What Mark Salzberg said in 2011 about CAC

[brg5658]

Almost never does someone come to our store, or our table at a show, and insist on "CAC only".

 

Evidently, you've never met Ankur.

 

 

jom

 

[JVC]

I am a collector and not a dealer. I have submitted about twenty coins to CAC. On several that did not pass I requested a call back from JA. He called and spent about 30 minutes going over the reasons they did not pass. For me this was a worthwhile learning experience and did not cost me a dime because CAC does not charge on coins that do not pass.

[Nutmeg Coin]

Almost never does someone come to our store, or our table at a show, and insist on "CAC only".

 

Evidently, you've never met Ankur.

 

 

jom

 

 

I hope we will all be able to get along even those, probably myself included that are not likely to win popularity contests.

[jpcienkus]

Anybody Read That Interview I Posted Above With Rosen & Albanese ? It seems to touch upon alot of the themes we are discussing here, even though it was from 2008.

 

I did and thanks for posting it. It was highly enlightening and enjoyable.

[jom]

Almost never does someone come to our store, or our table at a show, and insist on "CAC only".

 

Evidently, you've never met Ankur.

 

 

jom

 

 

I asked Tommy of Dart Coin who "Ankur" was at the Parsippany show, I just wanted to say hi if he was set up. He got visibly enraged at the reference and said there were only two people in his many years that raised his rage like that.

 

Wow...really? I've talked to Ankur a couple of times on the phone and he seems nice to me. My earlier reference was just a jab at him...even he admits to being a CAC junkie.

 

jom

[jpcienkus]

Almost never does someone come to our store, or our table at a show, and insist on "CAC only".

 

Evidently, you've never met Ankur.

 

 

jom

 

 

I asked Tommy of Dart Coin who "Ankur" was at the Parsippany show, I just wanted to say hi if he was set up. He got visibly enraged at the reference and said there were only two people in his many years that raised his rage like that.

 

I don't understand your post. Are you saying that Ankur was a person that would make Tommy's blood boil just by mentioning his name?

[Nutmeg Coin]

Edited as we are not here for that; ask Dart, he didn't say what the issue was exactly.

[MJ]

No one ever accused coin collectors as a whole of out of the box thinking. This thread proves it.

 

MJ

[MJ]

I am a collector and not a dealer. I have submitted about twenty coins to CAC. On several that did not pass I requested a call back from JA. He called and spent about 30 minutes going over the reasons they did not pass. For me this was a worthwhile learning experience and did not cost me a dime because CAC does not charge on coins that do not pass.

 

I have heard this same scenario played over and over again. This alone makes the service valuable. Cheap education from one of the sharpest eyes in the business.

 

MJ

[FishyOne]

They are walking a very fine line when it comes to fair business practices by not releasing the information on which coins failed.

 

You keep telling yourself that and maybe someone will believe you.

 

While I think it would be *nice* to know, I don't think it is mandatory for them to share their proprietary business information; which could easily be seen as detrimental to the submitter. The submitter IS THEIR CUSTOMER, not someone looking to buy a coin.

 

I have submitted a couple of hundred coins (my own and those of local friends). I am a collector, not a dealer. Of ALL those coins, I've had a dozen or so not CAC. John was kind enough to tell me why. When I was talking to him, he also said he was surprised that, out of all those coins, some high end, only 1 had previously been to CAC (and it did NOT CAC). The reason was that, although he liked the coin, he felt it was 1 grade too high, in his opinion. That is how he put it.

 

So, yes, it would have been "nice" to know before buying it. Likely wouldn't have stopped me as I liked the coin and think it is still nice for the grade but he has his opinion and I have mine.

I respect his business and his practices and did not whine that it was unfair that I couldn't find out before submitting.

 

 

I suppose that you also think it is unfair that NGC/PCGS do not tell you if a coin has been attempted for a crossover or re-submission in the holder and did not make it? If not, why not? Kind of the same business principle, isn't it?

 

Okay let's change the fact pattern slightly...

 

I open a website where I sell coins... raw coins only.

