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

[jom]

As I think about he loss leader claims, I would have more confidence in the CAC system if it weren't true. Ultimately if the stickering process is a loss for CAC, but they still make money, then the collector is losing out somewhere. So to justify anything because it is a loss leader is more alarming. Purely as a profitable service, it would make more sense. But alas, everything is an illusion in the world so I suppose its no different.

 

Please explain how ".then the collector is losing out somewhere"?

 

Collectors either get low cost or free (excluding postage) review of their coins by a group of extremely sharp numismatists. And that service/benefit doesn't become any less (or more), based on how much the fee is or how the company does in other aspects of its business.

 

Well the world isn't a zero sum game. If someone is making money, someone is losing it. I don't imagine CAC service is a charity to collectors. Somewhere, maybe not the guy who got the sticker, someone is paying for CACs profits elsewhere in other aspects of their business.

 

If dealer B buys a CAC coin from dealer A for $1000 and sells it for $1100, he makes $100 (less any expenses). It sounds like you're claiming that since there was a $100 profit, someone had to have lost $100. If so, who lost the $100? And who was responsible for causing that $100 loss? Not CAC.

 

If the same dealer takes the same coin, submits it to CAC and gets a green sticker, and now sells the same coin for $1200, where does that extra $100 come from? The pocket of the collector, of course.

 

Why didn't the collector submit the coin to CAC and get the extra $100? If he had done his homework he might have known that the CAC stickered coin was worth $100 more.

 

Again...I don't see how the collector is "losing out".

 

jom

[MarkFeld]

As I think about he loss leader claims, I would have more confidence in the CAC system if it weren't true. Ultimately if the stickering process is a loss for CAC, but they still make money, then the collector is losing out somewhere. So to justify anything because it is a loss leader is more alarming. Purely as a profitable service, it would make more sense. But alas, everything is an illusion in the world so I suppose its no different.

 

Please explain how ".then the collector is losing out somewhere"?

 

Collectors either get low cost or free (excluding postage) review of their coins by a group of extremely sharp numismatists. And that service/benefit doesn't become any less (or more), based on how much the fee is or how the company does in other aspects of its business.

 

Well the world isn't a zero sum game. If someone is making money, someone is losing it. I don't imagine CAC service is a charity to collectors. Somewhere, maybe not the guy who got the sticker, someone is paying for CACs profits elsewhere in other aspects of their business.

 

If dealer B buys a CAC coin from dealer A for $1000 and sells it for $1100, he makes $100 (less any expenses). It sounds like you're claiming that since there was a $100 profit, someone had to have lost $100. If so, who lost the $100? And who was responsible for causing that $100 loss? Not CAC.

 

If the same dealer takes the same coin, submits it to CAC and gets a green sticker, and now sells the same coin for $1200, where does that extra $100 come from? The pocket of the collector, of course.

 

Please re-read my example above - it pertained to a coin which already had a CAC sticker.

 

And by the way, even in your changed example, for all we know, the collector might have paid $1200 or more for the coin, with or without a sticker.

[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.

 

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

 

I see so in essence CAC is a coin marketing business. Thanks for the reply

 

Since you apparently didn't understand CAC's business plan, you started out with a question. And with words like "Perhaps TDN can enlighten us.." its tone seemed to be confrontational. Yet you receievd a polite and factual answer.

 

Then, you followed that up with what appeared to be a smart reply. I'm sorry that TDN went to the trouble, however small, to bother to reply to you.

 

 

First I want to apologize to TDN if it seemed like a confrontational suggestion and I do thank him for his reply. And no Mark, I did not know CAC 's business

plan as I am not in the click. And I did not think it was a smart reply. Sorry .

[MarkFeld]

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.

 

I see so in essence CAC is a coin marketing business. Thanks for the reply

 

Since you apparently didn't understand CAC's business plan, you started out with a question. And with words like "Perhaps TDN can enlighten us.." its tone seemed to be confrontational. Yet you receievd a polite and factual answer.

 

Then, you followed that up with what appeared to be a smart reply. I'm sorry that TDN went to the trouble, however small, to bother to reply to you.

 

 

First I want to apologize to TDN if it seemed like a confrontational suggestion and I do thank him for his reply. And no Mark, I did not know CAC 's business

plan as I am not in the click. And I did not think it was a smart reply. Sorry .

 

Thanks for the follow-up and I am sorry that I misinterpreted your question and comment.

