Interesting CAC Advertisement

[WoodenJefferson]

$340,000,000.00 that's over 1/3 of a billion dollars! @ say $1,000.00 per coin, that equates to 340,000 coins, 20 per box = 17,000 boxes , 1180 cu ft. or 200 sq ft which is about the size of a single car garage...doable.

 

My guess is that the average value per coin is multiples of the example you used.

 

I just pulled a 'reasonable' amount out of the hat just see what kind of volume a 'reasonable' amount would be. It would take a rather large vault to house coins of that number.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

$340,000,000.00 that's over 1/3 of a billion dollars! @ say $1,000.00 per coin, that equates to 340,000 coins, 20 per box = 17,000 boxes , 1180 cu ft. or 200 sq ft which is about the size of a single car garage...doable.

 

My guess is that the average value per coin is multiples of the example you used.

 

I just pulled a 'reasonable' amount out of the hat just see what kind of volume a 'reasonable' amount would be. It would take a rather large vault to house coins of that number.

 

1,180 cf = 1,180 sf @ 1' h.

590 sf x 2'h = 1,180 cf.

200 sf x 5.9'h = 1,180 sf.

 

Further examples available upon request.

 

[Kurtdog]

John said that they found that the consistent grading quality of these companies were lacking and therefore did not make the cut for the CAC business model.

Well, but then, they're not endorsing "A and B" coins, they're endorsing slabs with "A and B" coins. Look at the coin, and the slab, that's their "business model." Interesting.

I understand the possibility of interpreting the decision in that manner.

 

I would think that it was more a matter of sustaining a business model, by determining some level of competence of the starting point for offering the services that CAC was contemplating.

 

If Entity # 1 has a consistency rate of 50% and supplies 50% of the market (the potential "customer" source for CAC), and Entity # 2 has a consistency rate of 38% and supplies 40% of the market, and Entity # 3 has a consistency rate of 10% and supplies 10% of the market, I would think the cost vs. market availability for the CAC business model would be to eliminate Entity # 3 as a concentration. I am sure there were other factors that were considered - collector perception, previous sales records, etc. At the end of the day, to be cost efficient, a choice was made that allows the business model to survive long term.

I see, John. But they still get paid. Efficiency in beaning. I can see that. They may bean more from NGC and PCGS. But they still get paid, whether or not they bean. Or is that wrong?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

John said that they found that the consistent grading quality of these companies were lacking and therefore did not make the cut for the CAC business model.

Well, but then, they're not endorsing "A and B" coins, they're endorsing slabs with "A and B" coins. Look at the coin, and the slab, that's their "business model." Interesting.

I understand the possibility of interpreting the decision in that manner.

 

I would think that it was more a matter of sustaining a business model, by determining some level of competence of the starting point for offering the services that CAC was contemplating.

 

If Entity # 1 has a consistency rate of 50% and supplies 50% of the market (the potential "customer" source for CAC), and Entity # 2 has a consistency rate of 38% and supplies 40% of the market, and Entity # 3 has a consistency rate of 10% and supplies 10% of the market, I would think the cost vs. market availability for the CAC business model would be to eliminate Entity # 3 as a concentration. I am sure there were other factors that were considered - collector perception, previous sales records, etc. At the end of the day, to be cost efficient, a choice was made that allows the business model to survive long term.

I see, John. But they still get paid. Efficiency in beaning. I can see that. They may bean more from NGC and PCGS. But they still get paid, whether or not they bean. Or is that wrong?

 

That sounds about right to me.

 

I think it is more about sustainable source. There is a higher level of confidence that the base source - PCGS and NGC - is available long term, than other TPG entities.

 

It is also important that I state that the percentages I used were fictitious and simply a math example. I don't know who comes in first, second, etc.

 

I imagine it has more to do with a sustainable source. I would think if another TPG besides PCGS and NGC had a consistency rating and supply availability rating high enough to fit the model, it would probably be fine with the CAC business model.

 

As an example, I often wonder if the variety market, that was an ANACS stronghold of market share at one time, would have been a source today for CAC, if the collector base were high enough.

[FishyOne]

$340,000,000.00 that's over 1/3 of a billion dollars! @ say $1,000.00 per coin, that equates to 340,000 coins, 20 per box = 17,000 boxes , 1180 cu ft. or 200 sq ft which is about the size of a single car garage...doable.

 

My guess is that the average value per coin is multiples of the example you used.

 

Yes it is. I've done some math OCD calculations based on CAC's press releases and the average value per coin approved by CAC is in excess of $5,000.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

$340,000,000.00 that's over 1/3 of a billion dollars! @ say $1,000.00 per coin, that equates to 340,000 coins, 20 per box = 17,000 boxes , 1180 cu ft. or 200 sq ft which is about the size of a single car garage...doable.

 

My guess is that the average value per coin is multiples of the example you used.