 

I buy coins that are graded - some are details, some graded and some CAC'd. I break all of them out of their slabs and sell them raw never divulging that they were previously graded and the grade that they were given by PCGS or NGC or that they were CAC'd. Some of the coins are details graded with some problem or another ... a light cleaning or maybe some questionable toning. Nothing that is plainly obvious to the average collector.

 

All of the coins I advertised are advertised as being 1 grade point higher then what they were graded by PCGS or NGC and priced accordingly.

 

Is this a completely legal position to take ? Is it fair ? Im sure that my client would think it would be "nice" to know that the coin they just bought as an MS67 was graded MS66 by PCGS.

 

Hey PCGS and NGC are only opinions, why are their opinions any better than mine ? I say a coin is a MS67 they say its a MS66. Who is to say who's right. Its grading - its all subjective.

 

But should I tell my client that the coin previously graded MS66 ? What client that just bought a coin that detailed graded with a light cleaning ? At what point does my failure to tell the customer what I know about the coin become fraudulent ?

 

Im not saying what CAC is a clear cut situation of unfair business practices. Im not alleging that at all. However since NGC and PCGS have created a database of all of the coins they have graded I question why CAC hasnt done the same ?

 

What is the harm in putting the rejects into the database ?

 

Has anyone ever asked JA that question ?

 

If someone says to protect their clients I start to question the motives then - since they have a closed membership application/process. If someone says to create more revenue since if they dont report the rejects it will increase multiple submissions of the same coin - I also have to question this motive as well.

 

What is the reason for not adding the rejects ?

 

I never said I liked all of PCGS or NGC business practices but I like them more than I like CACs. Both companies are far more forthcoming with their database. Both let anyone submit coins - collectors and dealers - through various means, whether they have paid for a membership or not. They add every coin to their respective databases with photos so as to allow those coins to be confirmed by anyone via web or even through a smart phone app. That has to one extent created a industry practice and custom. PCGS and NGC even ask that we help them with the population reports by submitting the labels of crack-outs and crossovers.

 

For all of you that are hardcore CAC fans Im not trying to start a fight. I would just like to know... And Im not saying that what CAC does isnt a valuable service. Nor am I accusing anyone of anything. It just seems odd to me that CAC doesnt provide the reject information - even for a fee. I would think that is information people would pay to have access to.

 

You didn't change the fact pattern "slightly". The situation you described above is vastly different from CAC's choosing not to make public the ID numbers of coins which fail to sticker.

 

CAC has a pop report of coins that they have stickered. NGC and PCGS have pop reports for coins they have graded. But as has been mentioned, they do not disclose which coins have failed to cross. Nor do they include coins which have failed to make the minimum grade for which they have been submitted. That seems like the closest analogy to CAC not noting which coins fail to cross. Why don't you question NGC and PCGS about failing to note coins that don't cross or make minimum grades?

 

It's already been explained why CAC doesn't reveal the ID numbers of coins which don't cross. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but I don't understand why you are still asking about it at this point. And if just the pop data of the coins which failed to sticker were to be included in the CAC pop report, what good would that do on a practical basis?

 

From post above: "...Im not saying what CAC is a clear cut situation of unfair business practices. Im not alleging that at all. However since NGC and PCGS have created a database of all of the coins they have graded I question why CAC hasnt done the same ?..."

 

 

PCGS and NGC have body-bagged millions of coins without a published record of what coin they viewed.

[yonico]

here are my thoughts about the CAC service:

 

1. i absolutely agree with the quote in the original post:

"To think that a coin without the CAC sticker is necessarily in some way inferior to one with the sticker is ridiculous. There are plenty of PQ coins in holders without the CAC sticker. These nicer coins tend to be worth more in the market today and they’ve always commanded more, well before CAC."

some collectors fail to understand that:

 

- a coin that didn't "pass" CAC simply means that the coin didn't meet CAC's standards for the grade. it does not always mean that the coin is overgraded.

 

- a coin that gets a gold sticker, is not always an "undergraded" coin. CAC is saying that the coin exceeds their standards for that certain grade it was assigned, but it doesn't mean that the TPG's or all collectors would agree.