[rrantique]

No problem Mark, always respect your opinion. (thumbs u

[physics-fan3.14]

As I think about he loss leader claims, I would have more confidence in the CAC system if it weren't true. Ultimately if the stickering process is a loss for CAC, but they still make money, then the collector is losing out somewhere. So to justify anything because it is a loss leader is more alarming. Purely as a profitable service, it would make more sense. But alas, everything is an illusion in the world so I suppose its no different.

 

Please explain how ".then the collector is losing out somewhere"?

 

Collectors either get low cost or free (excluding postage) review of their coins by a group of extremely sharp numismatists. And that service/benefit doesn't become any less (or more), based on how much the fee is or how the company does in other aspects of its business.

 

Well the world isn't a zero sum game. If someone is making money, someone is losing it. I don't imagine CAC service is a charity to collectors. Somewhere, maybe not the guy who got the sticker, someone is paying for CACs profits elsewhere in other aspects of their business.

 

If dealer B buys a CAC coin from dealer A for $1000 and sells it for $1100, he makes $100 (less any expenses). It sounds like you're claiming that since there was a $100 profit, someone had to have lost $100. If so, who lost the $100? And who was responsible for causing that $100 loss? Not CAC.

 

If the same dealer takes the same coin, submits it to CAC and gets a green sticker, and now sells the same coin for $1200, where does that extra $100 come from? The pocket of the collector, of course.

 

Please re-read my example above - it pertained to a coin which already had a CAC sticker.

 

And by the way, even in your changed example, for all we know, the collector might have paid $1200 or more for the coin, with or without a sticker.

 

Sorry, I missed that the first time. I think my point remains valid, however.

[MarkFeld]

As I think about he loss leader claims, I would have more confidence in the CAC system if it weren't true. Ultimately if the stickering process is a loss for CAC, but they still make money, then the collector is losing out somewhere. So to justify anything because it is a loss leader is more alarming. Purely as a profitable service, it would make more sense. But alas, everything is an illusion in the world so I suppose its no different.

 

Please explain how ".then the collector is losing out somewhere"?

 

Collectors either get low cost or free (excluding postage) review of their coins by a group of extremely sharp numismatists. And that service/benefit doesn't become any less (or more), based on how much the fee is or how the company does in other aspects of its business.

 

Well the world isn't a zero sum game. If someone is making money, someone is losing it. I don't imagine CAC service is a charity to collectors. Somewhere, maybe not the guy who got the sticker, someone is paying for CACs profits elsewhere in other aspects of their business.

 

If dealer B buys a CAC coin from dealer A for $1000 and sells it for $1100, he makes $100 (less any expenses). It sounds like you're claiming that since there was a $100 profit, someone had to have lost $100. If so, who lost the $100? And who was responsible for causing that $100 loss? Not CAC.

 

If the same dealer takes the same coin, submits it to CAC and gets a green sticker, and now sells the same coin for $1200, where does that extra $100 come from? The pocket of the collector, of course.

 

Please re-read my example above - it pertained to a coin which already had a CAC sticker.

 

And by the way, even in your changed example, for all we know, the collector might have paid $1200 or more for the coin, with or without a sticker.

 

Sorry, I missed that the first time. I think my point remains valid, however.

 

How so? The fact that CAC charged very little to review the coin - and that was the subject being discussed - didn't cause the extra $100 to be spent.

[mumu]

By using an example where the coin already has the CAC sticker, you are selectively leaving out the crucial point in the cycle.

[physics-fan3.14]

 

Please explain how ".then the collector is losing out somewhere"?

 

How so? The fact that CAC charged very little to review the coin - and that was the subject being discussed - didn't cause the extra $100 to be spent.

 

I think this was the question I was attempting to answer. The CAC caused the price jump, or made the coin more liquid at the higher price, or whatever you want to call it.

 

The question the collector has to answer is - are the benefits of the CAC worth the premium price of the coin with the sticker? For some, the answer is a clear yes. For some, the answer is a clear no.

 

For a lot of us, we are still confused what the "benefits" really are.

 

And the answers to those questions are always going to be different for every collector. No amount of hand-wringing is going to change people's minds, really.

[MarkFeld]

Please explain how ".then the collector is losing out somewhere"?

 

How so? The fact that CAC charged very little to review the coin - and that was the subject being discussed - didn't cause the extra $100 to be spent.

 

I think this was the question I was attempting to answer. The CAC caused the price jump, or made the coin more liquid at the higher price, or whatever you want to call it.

 

The question the collector has to answer is - are the benefits of the CAC worth the premium price of the coin with the sticker? For some, the answer is a clear yes. For some, the answer is a clear no.

