Blast White, weak obverse strike, and CACed

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

reading this thread is grueling.......

 

Then don't, and make certain to gather stones to throw at all consumer advocates.

 

In a serious vein, it is the advocate and product questioner that usually leads to a better product.

 

But why would anyone possibly want that? Why have computers? We had perfectly capable Monks with pens, after all.

[Kurtdog]

reading this thread is grueling.......

Certainly many of the replies in this thread are more thought-provoking and intellectually-challenging than those, for example, in a thread of the form, "Hey, gang, do you think this color is really, really pretty?"

[Afterword]

If the main issue with dipping is its effect on luster, and coins are already being graded, in part, on the quality of the luster, where is the need to add dipping to the grading equation? It would seem to be factored into the grading equation automatically, by virtue of the particulars that define the process of grading.

 

Unless, I am missing something.

 

Yes, you are.

 

It is the statement of "within reason" without clarity of definition. We are not discussing the TPG. We are discussing the TPG Reviewer, if you will.

 

If enhancing is factored into the opinion, an opinion on which the public relies, then disclose this. The main issue is not only luster.

 

To me, dipping, by virtue of its acceptance by TPGs and CAC as a legitimate practice, becomes a non-issue in terms of grading or grading the grader disclosure. It becomes just one of many factors that can have an adverse effect on luster.

 

If the question had been about bag marks, instead of dipping, the answer might very well have been the same "within reason" response.

 

As for enhancement, collectors and dealers enhance coins by the simple act of protecting them from the environment. This form of enhancement prevents the coin's natural evolution of decay, while dipping reverses its natural evolution of decay, but both serve the same end. They are also both considered to be acceptable practices. To me, neither requires discloser.

[orifdoc]

Wow. Big thread.

 

Perhaps potential buyers of coins should be able to determine some things for themselves.

 

There exists a population of coins which have absolutely certainly been dipped, and another small subset which have absolutely never been dipped. The dipping status of coins in these groups should be more or less apparent to everyone. Everything else will land in the much larger "can't be sure" category. Having a grading company tell us that isn't terribly helpful.

 

Grading, regardless of format, is subjective, imprecise, and poorly reproducible. Even if the TPG's game us detailed descriptions of a coin's originality, crustiness factor, quality of surfaces, completeness of strike, depth of luster, or attractiveness of toning, it's still just an OPINION of such.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

If the main issue with dipping is its effect on luster, and coins are already being graded, in part, on the quality of the luster, where is the need to add dipping to the grading equation? It would seem to be factored into the grading equation automatically, by virtue of the particulars that define the process of grading.

 

Unless, I am missing something.

 

Yes, you are.

 

It is the statement of "within reason" without clarity of definition. We are not discussing the TPG. We are discussing the TPG Reviewer, if you will.

 

If enhancing is factored into the opinion, an opinion on which the public relies, then disclose this. The main issue is not only luster.

 

To me, dipping, by virtue of its acceptance by TPGs and CAC as a legitimate practice, becomes a non-issue in terms of grading or grading the grader disclosure. It becomes just one of many factors that can have an adverse effect on luster.

 

If the question had been about bag marks, instead of dipping, the answer might very well have been the same "within reason" response.

 

As for enhancement, collectors and dealers enhance coins by the simple act of protecting them from the environment. This form of enhancement prevents the coin's natural evolution of decay, while dipping reverses its natural evolution of decay, but both serve the same end. They are also both considered to be acceptable practices. To me, neither requires discloser.

 

I appreciate your input.

 

Could you specify where the CAC Entity states with clarity and without obfuscation the practice of enhancing a coin 'within reason" is acceptable to CAC and is considered in their review of the coin? Can you direct me to where the definition/clarity of " within reason" is clearly stated by the Entity?? Other than the Member that relayed this point in this Thread, I have never seen anywhere in writing that it is acceptable "within reason". Why not? I have heard, many, many times, and read many, many times, commentary alluding to the rejection or non-branding of a coin by CAC must have been because they thought it was enhanced. I have read and heard many, many times the comment that a coin that was branded by the Entity was not enhanced. That is the 97% level of Trust, encouraged by the Entity by their silence and never discouraged by clarity.