 

- by placing a green sticker on a coin, CAC also guarantees to buy the coin from its owner at the going price for that coin in that specific grade. i'm guessing with a gold sticker, they would buy at the next-grade-up's price.

so i would imagine if a coin meet their standards, but is just something they're not interested in buying (/covering with their guaranty) they might not sticker it..? for example a huge condition rarity they don't want to ever sink that much money in..? I'M NOT SAYING IT IS LIKE THIS. I'M JUST ASKING..

 

from CAC:

 

If a coin doesn’t receive a CAC sticker, does this mean CAC believes the coin is over-graded?

 

Absolutely not. There are many coins that are certified accurately for their grade. CAC’s rejection of a coin does not necessarily mean that CAC believes the coin has been over-graded. It simply means that there are other coins with CAC stickers that are of higher quality for the grade. CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins. Many of these rejected coins will be acceptable to numerous dealers and collectors and will continue to be available in the marketplace.

 

 

2. the fact that CAC does not release the records of which coins were rejected by them is OK with me.

the fact that THEY KEEP SUCH RECORD is not. and that's why:

i know grading can never be 100% consistent. that means sometimes a rejected coin will get a green sticker upon second submission, or a previously green-beaned MS64 that upgraded to MS65 will again get the green sticker.

so if my coin was rejected the first time around, it's legitimate to try and re-submit it and hope to get the green sticker the second time around.

BUT, since they keep records of their rejected coins (by serial number), when you re-submit a coin to them, it'll probably pop up as "previously been to CAC and rejected" - which makes me feel like it won't be examined the same way a "first-timer" would, although the same fee is paid. the graders might look for the problem (or whatever didn't meet their standards) the first time around, rather than look at the coin and examine it for what it is. if you have a "details" coin and do not agree with the TPG's decision of calling it a problem coin, would you send it in to be reviewed in the 'details" holder? i don't think so.

that's why even when trying to cross a coin between 2 different TPG's for an upgrade, some collectors/dealers prefer to crack the coin out and send it in RAW, rather than sending it in its current holder.

 

3. not releasing the records of rejected coins, besides the affects it has on submitters, is also a smart business decision - a coin that doesn't meet CAC's standards can be submitted multiple times by different owners over time, and the fee is paid again and again and again, even if there's virtually no chance of it "passing". i would imagine that if that coin would show as "rejected by CAC 4 times" people would not be so inclined to try again. but when there's no record available, they might.

i know that some submitter accounts only pay if the coin does sticker, but that's not how it works for all submitters.

 

4. I care for CAC stickers of any color from a financial perspective. if a coin is easier for me to sell with a green sticker, or it pays off (meaning the coin will sell for $100 more with a sticker, when submitting to cac will cost total with shipping $30), I'll definitely try to get one.

but that does not mean i follow them blindly, or take their word on the coin without looking at the coin myself...

 

X: "this coin has a huge scratch on it, should be in a "details" holder..?"

Y: "but look, it got a cac sticker!"

X: "oh ok then, it must be fine"

 

 

will I refuse to buy a coin with no sticker for my collection? NO

 

pick a stickered coin over a nicer , non-stickered coin? HELL NO.

[GoldFinger1969]

Maybe it's because I'm new here and also somewhat new to the hobby in terms of getting immersed in stuff....but it seems like this whole CAC debate is splitting hairs.

[jpcienkus]

 

3. not releasing the records of rejected coins, besides the affects it has on submitters, is also a smart business decision - a coin that doesn't meet CAC's standards can be submitted multiple times by different owners over time, and the fee is paid again and again and again, even if there's virtually no chance of it "passing". i would imagine that if that coin would show as "rejected by CAC 4 times" people would not be so inclined to try again. but when there's no record available, they might.

i know that some submitter accounts only pay if the coin does sticker, but that's not how it works for all submitters.

 

 

My understanding is that you only pay the fee if the coin stickers, so CAC isn't making money over and over again.