 

For a lot of us, we are still confused what the "benefits" really are.

 

And the answers to those questions are always going to be different for every collector. No amount of hand-wringing is going to change people's minds, really.

 

That sounds quite reasonable to me.

[MarkFeld]

By using an example where the coin already has the CAC sticker, you are selectively leaving out the crucial point in the cycle.

 

Please feel free to use your own realistic example. And show us how, by charging less than $20 (rather than a lot more) to review coins, CAC is costing the collector money and making more for itself.

 

 

[LogPotato]

Man, between this and the last CAC thread, I guess "Sleepy Hollow" isn't so sleepy right now.

 

My thoughts on it all (not that anyone would care, but I'm throwing it out there anyway):

 

First: Why do so many feel the need to lower themselves to snarky and snide comments to try and prove their point? We are in the hobby of kings. Or at least I thought most of us had the mentality to act as such. I thought sophisticated coin collectors could carry on a conversation with arguments and with respect to another. For the most part, I have been let down. I'd like to at least thank Mark Feld for holding his composure.

 

Second: CAC is what we make it. And by we, I mean all of us. The same as the TPG's. If everyone thought it was unworthy, the market would reflect it. Of course I have seen some dogs in PCGS/NGC holders with CAC labels. But collectors as a whole have the final say if CAC is a viable reliance in our collecting. I feel I am in the camp of those who can find a coin that pleases me regardless of TPG or sticker blessing. But as long as there are collectors out there that don't do their due diligence on experiencing themselves with nuances of grading and and familiarizing themselves in their chosen field, CAC and the TPG's will make their due.

 

And for the most part, TPG's and CAC due what they say they are going to do. Weeding out the , and awarding the coins that deserve it. If a total beginner buys a TPG graded 63 coin with a CAC sticker, they are far better off than if there were no TPG's or a CAC company. It very well could be a slider coin, and damn ugly.

 

 

With that said, I don't care if it's TPG graded or sticker approved. I feel I am knowledgeable enough in my field to decide my own opinion and that counts for me.

 

As far as the scientific experiment, I would be all for it. But don't be surprised by the fact that there is human error. The whole experiment is based off of opinions. That in itself is a variable.

 

Just my 2 and 1/2 cents.

[Crohnos01]

Whew.... what was the original question? Oh.. right...the test to determine validity/repeatably of CAC beans....

 

I believe I am in agreement with LogPotato above regarding the experiment being based off opinions...

 

With all due respect to the OP and acknowledging that I am just a dumb engineer; not a scientist. Still, I do have some training on QA/QC and statistics. Based on what I know, I fail to see how setting up 4 individuals, as good as they may be at grading, (all individuals mentioned are top graders IHO), can constitute a standard. Better at grading than me? Absolutely, and on any day of the week and probably even if blindfolded... However,maybe Mark's medications are causing blurry vision on the day that he is reviewing a particular coin for the 5th time through and he gives a lower grade than he would have the day before. Maybe David is experiencing a slight migraine...There is going to be a standard deviation inherent in the experiment just due to variations in the human body at any given time for any given day within any given individual. On top of that, there is, I believe, an inherent bias unconsciously at play in any given graders view. Some folks love dark toning, some think it hideous.. I believe that is why grading is considered to be subjective and not objective. If the experiment were to actually be conducted, which I doubt it ever will, I would be very surprised to find a result to be conclusive, especially with the given small sample size (not just in coins, but in graders).

 

If the objective is to certify that the CAC graders are objective and know their business, a ANSI/ISO certification of the grading process would be more useful I would think. Then at least as a consumer of the graded product, stamped by a certified individual who has been certified through an ISO process, using a ANSI accredited procedure, you have about all the assurance you can get...That is also an expensive process (I know; I am involved in setting up such a process right now), so again, I don't know that this would ever happen.

 

On the other hand, you could just buy the coin(s) you like and not give a tiddlywink about what anybody else thinks.... just saying....

 

Good grief... I hope this doesn't re-ignite a

[lehigh96]

Please explain how ".then the collector is losing out somewhere"?

 

How so? The fact that CAC charged very little to review the coin - and that was the subject being discussed - didn't cause the extra $100 to be spent.

 

I think this was the question I was attempting to answer. The CAC caused the price jump, or made the coin more liquid at the higher price, or whatever you want to call it.

 

The question the collector has to answer is - are the benefits of the CAC worth the premium price of the coin with the sticker? For some, the answer is a clear yes. For some, the answer is a clear no.

