What does a CAC sticker really mean? -- A proposal

[AnkurJ]

 

Brandon- the guy has no worries... He employs a PCGS employee and is a business partner with CAC. Ontop of that His PCGS employee is quite the lady and thus his company has quite the following. I had to take a business ethics class to obtain my degree and my Professor quit his job at Delphi because they were going bankrupt at that time and he was being asked to do some really shady things. He couldn't do it so he quit and decided at the ripe age of 53 he would just teach and operate his own business. He taught us a lot of the "no no's" of business. With that said the people willing to do the "no no's" are going to be the most successful. Its just a matter of what you can sleep with at night!

 

Your ego is writing checks your body can't cash.

[brg5658]

If you cant add anything useful to the discussion at hand, please move on. Drama and biases are not what I consider useful additions.

[dimefreak]

I was just talking about myself.... in a perfect world... If what I said in those quotes was describing a real life situation im completely dumb to it and Im sorry if it resignated and struck a nerve,,,, Coincidence I suppose!

 

[RWB]

To me a PCGS or NGC holder means authenticity - little else. A sticker means the slab is cracked....

[mumu]

Ohhh snap

[copper toning]

 

Brandon- the guy has no worries... He employs a PCGS employee and is a business partner with CAC. Ontop of that His PCGS employee is quite the lady and thus his company has quite the following. I had to take a business ethics class to obtain my degree and my Professor quit his job at Delphi because they were going bankrupt at that time and he was being asked to do some really shady things. He couldn't do it so he quit and decided at the ripe age of 53 he would just teach and operate his own business. He taught us a lot of the "no no's" of business. With that said the people willing to do the "no no's" are going to be the most successful. Its just a matter of what you can sleep with at night!

 

You are bordering on a very slippery slope

 

Really, you feel the need to threaten a lawsuit over some weak forum post.

 

That is just sad.

 

You need thicker skin this is quite obvious from you post here and ats. For someone with such wonderful coins you typically seem to have very little to offer on the forums. You also throw a lot of insults yet can take none.

 

Just an obvervation

[dimefreak]

Ohhh snap

 

Yeap...

 

I had a dream about something like this before. In my dream I was at the CSNS show and I was going by a big dealers table. There was a dealer named Sara Lerber. She had a gentlemen who was the president of a major coin grading company behind her table and she was getting him in contact with her lawayer because apparently something happened to his grading company while there. I thought it was kind of odd that Sara was so close with the president of that company but hey what did I know. As I remember the rest of my dream went without hiccup and was full of lots of goodies to stare at and I even got to bring a few nice coins home.

 

Now again this was just a dream and if something like this really happened in real life than its just coincidence I was dreaming about it,

 

One last time for good measure.... This is just a dream I had and was reminded by it while reading this thread

 

 

[brg5658]

Well, this is an interesting idea, but if you're really serious, a better study would be to take 500 coins that you are 100% positive had never been submitted, send them to CAC, record the result, crack them out, re-submit to PCGS or NGC with new cert numbers, wait 6 months or so, and then send them back through again. I'd repeat this until each coin had been through each TPG twice and CAC four times. It has to be blinded. If the people being studied know they're being studied, their behavior will change.

 

Of course, doing this will require 2000 grading fees at the TPGs and another 2000 grading fees at CAC. Expensive endeavor.

 

However, if I owned/operated a large coin wholesale operation (I'm talking of the really big boys here) I would have already completed a similar analysis on my own submissions & resubmissions. This information would be enormously valuable to those playing the crackout game and wouldn't be publicized.

 

The idea of including other industry leaders isn't terrible, but it introduces a variable that may or may not be relevant to the question you're trying to answer. My study would yield a huge amount of information that a statistician could use to evaluate the validity, accuracy, and reproducibility of the entire market grading process.

 

You could stratify the data by rarity, key dates, series, composition and learn a whole ton of information. This would be akin to the sabermetric process gaining traction in baseball. Whoever mastered this information and could use it to make a killing, even without knowing a single thing about numismatics.

 

Two things:

 

1) An Internet forum is a terrible place to discuss this. Any useful conversation will be endlessly and predictably sidetracked by people unfamiliar with the scientific process or who have a particular axe to grind.

 

2) Such analysis may be offensive to those who rely on imprecision to make their living. This includes crackout artists, the TPGs themselves, and a large number of dealers. TPG grading reassures the market but absolute precision would remove the speculative component of the market and would likely result in a lowering of value & liquidity.