 

Protecting from the Environment? I call Baloney. What form of enhancement are you referring to, and what is it you are trying to link to the issue at hand: the silence about the issue by the Entity. I think it is possible you are confusing terminology and the issue being discussed.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Wow. Big thread.

 

Perhaps potential buyers of coins should be able to determine some things for themselves.

 

There exists a population of coins which have absolutely certainly been dipped, and another small subset which have absolutely never been dipped. The dipping status of coins in these groups should be more or less apparent to everyone. Everything else will land in the much larger "can't be sure" category. Having a grading company tell us that isn't terribly helpful.

 

Grading, regardless of format, is subjective, imprecise, and poorly reproducible. Even if the TPG's game us detailed descriptions of a coin's originality, crustiness factor, quality of surfaces, completeness of strike, depth of luster, or attractiveness of toning, it's still just an OPINION of such.

 

Perhaps an Entity that enjoys fiduciary Trust by the public-the 97% should not mislead the public by their silence and lack of clarity.

 

OK. I will concede valid points. If we were referring to the TPG. If we were referring to Grading. Even then I would claim there is a bust in the logic posit, but that is not what is being discussed.

 

We are...OK....I am...referring to the Entity that is judging the TPG and that the 97% rely on, and believe that they can place their Trust in the Brand. It is unfortunately not factual to state that the "dipping" status should be more or less apparent to everyone. I realize what you are stating...an example that is woefully not worth saving due to over bathing, and those that never took a bath. I would venture I can show you the opposite being true within these subsets, and you would identify incorrectly. No it is not apparent to everyone. That is why the 97% place reliance in the Brand. The problem is, the Brand is not described. I am sure you know exactly the issue and point I am stating. Why move the issue to a Plain that is not the issue?

 

Lets examine the "can't be sure" category. If the Entity, with their known Brand, can't be sure, then state they can't be sure. If they can be sure, state they can be sure.

 

The fact is the Entity by silence encourages the 97% to believe in the Brand, and the Entity is well aware that the public interprets an assumption of innocence of coin enhancement when a coin receives the Brand. To deny this is to be disingenuous.

[MJ]

Hi John

 

Here is their phone number. 908-781-9101.

 

Here is some stuff from their site explaining pricing, mission statement , A/B/C coins etc:

 

CAC-verified.

Because Confidence in a Coin's Quality is Priceless.

 

Whether you're a novice or advanced collector, you know that quality is what determines the value of a rare coin.

However, within any certified coin grade, not all coins are "solid" quality coins.

Now there's an easy way to identify coins that are solid for the grade - a CAC verification sticker.

CAC was founded by leading members of the numismatic community who recognized the need for a higher level of grading.

With CAC, prices for the solid quality coins can be untethered from the lesser quality counterparts.

A CAC sticker means:

It has been verified as meeting our strict quality standards.

CAC is an active bidder on many CAC coins. In fact, CAC has purchased over $340 million of CAC verified coins.

 

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

 

Absolutely not. There are many coins that are certified accurately for their grade. Unfortunately, it is an inescapable reality that many are at the lower end of the quality range for the assigned grade. CAC’s rejection of a coin does not necessarily mean that CAC believes the coin has been over-graded. It simply means that there are other coins with CAC stickers that are of higher quality for the grade. CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins. Many of these rejected coins will be acceptable to numerous dealers and collectors and will continue to be available in the marketplace. For quality-conscious collectors and dealers, a coin with a CAC sticker will have significant meaning.

 

How will coins with CAC stickers be priced?

 

Ultimately, the free market decides the value of coins. It will be influenced by how many coins in a specific grade are considered low quality. For example, an MS 65 1922 $20 Saint with a CAC sticker might have a large bid price premium over market-acceptable non-stickered examples, because perhaps only 20% of those submitted will meet or exceed CAC’s high quality standards. A 1923-D $20 Saint could be a very different story, because there are a fairly large number of nice quality 1923-D Saints in MS 65 holders that should qualify for a CAC sticker. As a result, they will almost certainly trade at a smaller premium over the market-acceptable non-stickered coins.

 

It is CAC’s goal to recognize and give deserved credit to quality coins. It is our hope and strong belief that this process will minimize the unfair negative effect on quality coins by decoupling them from their lower-end counterparts. One can only wonder what the price of an MS 65 1922 $20 Saint would be today if the CAC stickering process had been in place five years ago.