 

Yes it is. I've done some math OCD calculations based on CAC's press releases and the average value per coin approved by CAC is in excess of $5,000.

 

 

Memo: No more math examples from Mr. Woody will be tolerated....

[WoodenJefferson]

$340,000,000.00 that's over 1/3 of a billion dollars! @ say $1,000.00 per coin, that equates to 340,000 coins, 20 per box = 17,000 boxes , 1180 cu ft. or 200 sq ft which is about the size of a single car garage...doable.

 

My guess is that the average value per coin is multiples of the example you used.

 

I just pulled a 'reasonable' amount out of the hat just see what kind of volume a 'reasonable' amount would be. It would take a rather large vault to house coins of that number.

 

1,180 cf = 1,180 sf @ 1' h.

590 sf x 2'h = 1,180 cf.

200 sf x 5.9'h = 1,180 sf.

 

Further examples available upon request.

 

I would like this in Dewey Decimal please.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

$340,000,000.00 that's over 1/3 of a billion dollars! @ say $1,000.00 per coin, that equates to 340,000 coins, 20 per box = 17,000 boxes , 1180 cu ft. or 200 sq ft which is about the size of a single car garage...doable.

 

My guess is that the average value per coin is multiples of the example you used.

 

I just pulled a 'reasonable' amount out of the hat just see what kind of volume a 'reasonable' amount would be. It would take a rather large vault to house coins of that number.

 

1,180 cf = 1,180 sf @ 1' h.

590 sf x 2'h = 1,180 cf.

200 sf x 5.9'h = 1,180 sf.

 

Further examples available upon request.

 

I would like this in Dewey Decimal please.

 

This is not a Library Class.....

[RWB]

There seems to be and assumption of objectivity and infallibility on CAC's part by some....

[Kurtdog]

There seems to be and assumption of objectivity and infallibility on CAC's part by some....

I'll plead guilty to that. I had no idea CAC had this monkey-business model. I'll tell you what I think is needed, a competitor. I think I'd like to see a non-discriminatory business model.

[MarkFeld]

There seems to be and assumption of objectivity and infallibility on CAC's part by some....

I'll plead guilty to that. I had no idea CAC had this monkey-business model. I'll tell you what I think is needed, a competitor. I think I'd like to see a non-discriminatory business model.

 

You and a number of other people might not care about this, but apparently, CAC does:

 

1) They felt that a sufficiently large % of coins graded by other grading companies did not meet their standards.

 

2) Those other companies did not make their population figures available to the public.

 

You call it a "monkey-business model", while I call it doing what makes sense to them.

 

Do you also object to CAC's "discriminatory business model" in not accepting modern coins for evaluation?

[coinman_23885]

There seems to be and assumption of objectivity and infallibility on CAC's part by some....

I'll plead guilty to that. I had no idea CAC had this monkey-business model. I'll tell you what I think is needed, a competitor. I think I'd like to see a non-discriminatory business model.

 

You and a number of other people might not care about this, but apparently, CAC does:

 

1) They felt that a sufficiently large % of coins graded by other grading companies did not meet their standards.

 

2) Those other companies did not make their population figures available to the public.

 

You call it a "monkey-business model", while I call it doing what makes sense to them.

 

Do you also object to CAC's "discriminatory business model" in not accepting modern coins for evaluation?

 

And to those questioning not accepting other holders - the line must be drawn somewhere. What about the joke slabs - NNC, NTC, etc.? Moreover, John and the other CAC graders would lose money by reviewing them as the company does not charge collectors for coins that don't sticker. It would be a colossal waste of time and resources. Moreover, CAC isn't meant as a grading service per se, but stickers coins it wants to buy. I can't say that it is unreasonable of them not to want to buy old ANACS coins whose guarantee, I understand no longer exists for the old coins and the new coins are rarely graded correctly or are graded inconsistently. There are also concerns about the liquidity for CAC.

[Kurtdog]

There seems to be and assumption of objectivity and infallibility on CAC's part by some....

I'll plead guilty to that. I had no idea CAC had this monkey-business model. I'll tell you what I think is needed, a competitor. I think I'd like to see a non-discriminatory business model.

You and a number of other people might not care about this, but apparently, CAC does:

 

1) They felt that a sufficiently large % of coins graded by other grading companies did not meet their standards.

 

2) Those other companies did not make their population figures available to the public.

 

You call it a "monkey-business model", while I call it doing what makes sense to them.

 

Do you also object to CAC's "discriminatory business model" in not accepting modern coins for evaluation?

OK, but why are "population figures" important? I guess I'm not getting that.

[MJ]

There seems to be and assumption of objectivity and infallibility on CAC's part by some....

 

Objective in a subjective business. Yes. I think they are fair and impartial. Do you think otherwise?