 

Yes, it is certainly possible to create a stronger study design. My trade-off was to create something that was actually feasible and could be completed in a matter of hours at a coin show -- not over a matter of years while incurring submission fees, etc. Furthermore, I'm not interested in gathering the data for means to "make a killing" by playing the silly TPG and CAC games.

 

I was suggesting a feasible and scientifically sound proposal that would offer at least a little data as to the reliability and validity of the CAC service. Data tends to scare people. What you don't know can't hurt you -- or so some people think.

 

Every time I post something here to try to bring at least some semblance of science into the hobby, some people are immediately dismissive and critical. It seems the most vocal are often the most ignorant of the power of data -- or possibly, the vocal are those with some ulterior motive to keep the market and hobby as nebulous and pseudo-scientific as possible. I'm not suggesting perfect consistency or magical computer grading. I'm suggesting some measure of what the TPGs and CAC are already doing -- so consumers can have a better and more concrete idea of the variance and subjectivity of the processes.

[mumu]

Anytime you have a self regulating industry, insider corruption is guaranteed. The SEC and the Bernie Madoff scenario comes to mind.

 

It is still a better landscape than scammy dealers running amok, but that doesn't mean people cant talk about it.

[mumu]

You have three experienced graders at CAC looking at the coins. It baffles me as to why that not enough. If you show a coin to 20 different people, you may get 10 or more different opinions. Frankly I think the experiment is a waste of time.

 

You have three experienced graders at PCGS/NGC looking at the coins. It baffles me as to why that not enough. If you show a coin to 20 different people, you may get 10 or more different opinions. Frankly I think the experiment is a waste of time.

 

The reason CAC was created is to fight over graded and problem coins being put into holders! While CAC is a business, their intent is to make the hobby better by weeding out overgraded and problem coins.

 

I don't oppose the 2nd look per se. I just don't like they don't incorporate more info in the form of a database available online. No reason that for the price they cant include a digitized database of the reasons a coin passes or fails inspection.

 

Yes yes, the response is always "but you can just call John Albanese directly and he will talk to you about your coin any time"...no we cant. Some of us cannot even join the special club to have the coins looked at.

[brg5658]

You have three experienced graders at CAC looking at the coins. It baffles me as to why that not enough. If you show a coin to 20 different people, you may get 10 or more different opinions. Frankly I think the experiment is a waste of time.

 

You have three experienced graders at PCGS/NGC looking at the coins. It baffles me as to why that not enough. If you show a coin to 20 different people, you may get 10 or more different opinions. Frankly I think the experiment is a waste of time.

 

The reason CAC was created is to fight over graded and problem coins being put into holders! While CAC is a business, their intent is to make the hobby better by weeding out overgraded and problem coins.

 

I don't oppose the 2nd look per se. I just don't like they don't incorporate more info in the form of a database available online. No reason that for the price they cant include a digitized database of the reasons a coin passes or fails inspection.

 

Yes yes, the response is always "but you can just call John Albanese directly and he will talk to you about your coin any time"...no we cant. Some of us cannot even join the special club to have the coins looked at.

 

It is apparently advantageous to their business model for the process to remain a black box. There is also absolutely no logical reason why coins that have been submitted to CAC and failed to sticker shouldn't be listed in their database as such. At least then people would know not to waste their time and money sending in the same coins. Alas, it's pretty clear how this policy i$ of benefit for their bu$ine$$.

 

 

[Tradedollarnut]

It is apparently advantageous to their business model for the process to remain a black box.

 

No, just to ignore bozos

 

There is also absolutely no logical reason why coins that have been submitted to CAC and failed to sticker shouldn't be listed in their database as such. At least then people would know not to waste their time and money sending in the same coins. Alas, it's pretty clear how this policy i$ of benefit for their bu$ine$$.

 

That's just stupid. CAC makes no money on the submission fees so you are totally out to friggen lunch.

 

[bochiman]

Data doesn't scare people.

 

Smart people understand that data can be manipulated in many ways. Some years back, there was a "scientific" analysis of coins sent to TPGs, including ACG, PCGS, etc. What it found, if my memory recalls it correctly, is that ACG was the most consistent.

 

What most people, without having to be all "scientific" about it is that the consistency didn't mean they were correct. ACG was consistently wrong. Whoopdeedoo.

 

Scientific analysis belongs in areas where it is useful and fitting. So far, as most of the smart people seem to understand, grading is still subjective. As such, stickering will be somewhat subjective.

 

What seems to be lost to some, but not all, is that CAC, at the heart of it, makes a market out of what they sticker. Therefore, there is some subjectivity in what they sticker as they only want to sticker what they feel they would be comfortable purchasing.