 

CAC is currently working on an exchange for certified coins and other numismatic products. We expect that there will be enough activity on the new exchange to justify published CAC Values sometime in 2008.

 

I noticed that CAC uses the term “premium quality” to describe coins that receive a CAC sticker. How does CAC define premium quality?

 

For many years, coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B, and C among themselves to further describe coins. C indicates low-end for the grade, B indicates solid for the grade, and A indicates high-end. CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker

[MarkFeld]

Wow. Big thread.

 

Perhaps potential buyers of coins should be able to determine some things for themselves.

 

There exists a population of coins which have absolutely certainly been dipped, and another small subset which have absolutely never been dipped. The dipping status of coins in these groups should be more or less apparent to everyone. Everything else will land in the much larger "can't be sure" category. Having a grading company tell us that isn't terribly helpful.

 

Grading, regardless of format, is subjective, imprecise, and poorly reproducible. Even if the TPG's game us detailed descriptions of a coin's originality, crustiness factor, quality of surfaces, completeness of strike, depth of luster, or attractiveness of toning, it's still just an OPINION of such.

 

Perhaps an Entity that enjoys fiduciary Trust by the public-the 97% should not mislead the public by their silence and lack of clarity.

 

OK. I will concede valid points. If we were referring to the TPG. If we were referring to Grading. Even then I would claim there is a bust in the logic posit, but that is not what is being discussed.

 

We are...OK....I am...referring to the Entity that is judging the TPG and that the 97% rely on, and believe that they can place their Trust in the Brand. It is unfortunately not factual to state that the "dipping" status should be more or less apparent to everyone. I realize what you are stating...an example that is woefully not worth saving due to over bathing, and those that never took a bath. I would venture I can show you the opposite being true within these subsets, and you would identify incorrectly. No it is not apparent to everyone. That is why the 97% place reliance in the Brand. The problem is, the Brand is not described. I am sure you know exactly the issue and point I am stating. Why move the issue to a Plain that is not the issue?

 

Lets examine the "can't be sure" category. If the Entity, with their known Brand, can't be sure, then state they can't be sure. If they can be sure, state they can be sure.

 

The fact is the Entity by silence encourages the 97% to believe in the Brand, and the Entity is well aware that the public interprets an assumption of innocence of coin enhancement when a coin receives the Brand. To deny this is to be disingenuous.

 

John, where do you get the 97% to which you refer? Regardless, I disagree with your assertion that "the public interprets an assumption of innocence of coin enhancement when a coin receives the Brand". My guess - and I admit that it's a guess - is that the % of the public interpreting things that way is less than 20%.

 

Do you also want CAC to disclose that their opinion regarding grade is merely an opinion? And if not, why not?

[MJ]

Wow. Big thread.

 

Perhaps potential buyers of coins should be able to determine some things for themselves.

 

There exists a population of coins which have absolutely certainly been dipped, and another small subset which have absolutely never been dipped. The dipping status of coins in these groups should be more or less apparent to everyone. Everything else will land in the much larger "can't be sure" category. Having a grading company tell us that isn't terribly helpful.

 

Grading, regardless of format, is subjective, imprecise, and poorly reproducible. Even if the TPG's game us detailed descriptions of a coin's originality, crustiness factor, quality of surfaces, completeness of strike, depth of luster, or attractiveness of toning, it's still just an OPINION of such.

 

Perhaps an Entity that enjoys fiduciary Trust by the public-the 97% should not mislead the public by their silence and lack of clarity.

 

OK. I will concede valid points. If we were referring to the TPG. If we were referring to Grading. Even then I would claim there is a bust in the logic posit, but that is not what is being discussed.

 

We are...OK....I am...referring to the Entity that is judging the TPG and that the 97% rely on, and believe that they can place their Trust in the Brand. It is unfortunately not factual to state that the "dipping" status should be more or less apparent to everyone. I realize what you are stating...an example that is woefully not worth saving due to over bathing, and those that never took a bath. I would venture I can show you the opposite being true within these subsets, and you would identify incorrectly. No it is not apparent to everyone. That is why the 97% place reliance in the Brand. The problem is, the Brand is not described. I am sure you know exactly the issue and point I am stating. Why move the issue to a Plain that is not the issue?