 

For a lot of us, we are still confused what the "benefits" really are.

 

And the answers to those questions are always going to be different for every collector. No amount of hand-wringing is going to change people's minds, really.

 

Jason,

 

One could argue that gradeflation created the need for the CAC in the marketplace. Additionally, it is the increase in the number of "C" (low end) coins that is suppressing the true value of the CAC quality coins. What I am saying is that the CAC is not necessarily causing the price bump, rather, they may just be restoring lost value.

 

Paul

[mumu]

Well fwiw I'll concede on all points to Mark Feld et al. But in that case, the industry is in dire need of another sticker to differentiate A coins from B coins. After all an A coin is la crème d la crème is it not? How can a lowly B coin that just barely holds its head above C status, be worth the same?

[MJ]

They don't call this place Misfit Island without reason.

 

MJ

[copper toning]

They don't call this place Misfit Island without reason.

 

MJ

 

The only thing that does not fit is the one out of control thread here a month compared to the dozens of daily threads that are out of control and/or not worth reading ats. You know the threads that keep all the good material buried over there.

 

Thanks for popping in anyhow

[Hard Times]

Whew.... what was the original question? Oh.. right...the test to determine validity/repeatably of CAC beans....

 

I believe I am in agreement with LogPotato above regarding the experiment being based off opinions...

 

With all due respect to the OP and acknowledging that I am just a dumb engineer; not a scientist. Still, I do have some training on QA/QC and statistics. Based on what I know, I fail to see how setting up 4 individuals, as good as they may be at grading, (all individuals mentioned are top graders IHO), can constitute a standard. Better at grading than me? Absolutely, and on any day of the week and probably even if blindfolded... However,maybe Mark's medications are causing blurry vision on the day that he is reviewing a particular coin for the 5th time through and he gives a lower grade than he would have the day before. Maybe David is experiencing a slight migraine...There is going to be a standard deviation inherent in the experiment just due to variations in the human body at any given time for any given day within any given individual. On top of that, there is, I believe, an inherent bias unconsciously at play in any given graders view. Some folks love dark toning, some think it hideous.. I believe that is why grading is considered to be subjective and not objective. If the experiment were to actually be conducted, which I doubt it ever will, I would be very surprised to find a result to be conclusive, especially with the given small sample size (not just in coins, but in graders).

 

If the objective is to certify that the CAC graders are objective and know their business, a ANSI/ISO certification of the grading process would be more useful I would think. Then at least as a consumer of the graded product, stamped by a certified individual who has been certified through an ISO process, using a ANSI accredited procedure, you have about all the assurance you can get...That is also an expensive process (I know; I am involved in setting up such a process right now), so again, I don't know that this would ever happen.

 

On the other hand, you could just buy the coin(s) you like and not give a tiddlywink about what anybody else thinks.... just saying....

 

Good grief... I hope this doesn't re-ignite a

 

Good insight, but given the subjectivity you spoke about, no accrediting or certifying of the certifiers would be realistic.

 

Best, HT

[physics-fan3.14]

Well fwiw I'll concede on all points to Mark Feld et al. But in that case, the industry is in dire need of another sticker to differentiate A coins from B coins. After all an A coin is la crème d la crème is it not? How can a lowly B coin that just barely holds its head above C status, be worth the same?

 

If we are going to slice and dice it to that scale, why not just go to a 100 point scale? I mean, that's effectively what we've done, we just complicate it by calling it EF-40B and MS-63C and VF-20A. Where does the logical conclusion of this lead to? A 100 point scale with decimals to the tenth place? Indulge my theater of the absurd, but it seems like we are well on our way there already with stickers and plusses and such.

[mumu]

Well fwiw I'll concede on all points to Mark Feld et al. But in that case, the industry is in dire need of another sticker to differentiate A coins from B coins. After all an A coin is la crème d la crème is it not? How can a lowly B coin that just barely holds its head above C status, be worth the same?

 

If we are going to slice and dice it to that scale, why not just go to a 100 point scale? I mean, that's effectively what we've done, we just complicate it by calling it EF-40B and MS-63C and VF-20A. Where does the logical conclusion of this lead to? A 100 point scale with decimals to the tenth place? Indulge my theater of the absurd, but it seems like we are well on our way there already with stickers and plusses and such.

 

Well that was the intended satirical nature of my undertones.