[Hard Times]

 

3. not releasing the records of rejected coins, besides the affects it has on submitters, is also a smart business decision - a coin that doesn't meet CAC's standards can be submitted multiple times by different owners over time, and the fee is paid again and again and again, even if there's virtually no chance of it "passing". i would imagine that if that coin would show as "rejected by CAC 4 times" people would not be so inclined to try again. but when there's no record available, they might.

i know that some submitter accounts only pay if the coin does sticker, but that's not how it works for all submitters.

 

 

My understanding is that you only pay the fee if the coin stickers, so CAC isn't making money over and over again.

 

Only if submitting as a collector, but one is still out shipping and insurance each way for sending something in.

 

Best, HT

[jpcienkus]

 

3. not releasing the records of rejected coins, besides the affects it has on submitters, is also a smart business decision - a coin that doesn't meet CAC's standards can be submitted multiple times by different owners over time, and the fee is paid again and again and again, even if there's virtually no chance of it "passing". i would imagine that if that coin would show as "rejected by CAC 4 times" people would not be so inclined to try again. but when there's no record available, they might.

i know that some submitter accounts only pay if the coin does sticker, but that's not how it works for all submitters.

 

 

My understanding is that you only pay the fee if the coin stickers, so CAC isn't making money over and over again.

 

Only if submitting as a collector, but one is still out shipping and insurance each way for sending something in.

 

Best, HT

 

True, but that was not the point Yonico was making. He was implying that CAC would keep making money on submissions even if they don't sticker.

[James_OldeTowne]

Almost never does someone come to our store, or our table at a show, and insist on "CAC only".

 

Evidently, you've never met Ankur.

 

 

jom

 

 

I asked Tommy of Dart Coin who "Ankur" was at the Parsippany show, I just wanted to say hi if he was set up. He got visibly enraged at the reference and said there were only two people in his many years that raised his rage like that.

 

Wow...really? I've talked to Ankur a couple of times on the phone and he seems nice to me. My earlier reference was just a jab at him...even he admits to being a CAC junkie.

 

jom

I have met him . He's a nice guy!

[jom]

 

3. not releasing the records of rejected coins, besides the affects it has on submitters, is also a smart business decision - a coin that doesn't meet CAC's standards can be submitted multiple times by different owners over time, and the fee is paid again and again and again, even if there's virtually no chance of it "passing". i would imagine that if that coin would show as "rejected by CAC 4 times" people would not be so inclined to try again. but when there's no record available, they might.

i know that some submitter accounts only pay if the coin does sticker, but that's not how it works for all submitters.

 

 

My understanding is that you only pay the fee if the coin stickers, so CAC isn't making money over and over again.

 

Only if submitting as a collector, but one is still out shipping and insurance each way for sending something in.

 

Best, HT

 

True, but that was not the point Yonico was making. He was implying that CAC would keep making money on submissions even if they don't sticker.

 

People should just forget about CAC "making money" when it comes to the stickering part of the business. I'm almost certain (without knowing any inside info) that is a LOSING proposition. There is no way they are making profit given the money they spend sending coins back and forth and NOT charging collectors for non-passing coins. The "profit" motive bashing of CAC doesn't work. They make their money on the coins they purchase...simple as that.

 

jom

[Tradedollarnut]

Yup. Agree 100%

[Hard Times]

I only read a couple or so replies. My impression is that the true impact of CAC on the overall market has been great exaggerated. I honestly believe that a minuscule percent of collectors actually care, and in no way do I believe that "one man is controlling the value of what we collect".

 

Almost never does someone come to our store, or our table at a show, and insist on "CAC only".

 

I hope you are right James, but I fear their impact is much higher than we think. Maybe different levels of impact at different price levels?

 

Best, HT

[Hard Times]

 

3. not releasing the records of rejected coins, besides the affects it has on submitters, is also a smart business decision - a coin that doesn't meet CAC's standards can be submitted multiple times by different owners over time, and the fee is paid again and again and again, even if there's virtually no chance of it "passing". i would imagine that if that coin would show as "rejected by CAC 4 times" people would not be so inclined to try again. but when there's no record available, they might.

i know that some submitter accounts only pay if the coin does sticker, but that's not how it works for all submitters.