 

Lets examine the "can't be sure" category. If the Entity, with their known Brand, can't be sure, then state they can't be sure. If they can be sure, state they can be sure.

 

The fact is the Entity by silence encourages the 97% to believe in the Brand, and the Entity is well aware that the public interprets an assumption of innocence of coin enhancement when a coin receives the Brand. To deny this is to be disingenuous.

 

John, where do you get the 97% to which you refer? Regardless, I disagree with your assertion that "the public interprets an assumption of innocence of coin enhancement when a coin receives the Brand". My guess - and I admit that it's a guess - is that the % of the public interpreting things that way is less than 20%.

 

Do you also want CAC to disclose that their opinion regarding grade is merely an opinion? And if not, why not?

 

 

I think he has been riding that 97% horse from a comment I made in another thread. I made the assertion that Bill Jones was in the top 3% of collectors. Therefore the balance was 97%. From my experience at least half of people that think they can grade really can't to TPG's market standards and that's really where I see the value in CAC. It levels the playing field. Anyways I think a lot people are too proud to ask for help and just go it alone. They in the end pay the steepest price. It was and is just my opinion………….MJ

 

<>

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Hi John

 

Here is their phone number. 908-781-9101.

 

Here is some stuff from their site explaining pricing, mission statement , A/B/C coins etc:

 

CAC-verified.

Because Confidence in a Coin's Quality is Priceless.

 

Whether you're a novice or advanced collector, you know that quality is what determines the value of a rare coin.

However, within any certified coin grade, not all coins are "solid" quality coins.

Now there's an easy way to identify coins that are solid for the grade - a CAC verification sticker.

CAC was founded by leading members of the numismatic community who recognized the need for a higher level of grading.

With CAC, prices for the solid quality coins can be untethered from the lesser quality counterparts.

A CAC sticker means:

It has been verified as meeting our strict quality standards.

CAC is an active bidder on many CAC coins. In fact, CAC has purchased over $340 million of CAC verified coins.

 

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

 

Absolutely not. There are many coins that are certified accurately for their grade. Unfortunately, it is an inescapable reality that many are at the lower end of the quality range for the assigned grade. CAC’s rejection of a coin does not necessarily mean that CAC believes the coin has been over-graded. It simply means that there are other coins with CAC stickers that are of higher quality for the grade. CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins. Many of these rejected coins will be acceptable to numerous dealers and collectors and will continue to be available in the marketplace. For quality-conscious collectors and dealers, a coin with a CAC sticker will have significant meaning.

 

How will coins with CAC stickers be priced?

 

Ultimately, the free market decides the value of coins. It will be influenced by how many coins in a specific grade are considered low quality. For example, an MS 65 1922 $20 Saint with a CAC sticker might have a large bid price premium over market-acceptable non-stickered examples, because perhaps only 20% of those submitted will meet or exceed CAC’s high quality standards. A 1923-D $20 Saint could be a very different story, because there are a fairly large number of nice quality 1923-D Saints in MS 65 holders that should qualify for a CAC sticker. As a result, they will almost certainly trade at a smaller premium over the market-acceptable non-stickered coins.

 

It is CAC’s goal to recognize and give deserved credit to quality coins. It is our hope and strong belief that this process will minimize the unfair negative effect on quality coins by decoupling them from their lower-end counterparts. One can only wonder what the price of an MS 65 1922 $20 Saint would be today if the CAC stickering process had been in place five years ago.

 

CAC is currently working on an exchange for certified coins and other numismatic products. We expect that there will be enough activity on the new exchange to justify published CAC Values sometime in 2008.

 

I noticed that CAC uses the term “premium quality” to describe coins that receive a CAC sticker. How does CAC define premium quality?

 

For many years, coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B, and C among themselves to further describe coins. C indicates low-end for the grade, B indicates solid for the grade, and A indicates high-end. CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker

 

Thank you.

 

I have read, and re-read all of this, many times in the past. I am familiar with the "principles", and Principals (from afar). It may help you to understand my thoughts if you were to visit ATS and retrieve the original Thread concerning the Entity when it was announced and not yet formally launched.