 

Infallible-------no. I've never seen one person here call CAC infallible. I think you assume too much.

 

This subject brings out the best of the "throwing out baby with the bath water" and "straw man" debating techniques. Amazing.

 

We pay for objective opinions in a subjective arena from the TPG's and CAC. That is all. I happen to value CAC's expert opinion. You may not. I don't care. You got paid for your expert opinion in a high profile case did you not? They wanted a Roger sticker so to speak. Some valued your opinion including me in that case. Others not as much apparently.

 

MJ

[Kurtdog]

Moreover, John and the other CAC graders would lose money by reviewing them as the company does not charge collectors for coins that don't sticker.

Bingo, that's what I wanted to know. I'll buy CAC coins, I just never had a coin submitted to CAC.

[jom]

And to those questioning not accepting other holders - the line must be drawn somewhere.

 

Another non-issue with me. If I'm skeptical on buying coins in "other" slabs (and I know many people believe the same) why can't CAC have some discretion on what slabs they choose to evaluate? It seems to me it's common sense.

 

jom

[Kurtdog]

There seems to be and assumption of objectivity and infallibility on CAC's part by some....

Objective in a subjective business. Yes. I think they are fair and impartial. Do you think otherwise?

 

Infallible-------no. I've never seen one person here call CAC infallible. I think you assume too much.

 

This subject brings out the best of the "throwing out baby with the bath water" and "straw man" debating techniques. Amazing.

 

We pay for subjective opinions from the TPG's and CAC. That is all. I happen to value CAC's expert opinion. You may not. I don't care. You got paid for your expert opinion in a high profile case did you not? They wanted a Roger sticker so to speak. Some valued your opinion in that case others not as much.

 

MJ

I thought he was referring to their business model's uneven-handed treatment of the TPGs. Still, I guess I'm getting that rationale a little better, now. It still bothers me some, though, that if, say, you're a loyal CAC supporter, you need to crack out of your ICG or ANACS slab to have any shot at your coin getting the bean. That's why I still think the hobby could use a competitor. There are dealers out there who could easily fit that billing. Heck, Mark Feld was one. Mark, I understand they outsource those stickers from third-world economies for real cheap, .

[RWB]

Curious comments, MJ. I stated something that was perceived overall and not directed toward anyone in particular.

[MJ]

Curious comments, MJ. I stated something that was perceived overall and not directed toward anyone in particular.

 

Well when you paint with a wide brush

 

MJ

[orifdoc]

A searchable database at the TPGs is necessary to CAC's business model. Looking up a cert number on CAC's website and matching it with the info on the TPG's site is important to minimize fraud & misuse. Most of the other slabbing services don't provide this.

[RWB]

Generalities are always wide - they are intended to be that way.

[FishyOne]

A searchable database at the TPGs is necessary to CAC's business model. Looking up a cert number on CAC's website and matching it with the info on the TPG's site is important to minimize fraud & misuse. Most of the other slabbing services don't provide this.

 

When CAC was founded in 2007 that was true. Only PCGS and NGC offered a searchable online database back then. The eBay threat to drop any "accepted" TPG (read ANACS & ICG) from their approved TPG list if they did not have an online searchable database for cert verification provided motivation for ANACS & ICG to add this feature in 2010 I believe (it's been a few years ago).

 

 

[Conder101]

Moreover, John and the other CAC graders would lose money by reviewing them as the company does not charge collectors for coins that don't sticker.

Now there is the first good explanation as to why they would reject the other holders (frames) even though the ad says the coin is what is important and the frame (holder) doesn't matter.

 

A searchable database at the TPGs is necessary to CAC's business model. Looking up a cert number on CAC's website and matching it with the info on the TPG's site is important to minimize fraud & misuse.

Why? Aren't they qualified to look at the coin and tell if it is authentic and what the grade is? I would assume that if they are confirming that the grade printed on the slab is accurate, they should be able to confirm that it IS that grade.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Moreover, John and the other CAC graders would lose money by reviewing them as the company does not charge collectors for coins that don't sticker.

Now there is the first good explanation as to why they would reject the other holders (frames) even though the ad says the coin is what is important and the frame (holder) doesn't matter.

 

A searchable database at the TPGs is necessary to CAC's business model. Looking up a cert number on CAC's website and matching it with the info on the TPG's site is important to minimize fraud & misuse.

Why? Aren't they qualified to look at the coin and tell if it is authentic and what the grade is? I would assume that if they are confirming that the grade printed on the slab is accurate, they should be able to confirm that it IS that grade.

 

 

I understand what you are stating.

 

However, I think you realize it is not simply confirming the grade printed on the holder is accurate (or inaccurate) and confirming it is the grade (or not).

 

What you are suggesting is that CAC be responsible for determining the accuracy of the Holder (counterfeit/legitimate) and its cert#. I can think of Holder tamping scenarios that would have nothing to do with the grade of the coin or the stated grade on the Holder.

