Interesting CAC Advertisement

[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.

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?

 

I am not assuming. I am stating that it is NOT their responsibility to assume a valid Holder and cert #...an integral part of the market...without a simple data base that allows a quick check. It is certainly their Right to not evaluate a coin in a John Curlis Holder, if they can't verify the validity of the issuance of the Holder...which indeed effects the market.

 

You are a very bright person, and clearly understand my comments. You are only pushing the envelope as a testing ground of the non-validity of the CAC business model. There is nothing wrong in doing so, but tangents of points that are forced to meet, in order to make a position more acceptable and believable, is not helping any questioning into the model under discussion. It is a form of reaching, sort of an it's vs. its thing.

[Conder101]

I am stating that it is NOT their responsibility to assume a valid Holder and cert #...an integral part of the market...without a simple data base that allows a quick check.

And of course we know that the counterfeiters use legitimate slab serial numbers so the database is of limited usefulness. Database says this serial number was used for such and such a coin. Is this it? Have to look at the coin and slab and verify it is what it is supposed to be. Without the database you would have to look at the coin and the slab and verify it was what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verification with or without the database so the existence of the database doesn't matter.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I am stating that it is NOT their responsibility to assume a valid Holder and cert #...an integral part of the market...without a simple data base that allows a quick check.

And of course we know that the counterfeiters use legitimate slab serial numbers so the database is of limited usefulness. Database says this serial number was used for such and such a coin. Is this it? Have to look at the coin and slab and verify it is what it is supposed to be. Without the database you would have to look at the coin and the slab and verify it was what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verification with or without the database so the existence of the database doesn't matter.

 

A logical progression of thought and is helpful in illustrating the thrust of my thoughts.

 

It is not their responsibility to assume a valid Holder, and cert #...an integral part of the market....without a simple data base that allows a quick check. You state "...have to look at...and the slab and verify what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verifiication with or without the database, so the database doesn't matter."

 

Doesn't this mean you are requiring CAC to be a counterfeit detection service?

Doesn't this mean that you are requiring CAC to be a TPG?

 

Expanding on your point a little:

 

1st scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services.

CAC looks up the serial #.

The serial # is verified.

The grade assigned and the coin it identifies is verified.

At this point, CAC starts the coin review process.

CAC thinks there is something not quite correct about the Holder.

CAC sends the coin back, without action. It is not their responsibility, nor do they get reimbursed for verifying the validity of the slab. The slab could have been tampered with, and a lesser grade coin put in the slab, or it could be a counterfeit slab of high quality, etc. CAC is not going to take the business risk, nor should they. Their due diligence ends at the point of suspicion.

 

2nd scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services, in a johncurlis Holder.

CAC can't look up a serial # and verify anything about the coin or the Holder or the producer of the Holder.

CAC thinks there is something not right about the coin and/or the Holder.

CAC now starts a complete review and verification of the coin, running down the Holder producer, creating a database for the producer, trys to determine if the Holder is tampered with and/or a lesser quality coin was inserted than the quality of the coin stated on the Holder, then concludes that the coin is questionable and returns the coin without action.

 

You are advocating that scenario #1 and the added expense and verification is the responsibility of CAC, without reimbursement for the basic service or the added service of counterfeit review, and shifting responsibility from the TPG to CAC.

 

You are advocating in scenario #2 that CAC be the TPG and the 4PG, and without reimbursement for any service.

 

In both scenarios, there is then the lingering question the submitter has: why was it returned? What is wrong? Should CAC then add expense by identifying in some formal method what their conclusion is, without reimbursement?

 

Is that the business Model - service without payment?

 

 

 

 

 

[Kurtdog]

I am stating that it is NOT their responsibility to assume a valid Holder and cert #...an integral part of the market...without a simple data base that allows a quick check.

And of course we know that the counterfeiters use legitimate slab serial numbers so the database is of limited usefulness. Database says this serial number was used for such and such a coin. Is this it? Have to look at the coin and slab and verify it is what it is supposed to be. Without the database you would have to look at the coin and the slab and verify it was what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verification with or without the database so the existence of the database doesn't matter.

A logical progression of thought and is helpful in illustrating the thrust of my thoughts.

 

It is not their responsibility to assume a valid Holder, and cert #...an integral part of the market....without a simple data base that allows a quick check. You state "...have to look at...and the slab and verify what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verifiication with or without the database, so the database doesn't matter."

 

Doesn't this mean you are requiring CAC to be a counterfeit detection service?

Doesn't this mean that you are requiring CAC to be a TPG?

 

Expanding on your point a little:

 

1st scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services.

CAC looks up the serial #.

The serial # is verified.

The grade assigned and the coin it identifies is verified.

At this point, CAC starts the coin review process.

CAC thinks there is something not quite correct about the Holder.

CAC sends the coin back, without action. It is not their responsibility, nor do they get reimbursed for verifying the validity of the slab. The slab could have been tampered with, and a lesser grade coin put in the slab, or it could be a counterfeit slab of high quality, etc. CAC is not going to take the business risk, nor should they. Their due diligence ends at the point of suspicion.

 

2nd scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services, in a johncurlis Holder.

CAC can't look up a serial # and verify anything about the coin or the Holder or the producer of the Holder.

CAC thinks there is something not right about the coin and/or the Holder.

CAC now starts a complete review and verification of the coin, running down the Holder producer, creating a database for the producer, trys to determine if the Holder is tampered with and/or a lesser quality coin was inserted than the quality of the coin stated on the Holder, then concludes that the coin is questionable and returns the coin without action.

 

You are advocating that scenario #1 and the added expense and verification is the responsibility of CAC, without reimbursement for the basic service or the added service of counterfeit review, and shifting responsibility from the TPG to CAC.

 

You are advocating in scenario #2 that CAC be the TPG and the 4PG, and without reimbursement for any service.

 

In both scenarios, there is then the lingering question the submitter has: why was it returned? What is wrong? Should CAC then add expense by identifying in some formal method what their conclusion is, without reimbursement?

 

Is that the business Model - service without payment?

The coin comes in for CAC services in an ANACS or an ICG holder; the coin comes back without a bean but with an explanation of CAC's business model; the owner never submits another coin to ANACS or ICG. That's yet another scenario, John.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I am stating that it is NOT their responsibility to assume a valid Holder and cert #...an integral part of the market...without a simple data base that allows a quick check.