 

I like to believe, and I am sure many would disagree, that I am a reasonable person, and try to glean the logic of what I am pondering.

 

It is not necessary to coyly be condescending. I think you are better than that, and from what I interpret from your Posts intelligent and articulate. I am perfectly capable of finding a telephone number. I am sure know this. Attempting to belittle in this manner is somewhat personal, I think. That is not helpful.

 

Consider this: If you saw the exact same language as what you have courteously posted,substituting automobile or robots or toilet paper for coins, would you be impressed? I doubt it. You would interpret it on par with a TV commercial.

 

Setting aside the startling lack of clear language and unimaginative conveyance of the product Branding using words, the statements, while maybe intended to be heartfelt, are a sales statement that fails to clarify anything of substance.

 

Please direct me to any statement concerning that which you earlier attributed to the representative of the Entity.

 

I encourage a discussion about this subject. It is useful to the Hobby.

 

I think you may believe me to be a curmudgeon out to get the evil coin company preying on the uneducated. I have been thought of in worse terms. It does not change the issue. You raised, in innocence and without any fanatical intent, the "within reason" commentary. What this means has been questioned...by me, and specifically as it applies to enhancement of a coin. I encourage all to logically convince me that the Entity, by its inability and silence, is practicing quality, fiduciary responsibility toward the public, and clear definitions of the words they utter, that can be understood by those they purport to serve: the public.

 

Why would you not encourage this pursuit in a public coin forum? Why would you want the individual questioning the meaning of the statement that you conveyed via this Thread to make a phone call to find out? This seems like an attempt to remove the subject from the public venue and solve through a phone call, as if it is the ugly step child not to be seen or heard by the public.

 

It is not a subject that will change the world. It is not bashing. It is not us against them. Think of it as an exercise in logic and betterment of the Hobby as a whole, and try not to personalize the issue. That just causes silly thoughts of sulking to see the light of day. Totally unnecessary, I think.

 

 

[MJ]

I will take 100……………MJ

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Wow. Big thread.

 

Perhaps potential buyers of coins should be able to determine some things for themselves.

 

There exists a population of coins which have absolutely certainly been dipped, and another small subset which have absolutely never been dipped. The dipping status of coins in these groups should be more or less apparent to everyone. Everything else will land in the much larger "can't be sure" category. Having a grading company tell us that isn't terribly helpful.

 

Grading, regardless of format, is subjective, imprecise, and poorly reproducible. Even if the TPG's game us detailed descriptions of a coin's originality, crustiness factor, quality of surfaces, completeness of strike, depth of luster, or attractiveness of toning, it's still just an OPINION of such.

 

Perhaps an Entity that enjoys fiduciary Trust by the public-the 97% should not mislead the public by their silence and lack of clarity.

 

OK. I will concede valid points. If we were referring to the TPG. If we were referring to Grading. Even then I would claim there is a bust in the logic posit, but that is not what is being discussed.

 

We are...OK....I am...referring to the Entity that is judging the TPG and that the 97% rely on, and believe that they can place their Trust in the Brand. It is unfortunately not factual to state that the "dipping" status should be more or less apparent to everyone. I realize what you are stating...an example that is woefully not worth saving due to over bathing, and those that never took a bath. I would venture I can show you the opposite being true within these subsets, and you would identify incorrectly. No it is not apparent to everyone. That is why the 97% place reliance in the Brand. The problem is, the Brand is not described. I am sure you know exactly the issue and point I am stating. Why move the issue to a Plain that is not the issue?

 

Lets examine the "can't be sure" category. If the Entity, with their known Brand, can't be sure, then state they can't be sure. If they can be sure, state they can be sure.

 

The fact is the Entity by silence encourages the 97% to believe in the Brand, and the Entity is well aware that the public interprets an assumption of innocence of coin enhancement when a coin receives the Brand. To deny this is to be disingenuous.

 

John, where do you get the 97% to which you refer? Regardless, I disagree with your assertion that "the public interprets an assumption of innocence of coin enhancement when a coin receives the Brand". My guess - and I admit that it's a guess - is that the % of the public interpreting things that way is less than 20%.

 

Do you also want CAC to disclose that their opinion regarding grade is merely an opinion? And if not, why not?