 

To sticker something with a GREEN sticker, and then a GREEN sticker at a higher level, isn't something that concerns me too much as I understand it is still subjective and that they are looking at the grade it is when they decide to sticker it.

If they were concerned about the way something looked in the plastic and so felt it was properly graded but not grossly undergraded, at what price they would pay, then that would explain it.

 

 

Always funny when others try to force their views/ways of doing things down the throats of others. In this case, calling for a consistency check of a service and expecting them to bow down to it and change the way they do business to placate some internet unknown to them.

 

 

[brg5658]

It is apparently advantageous to their business model for the process to remain a black box.

 

No, just to ignore bozos

 

There is also absolutely no logical reason why coins that have been submitted to CAC and failed to sticker shouldn't be listed in their database as such. At least then people would know not to waste their time and money sending in the same coins. Alas, it's pretty clear how this policy i$ of benefit for their bu$ine$$.

 

That's just stupid. CAC makes no money on the submission fees so you are totally out to friggen lunch.

 

Oh, and it doesn't cost people $$$ to ship their coins insured to CAC? Who's out to lunch? I said TIME and MONEY SENDING the same coins.

 

And, for the record, with enough submissions to CAC, many coins would eventually get the sticker -- which does earn them money.

 

Funny how this thread is so below you, yet you continue to post insulting and worthless commentary. Can't you troll elsewhere? Or please block me, I'm begging you. In the rare occasion that I do see you on this side of the street I sure don't see any substance to your replies, so no loss.

[jom]

It is apparently advantageous to their business model for the process to remain a black box.

 

No, just to ignore bozos

 

There is also absolutely no logical reason why coins that have been submitted to CAC and failed to sticker shouldn't be listed in their database as such. At least then people would know not to waste their time and money sending in the same coins. Alas, it's pretty clear how this policy i$ of benefit for their bu$ine$$.

 

That's just stupid. CAC makes no money on the submission fees so you are totally out to friggen lunch.

 

That's just stupid. CAC makes no money on the submission fees so you are totally out to friggen lunch.

 

I've sent coins to them a number of times and each time I kept thinking "how the hell are these guys making any profit?". The fact is they aren't given what they charge, the fees they do NOT charge with rejections (for collectors like me) AND the postage and insurance (which is expensive). There is no way in hell they are making any profit on these submissions...no way no how. They have to be running a loss from that...

 

jom

[rrantique]

It is apparently advantageous to their business model for the process to remain a black box.

 

No, just to ignore bozos

 

There is also absolutely no logical reason why coins that have been submitted to CAC and failed to sticker shouldn't be listed in their database as such. At least then people would know not to waste their time and money sending in the same coins. Alas, it's pretty clear how this policy i$ of benefit for their bu$ine$$.

 

That's just stupid. CAC makes no money on the submission fees so you are totally out to friggen lunch.

 

Perhaps TDN can enlighten us on how CAC stays in business if no money for submission cost is made. Just curious.

[bochiman]

It is apparently advantageous to their business model for the process to remain a black box. There is also absolutely no logical reason why coins that have been submitted to CAC and failed to sticker shouldn't be listed in their database as such. At least then people would know not to waste their time and money sending in the same coins. Alas, it's pretty clear how this policy i$ of benefit for their bu$ine$$.

 

 

 

If that is your belief, then either you are already completely biased and shouldn't even be thinking of any "scientific" review of CAC as you will color any conclusions to fit your needs, or you are a good scientist without understanding of business.

 

Either way, this whole thing is still not a good idea, as it has been presented.

[Tradedollarnut]

It is apparently advantageous to their business model for the process to remain a black box.

 

No, just to ignore bozos

 

There is also absolutely no logical reason why coins that have been submitted to CAC and failed to sticker shouldn't be listed in their database as such. At least then people would know not to waste their time and money sending in the same coins. Alas, it's pretty clear how this policy i$ of benefit for their bu$ine$$.

 

That's just stupid. CAC makes no money on the submission fees so you are totally out to friggen lunch.

 

Oh, and it doesn't cost people $$$ to ship their coins insured to CAC? Who's out to lunch? I said TIME and MONEY SENDING the same coins.

 

And, for the record, with enough submissions to CAC, many coins would eventually get the sticker -- which does earn them money.

 

Funny how this thread is so below you, yet you continue to post insulting and worthless commentary. Can't you troll elsewhere? Or please block me, I'm begging you. In the rare occasion that I do see you on this side of the street I sure don't see any substance to your replies, so no loss.

 

Horsefeathers. You clearly insinuate differently with "Alas, it's pretty clear how this policy i$ of benefit for their bu$ine$$. " Quit trying to weasel out of what you state.