And of course we know that the counterfeiters use legitimate slab serial numbers so the database is of limited usefulness. Database says this serial number was used for such and such a coin. Is this it? Have to look at the coin and slab and verify it is what it is supposed to be. Without the database you would have to look at the coin and the slab and verify it was what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verification with or without the database so the existence of the database doesn't matter.

A logical progression of thought and is helpful in illustrating the thrust of my thoughts.

 

It is not their responsibility to assume a valid Holder, and cert #...an integral part of the market....without a simple data base that allows a quick check. You state "...have to look at...and the slab and verify what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verifiication with or without the database, so the database doesn't matter."

 

Doesn't this mean you are requiring CAC to be a counterfeit detection service?

Doesn't this mean that you are requiring CAC to be a TPG?

 

Expanding on your point a little:

 

1st scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services.

CAC looks up the serial #.

The serial # is verified.

The grade assigned and the coin it identifies is verified.

At this point, CAC starts the coin review process.

CAC thinks there is something not quite correct about the Holder.

CAC sends the coin back, without action. It is not their responsibility, nor do they get reimbursed for verifying the validity of the slab. The slab could have been tampered with, and a lesser grade coin put in the slab, or it could be a counterfeit slab of high quality, etc. CAC is not going to take the business risk, nor should they. Their due diligence ends at the point of suspicion.

 

2nd scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services, in a johncurlis Holder.

CAC can't look up a serial # and verify anything about the coin or the Holder or the producer of the Holder.

CAC thinks there is something not right about the coin and/or the Holder.

CAC now starts a complete review and verification of the coin, running down the Holder producer, creating a database for the producer, trys to determine if the Holder is tampered with and/or a lesser quality coin was inserted than the quality of the coin stated on the Holder, then concludes that the coin is questionable and returns the coin without action.

 

You are advocating that scenario #1 and the added expense and verification is the responsibility of CAC, without reimbursement for the basic service or the added service of counterfeit review, and shifting responsibility from the TPG to CAC.

 

You are advocating in scenario #2 that CAC be the TPG and the 4PG, and without reimbursement for any service.

 

In both scenarios, there is then the lingering question the submitter has: why was it returned? What is wrong? Should CAC then add expense by identifying in some formal method what their conclusion is, without reimbursement?

 

Is that the business Model - service without payment?

The coin comes in for CAC services in an ANACS or an ICG holder; the coin comes back without a bean but with an explanation of CAC's business model; the owner never submits another coin to ANACS or ICG. That's yet another scenario, John.

 

 

Now, now, you are reaching, and I give you more credit than that.

Your presented scenario assumes the coin will come back with an explanation.

It does not now, so why would the Model change?

[Kurtdog]

I am stating that it is NOT their responsibility to assume a valid Holder and cert #...an integral part of the market...without a simple data base that allows a quick check.

And of course we know that the counterfeiters use legitimate slab serial numbers so the database is of limited usefulness. Database says this serial number was used for such and such a coin. Is this it? Have to look at the coin and slab and verify it is what it is supposed to be. Without the database you would have to look at the coin and the slab and verify it was what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verification with or without the database so the existence of the database doesn't matter.

A logical progression of thought and is helpful in illustrating the thrust of my thoughts.

 

It is not their responsibility to assume a valid Holder, and cert #...an integral part of the market....without a simple data base that allows a quick check. You state "...have to look at...and the slab and verify what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verifiication with or without the database, so the database doesn't matter."

 

Doesn't this mean you are requiring CAC to be a counterfeit detection service?

Doesn't this mean that you are requiring CAC to be a TPG?

 

Expanding on your point a little:

 

1st scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services.

CAC looks up the serial #.

The serial # is verified.

The grade assigned and the coin it identifies is verified.

At this point, CAC starts the coin review process.

CAC thinks there is something not quite correct about the Holder.

CAC sends the coin back, without action. It is not their responsibility, nor do they get reimbursed for verifying the validity of the slab. The slab could have been tampered with, and a lesser grade coin put in the slab, or it could be a counterfeit slab of high quality, etc. CAC is not going to take the business risk, nor should they. Their due diligence ends at the point of suspicion.

 

2nd scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services, in a johncurlis Holder.

CAC can't look up a serial # and verify anything about the coin or the Holder or the producer of the Holder.

CAC thinks there is something not right about the coin and/or the Holder.

CAC now starts a complete review and verification of the coin, running down the Holder producer, creating a database for the producer, trys to determine if the Holder is tampered with and/or a lesser quality coin was inserted than the quality of the coin stated on the Holder, then concludes that the coin is questionable and returns the coin without action.

 

You are advocating that scenario #1 and the added expense and verification is the responsibility of CAC, without reimbursement for the basic service or the added service of counterfeit review, and shifting responsibility from the TPG to CAC.

 

You are advocating in scenario #2 that CAC be the TPG and the 4PG, and without reimbursement for any service.

 

In both scenarios, there is then the lingering question the submitter has: why was it returned? What is wrong? Should CAC then add expense by identifying in some formal method what their conclusion is, without reimbursement?

 

Is that the business Model - service without payment?

The coin comes in for CAC services in an ANACS or an ICG holder; the coin comes back without a bean but with an explanation of CAC's business model; the owner never submits another coin to ANACS or ICG. That's yet another scenario, John.

Now, now, you are reaching, and I give you more credit than that.

Your presented scenario assumes the coin will come back with an explanation.

It does not now, so why would the Model change?

Well, but if it doesn't, just think of it, that's even worse. That's why I assumed CAC would be up front and disclose. The owner erroneously concludes his coin isn't "A or B" quality when the fact is the holder wasn't of the quality to be in the CAC business model. If the owner knew the business model was that submissions were categorically rejected based on the holders, that would explain the rejection. If not, the owner is erroneously concluding it's his coin. Do you see? It can be fixed. Just say on the website which holders they accept.

[wheat'swheats]

I am stating that it is NOT their responsibility to assume a valid Holder and cert #...an integral part of the market...without a simple data base that allows a quick check.

And of course we know that the counterfeiters use legitimate slab serial numbers so the database is of limited usefulness. Database says this serial number was used for such and such a coin. Is this it? Have to look at the coin and slab and verify it is what it is supposed to be. Without the database you would have to look at the coin and the slab and verify it was what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verification with or without the database so the existence of the database doesn't matter.