 

 

I think he has been riding that 97% horse from a comment I made in another thread. I made the assertion that Bill Jones was in the top 3% of collectors. Therefore the balance was 97%. From my experience at least half of people that think they can grade really can't to TPG's market standards and that's really where I see the value in CAC. It levels the playing field. Anyways I think a lot people are too proud to ask for help and just go it alone. They in the end pay the steepest price. It was and is just my opinion………….MJ

 

<>

 

Come, come, now. I am not "riding" anything. You made a very valid statement concerning the lesser ability of Grading as a 97% hobbyist population. I stated that was probably very true, and is an example of why I ask what I ask...this 97% should be given the courtesy of definition of that which is stated by the Entity that the 97%...the public, places fiduciary Trust in.

 

I am perfectly capable of answering Mark. Please don't assume to speak on my behalf and to know my reasons for my words and phrasing. You are demonstrating that you don't.

[MJ]

Hi John

 

Here is their phone number. 908-781-9101.

 

Here is some stuff from their site explaining pricing, mission statement , A/B/C coins etc:

 

CAC-verified.

Because Confidence in a Coin's Quality is Priceless.

 

Whether you're a novice or advanced collector, you know that quality is what determines the value of a rare coin.

However, within any certified coin grade, not all coins are "solid" quality coins.

Now there's an easy way to identify coins that are solid for the grade - a CAC verification sticker.

CAC was founded by leading members of the numismatic community who recognized the need for a higher level of grading.

With CAC, prices for the solid quality coins can be untethered from the lesser quality counterparts.

A CAC sticker means:

It has been verified as meeting our strict quality standards.

CAC is an active bidder on many CAC coins. In fact, CAC has purchased over $340 million of CAC verified coins.

 

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

 

Absolutely not. There are many coins that are certified accurately for their grade. Unfortunately, it is an inescapable reality that many are at the lower end of the quality range for the assigned grade. CAC’s rejection of a coin does not necessarily mean that CAC believes the coin has been over-graded. It simply means that there are other coins with CAC stickers that are of higher quality for the grade. CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins. Many of these rejected coins will be acceptable to numerous dealers and collectors and will continue to be available in the marketplace. For quality-conscious collectors and dealers, a coin with a CAC sticker will have significant meaning.

 

How will coins with CAC stickers be priced?

 

Ultimately, the free market decides the value of coins. It will be influenced by how many coins in a specific grade are considered low quality. For example, an MS 65 1922 $20 Saint with a CAC sticker might have a large bid price premium over market-acceptable non-stickered examples, because perhaps only 20% of those submitted will meet or exceed CAC’s high quality standards. A 1923-D $20 Saint could be a very different story, because there are a fairly large number of nice quality 1923-D Saints in MS 65 holders that should qualify for a CAC sticker. As a result, they will almost certainly trade at a smaller premium over the market-acceptable non-stickered coins.

 

It is CAC’s goal to recognize and give deserved credit to quality coins. It is our hope and strong belief that this process will minimize the unfair negative effect on quality coins by decoupling them from their lower-end counterparts. One can only wonder what the price of an MS 65 1922 $20 Saint would be today if the CAC stickering process had been in place five years ago.

 

CAC is currently working on an exchange for certified coins and other numismatic products. We expect that there will be enough activity on the new exchange to justify published CAC Values sometime in 2008.

 

I noticed that CAC uses the term “premium quality” to describe coins that receive a CAC sticker. How does CAC define premium quality?

 

For many years, coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B, and C among themselves to further describe coins. C indicates low-end for the grade, B indicates solid for the grade, and A indicates high-end. CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker

 

Thank you.

 

I have read, and re-read all of this, many times in the past. I am familiar with the "principles", and Principals (from afar). It may help you to understand my thoughts if you were to visit ATS and retrieve the original Thread concerning the Entity when it was announced and not yet formally launched.

 

I like to believe, and I am sure many would disagree, that I am a reasonable person, and try to glean the logic of what I am pondering.

 

It is not necessary to coyly be condescending. I think you are better than that, and from what I interpret from your Posts intelligent and articulate. I am perfectly capable of finding a telephone number. I am sure know this. Attempting to belittle in this manner is somewhat personal, I think. That is not helpful.