 

 

My understanding is that you only pay the fee if the coin stickers, so CAC isn't making money over and over again.

 

Only if submitting as a collector, but one is still out shipping and insurance each way for sending something in.

 

Best, HT

 

True, but that was not the point Yonico was making. He was implying that CAC would keep making money on submissions even if they don't sticker.

 

People should just forget about CAC "making money" when it comes to the stickering part of the business. I'm almost certain (without knowing any inside info) that is a LOSING proposition. There is no way they are making profit given the money they spend sending coins back and forth and NOT charging collectors for non-passing coins. The "profit" motive bashing of CAC doesn't work. They make their money on the coins they purchase...simple as that.

 

jom

 

jom, yes and no, if you want to make a market on certain types of coins, you need to find those coins and put your mark on them. To do that, you need to spend some money, and in this case, invest on the beaning service they provide in order to make their market on the purchasing and selling end. So yes they lose money on the beaning service, but that allows them to identify and make the market on the coins they bean so those costs pay back. A smart buisness plan for sure given the overall quality of most of the beaned coins, even with the common inconsistencies identified by this thread and others.

 

Best, HT

[Hard Times]

Almost never does someone come to our store, or our table at a show, and insist on "CAC only".

 

Evidently, you've never met Ankur.

 

 

jom

 

[Hard Times]

No one ever accused coin collectors as a whole of out of the box thinking. This thread proves it.

 

MJ

 

er, ah, not sure what you mean and which posts is these threads prove your point - case to be more specific?

 

Best, HT

[yonico]

 

3. not releasing the records of rejected coins, besides the affects it has on submitters, is also a smart business decision - a coin that doesn't meet CAC's standards can be submitted multiple times by different owners over time, and the fee is paid again and again and again, even if there's virtually no chance of it "passing". i would imagine that if that coin would show as "rejected by CAC 4 times" people would not be so inclined to try again. but when there's no record available, they might.

i know that some submitter accounts only pay if the coin does sticker, but that's not how it works for all submitters.

 

 

My understanding is that you only pay the fee if the coin stickers, so CAC isn't making money over and over again.

 

Only if submitting as a collector, but one is still out shipping and insurance each way for sending something in.

 

Best, HT

 

True, but that was not the point Yonico was making. He was implying that CAC would keep making money on submissions even if they don't sticker.

 

NO. if a dealer is submitting coins to CAC, they pay the fee regardless of if it stickered or not.

 

only when a COLLECTOR with a collector account is submitting, they wave the fee if it doesn't pass. so the same coin can be to CAC 15 times by dealers and pay the fee 15 times, even though it has no chance of passing

 

THAT'S the point i was making

[yonico]

 

3. not releasing the records of rejected coins, besides the affects it has on submitters, is also a smart business decision - a coin that doesn't meet CAC's standards can be submitted multiple times by different owners over time, and the fee is paid again and again and again, even if there's virtually no chance of it "passing". i would imagine that if that coin would show as "rejected by CAC 4 times" people would not be so inclined to try again. but when there's no record available, they might.

i know that some submitter accounts only pay if the coin does sticker, but that's not how it works for all submitters.

 

 

My understanding is that you only pay the fee if the coin stickers, so CAC isn't making money over and over again.

 

Only if submitting as a collector, but one is still out shipping and insurance each way for sending something in.

 

Best, HT

 

True, but that was not the point Yonico was making. He was implying that CAC would keep making money on submissions even if they don't sticker.

 

People should just forget about CAC "making money" when it comes to the stickering part of the business. I'm almost certain (without knowing any inside info) that is a LOSING proposition. There is no way they are making profit given the money they spend sending coins back and forth and NOT charging collectors for non-passing coins. The "profit" motive bashing of CAC doesn't work. They make their money on the coins they purchase...simple as that.

 

jom

 

i would assume that most of the coins they see are from dealers, or big online sellers. and these customers ARE paying the fee, EVEN IF THEY DON'T GET A STICKER.

i don't think they're losing money at $10-$12.50 a coin..

