What Mark Salzberg said in 2011 about CAC

[MarkFeld]

While I'm largely a World collector and CAC doesn't affect me or my collecting at all, I'm glad that Mr. Salzberg said what he did. Personally, I feel that CAC stickering ( not a word, I know, but let's pretend it's one for the purpose of my post) is a bit of an overkill. I mean, shouldn't NGC's grading be enough? For me, it is. And also another word on those little stickers.......I've noticed that one of the TV sellers has created his own stickers for "Exceptional Cameo Contrast" on PCGS graded US modern proof coins, and then proceeds to charge some of the worst price gouging numbers for these coins I've ever seen in my life. It makes you think........

 

Yep--That's Rick Tomaska. He had a 1938 WLH PF66 with his 'sticker of approval' on it for 2500 and they retail for 1050 at PCGS. I don't think it was designated Cameo by the PCGS, either. PCGS is the only ones that assign the Cameo Designation and that particular coin in Cameo retails for 9200, so I am certain that it wasn't a PCGS Cameo designated coin. I don't remember but it was likely an NGC coin and it LIKEWISE retails for around 1000. It was a SWEET coin but NOT at that price.

 

NGC also uses the cameo designation for Proof Walkers.

[TonerGuy]

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.

[GoldFinger1969]

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

 

How are YOU and I being harmed by their not releasing proprietary information ?

 

If Intel is working on a new chip that is either marginally better or quantum leaps better than my existing PC, then it directly affects whether I should buy a PC right now with the older chips. Does it follow that Intel has an obligation to keep me posted on the future release date and technical specs of the next generation chip, since it will impact whether I buy now or wait ?

[Walkerfan]

While I'm largely a World collector and CAC doesn't affect me or my collecting at all, I'm glad that Mr. Salzberg said what he did. Personally, I feel that CAC stickering ( not a word, I know, but let's pretend it's one for the purpose of my post) is a bit of an overkill. I mean, shouldn't NGC's grading be enough? For me, it is. And also another word on those little stickers.......I've noticed that one of the TV sellers has created his own stickers for "Exceptional Cameo Contrast" on PCGS graded US modern proof coins, and then proceeds to charge some of the worst price gouging numbers for these coins I've ever seen in my life. It makes you think........

 

Yep--That's Rick Tomaska. He had a 1938 WLH PF66 with his 'sticker of approval' on it for 2500 and they retail for 1050 at PCGS. I don't think it was designated Cameo by the PCGS, either. PCGS is the only ones that assign the Cameo Designation and that particular coin in Cameo retails for 9200, so I am certain that it wasn't a PCGS Cameo designated coin. I don't remember but it was likely an NGC coin and it LIKEWISE retails for around 1000. It was a SWEET coin but NOT at that price.

 

NGC also uses the cameo designation for Proof Walkers.

 

Thanks for the clarification, Mark. I just looked in the NGC price guide and didn't see it listed----it left me scratching my head, b/c I was almost sure that they did.

 

[Walkerfan]

Mark---I just looked in the NGC Census and it IS listed there----just 10 coins designated PFCAM by NGC. There's 4 1938s and 6 1942s.

[TonerGuy]

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

 

How are YOU and I being harmed by their not releasing proprietary information ?

 

If Intel is working on a new chip that is either marginally better or quantum leaps better than my existing PC, then it directly affects whether I should buy a PC right now with the older chips. Does it follow that Intel has an obligation to keep me posted on the future release date and technical specs of the next generation chip, since it will impact whether I buy now or wait ?

 

You are comparing apples and Cadillacs. An opinion that a coin is A, B or C for the grade is not a trade secret nor is it proprietary information. Furthermore, Intel hasnt placed themselves in a position in the market requiring that you trust their opinion. Rather they make a product that you purchase which probably has a return policy from where you bought it. CAC doesnt sell little green stickers. They are providing an opinion and more so a limited implied warranty.

 

What if I buy a coin from a dealer that was submitted to CAC and was rejected. I then send it into CAC and it gets rejected again ? Im out at least the cost to submit the coin. And what if I relied on the dealer's statements that the coin was never submitted to CAC. There is no way to check that. Do I have the right to demand that he take the coin back if its rejected since he lied to me ?