A logical progression of thought and is helpful in illustrating the thrust of my thoughts.

 

It is not their responsibility to assume a valid Holder, and cert #...an integral part of the market....without a simple data base that allows a quick check. You state "...have to look at...and the slab and verify what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verifiication with or without the database, so the database doesn't matter."

 

Doesn't this mean you are requiring CAC to be a counterfeit detection service?

Doesn't this mean that you are requiring CAC to be a TPG?

 

Expanding on your point a little:

 

1st scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services.

CAC looks up the serial #.

The serial # is verified.

The grade assigned and the coin it identifies is verified.

At this point, CAC starts the coin review process.

CAC thinks there is something not quite correct about the Holder.

CAC sends the coin back, without action. It is not their responsibility, nor do they get reimbursed for verifying the validity of the slab. The slab could have been tampered with, and a lesser grade coin put in the slab, or it could be a counterfeit slab of high quality, etc. CAC is not going to take the business risk, nor should they. Their due diligence ends at the point of suspicion.

 

2nd scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services, in a johncurlis Holder.

CAC can't look up a serial # and verify anything about the coin or the Holder or the producer of the Holder.

CAC thinks there is something not right about the coin and/or the Holder.

CAC now starts a complete review and verification of the coin, running down the Holder producer, creating a database for the producer, trys to determine if the Holder is tampered with and/or a lesser quality coin was inserted than the quality of the coin stated on the Holder, then concludes that the coin is questionable and returns the coin without action.

 

You are advocating that scenario #1 and the added expense and verification is the responsibility of CAC, without reimbursement for the basic service or the added service of counterfeit review, and shifting responsibility from the TPG to CAC.

 

You are advocating in scenario #2 that CAC be the TPG and the 4PG, and without reimbursement for any service.

 

In both scenarios, there is then the lingering question the submitter has: why was it returned? What is wrong? Should CAC then add expense by identifying in some formal method what their conclusion is, without reimbursement?

 

Is that the business Model - service without payment?

The coin comes in for CAC services in an ANACS or an ICG holder; the coin comes back without a bean but with an explanation of CAC's business model; the owner never submits another coin to ANACS or ICG. That's yet another scenario, John.

Now, now, you are reaching, and I give you more credit than that.

Your presented scenario assumes the coin will come back with an explanation.

It does not now, so why would the Model change?

Well, but if it doesn't, just think of it, that's even worse. That's why I assumed CAC would be up front and disclose. The owner erroneously concludes his coin isn't "A or B" quality when the fact is the holder wasn't of the quality to be in the CAC business model. If the owner knew the business model was that submissions were categorically rejected based on the holders, that would explain the rejection. If not, the owner is erroneously concluding it's his coin. Do you see? It can be fixed. Just say on the website which holders they accept.

The submission is not rejected because of the holder. It is rejected due to the lack of consistency in grading by the issuers of the holder.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I am stating that it is NOT their responsibility to assume a valid Holder and cert #...an integral part of the market...without a simple data base that allows a quick check.

And of course we know that the counterfeiters use legitimate slab serial numbers so the database is of limited usefulness. Database says this serial number was used for such and such a coin. Is this it? Have to look at the coin and slab and verify it is what it is supposed to be. Without the database you would have to look at the coin and the slab and verify it was what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verification with or without the database so the existence of the database doesn't matter.

A logical progression of thought and is helpful in illustrating the thrust of my thoughts.

 

It is not their responsibility to assume a valid Holder, and cert #...an integral part of the market....without a simple data base that allows a quick check. You state "...have to look at...and the slab and verify what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verifiication with or without the database, so the database doesn't matter."

 

Doesn't this mean you are requiring CAC to be a counterfeit detection service?

Doesn't this mean that you are requiring CAC to be a TPG?

 

Expanding on your point a little:

 

1st scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services.

CAC looks up the serial #.

The serial # is verified.

The grade assigned and the coin it identifies is verified.

At this point, CAC starts the coin review process.

CAC thinks there is something not quite correct about the Holder.

CAC sends the coin back, without action. It is not their responsibility, nor do they get reimbursed for verifying the validity of the slab. The slab could have been tampered with, and a lesser grade coin put in the slab, or it could be a counterfeit slab of high quality, etc. CAC is not going to take the business risk, nor should they. Their due diligence ends at the point of suspicion.

 

2nd scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services, in a johncurlis Holder.

CAC can't look up a serial # and verify anything about the coin or the Holder or the producer of the Holder.

CAC thinks there is something not right about the coin and/or the Holder.

CAC now starts a complete review and verification of the coin, running down the Holder producer, creating a database for the producer, trys to determine if the Holder is tampered with and/or a lesser quality coin was inserted than the quality of the coin stated on the Holder, then concludes that the coin is questionable and returns the coin without action.

 

You are advocating that scenario #1 and the added expense and verification is the responsibility of CAC, without reimbursement for the basic service or the added service of counterfeit review, and shifting responsibility from the TPG to CAC.

 

You are advocating in scenario #2 that CAC be the TPG and the 4PG, and without reimbursement for any service.

 

In both scenarios, there is then the lingering question the submitter has: why was it returned? What is wrong? Should CAC then add expense by identifying in some formal method what their conclusion is, without reimbursement?

 

Is that the business Model - service without payment?

The coin comes in for CAC services in an ANACS or an ICG holder; the coin comes back without a bean but with an explanation of CAC's business model; the owner never submits another coin to ANACS or ICG. That's yet another scenario, John.

Now, now, you are reaching, and I give you more credit than that.

Your presented scenario assumes the coin will come back with an explanation.

It does not now, so why would the Model change?

Well, but if it doesn't, just think of it, that's even worse. That's why I assumed CAC would be up front and disclose. The owner erroneously concludes his coin isn't "A or B" quality when the fact is the holder wasn't of the quality to be in the CAC business model. If the owner knew the business model was that submissions were categorically rejected based on the holders, that would explain the rejection. If not, the owner is erroneously concluding it's his coin. Do you see? It can be fixed. Just say on the website which holders they accept.

The submission is not rejected because of the holder. It is rejected due to the lack of consistency in grading by the issuers of the holder.

 

I think you almost got it.....

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I am stating that it is NOT their responsibility to assume a valid Holder and cert #...an integral part of the market...without a simple data base that allows a quick check.