 

You are the troll here - throwing baseless accusations around and just being an all around arse. This place is fast becoming worthless because of posts like yours.

 

[Tradedollarnut]

It is apparently advantageous to their business model for the process to remain a black box.

 

No, just to ignore bozos

 

There is also absolutely no logical reason why coins that have been submitted to CAC and failed to sticker shouldn't be listed in their database as such. At least then people would know not to waste their time and money sending in the same coins. Alas, it's pretty clear how this policy i$ of benefit for their bu$ine$$.

 

That's just stupid. CAC makes no money on the submission fees so you are totally out to friggen lunch.

 

Perhaps TDN can enlighten us on how CAC stays in business if no money for submission cost is made. Just curious.

 

By making a market in CAC stickered coins. The stickers are a necessary loss leader.

[brg5658]

It is apparently advantageous to their business model for the process to remain a black box.

 

No, just to ignore bozos

 

There is also absolutely no logical reason why coins that have been submitted to CAC and failed to sticker shouldn't be listed in their database as such. At least then people would know not to waste their time and money sending in the same coins. Alas, it's pretty clear how this policy i$ of benefit for their bu$ine$$.

 

That's just stupid. CAC makes no money on the submission fees so you are totally out to friggen lunch.

 

Oh, and it doesn't cost people $$$ to ship their coins insured to CAC? Who's out to lunch? I said TIME and MONEY SENDING the same coins.

 

And, for the record, with enough submissions to CAC, many coins would eventually get the sticker -- which does earn them money.

 

Funny how this thread is so below you, yet you continue to post insulting and worthless commentary. Can't you troll elsewhere? Or please block me, I'm begging you. In the rare occasion that I do see you on this side of the street I sure don't see any substance to your replies, so no loss.

 

Horsefeathers. You clearly insinuate differently with "Alas, it's pretty clear how this policy i$ of benefit for their bu$ine$$. " Quit trying to weasel out of what you state.

 

You are the troll here - throwing baseless accusations around and just being an all around arse. This place is fast becoming worthless because of posts like yours.

 

Enlighten me Bruce -- regardless of the $$$ component, which I will assume you know for a fact that they aren't making any money on submissions.

 

The question still stands, of what use is it for CAC to keep the "Fail" coins a secret? Seems it would be less time for them to review failing coins also -- and would save everyone the effort and waste of sending "losers" to their office -- which they apparently don't make anything on anyway...Is there some genius business savvy at work here that is just beyond my tiny brain?

 

 

[Tradedollarnut]

Quite simple - it's political. Coins owners never would stand for that - they would recertify them rather than leave them on a rejected list.

[mkman123]

hold on a sec........I thought you could look up a coin and find out if it had been sent to CAC and if it did, it would tell you if it was beaned or rejected?

[Tradedollarnut]

hold on a sec........I thought you could look up a coin and find out if it had been sent to CAC and if it did, it would tell you if it was beaned or rejected?

 

nope. It will tell you if it beaned only

 

[brg5658]

hold on a sec........I thought you could look up a coin and find out if it had been sent to CAC and if it did, it would tell you if it was beaned or rejected?

 

No, you can only tell if it beaned, either green or gold. The "rejects" are a secret.

[MarkFeld]

hold on a sec........I thought you could look up a coin and find out if it had been sent to CAC and if it did, it would tell you if it was beaned or rejected?

 

No, you can only tell if it beaned, either green or gold. The "rejects" are a secret.

 

Yes, the "rejects are a secret ". And, while you might not agree with it, there is a logical reason for it. After giving it considerable thought and discussion, it was determined that submitters would not accept it. Perhaps that is why PCGS and NGC don't publish failed crossover results, either.

 

If you don't understand or know something, why not ask, rather than make nasty accusations like you did below?

 

"It is apparently advantageous to their business model for the process to remain a black box. There is also absolutely no logical reason why coins that have been submitted to CAC and failed to sticker shouldn't be listed in their database as such. At least then people would know not to waste their time and money sending in the same coins. Alas, it's pretty clear how this policy i$ of benefit for their bu$ine$$."

 

 

[Hard Times]

It is apparently advantageous to their business model for the process to remain a black box.

 

No, just to ignore bozos

 

There is also absolutely no logical reason why coins that have been submitted to CAC and failed to sticker shouldn't be listed in their database as such. At least then people would know not to waste their time and money sending in the same coins. Alas, it's pretty clear how this policy i$ of benefit for their bu$ine$$.

 

That's just stupid. CAC makes no money on the submission fees so you are totally out to friggen lunch.