[coinman_23885]

PCGS is the only ones that assign the Cameo Designation and that particular coin in Cameo retails for 9200, so I am certain that it wasn't a PCGS Cameo designated coin. I don't remember but it was likely an NGC coin and it LIKEWISE retails for around 1000. It was a SWEET coin but NOT at that price.

 

NGC also uses the cameo designation for Proof Walkers.

 

Thanks for the clarification, Mark. I just looked in the NGC price guide and didn't see it listed----it left me scratching my head, b/c I was almost sure that they did.

 

That's because the coins are insanely rare and trade infrequently. PCGS just does a better job with looking up values for its price guide (even if I disagree with how high many of the coins are priced). Generally all of the 1936-1942 proofs are scarce to rare (with limited exceptions - 1942 wheaties aren't overly common, but I don't know if I would still call them scarce given the populations of those). That's one of the reason why I pick up these pieces (regardless of denomination) when I find them and have the money to pursue them.

 

For fun, NGC has certified 10 pieces as cameo for the entire series (0.06% of 1% of NGC certified population of proof Liberty Walking Half Dollars):

 

1938 (4 pieces): 1 PF65, 3 PF 66

1942 (6 pieces): 1 PF62, 1 PF65, 3 PF66, 1 PF67

 

PCGS has certified 7 pieces as cameo for the entire series (0.03% of 1% of PCGS certified population of proof Liberty Walking Half Dollars)

1938 (2 pieces): 1 PF66, 1 PF67

1939 (2 pieces): 1 PF64, 1 PF65

1942 (3 pieces): 2 PF65, 1 PF66

 

Keep in mind these numbers include resubmissions and crossovers.

[jom]

 

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.

 

How are the TPGs more forthcoming with their databases than CAC? Does PCGS or NGC to tell you a particular coin was sent in 50 times until it go the "right" grade? No they don't. I realize it isn't as easy to give out that info since the raw coin can't be labeled but I don't see why CAC should have to give out that information and not PCGS.

 

jom

[jom]

PCGS is the only ones that assign the Cameo Designation and that particular coin in Cameo retails for 9200, so I am certain that it wasn't a PCGS Cameo designated coin. I don't remember but it was likely an NGC coin and it LIKEWISE retails for around 1000. It was a SWEET coin but NOT at that price.

 

NGC also uses the cameo designation for Proof Walkers.

 

Thanks for the clarification, Mark. I just looked in the NGC price guide and didn't see it listed----it left me scratching my head, b/c I was almost sure that they did.

 

That's because the coins are insanely rare and trade infrequently. PCGS just does a better job with looking up values for its price guide (even if I disagree with how high many of the coins are priced). Generally all of the 1936-1942 proofs are scarce to rare (with limited exceptions - 1942 wheaties aren't overly common, but I don't know if I would still call them scarce given the populations of those). That's one of the reason why I pick up these pieces (regardless of denomination) when I find them and have the money to pursue them.

 

For fun, NGC has certified 10 pieces as cameo for the entire series (0.06% of 1% of NGC certified population of proof Liberty Walking Half Dollars):

 

1938 (4 pieces): 1 PF65, 3 PF 66

1942 (6 pieces): 1 PF62, 1 PF65, 3 PF66, 1 PF67

 

PCGS has certified 7 pieces as cameo for the entire series (0.03% of 1% of PCGS certified population of proof Liberty Walking Half Dollars)

1938 (2 pieces): 1 PF66, 1 PF67

1939 (2 pieces): 1 PF64, 1 PF65

1942 (3 pieces): 2 PF65, 1 PF66

 

Keep in mind these numbers include resubmissions and crossovers.

 

All true...in fact one interesting note is that PCGS (I don't know about NGC) has never given a Washington quarter in that era a Cameo designation. Interesting to say the least.

 

jom

[coinman_23885]

All true...in fact one interesting note is that PCGS (I don't know about NGC) has never given a Washington quarter in that era a Cameo designation. Interesting to say the least.

 

jom

 

Neither one has awarded a cameo designation to a pre-1950 Washington Quarter. When I first started collecting coins from this era, I was surprised at first by it.

[MarkFeld]

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?

[Walkerfan]

All true...in fact one interesting note is that PCGS (I don't know about NGC) has never given a Washington quarter in that era a Cameo designation. Interesting to say the least.

 

jom

 

Neither one has awarded a cameo designation to a pre-1950 Washington Quarter. When I first started collecting coins from this era, I was surprised at first by it.