 

I for one have agued before that the slab and grade is enough. Let SKILL determine the rest. Skill to assess a coin by grade, eye appeal and any other factor that may lead to financial gain or enjoyment of the coin. And I say this as someone far below the skill of the top coinsmen out there. I would consider it a sad day when EVERY coin was slabbed. That has been a big part of my enjoyment of world coins.

It wont be long before the stickers replace the need for books that teach grading and other fine subtleties of the hobby.

 

But the psychology of the nation as a whole has shifted to this need of equality. Where our hands are held at every level, everyone gets a trophy win or lose, everyone deserves the same amount of money work hard or not. Everyone deserves an A or B coin, learn to grade or not.

[Hard Times]

Some quotable quotes that perhaps are relevant to all grading, raw, TPG, and CAC.

 

Best, HT

 

Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view.

- Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Return of the Jedi"

 

Where all men think alike, no one thinks very much.

- Walter Lippmann

 

Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

- André Gide

 

There is nothing in this world constant but inconstancy.

- Swift

[Kurtdog]

So now what are we doing in this thread? I lost track.

[coinman1794]

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.

 

Agreed!

 

As I stated in another thread, CAC is a second opinion, and nothing more (the opinion being whether or not the coin is solid for the grade).

 

You can stop the experiment now, and send me all the money that would have been spent on grading, because I promise you will not get 100% consistency upon resubmission, and this will save everyone a lot of time.

[Hard Times]

 

You can stop the experiment now, and send me all the money that would have been spent on grading, because I promise you will not get 100% consistency upon resubmission, and this will save everyone a lot of time.

 

You said it perfectly, this is exactly the point as to why one would want such a study - to determine how inconsistent CAC is. Is their inconsistency consistent with that of the two top TPG's, worse, or better? I would think folks that spend significant sums of money on coins would want to know this, especially since there is so much trust, and it appears by some, blind trust given their comments on these boards, in the brand.

 

Best, HT

[MarkFeld]

 

You can stop the experiment now, and send me all the money that would have been spent on grading, because I promise you will not get 100% consistency upon resubmission, and this will save everyone a lot of time.

 

You said it perfectly, this is exactly the point as to why one would want such a study - to determine how inconsistent CAC is. Is their inconsistency consistent with that of the two top TPG's, worse, or better? I would think folks that spend significant sums of money on coins would want to know this, especially since there is so much trust, and it appears by some, blind trust given their comments on these boards, in the brand.

 

Best, HT

 

Please provide a single concrete example of the "blind trust" to which you referred, or stop exaggerating in order to make your point. Thank you.

[Hard Times]

Please - spare me the BS Mr. Feld. Blind trust is out there and I stand by it.

 

Not Best, HT

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Please - spare me the BS Mr. Feld. Blind trust is out there and I stand by it.

 

Not Best, HT

 

I'll give you this: When you ride a horse, you ride a horse, and never let go of the reins, even for a moment. There is a certain charming tenacity about that.

 

If you could only find a way to do so with courtesy, you may finish the Race.

[Kurtdog]

Please - spare me the BS Mr. Feld. Blind trust is out there and I stand by it.

Not Best, HT

I'll give you this: When you ride a horse, you ride a horse, and never let go of the reins, even for a moment. There is a certain charming tenacity about that.

 

If you could only find a way to do so with courtesy, you may finish the Race.

Well, John, let's just say, that remark Mark made kinda threw him. Remark Mark, .

[coinman1794]

 

You can stop the experiment now, and send me all the money that would have been spent on grading, because I promise you will not get 100% consistency upon resubmission, and this will save everyone a lot of time.

 

You said it perfectly, this is exactly the point as to why one would want such a study - to determine how inconsistent CAC is. Is their inconsistency consistent with that of the two top TPG's, worse, or better? I would think folks that spend significant sums of money on coins would want to know this, especially since there is so much trust, and it appears by some, blind trust given their comments on these boards, in the brand.

 

Best, HT

 

And trying to pinpoint the level of inaccuracy down to a consistent percentage is where it becomes a waist of time. It is an imperfect process at PCGS, NGC, and CAC. Consistency varies and changes all the time, from person to person, light bulb to light bulb, day to day. Grading is as much an impression as it is a measurement. I argue that what you seek cannot be found.

[MarkFeld]

Please - spare me the BS Mr. Feld. Blind trust is out there and I stand by it.

 

Not Best, HT

 

That's what I thought. You made a statement that you couldn't/can't can't back up. And when you were called on it, instead of admitting it, you resorted to rudeness. I'm not going to spend the time to look, but I think I remember your having posted in favor or polite discussion.