And of course we know that the counterfeiters use legitimate slab serial numbers so the database is of limited usefulness. Database says this serial number was used for such and such a coin. Is this it? Have to look at the coin and slab and verify it is what it is supposed to be. Without the database you would have to look at the coin and the slab and verify it was what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verification with or without the database so the existence of the database doesn't matter.

A logical progression of thought and is helpful in illustrating the thrust of my thoughts.

 

It is not their responsibility to assume a valid Holder, and cert #...an integral part of the market....without a simple data base that allows a quick check. You state "...have to look at...and the slab and verify what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verifiication with or without the database, so the database doesn't matter."

 

Doesn't this mean you are requiring CAC to be a counterfeit detection service?

Doesn't this mean that you are requiring CAC to be a TPG?

 

Expanding on your point a little:

 

1st scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services.

CAC looks up the serial #.

The serial # is verified.

The grade assigned and the coin it identifies is verified.

At this point, CAC starts the coin review process.

CAC thinks there is something not quite correct about the Holder.

CAC sends the coin back, without action. It is not their responsibility, nor do they get reimbursed for verifying the validity of the slab. The slab could have been tampered with, and a lesser grade coin put in the slab, or it could be a counterfeit slab of high quality, etc. CAC is not going to take the business risk, nor should they. Their due diligence ends at the point of suspicion.

 

2nd scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services, in a johncurlis Holder.

CAC can't look up a serial # and verify anything about the coin or the Holder or the producer of the Holder.

CAC thinks there is something not right about the coin and/or the Holder.

CAC now starts a complete review and verification of the coin, running down the Holder producer, creating a database for the producer, trys to determine if the Holder is tampered with and/or a lesser quality coin was inserted than the quality of the coin stated on the Holder, then concludes that the coin is questionable and returns the coin without action.

 

You are advocating that scenario #1 and the added expense and verification is the responsibility of CAC, without reimbursement for the basic service or the added service of counterfeit review, and shifting responsibility from the TPG to CAC.

 

You are advocating in scenario #2 that CAC be the TPG and the 4PG, and without reimbursement for any service.

 

In both scenarios, there is then the lingering question the submitter has: why was it returned? What is wrong? Should CAC then add expense by identifying in some formal method what their conclusion is, without reimbursement?

 

Is that the business Model - service without payment?

The coin comes in for CAC services in an ANACS or an ICG holder; the coin comes back without a bean but with an explanation of CAC's business model; the owner never submits another coin to ANACS or ICG. That's yet another scenario, John.

Now, now, you are reaching, and I give you more credit than that.

Your presented scenario assumes the coin will come back with an explanation.

It does not now, so why would the Model change?

Well, but if it doesn't, just think of it, that's even worse. That's why I assumed CAC would be up front and disclose. The owner erroneously concludes his coin isn't "A or B" quality when the fact is the holder wasn't of the quality to be in the CAC business model. If the owner knew the business model was that submissions were categorically rejected based on the holders, that would explain the rejection. If not, the owner is erroneously concluding it's his coin. Do you see? It can be fixed. Just say on the website which holders they accept.

 

I don't think it is worse.

 

The free market and the public are very astute in deciding and proclaiming the Model as acceptable, or not.

 

There will always be a minority that object to a business Model, for various reasons.

 

When the minority becomes a majority, the Model changes to accommodate the free market and the public. Until that time, the Model is considered as fulfilling its intended purpose.

[Kurtdog]

I am stating that it is NOT their responsibility to assume a valid Holder and cert #...an integral part of the market...without a simple data base that allows a quick check.

And of course we know that the counterfeiters use legitimate slab serial numbers so the database is of limited usefulness. Database says this serial number was used for such and such a coin. Is this it? Have to look at the coin and slab and verify it is what it is supposed to be. Without the database you would have to look at the coin and the slab and verify it was what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verification with or without the database so the existence of the database doesn't matter.

A logical progression of thought and is helpful in illustrating the thrust of my thoughts.

 

It is not their responsibility to assume a valid Holder, and cert #...an integral part of the market....without a simple data base that allows a quick check. You state "...have to look at...and the slab and verify what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verifiication with or without the database, so the database doesn't matter."

 

Doesn't this mean you are requiring CAC to be a counterfeit detection service?

Doesn't this mean that you are requiring CAC to be a TPG?

 

Expanding on your point a little:

 

1st scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services.

CAC looks up the serial #.

The serial # is verified.

The grade assigned and the coin it identifies is verified.

At this point, CAC starts the coin review process.

CAC thinks there is something not quite correct about the Holder.

CAC sends the coin back, without action. It is not their responsibility, nor do they get reimbursed for verifying the validity of the slab. The slab could have been tampered with, and a lesser grade coin put in the slab, or it could be a counterfeit slab of high quality, etc. CAC is not going to take the business risk, nor should they. Their due diligence ends at the point of suspicion.

 

2nd scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services, in a johncurlis Holder.

CAC can't look up a serial # and verify anything about the coin or the Holder or the producer of the Holder.

CAC thinks there is something not right about the coin and/or the Holder.

CAC now starts a complete review and verification of the coin, running down the Holder producer, creating a database for the producer, trys to determine if the Holder is tampered with and/or a lesser quality coin was inserted than the quality of the coin stated on the Holder, then concludes that the coin is questionable and returns the coin without action.

 

You are advocating that scenario #1 and the added expense and verification is the responsibility of CAC, without reimbursement for the basic service or the added service of counterfeit review, and shifting responsibility from the TPG to CAC.

 

You are advocating in scenario #2 that CAC be the TPG and the 4PG, and without reimbursement for any service.

 

In both scenarios, there is then the lingering question the submitter has: why was it returned? What is wrong? Should CAC then add expense by identifying in some formal method what their conclusion is, without reimbursement?

 

Is that the business Model - service without payment?

The coin comes in for CAC services in an ANACS or an ICG holder; the coin comes back without a bean but with an explanation of CAC's business model; the owner never submits another coin to ANACS or ICG. That's yet another scenario, John.

Now, now, you are reaching, and I give you more credit than that.

Your presented scenario assumes the coin will come back with an explanation.

It does not now, so why would the Model change?

Well, but if it doesn't, just think of it, that's even worse. That's why I assumed CAC would be up front and disclose. The owner erroneously concludes his coin isn't "A or B" quality when the fact is the holder wasn't of the quality to be in the CAC business model. If the owner knew the business model was that submissions were categorically rejected based on the holders, that would explain the rejection. If not, the owner is erroneously concluding it's his coin. Do you see? It can be fixed. Just say on the website which holders they accept.