[Nutmeg Coin]

Another reason why CAC should not publish "failed to sticker" lists:

 

No bean in NGC holder: http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1190&lotNo=33467

 

Yes in the PCGS holder: http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1204&lotIdNo=188006

 

I sort of doubt that the Jack Lee/Norweb coin would CAC.

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1104&lotIdNo=253036

 

Was CAC: http://www.coinlink.com/News/images/Vermuele_93S_Morgan_pvgsHolder.jpg

[Tradedollarnut]

Those two 93-S dollars are not the same coin so I am unsure of the point that you are trying to make.

[MarkFeld]

 

3. not releasing the records of rejected coins, besides the affects it has on submitters, is also a smart business decision - a coin that doesn't meet CAC's standards can be submitted multiple times by different owners over time, and the fee is paid again and again and again, even if there's virtually no chance of it "passing". i would imagine that if that coin would show as "rejected by CAC 4 times" people would not be so inclined to try again. but when there's no record available, they might.

i know that some submitter accounts only pay if the coin does sticker, but that's not how it works for all submitters.

 

 

My understanding is that you only pay the fee if the coin stickers, so CAC isn't making money over and over again.

 

Only if submitting as a collector, but one is still out shipping and insurance each way for sending something in.

 

Best, HT

 

True, but that was not the point Yonico was making. He was implying that CAC would keep making money on submissions even if they don't sticker.

 

NO. if a dealer is submitting coins to CAC, they pay the fee regardless of if it stickered or not.

 

only when a COLLECTOR with a collector account is submitting, they wave the fee if it doesn't pass. so the same coin can be to CAC 15 times by dealers and pay the fee 15 times, even though it has no chance of passing

 

THAT'S the point i was making

 

So, some posters criticize CAC for not being perfectly consistent - they're not. And others assume they never change their mind (as in never stickering a coin they declined to sticker previously) - they do, because they are imperfect and/or open minded. It sounds like a no win situation to me.

[jom]

 

3. not releasing the records of rejected coins, besides the affects it has on submitters, is also a smart business decision - a coin that doesn't meet CAC's standards can be submitted multiple times by different owners over time, and the fee is paid again and again and again, even if there's virtually no chance of it "passing". i would imagine that if that coin would show as "rejected by CAC 4 times" people would not be so inclined to try again. but when there's no record available, they might.

i know that some submitter accounts only pay if the coin does sticker, but that's not how it works for all submitters.

 

 

My understanding is that you only pay the fee if the coin stickers, so CAC isn't making money over and over again.

 

Only if submitting as a collector, but one is still out shipping and insurance each way for sending something in.

 

Best, HT

 

True, but that was not the point Yonico was making. He was implying that CAC would keep making money on submissions even if they don't sticker.

 

People should just forget about CAC "making money" when it comes to the stickering part of the business. I'm almost certain (without knowing any inside info) that is a LOSING proposition. There is no way they are making profit given the money they spend sending coins back and forth and NOT charging collectors for non-passing coins. The "profit" motive bashing of CAC doesn't work. They make their money on the coins they purchase...simple as that.

 

jom

 

i would assume that most of the coins they see are from dealers, or big online sellers. and these customers ARE paying the fee, EVEN IF THEY DON'T GET A STICKER.

i don't think they're losing money at $10-$12.50 a coin..

 

I'm sorry but at $12/coin that ain't gonna cut it. Then again, I don't know what they do with dealers but I never got charged for postage either (back to me) so from what I saw they were losing money hand over foot. Hell, even with the postage they aren't making much once you factor in the TIME taken.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

jom

[Kurtdog]

To think that a coin without the CAC sticker is necessarily in some way inferior to one with the sticker is ridiculous.

Can we get back to this? Somebody explain to me why that's not a no-brainer.

[Nutmeg Coin]

The CAC sticker means just that the coin will trade sight unseen, with some exceptions in the CAC "Coinplex" network. So JA is looking for specific criteria for what will pass muster with his network.

 

It does not mean that non-CAC coins are inferior, just that they will not trade sight unseen in his network. What are causes of rejection by CAC? Coins that have "issues" that CAC *thinks* will be a problem within the network.