. Maybe you can water it down and call it a tool in the same way that a crutch is a tool. It caught on and added value to certain coins that used to be opportunties for those that have the same tools as the cac-ers(those tools you mentioned) . Unless you are stating or accepting someone elses statement that CAC knows best and trumps the TPGs, then except for undergraded gold bean old holder coins are the only place where I see a use for cac and even then all its doing again is replacing the skill of grading coins that used graders from a different standard/era.

 

Heres how cac is a tool. If a cac sticker tells you whether you like a coin or not, then you have a lot of learning to do. Id rather collect scratch and sniff stickers, they are much more fun.

 

Like I wrote above, people have various levels of expertise and also differing levels of self-awareness with respect to what they may need to know in order to be as fully educated as possible. However, to give you more information, which you are free to use or ignore as pleases you, there are certain modifications or alterations to coins that had slipped past the TPGs in previous years, but that can be spotted now by CAC. To be fair, there are, of course, others who can also spot these already certified problem coins. This is not the case for everyone, and the CAC education gained from even one or two instances in this field is quite valuable to those who are willing to learn.

 

How is putting a sticker, or not putting a sticker, doing anything to help that situation? With no explanation or details over those problems how is anyone being educated?

 

If you submit a coin and have it fail the CAC evaluation then you may get in touch with CAC and ask why the coin was rejected. Please note, I do not believe they advertise an explanation as part of their service, but I have been told by numerous collectors and dealers that CAC will do so. In my own experience, I have had a few coins fail the process and whenever I have called, and JA has had the time, he has politely let me know what his thought process had been. There have been two coins that I saw as fine, but that CAC rejected, and in both instances I think CAC was right and I believe I learned something about surface manipulation with each explanation. That is a pretty good return on the $12.50 (formerly $10) CAC evaluation fee.

 

And had JA been a little busier as you alluded, or had the submitter been someone of less prominance than yourself, say someone ignorant and drecky such as myself, that education would have never happened.

 

Well, I guess one would never know unless they made an attempt. However, I can tell you that I had recently submitted a few coins for a client of mine and a small number of those pieces failed the CAC evaluation process. My client then called CAC and received an explanation from CAC on at least some of those coins that did not sticker. It is important to know that my client knows no one at CAC and that JA did not know my client prior to their conversation. This single data point, of course, would not prove that everyone would get through to CAC everytime, but it can show that someone unknown to CAC can get valuable insight simply by using the service.

[EVillageProwler]

In every segment of society we have folks who marches to the beat of their own drummer. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, then I think that is fine (even if I think they're wrong).

 

For the record, I know both JA and BS. Compared to me, they are the übermensch of our hobby-industry. Are their others? Absolutely. Are their others in select niche segments? Absolutely.

 

Keep in mind, however, that unlike just about every other übermensch out there in our hobby-industry, CAC folks put their reputation on the line by actually offering a service AND put their money on the line by offering to create a 2-way market of coins with their sticker.

 

Their are very many dealers (and highly skilled collectors) out there who really know how to walk the walk. But, being able to do so isn't sufficient. They have to actually do the walk with their reputation and money on the line.

 

To not want to use CAC is fine. It's a choice. But to not use them partially because there are others who are also skilled is silly if those others aren't offering an official service that they will back up with time, reputation and money.

 

EVP

[lcoopie]

who here feels that he/she is as knowledgeable as CAC?

 

 

Certainly not I.

 

But it is great to know that many collectors are apparently so knowledgeable that they couldn't possibly benefit from CAC's expertise.

 

Since I am guessing optimistically that I know about 1% of what Mark knows, probably less, and he admits to not knowing as much as CAC,

 

where does that leave me?

 

 

[lehigh96]

I dont see how cac is a tool in the same way any of those others things are a tool. Cac is purely a marketing tool. Maybe you can water it down and call it a tool in the same way that a crutch is a tool. It caught on and added value to certain coins that used to be opportunties for those that have the same tools as the cac-ers(those tools you mentioned) . Unless you are stating or accepting someone elses statement that CAC knows best and trumps the TPGs, then except for undergraded gold bean old holder coins are the only place where I see a use for cac and even then all its doing again is replacing the skill of grading coins that used graders from a different standard/era.