The submission is not rejected because of the holder. It is rejected due to the lack of consistency in grading by the issuers of the holder.

I think you almost got it.....

How does the owner know that, that's what I'm asking. How does he or she know the rejection isn't on the quality of the coin?

[wheat'swheats]

I am stating that it is NOT their responsibility to assume a valid Holder and cert #...an integral part of the market...without a simple data base that allows a quick check.

And of course we know that the counterfeiters use legitimate slab serial numbers so the database is of limited usefulness. Database says this serial number was used for such and such a coin. Is this it? Have to look at the coin and slab and verify it is what it is supposed to be. Without the database you would have to look at the coin and the slab and verify it was what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verification with or without the database so the existence of the database doesn't matter.

A logical progression of thought and is helpful in illustrating the thrust of my thoughts.

 

It is not their responsibility to assume a valid Holder, and cert #...an integral part of the market....without a simple data base that allows a quick check. You state "...have to look at...and the slab and verify what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verifiication with or without the database, so the database doesn't matter."

 

Doesn't this mean you are requiring CAC to be a counterfeit detection service?

Doesn't this mean that you are requiring CAC to be a TPG?

 

Expanding on your point a little:

 

1st scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services.

CAC looks up the serial #.

The serial # is verified.

The grade assigned and the coin it identifies is verified.

At this point, CAC starts the coin review process.

CAC thinks there is something not quite correct about the Holder.

CAC sends the coin back, without action. It is not their responsibility, nor do they get reimbursed for verifying the validity of the slab. The slab could have been tampered with, and a lesser grade coin put in the slab, or it could be a counterfeit slab of high quality, etc. CAC is not going to take the business risk, nor should they. Their due diligence ends at the point of suspicion.

 

2nd scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services, in a johncurlis Holder.

CAC can't look up a serial # and verify anything about the coin or the Holder or the producer of the Holder.

CAC thinks there is something not right about the coin and/or the Holder.

CAC now starts a complete review and verification of the coin, running down the Holder producer, creating a database for the producer, trys to determine if the Holder is tampered with and/or a lesser quality coin was inserted than the quality of the coin stated on the Holder, then concludes that the coin is questionable and returns the coin without action.

 

You are advocating that scenario #1 and the added expense and verification is the responsibility of CAC, without reimbursement for the basic service or the added service of counterfeit review, and shifting responsibility from the TPG to CAC.

 

You are advocating in scenario #2 that CAC be the TPG and the 4PG, and without reimbursement for any service.

 

In both scenarios, there is then the lingering question the submitter has: why was it returned? What is wrong? Should CAC then add expense by identifying in some formal method what their conclusion is, without reimbursement?

 

Is that the business Model - service without payment?

The coin comes in for CAC services in an ANACS or an ICG holder; the coin comes back without a bean but with an explanation of CAC's business model; the owner never submits another coin to ANACS or ICG. That's yet another scenario, John.

Now, now, you are reaching, and I give you more credit than that.

Your presented scenario assumes the coin will come back with an explanation.

It does not now, so why would the Model change?

Well, but if it doesn't, just think of it, that's even worse. That's why I assumed CAC would be up front and disclose. The owner erroneously concludes his coin isn't "A or B" quality when the fact is the holder wasn't of the quality to be in the CAC business model. If the owner knew the business model was that submissions were categorically rejected based on the holders, that would explain the rejection. If not, the owner is erroneously concluding it's his coin. Do you see? It can be fixed. Just say on the website which holders they accept.

The submission is not rejected because of the holder. It is rejected due to the lack of consistency in grading by the issuers of the holder.

I think you almost got it.....

How does the owner know that, that's what I'm asking. How does he or she know the rejection isn't on the quality of the coin?

By reading what holders and coins CAC accepts. It is stated clearly on the home page.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I am stating that it is NOT their responsibility to assume a valid Holder and cert #...an integral part of the market...without a simple data base that allows a quick check.

And of course we know that the counterfeiters use legitimate slab serial numbers so the database is of limited usefulness. Database says this serial number was used for such and such a coin. Is this it? Have to look at the coin and slab and verify it is what it is supposed to be. Without the database you would have to look at the coin and the slab and verify it was what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verification with or without the database so the existence of the database doesn't matter.

A logical progression of thought and is helpful in illustrating the thrust of my thoughts.

 

It is not their responsibility to assume a valid Holder, and cert #...an integral part of the market....without a simple data base that allows a quick check. You state "...have to look at...and the slab and verify what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verifiication with or without the database, so the database doesn't matter."

 

Doesn't this mean you are requiring CAC to be a counterfeit detection service?

Doesn't this mean that you are requiring CAC to be a TPG?

 

Expanding on your point a little:

 

1st scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services.

CAC looks up the serial #.

The serial # is verified.

The grade assigned and the coin it identifies is verified.

At this point, CAC starts the coin review process.

CAC thinks there is something not quite correct about the Holder.

CAC sends the coin back, without action. It is not their responsibility, nor do they get reimbursed for verifying the validity of the slab. The slab could have been tampered with, and a lesser grade coin put in the slab, or it could be a counterfeit slab of high quality, etc. CAC is not going to take the business risk, nor should they. Their due diligence ends at the point of suspicion.

 

2nd scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services, in a johncurlis Holder.

CAC can't look up a serial # and verify anything about the coin or the Holder or the producer of the Holder.

CAC thinks there is something not right about the coin and/or the Holder.

CAC now starts a complete review and verification of the coin, running down the Holder producer, creating a database for the producer, trys to determine if the Holder is tampered with and/or a lesser quality coin was inserted than the quality of the coin stated on the Holder, then concludes that the coin is questionable and returns the coin without action.

 

You are advocating that scenario #1 and the added expense and verification is the responsibility of CAC, without reimbursement for the basic service or the added service of counterfeit review, and shifting responsibility from the TPG to CAC.

 

You are advocating in scenario #2 that CAC be the TPG and the 4PG, and without reimbursement for any service.

 

In both scenarios, there is then the lingering question the submitter has: why was it returned? What is wrong? Should CAC then add expense by identifying in some formal method what their conclusion is, without reimbursement?

 

Is that the business Model - service without payment?