 

That's just stupid. CAC makes no money on the submission fees so you are totally out to friggen lunch.

 

I've sent coins to them a number of times and each time I kept thinking "how the hell are these guys making any profit?". The fact is they aren't given what they charge, the fees they do NOT charge with rejections (for collectors like me) AND the postage and insurance (which is expensive). There is no way in hell they are making any profit on these submissions...no way no how. They have to be running a loss from that...

 

jom

 

You are correct that they don't make money on the fees they charge to view coins. But they get to see alot of coins, select the ones they like, and make their market. This process leads to essentially being able for their distributors and anyone else that has their stickered coins, to have premiums on them when they sell. And mostly, that is justified because of the quality of most of the coins with stickers. But they are buisnessmen, they realize the advantage of low fees to entice people to send them lots of coins to view. Smart marketing strategy.

 

Best, HT

[Hard Times]

hold on a sec........I thought you could look up a coin and find out if it had been sent to CAC and if it did, it would tell you if it was beaned or rejected?

 

No, you can only tell if it beaned, either green or gold. The "rejects" are a secret.

 

Yes, the "rejects are a secret ". And, while you might not agree with it, there is a logical reason for it. After giving it considerable thought and discussion, it was determined that submitters would not accept it. Perhaps that is why PCGS and NGC don't publish failed crossover results, either.

 

If you don't understand or know something, why not ask, rather than make nasty accusations like you did below?

 

"It is apparently advantageous to their business model for the process to remain a black box. There is also absolutely no logical reason why coins that have been submitted to CAC and failed to sticker shouldn't be listed in their database as such. At least then people would know not to waste their time and money sending in the same coins. Alas, it's pretty clear how this policy i$ of benefit for their bu$ine$$."

 

 

If the failed coins were listed, then it would completely destroy their market as collectors and dealers would be up in arms no doubt, because it would also likely be relegating the failed coins to a lower price upon resell. For the coins that don't get beaned for whatever reason, they can still be judged on their own merits if they are not on a published list. As such, I think it would be unfair to the owners of the coins to have them listed like this. Me, I have no problems telling which of my coins don't get beaned. I like my coins for what they are or are not now that I know how the process works.

 

I think a study such as Brandon suggests would be a great idea. I wish I had the millions to do it myself as it would be a learning experience for me, especially for the series I am interested in since I can't have Tom Bush, Mark Feld, or even JA himself standing there for advice every time I look at a coin. I am curious just how reproducible the best graders, grading the best graders at TPG's really are. Grading is subjective, and as I have learned by starting my thread, even at CAC. Okay no worries I get it and learned from all of the responses and thank those with all views for posting. Take home message is learn to grade and don't rely on anyone else, but take what is given for numbers and beans into advisement.

 

Folks can we keep this civil? I think these are excellent subjects but we don't need to blast each other just because we have different views.

 

Best, HT

 

 

[brg5658]

hold on a sec........I thought you could look up a coin and find out if it had been sent to CAC and if it did, it would tell you if it was beaned or rejected?

 

No, you can only tell if it beaned, either green or gold. The "rejects" are a secret.

 

Yes, the "rejects are a secret ". And, while you might not agree with it, there is a logical reason for it. After giving it considerable thought and discussion, it was determined that submitters would not accept it. Perhaps that is why PCGS and NGC don't publish failed crossover results, either.

 

If you don't understand or know something, why not ask, rather than make nasty accusations like you did below?

 

"It is apparently advantageous to their business model for the process to remain a black box. There is also absolutely no logical reason why coins that have been submitted to CAC and failed to sticker shouldn't be listed in their database as such. At least then people would know not to waste their time and money sending in the same coins. Alas, it's pretty clear how this policy i$ of benefit for their bu$ine$$."

 

 

Thank you Mark. TDN already clarified the point.

 

 

[Matt_dac]

As a novice collector I find the concept of CAC interesting. With time it would seem the holders would be covered in stickers....CAC sticker for the slabbed coins...then another sticker to validate which of the CAC's are really good...and then another company to sticker those.

 

 

[Hard Times]

As a novice collector I find the concept of CAC interesting. With time it would seem the holders would be covered in stickers....CAC sticker for the slabbed coins...then another sticker to validate which of the CAC's are really good...and then another company to sticker those.

 

 

Hence Barry Stuppler has just introduced the PQ sticker.......

 

The Eagle Eye sticker for indian cents predates all of this. There may be others but the buisness model to do this really took off with Rick Snow started the EE sticker. I am hoping my IC's with EE's will also get the CAC's!

 

Best, HT