 

Very interesting. I wasn't aware of that.

[Hard Times]

 

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?

 

Since when is getting a green bean 'crossing' a coin? CAC is not a grading service, see Mark Salzberg's quote in my original post. It would be nice if they compiled the numbers of coins in their public database that did not make CAC, not the serial numbers for each coin, but the stats on what does not pass. That would actually add to the strength of the CAC brand but more importantly, give some insight to the numbers of A-B vs. C coins they have seen, of course by their definition of what A, B, and C are.

 

Do NGC and PCGS list the 'details' non graded coins in their census's?

 

Best, HT

[TonerGuy]

 

It's already been explained why CAC doesn't reveal the ID numbers of coins which don't cross.

 

Not really, at least not to a judge and/or a jury. Most of the this discussion would probably confuse them anyway.

 

And I do apologize in advance if I didnt see the reason stated in this thread... Can you please educate me ? This is the first CAC thread I have ever posted to or ever read actually. I dont care about CAC. I dont seek out their coins nor do I submit to them.

 

I really have no dog this in hunt other than I can see the issues with their business practices. And I never said that PCGS and NGC are above reproach. I just think they are less culpable than CAC.

 

There are many companies/dealers/auction houses that could easily be the target of consumer based lawsuits. Im not picking on CAC. What we accept as the "normal course of business" in this industry would never be tolerated by the same people if it were Nordstroms or Walmart doing the same thing. Custom and practice only go so far as a viable defense in a courtroom.

 

Anyway please do tell why JA has decided not to reveal what coins were rejected...

[MarkFeld]

 

It's already been explained why CAC doesn't reveal the ID numbers of coins which don't cross.

 

Not really, at least not to a judge and/or a jury. Most of the this discussion would probably confuse them anyway.

 

And I do apologize in advance if I didnt see the reason stated in this thread... Can you please educate me ? This is the first CAC thread I have ever posted to or ever read actually. I dont care about CAC. I dont seek out their coins nor do I submit to them.

 

I really have no dog this in hunt other than I can see the issues with their business practices. And I never said that PCGS and NGC are above reproach. I just think they are less culpable than CAC.

 

There are many companies/dealers/auction houses that could easily be the target of consumer based lawsuits. Im not picking on CAC. What we accept as the "normal course of business" in this industry would never be tolerated by the same people if it were Nordstroms or Walmart doing the same thing. Custom and practice only go so far as a viable defense in a courtroom.

 

Anyway please do tell why JA has decided not to reveal what coins were rejected...

 

Because most submitters of coins to CAC would not want that information disclosed. And that should be their decision to make.

 

Just as most submitters of failed crossover coins to NGC or PCGS would not want that information disclosed. Just as most submitters of coins to NGC or PCGS who get upgrades would not that information disclosed. And so on.

[jom]

I really have no dog this in hunt other than I can see the issues with their business practices. And I never said that PCGS and NGC are above reproach. I just think they are less culpable than CAC.

.

 

How are the TPGs LESS culpable? They are the ones that determine the authentication and grade of the coin. CAC only takes those coins and evaluates whether they themselves would like to purcahse the coin. So how can the TPGs be LESS responsible for the coin? They have the most responsibility and they also charge the most for their services. I don't follow this at all....

 

jom

[bochiman]

 

It's already been explained why CAC doesn't reveal the ID numbers of coins which don't cross.

 

Not really, at least not to a judge and/or a jury. Most of the this discussion would probably confuse them anyway.

 

And I do apologize in advance if I didnt see the reason stated in this thread... Can you please educate me ? This is the first CAC thread I have ever posted to or ever read actually. I dont care about CAC. I dont seek out their coins nor do I submit to them.

 

I really have no dog this in hunt other than I can see the issues with their business practices. And I never said that PCGS and NGC are above reproach. I just think they are less culpable than CAC.

 

There are many companies/dealers/auction houses that could easily be the target of consumer based lawsuits. Im not picking on CAC. What we accept as the "normal course of business" in this industry would never be tolerated by the same people if it were Nordstroms or Walmart doing the same thing. Custom and practice only go so far as a viable defense in a courtroom.

 

Anyway please do tell why JA has decided not to reveal what coins were rejected...

 

 

I already answered that above....the submitters would be the ones harmed and it isn't good business practice to potentially harm your direct customers.