The coin comes in for CAC services in an ANACS or an ICG holder; the coin comes back without a bean but with an explanation of CAC's business model; the owner never submits another coin to ANACS or ICG. That's yet another scenario, John.

Now, now, you are reaching, and I give you more credit than that.

Your presented scenario assumes the coin will come back with an explanation.

It does not now, so why would the Model change?

Well, but if it doesn't, just think of it, that's even worse. That's why I assumed CAC would be up front and disclose. The owner erroneously concludes his coin isn't "A or B" quality when the fact is the holder wasn't of the quality to be in the CAC business model. If the owner knew the business model was that submissions were categorically rejected based on the holders, that would explain the rejection. If not, the owner is erroneously concluding it's his coin. Do you see? It can be fixed. Just say on the website which holders they accept.

The submission is not rejected because of the holder. It is rejected due to the lack of consistency in grading by the issuers of the holder.

I think you almost got it.....

How does the owner know that, that's what I'm asking. How does he or she know the rejection isn't on the quality of the coin?

By reading what holders and coins CAC accepts. It is stated clearly on the home page.

 

Now you have it all.

 

Business Model.

[bochiman]

By reading what holders and coins CAC accepts. It is stated clearly on the home page.

 

 

BINGO!

 

Submitters to CAC are either supposed to be "Dealers" or "Advanced Collectors".

Not just anyone who wants to.

 

As such, it is likely assumed that they are smart enough, and/or informed enough, to read and learn what is supposed to be submitted, how it is supposed to be submitted, and (hopefully) of the quality to be submitted so neither party wastes a lot of time/money sending the coins in and sending them back.

 

It's their business, it's their model to define, and they will either sink, or swim, on the merits of the business the way they run it.

[Conder101]

I'm not advocating either scenario, just that in BOTH cases they still have to examine the coin and the slab, and that the review of the database in the first scenario doesn't really verify anything because it doesn't prove that the coin/holder in the database is the same coin/holder in hand. (The NGC database comes a little closer because if the coin has been slabbed in the last five years there is at least a picture of it. But often not a good enough image to conclusively prove it is the same coin.)

 

So once you get past the mostly meaningless database review both scenarios are the same. So the fact that the johncurlis holder doesn't have a database doesn't matter.

 

So you are still with an ad that says the frame/holder doesn't matter, only the quality of the coin matters, but they will only look at coin in "certain" frames/holders, so the quality of the coin is only part of what matters.

[AnkurJ]

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.

 

 

I think its very possible. CAC is a very young company and has not achieved the level of acceptance that the major TPG's have. Will it ever? Time will tell. So it does not surprise me that many high end coins and collections exist that have never been to CAC or a TPG. The Newman collection was one of those. Until the time came to sell, all of those amazing coins were raw!

[MarkFeld]

I am stating that it is NOT their responsibility to assume a valid Holder and cert #...an integral part of the market...without a simple data base that allows a quick check.

And of course we know that the counterfeiters use legitimate slab serial numbers so the database is of limited usefulness. Database says this serial number was used for such and such a coin. Is this it? Have to look at the coin and slab and verify it is what it is supposed to be. Without the database you would have to look at the coin and the slab and verify it was what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verification with or without the database so the existence of the database doesn't matter.

A logical progression of thought and is helpful in illustrating the thrust of my thoughts.

 

It is not their responsibility to assume a valid Holder, and cert #...an integral part of the market....without a simple data base that allows a quick check. You state "...have to look at...and the slab and verify what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verifiication with or without the database, so the database doesn't matter."

 

Doesn't this mean you are requiring CAC to be a counterfeit detection service?

Doesn't this mean that you are requiring CAC to be a TPG?

 

Expanding on your point a little:

 

1st scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services.

CAC looks up the serial #.

The serial # is verified.

The grade assigned and the coin it identifies is verified.

At this point, CAC starts the coin review process.

CAC thinks there is something not quite correct about the Holder.

CAC sends the coin back, without action. It is not their responsibility, nor do they get reimbursed for verifying the validity of the slab. The slab could have been tampered with, and a lesser grade coin put in the slab, or it could be a counterfeit slab of high quality, etc. CAC is not going to take the business risk, nor should they. Their due diligence ends at the point of suspicion.

 

2nd scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services, in a johncurlis Holder.

CAC can't look up a serial # and verify anything about the coin or the Holder or the producer of the Holder.

CAC thinks there is something not right about the coin and/or the Holder.

CAC now starts a complete review and verification of the coin, running down the Holder producer, creating a database for the producer, trys to determine if the Holder is tampered with and/or a lesser quality coin was inserted than the quality of the coin stated on the Holder, then concludes that the coin is questionable and returns the coin without action.

 

You are advocating that scenario #1 and the added expense and verification is the responsibility of CAC, without reimbursement for the basic service or the added service of counterfeit review, and shifting responsibility from the TPG to CAC.

 

You are advocating in scenario #2 that CAC be the TPG and the 4PG, and without reimbursement for any service.

 

In both scenarios, there is then the lingering question the submitter has: why was it returned? What is wrong? Should CAC then add expense by identifying in some formal method what their conclusion is, without reimbursement?

 

Is that the business Model - service without payment?

The coin comes in for CAC services in an ANACS or an ICG holder; the coin comes back without a bean but with an explanation of CAC's business model; the owner never submits another coin to ANACS or ICG. That's yet another scenario, John.

Now, now, you are reaching, and I give you more credit than that.

Your presented scenario assumes the coin will come back with an explanation.

It does not now, so why would the Model change?

Well, but if it doesn't, just think of it, that's even worse. That's why I assumed CAC would be up front and disclose. The owner erroneously concludes his coin isn't "A or B" quality when the fact is the holder wasn't of the quality to be in the CAC business model. If the owner knew the business model was that submissions were categorically rejected based on the holders, that would explain the rejection. If not, the owner is erroneously concluding it's his coin. Do you see? It can be fixed. Just say on the website which holders they accept.

The submission is not rejected because of the holder. It is rejected due to the lack of consistency in grading by the issuers of the holder.

I think you almost got it.....

How does the owner know that, that's what I'm asking. How does he or she know the rejection isn't on the quality of the coin?

By reading what holders and coins CAC accepts. It is stated clearly on the home page.

 

Additionally, last time I looked, the CAC submission invoice had a column in which the submitter is supposed to list whether the coin is NGC or PCGS.