 

Are you suggesting that CAC now be responsible for determination of same?

[Kurtdog]

A searchable database at the TPGs is necessary to CAC's business model. Looking up a cert number on CAC's website and matching it with the info on the TPG's site is important to minimize fraud & misuse.

Why? Aren't they qualified to look at the coin and tell if it is authentic and what the grade is? I would assume that if they are confirming that the grade printed on the slab is accurate, they should be able to confirm that it IS that grade.

OK, buddy, now where were you all this time when I was being talked out of this very position you're advocating by these chums? Now don't let this happen, again! I mean it!

 

PS:

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

A searchable database at the TPGs is necessary to CAC's business model. Looking up a cert number on CAC's website and matching it with the info on the TPG's site is important to minimize fraud & misuse.

Why? Aren't they qualified to look at the coin and tell if it is authentic and what the grade is? I would assume that if they are confirming that the grade printed on the slab is accurate, they should be able to confirm that it IS that grade.

OK, buddy, now where were you all this time when I was being talked out of this very position you're advocating by these chums? Now don't let this happen, again! I mean it!

 

PS:

 

Had you posted the position and question presented by Mr. Conder, I would have posted the same Post in reply that I did for Mr. Conder's Post.

[orifdoc]

The most interesting part of the advertisement to me is that CAC has evaluated 550,000 coins with a market value of $2.4 billion.

 

PCGS lists 28,519,575 worth $29 billion and NGC lists 30,000,000 coins graded (22 million from the US).

 

Coin wise, CAC has evaluated 0.9% as many as the two TPG's combined.

 

Value-wise, CAC has evaluated 8.3% as much as PCGS. I don't have value numbers for NGC.

 

It's possible, however unlikely, that there are yet in unknown realms, certain coins, perhaps even very nice high-end coins, that CAC hasn't seen.

 

[Kurtdog]

A searchable database at the TPGs is necessary to CAC's business model. Looking up a cert number on CAC's website and matching it with the info on the TPG's site is important to minimize fraud & misuse.

Why? Aren't they qualified to look at the coin and tell if it is authentic and what the grade is? I would assume that if they are confirming that the grade printed on the slab is accurate, they should be able to confirm that it IS that grade.

OK, buddy, now where were you all this time when I was being talked out of this very position you're advocating by these chums? Now don't let this happen, again! I mean it!

 

PS:

Had you posted the position and question presented by Mr. Conder, I would have posted the same Post in reply that I did for Mr. Conder's Post.

It could be a johncurlis holder, who cares? How are PCGS holders any the less subject to hanky-panky? If I'm missing something, what is it?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

A searchable database at the TPGs is necessary to CAC's business model. Looking up a cert number on CAC's website and matching it with the info on the TPG's site is important to minimize fraud & misuse.

Why? Aren't they qualified to look at the coin and tell if it is authentic and what the grade is? I would assume that if they are confirming that the grade printed on the slab is accurate, they should be able to confirm that it IS that grade.

OK, buddy, now where were you all this time when I was being talked out of this very position you're advocating by these chums? Now don't let this happen, again! I mean it!

 

PS:

Had you posted the position and question presented by Mr. Conder, I would have posted the same Post in reply that I did for Mr. Conder's Post.

It could be a johncurlis holder, who cares? How are PCGS holders any the less subject to hanky-panky? If I'm missing something, what is it?

 

What is missing is that the way the question was stated is misleading, and is assuming that CAC assume the burden of evaluating the legitimacy of the Holder. Change the statement (easy to do and to do so without being titillating and misleading), and I will paddle your boat for you, and gladly do so.

[Kurtdog]

A searchable database at the TPGs is necessary to CAC's business model. Looking up a cert number on CAC's website and matching it with the info on the TPG's site is important to minimize fraud & misuse.

Why? Aren't they qualified to look at the coin and tell if it is authentic and what the grade is? I would assume that if they are confirming that the grade printed on the slab is accurate, they should be able to confirm that it IS that grade.

OK, buddy, now where were you all this time when I was being talked out of this very position you're advocating by these chums? Now don't let this happen, again! I mean it!

 

PS:

Had you posted the position and question presented by Mr. Conder, I would have posted the same Post in reply that I did for Mr. Conder's Post.

It could be a johncurlis holder, who cares? How are PCGS holders any the less subject to hanky-panky? If I'm missing something, what is it?

What is missing is that the way the question was stated is misleading, and is assuming that CAC assume the burden of evaluating the legitimacy of the Holder. Change the statement (easy to do and to do so without being titillating and misleading), and I will paddle your boat for you, and gladly do so.

Why is that a burden? That's what I don't get. Who cares what kind of slab it's in? That's what I'm asking. You're assuming CAC should care about what kind of slab it's in. Why?