 

If you would read to comprehend, instead of just to toss grenades, which is what your postings in this thread appear to be, at CAC, then you would have seen that already.

 

You are tossing some mighty big grenades at CAC for someone "not interested" in them.

 

None of your examples are worthy of being discussed. You are trying too hard to find an issue and compare with others that aren't even close.

 

Do you have a legal degree or do you just watch Judge Judy? Seriously.

You make it out to be like you are coming in to champion for something and then you later state that you really have no knowledge of the entire issue ("I don't care about CAC" is what you stated just above) and yet you keep claiming that CAC is borderline illegal business practices which are bad for consumers.

 

You have dug yourself in pretty deep on this and haven't done a good job of reading what people have posted in response. Also, you have stated that this is your 1st CAC thread and you haven't read any other CAC related threads......hmmmm....maybe you should There is a search function and you could do that and learn the answers without coming off so poorly.

[bsshog40]

 

It's already been explained why CAC doesn't reveal the ID numbers of coins which don't cross.

 

Not really, at least not to a judge and/or a jury. Most of the this discussion would probably confuse them anyway.

 

And I do apologize in advance if I didnt see the reason stated in this thread... Can you please educate me ? This is the first CAC thread I have ever posted to or ever read actually. I dont care about CAC. I dont seek out their coins nor do I submit to them.

 

I really have no dog this in hunt other than I can see the issues with their business practices. And I never said that PCGS and NGC are above reproach. I just think they are less culpable than CAC.

 

There are many companies/dealers/auction houses that could easily be the target of consumer based lawsuits. Im not picking on CAC. What we accept as the "normal course of business" in this industry would never be tolerated by the same people if it were Nordstroms or Walmart doing the same thing. Custom and practice only go so far as a viable defense in a courtroom.

 

Anyway please do tell why JA has decided not to reveal what coins were rejected...

 

 

I already answered that above....the submitters would be the ones harmed and it isn't good business practice to potentially harm your direct customers.

 

If you would read to comprehend, instead of just to toss grenades, which is what your postings in this thread appear to be, at CAC, then you would have seen that already.

 

You are tossing some mighty big grenades at CAC for someone "not interested" in them.

 

None of your examples are worthy of being discussed. You are trying too hard to find an issue and compare with others that aren't even close.

 

Do you have a legal degree or do you just watch Judge Judy? Seriously.

You make it out to be like you are coming in to champion for something and then you later state that you really have no knowledge of the entire issue ("I don't care about CAC" is what you stated just above) and yet you keep claiming that CAC is borderline illegal business practices which are bad for consumers.

 

You have dug yourself in pretty deep on this and haven't done a good job of reading what people have posted in response. Also, you have stated that this is your 1st CAC thread and you haven't read any other CAC related threads......hmmmm....maybe you should There is a search function and you could do that and learn the answers without coming off so poorly.

I agree. I think it would be more harmful to the submitter. It probably wouldn't affect all sellers but it would affect others where buyers are knowledgable about CAC and grading.

[TonerGuy]

How are the TPGs LESS culpable? They are the ones that determine the authentication and grade of the coin.

 

Do they not provide a database for authentication ? Included on that database is all the information about the coin ? If a coin does not grade its is included ? If a coin details grade is that not included ? If a coin is QT or AT is that not included ?

 

Information that could be "harmful" to the submitter is included. Not just information that is helpful to the submitter. Of course we can always break the coin out of the details slab and try to sell it as problem free but then we as the seller are committing fraud at worse or being at least dishonest.

 

The only thing that is not included at this point are crossovers or regrades - PCGS and NGC could include that. And they probably should. And they might at some point. I think they should now.

 

CAC only takes those coins and evaluates whether they themselves would like to purcahse the coin.

 

If that is the only thing they are doing then a green bean on the outside of the slab would not be necessary. They would evaluate the coin send it back to the submitter with an offer to purchase or a note declining to purchase the coin. It would be then be added to their internal use only database and nothing more. You as the owner would have the peace of mind in knowing that if you wanted to sell the coin you had an easy sale at that point to JA. Adding the green bean he knew (or hoped) that it would be used as a symbol of the coin's superiority in the market and provide a benefit to the submitter when the coin was sold. Or if he didnt then he should at least realize that now. And coins that dont have the green bean on the outside might be rejected by the industry. That's a little more than just evaluating the coin for purchase... dont you agree ?