 

Heres how cac is a tool. If a cac sticker tells you whether you like a coin or not, then you have a lot of learning to do. Id rather collect scratch and sniff stickers, they are much more fun.

 

Have you ever considered that the CAC performs a service that appeals to certain collectors but not to others? For example, I would not expect a collector of MS63 Peace Dollars to care much about the CAC. On the other hand, a person who is assembling a very high end type set might find the CAC's service invaluable.

 

Perhaps you don't think gradeflation is real. Perhaps you don't collect expensive coins. Perhaps you think you are an expert grader of every series and don't really need the TPG's much less the CAC. Perhaps you like to ignore the financial aspects of coin collecting because you think it should be a fun hobby. I don't know, but telling others that they have a lot to learn because they decide to practice financial prudence and use all of the tools available to them strikes me as a very ironic statement.

 

Well by this logic where does it end? We need a slab on the coin, a sticker on the slab, why then not another sticker on the sticker, then a sticker on the sticker on the sticker. When is enough enough? Or is the argument being made that CAC is GOD?

 

I am completely at a loss as how you took my statement to mean that "CAC is GOD". At this point I am going to try to explain the benefits of the CAC by using a completely different method, an anecdotal one.

 

A few years ago, I found an absolutely gorgeous PCGS MS65 Lafayette Dollar for sale on the CRO website. Mark Goodman's photograph of the coin invoked an immediate emotional response that as a collector of toned Peace Dollars I am sure that you understand. Needless to say, I wanted this coin.

 

 

But this was not your normal $300 rainbow toned Morgan Dollar. Believe it or not the range of auction results for a Lafayette Dollar MS65 was $6,000-$19,000 with most examples between $6,000-$10,000. Obviously the one coin that sold for $19,000 was an MS66 in the eyes of the buyer. Most of the remaining coins that sold above the $10K mark were of the rare die varieties or had outstanding toning. My coin had both and the DuVall 3-D was listed at $11,000 on the CRO website.

 

My concern was that there was a mark on the center of Washington's face and I was concerned that the coin may have achieved the MS65 grade due to the exceptional eye appeal despite the mark. Since I had no experience grading Lafayette Dollars and this was going to be my most expensive numismatic purchase ever, I wanted to know that the coin I was purchasing was indeed a solid MS65 and not a low end example with nice toning. I asked Dave Wnuck to send the coin to CAC for verification. Given the price tag of the coin, Dave sent the coin without even so much as a discussion.

 

After a few days, I got the news that the coin did not sticker. However, JA had placed a red sticker on the slab with the reason. He wrote "an MS65 but obv too dark"

 

 

I talked to Dave about it and got his opinion of the coin and we discussed JA's opinion as well. The CAC's decision did not make me want the coin more or less. It was still the same coin. I still loved it's look, and still wanted to make it the cornerstone of my collection. However, the financial impact of purchasing this coin was one that I could not ignore. In light of the CAC's decision regarding the obverse toning, I was only prepared to make an offer of just less than $10K for the coin. The coin was on consignment to CRO, but the consignor agreed to the price and they sent me the coin on approval. Now my concern was of course that the obverse luster was completely muted by the deep toning. I was pleasantly surprised when I got the coin and found that not to be the case. Although dark, the luster was still there and I kept the coin.

 

In the end, without the service offered by the CAC, I probably would never have made an offer at all. The financial risk would have been too much for me to bear. The point of this story is to illustrate that we have come to a point in numismatics where incremental grading is all too real. For low value coins, the CAC is really not a necessary service. But when purchasing a coin with a $5,000 spread for the assigned grade, wouldn't you like the additional assurance that the coin is good for the assigned grade before spending money on the high end of that range. I know I would!

[jom]

Excellent story Lehigh!

 

jom

[Walkerfan]

Great story!

[EVillageProwler]

Yes, great story, but I'm sure Mumu's position is firm.