[wheat'swheats]

I am stating that it is NOT their responsibility to assume a valid Holder and cert #...an integral part of the market...without a simple data base that allows a quick check.

And of course we know that the counterfeiters use legitimate slab serial numbers so the database is of limited usefulness. Database says this serial number was used for such and such a coin. Is this it? Have to look at the coin and slab and verify it is what it is supposed to be. Without the database you would have to look at the coin and the slab and verify it was what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verification with or without the database so the existence of the database doesn't matter.

A logical progression of thought and is helpful in illustrating the thrust of my thoughts.

 

It is not their responsibility to assume a valid Holder, and cert #...an integral part of the market....without a simple data base that allows a quick check. You state "...have to look at...and the slab and verify what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verifiication with or without the database, so the database doesn't matter."

 

Doesn't this mean you are requiring CAC to be a counterfeit detection service?

Doesn't this mean that you are requiring CAC to be a TPG?

 

Expanding on your point a little:

 

1st scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services.

CAC looks up the serial #.

The serial # is verified.

The grade assigned and the coin it identifies is verified.

At this point, CAC starts the coin review process.

CAC thinks there is something not quite correct about the Holder.

CAC sends the coin back, without action. It is not their responsibility, nor do they get reimbursed for verifying the validity of the slab. The slab could have been tampered with, and a lesser grade coin put in the slab, or it could be a counterfeit slab of high quality, etc. CAC is not going to take the business risk, nor should they. Their due diligence ends at the point of suspicion.

 

2nd scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services, in a johncurlis Holder.

CAC can't look up a serial # and verify anything about the coin or the Holder or the producer of the Holder.

CAC thinks there is something not right about the coin and/or the Holder.

CAC now starts a complete review and verification of the coin, running down the Holder producer, creating a database for the producer, trys to determine if the Holder is tampered with and/or a lesser quality coin was inserted than the quality of the coin stated on the Holder, then concludes that the coin is questionable and returns the coin without action.

 

You are advocating that scenario #1 and the added expense and verification is the responsibility of CAC, without reimbursement for the basic service or the added service of counterfeit review, and shifting responsibility from the TPG to CAC.

 

You are advocating in scenario #2 that CAC be the TPG and the 4PG, and without reimbursement for any service.

 

In both scenarios, there is then the lingering question the submitter has: why was it returned? What is wrong? Should CAC then add expense by identifying in some formal method what their conclusion is, without reimbursement?

 

Is that the business Model - service without payment?

The coin comes in for CAC services in an ANACS or an ICG holder; the coin comes back without a bean but with an explanation of CAC's business model; the owner never submits another coin to ANACS or ICG. That's yet another scenario, John.

Now, now, you are reaching, and I give you more credit than that.

Your presented scenario assumes the coin will come back with an explanation.

It does not now, so why would the Model change?

Well, but if it doesn't, just think of it, that's even worse. That's why I assumed CAC would be up front and disclose. The owner erroneously concludes his coin isn't "A or B" quality when the fact is the holder wasn't of the quality to be in the CAC business model. If the owner knew the business model was that submissions were categorically rejected based on the holders, that would explain the rejection. If not, the owner is erroneously concluding it's his coin. Do you see? It can be fixed. Just say on the website which holders they accept.

The submission is not rejected because of the holder. It is rejected due to the lack of consistency in grading by the issuers of the holder.

I think you almost got it.....

How does the owner know that, that's what I'm asking. How does he or she know the rejection isn't on the quality of the coin?

By reading what holders and coins CAC accepts. It is stated clearly on the home page.

 

Additionally, last time I looked, the CAC submission invoice had a column in which the submitter is supposed to list whether the coin is NGC or PCGS.

Plus the grade and value

[RWB]

I am stating that it is NOT their responsibility to assume a valid Holder and cert #...an integral part of the market...without a simple data base that allows a quick check.

And of course we know that the counterfeiters use legitimate slab serial numbers so the database is of limited usefulness. Database says this serial number was used for such and such a coin. Is this it? Have to look at the coin and slab and verify it is what it is supposed to be. Without the database you would have to look at the coin and the slab and verify it was what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verification with or without the database so the existence of the database doesn't matter.

A logical progression of thought and is helpful in illustrating the thrust of my thoughts.

 

It is not their responsibility to assume a valid Holder, and cert #...an integral part of the market....without a simple data base that allows a quick check. You state "...have to look at...and the slab and verify what it is supposed to be. You need to do the same verifiication with or without the database, so the database doesn't matter."

 

Doesn't this mean you are requiring CAC to be a counterfeit detection service?

Doesn't this mean that you are requiring CAC to be a TPG?

 

Expanding on your point a little:

 

1st scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services.

CAC looks up the serial #.

The serial # is verified.

The grade assigned and the coin it identifies is verified.

At this point, CAC starts the coin review process.

CAC thinks there is something not quite correct about the Holder.

CAC sends the coin back, without action. It is not their responsibility, nor do they get reimbursed for verifying the validity of the slab. The slab could have been tampered with, and a lesser grade coin put in the slab, or it could be a counterfeit slab of high quality, etc. CAC is not going to take the business risk, nor should they. Their due diligence ends at the point of suspicion.

 

2nd scenario:

The coin comes in for CAC services, in a johncurlis Holder.

CAC can't look up a serial # and verify anything about the coin or the Holder or the producer of the Holder.

CAC thinks there is something not right about the coin and/or the Holder.

CAC now starts a complete review and verification of the coin, running down the Holder producer, creating a database for the producer, trys to determine if the Holder is tampered with and/or a lesser quality coin was inserted than the quality of the coin stated on the Holder, then concludes that the coin is questionable and returns the coin without action.

 

You are advocating that scenario #1 and the added expense and verification is the responsibility of CAC, without reimbursement for the basic service or the added service of counterfeit review, and shifting responsibility from the TPG to CAC.

 

You are advocating in scenario #2 that CAC be the TPG and the 4PG, and without reimbursement for any service.

 

In both scenarios, there is then the lingering question the submitter has: why was it returned? What is wrong? Should CAC then add expense by identifying in some formal method what their conclusion is, without reimbursement?

 

Is that the business Model - service without payment?

The coin comes in for CAC services in an ANACS or an ICG holder; the coin comes back without a bean but with an explanation of CAC's business model; the owner never submits another coin to ANACS or ICG. That's yet another scenario, John.