 

I already answered that above....the submitters would be the ones harmed and it isn't good business practice to potentially harm your direct customers.

 

Has PCGS or NGC taken that approach towards submitters ? I would hope not. I dont think so BUT would you feel differently about either company if you knew for a fact that certain large submitters could write whatever grades they wanted on some of their coins ?

 

Would it compromise their market share if people knew that certain dealers were given preferential treatment. Would it call into question the validity of their grading ?

 

You make it out to be like you are coming in to champion for something

 

Im not championing anything. I have no financial interest in the success or failure of CAC in the coming years. However you have already indicated that you have sent "hundreds of coins into CAC" and have more than just a passing interest in seeing CAC remain viable.

 

You have had personal conversations with JA about your coins that did not sticker. That is a great position to be in. Do you know -- does everyone who submits coins to CAC get to talk to JA personally about their coins ? Or is that access reserved for a certain level of submitter ? How can you set that up ? Does he do what PCGS's David Hall does ? Does he sit at a table at big shows and offers his time to review coins ? I really dont know... does he ?

 

Also, you have stated that this is your 1st CAC thread and you haven't read any other CAC related threads......hmmmm....maybe you should There is a search function and you could do that and learn the answers without coming off so poorly.

 

I am learning everything I need to know from your responses.

 

I would love to hear from someone that doesnt submit to CAC as much as you do or doesnt submit coins at all to them but knows alot about CAC...

[bochiman]

Dude.

You are fixated.

 

A couple of hundred coins, yes, but I am a nobody to JA. He just was kind enough to take the time.

 

0 coins.

10 coins.

100 coins.

200 coins.

1000+ coins.

 

It doesn't matter.

 

It is what it is, and there is nothing evil about it.

 

Am I vested in it? To the extent I added $10 cost per coin that got stickered in my database of coins and prices I have.

 

After that, I don't think so. I just don't go for the hatred mode without knowing what is going on. I also don't go for the "...can make no mistakes" side of the house as I know there are mistakes and that is part of life.

 

Nothing nefarious about it and you have shown a lack of willingness to research before going all negative.

 

Done.

[TonerGuy]

Dude.

You are fixated.

 

A couple of hundred coins, yes, but I am a nobody to JA. He just was kind enough to take the time.

 

0 coins.

10 coins.

100 coins.

200 coins.

1000+ coins.

 

It doesn't matter.

 

It is what it is, and there is nothing evil about it.

 

Am I vested in it? To the extent I added $10 cost per coin that got stickered in my database of coins and prices I have.

 

After that, I don't think so. I just don't go for the hatred mode without knowing what is going on. I also don't go for the "...can make no mistakes" side of the house as I know there are mistakes and that is part of life.

 

Nothing nefarious about it and you have shown a lack of willingness to research before going all negative.

 

Done.

 

Im really not. I am merely asking questions. I dont know if JA is available for discussions - he might be. He is a dealer. He might make time for his customers. There's no agenda here. Im not saying he's a bad guy or his intentions are evil. Its probably just the opposite.

 

And I dont hate the man or the service. I have never met him nor have I ever submitted a coin. If my posts have come off that way I apologize. It was not meant to.

 

[Hard Times]

Dude.

You are fixated.

 

A couple of hundred coins, yes, but I am a nobody to JA. He just was kind enough to take the time.

 

0 coins.

10 coins.

100 coins.

200 coins.

1000+ coins.

 

It doesn't matter.

 

It is what it is, and there is nothing evil about it.

 

Am I vested in it? To the extent I added $10 cost per coin that got stickered in my database of coins and prices I have.

 

After that, I don't think so. I just don't go for the hatred mode without knowing what is going on. I also don't go for the "...can make no mistakes" side of the house as I know there are mistakes and that is part of life.

 

Nothing nefarious about it and you have shown a lack of willingness to research before going all negative.

 

Done.

 

Im really not. I am merely asking questions. I dont know if JA is available for discussions - he might be. He is a dealer. He might make time for his customers. There's no agenda here. Im not saying he's a bad guy or his intentions are evil. Its probably just the opposite.

 

And I dont hate the man or the service. I have never met him nor have I ever submitted a coin. If my posts have come off that way I apologize. It was not meant to.

 

Bochiman has alway been abrasive in his/her posts, don't worry about it - even getting to name calling as he/she has with you - comes from being an ATS regular I guess . Implying you have 'hatred' for asking questions about the CAC buisness model is a classic example of his/her posts when you ask questions about it.

 

If 100s of people submit to CAC and had access to JA for discussion when their coins did not get the bean, then JA would be overwhelmed and would not be able to operate the buisness. So for some reason, some are getting preferential treatment. I have asked the question on these boards several times to those getting the special audience with JA how one goes about getting it, but never got a response. It could be something as simple as a phone call or email, but I don't have JA's info on these. Toner I think you are bringing up some interesting points and I don't know why CAC apologists always get some upset when anyone questions the CAC buisness model.

 

Best, HT

[Nutmeg Coin]

Good topic, a tough one to mediate. Look at the consequences were CAC to publish coins that did not pass muster. Or if they were to make a permanent mark on the holder of coins that did not pass....They are controversial enough all ready if coins that do not pass were all to be ascribed to their "C" grade category, not even a respectable "B-"? Basically it is their Coinplex network, CAC has active bids on sight seen coins. While I do not buy the apocalyptic scenario that the Founder described about a "death spiral", there are certainly coins that need to get sent back to the grading services, the "launch" point, to get downgraded or conserved. As for the "Bochiman" conflict, I have never spoken with her, my guess is that most of the differences on these boards could be resolved early on with respectful phone calls, to not make mountains out of mole hills. A dealer yesterday at one of the shows said you could bombard this board with profanity and they would not do anything about it; I told him absolutely not true; the "notify" button allows the moderator, grader, to take action as they do.

[TonerGuy]

Toner I think you are bringing up some interesting points and I don't know why CAC apologists always get some upset when anyone questions the CAC buisness model.

 

Best, HT

 

I am not even questioning their business model. Anyone can be in any business as long as its lawful. I dont have issue with the idea of CAC or PQ or any other sticker someone wants to affix to a slab. Nor am I questioning those that want little stickers on their slabs. But when that affects others then it becomes an issue.

 

The only issue that I am really questioning is the decision not to share the cert #s of the rejects. I can understand why he didnt want to share that information. However, in light of the impact that CAC has had in the industry I dont know if that remains the "right" thing to do. Not only for the reasons I have previously stated but also how his decision has impacted those selling non-CAC coins.

 

I ask those that are in the business of selling coins... Do CAC coins command a premium over non-CAC coins ? And are non-CAC coins selling for less than even sheet ?

 

I imagine that was not his purpose of establishing CAC but that might be an unintended result. No different than how PCGS, NGC or ANACs affected the liquidity, price or marketability of raw coins.

 

Thanks to those that have taken the time to read my posts. I apologize if I come off as being uninformed on this issue - but I am. Thank you to those that have taken the time to try and inform/educate me. This will be my last post to this thread on CAC. I did not realize I was stepping into such an emotional issue for some.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Time for a hypothetical.

 

A) CAC decides to make the information public:

 

1)Should it be a by subscription offer- $ for info?

2)Should it be free? If so, why?

 

B) CAC decides to make the information public?

 

1) Exactly what is the harm in doing so?

2) Exactly what is the harm of not doing so?

 

C) CAC decides to make the information public, for certain coins:

 

1) What coins should be disclosed?

2) Should it be a cut-off that is a certain $ value- below, no disclosure, above full disclosure?

 

D) The disclosure alters the market perception of which grading service is "reliable " a greater percentage of time, when reviewed by CAC:

 

1) How will this effect the individual collector?

2) How does it effect the TPGs?

a) Is this fair to the TPGS?

b) Is it fair to the collector?

 

The point is, what is the overall effect of disclosure to the Hobby?

 

Sometimes, what we desire and receive, turns out to be what we didn't need.

 

[GoldFinger1969]

"...be aware of what CAC is, as MS says, they are a 'verification service, a completely different model than a grading service'.

That's playing with semantics, IMO.

 

The bottom line on all this is that CAC is another way to feel secure about the coin you are buying. Just like a TPG is the 1st line of defense (usually all you need), CAC is a 2nd line of defense.

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

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".

[GoldFinger1969]

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.

[GoldFinger1969]

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".

 

Agree completely. To me, CAC is a plus and sometimes I will consider paying up for it, but not much different than agreeing to pay up for a 1-grade jump from a TPG.

[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