Now, now, you are reaching, and I give you more credit than that.

Your presented scenario assumes the coin will come back with an explanation.

It does not now, so why would the Model change?

Well, but if it doesn't, just think of it, that's even worse. That's why I assumed CAC would be up front and disclose. The owner erroneously concludes his coin isn't "A or B" quality when the fact is the holder wasn't of the quality to be in the CAC business model. If the owner knew the business model was that submissions were categorically rejected based on the holders, that would explain the rejection. If not, the owner is erroneously concluding it's his coin. Do you see? It can be fixed. Just say on the website which holders they accept.

The submission is not rejected because of the holder. It is rejected due to the lack of consistency in grading by the issuers of the holder.

I think you almost got it.....

How does the owner know that, that's what I'm asking. How does he or she know the rejection isn't on the quality of the coin?

By reading what holders and coins CAC accepts. It is stated clearly on the home page.

 

Additionally, last time I looked, the CAC submission invoice had a column in which the submitter is supposed to list whether the coin is NGC or PCGS.

Plus the grade and value

 

Hmmm....how many levels of quotations before the words vanish for lack of space?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Infinity......

[FishyOne]

Infinity......

 

We's gettin' damn close to infinity Mr. Curlis, damn close.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Infinity......

 

We's gettin' damn close to infinity Mr. Curlis, damn close.

 

 

I did notice the propensity toward that direction.

[Kurtdog]

How does the owner know that, that's what I'm asking. How does he or she know the rejection isn't on the quality of the coin?

By reading what holders and coins CAC accepts. It is stated clearly on the home page.

OK, I looked, I can't find anything on what holders they accept. I do see references on the site to PCGS and NGC holders. My coin is in an ICG holder, e.g. I don't see anything on the site that rules-in only PCGS and NGC holders.

[MarkFeld]

How does the owner know that, that's what I'm asking. How does he or she know the rejection isn't on the quality of the coin?

By reading what holders and coins CAC accepts. It is stated clearly on the home page.

OK, I looked, I can't find anything on what holders they accept. I do see references on the site to PCGS and NGC holders. My coin is in an ICG holder, e.g. I don't see anything on the site that rules-in only PCGS and NGC holders.

 

As a hypothetical dealer or advanced collector, poised to submit to CAC, have you ever heard of or seen a non NGC or PCGS coin with a CAC sticker?

[jom]

How does the owner know that, that's what I'm asking. How does he or she know the rejection isn't on the quality of the coin?

By reading what holders and coins CAC accepts. It is stated clearly on the home page.

OK, I looked, I can't find anything on what holders they accept. I do see references on the site to PCGS and NGC holders. My coin is in an ICG holder, e.g. I don't see anything on the site that rules-in only PCGS and NGC holders.

 

Why not just call and ask them?

 

jom

[wheat'swheats]

How does the owner know that, that's what I'm asking. How does he or she know the rejection isn't on the quality of the coin?

By reading what holders and coins CAC accepts. It is stated clearly on the home page.

OK, I looked, I can't find anything on what holders they accept. I do see references on the site to PCGS and NGC holders. My coin is in an ICG holder, e.g. I don't see anything on the site that rules-in only PCGS and NGC holders.

Look under Faqs #6

[Kurtdog]

How does the owner know that, that's what I'm asking. How does he or she know the rejection isn't on the quality of the coin?

By reading what holders and coins CAC accepts. It is stated clearly on the home page.

OK, I looked, I can't find anything on what holders they accept. I do see references on the site to PCGS and NGC holders. My coin is in an ICG holder, e.g. I don't see anything on the site that rules-in only PCGS and NGC holders.

Look under Faqs #6

Yes, I saw that. I was looking for where it says CAC only stickers PCGS and NGC holders. I see all over where it says what it means when it stickers those holders. I don't see anything that says those are the only holders it stickers.

[wheat'swheats]

How does the owner know that, that's what I'm asking. How does he or she know the rejection isn't on the quality of the coin?

By reading what holders and coins CAC accepts. It is stated clearly on the home page.

OK, I looked, I can't find anything on what holders they accept. I do see references on the site to PCGS and NGC holders. My coin is in an ICG holder, e.g. I don't see anything on the site that rules-in only PCGS and NGC holders.

Look under Faqs #6

Yes, I saw that. I was looking for where it says CAC only stickers PCGS and NGC holders. I see all over where it says what it means when it stickers those holders. I don't see anything that says those are the only holders it stickers.

If you are really that slow and thick and are not just playing games then you are wasting my time and everybody here on this forum. I am through trying to explain to some one who is just trying to create problems as his sole source of entertainment

[FishyOne]

How does the owner know that, that's what I'm asking. How does he or she know the rejection isn't on the quality of the coin?

By reading what holders and coins CAC accepts. It is stated clearly on the home page.

OK, I looked, I can't find anything on what holders they accept. I do see references on the site to PCGS and NGC holders. My coin is in an ICG holder, e.g. I don't see anything on the site that rules-in only PCGS and NGC holders.

Look under Faqs #6

Yes, I saw that. I was looking for where it says CAC only stickers PCGS and NGC holders. I see all over where it says what it means when it stickers those holders. I don't see anything that says those are the only holders it stickers.

 

I don't see it on the website either. The membership folder I received a few years ago made it plain. I believe there was a document in it that stated that only PCGS and NGC certified coins are accepted. (It's at the bottom of my filing cabinet or I'd tell you for sure.) I do know CAC's submission forms clearly label a column that the submitter fills in as PCGS or NGC. There are no other options.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Infinity....

[MJ]

How does the owner know that, that's what I'm asking. How does he or she know the rejection isn't on the quality of the coin?

By reading what holders and coins CAC accepts. It is stated clearly on the home page.

OK, I looked, I can't find anything on what holders they accept. I do see references on the site to PCGS and NGC holders. My coin is in an ICG holder, e.g. I don't see anything on the site that rules-in only PCGS and NGC holders.

Look under Faqs #6

Yes, I saw that. I was looking for where it says CAC only stickers PCGS and NGC holders. I see all over where it says what it means when it stickers those holders. I don't see anything that says those are the only holders it stickers.

If you are really that slow and thick and are not just playing games then you are wasting my time and everybody here on this forum. I am through trying to explain to some one who is just trying to create problems as his sole source of entertainment

 

I think he is used to billable hours.

 

MJ