 

Consider this: If you saw the exact same language as what you have courteously posted,substituting automobile or robots or toilet paper for coins, would you be impressed? I doubt it. You would interpret it on par with a TV commercial.

 

Setting aside the startling lack of clear language and unimaginative conveyance of the product Branding using words, the statements, while maybe intended to be heartfelt, are a sales statement that fails to clarify anything of substance.

 

Please direct me to any statement concerning that which you earlier attributed to the representative of the Entity.

 

I encourage a discussion about this subject. It is useful to the Hobby.

 

I think you may believe me to be a curmudgeon out to get the evil coin company preying on the uneducated. I have been thought of in worse terms. It does not change the issue. You raised, in innocence and without any fanatical intent, the "within reason" commentary. What this means has been questioned...by me, and specifically as it applies to enhancement of a coin. I encourage all to logically convince me that the Entity, by its inability and silence, is practicing quality, fiduciary responsibility toward the public, and clear definitions of the words they utter, that can be understood by those they purport to serve: the public.

 

Why would you not encourage this pursuit in a public coin forum? Why would you want the individual questioning the meaning of the statement that you conveyed via this Thread to make a phone call to find out? This seems like an attempt to remove the subject from the public venue and solve through a phone call, as if it is the ugly step child not to be seen or heard by the public.

 

It is not a subject that will change the world. It is not bashing. It is not us against them. Think of it as an exercise in logic and betterment of the Hobby as a whole, and try not to personalize the issue. That just causes silly thoughts of sulking to see the light of day. Totally unnecessary, I think.

 

 

John

 

They offer an service. It is not mandatory. I was not belittling you or being coy. I was encouraging you to call John to satisfy any curiosities you may have. He is readily available and the principal. At this point I don't know how else I can contribute to this thread.

 

MJ

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Wow. Big thread.

 

Perhaps potential buyers of coins should be able to determine some things for themselves.

 

There exists a population of coins which have absolutely certainly been dipped, and another small subset which have absolutely never been dipped. The dipping status of coins in these groups should be more or less apparent to everyone. Everything else will land in the much larger "can't be sure" category. Having a grading company tell us that isn't terribly helpful.

 

Grading, regardless of format, is subjective, imprecise, and poorly reproducible. Even if the TPG's game us detailed descriptions of a coin's originality, crustiness factor, quality of surfaces, completeness of strike, depth of luster, or attractiveness of toning, it's still just an OPINION of such.

 

Perhaps an Entity that enjoys fiduciary Trust by the public-the 97% should not mislead the public by their silence and lack of clarity.

 

OK. I will concede valid points. If we were referring to the TPG. If we were referring to Grading. Even then I would claim there is a bust in the logic posit, but that is not what is being discussed.

 

We are...OK....I am...referring to the Entity that is judging the TPG and that the 97% rely on, and believe that they can place their Trust in the Brand. It is unfortunately not factual to state that the "dipping" status should be more or less apparent to everyone. I realize what you are stating...an example that is woefully not worth saving due to over bathing, and those that never took a bath. I would venture I can show you the opposite being true within these subsets, and you would identify incorrectly. No it is not apparent to everyone. That is why the 97% place reliance in the Brand. The problem is, the Brand is not described. I am sure you know exactly the issue and point I am stating. Why move the issue to a Plain that is not the issue?

 

Lets examine the "can't be sure" category. If the Entity, with their known Brand, can't be sure, then state they can't be sure. If they can be sure, state they can be sure.

 

The fact is the Entity by silence encourages the 97% to believe in the Brand, and the Entity is well aware that the public interprets an assumption of innocence of coin enhancement when a coin receives the Brand. To deny this is to be disingenuous.

 

John, where do you get the 97% to which you refer? Regardless, I disagree with your assertion that "the public interprets an assumption of innocence of coin enhancement when a coin receives the Brand". My guess - and I admit that it's a guess - is that the % of the public interpreting things that way is less than 20%.

 

Do you also want CAC to disclose that their opinion regarding grade is merely an opinion? And if not, why not?

 

Mark, you protest that which doesn't exist.

 

You may disagree. That is the reason for discussions. To deny that which has been presented, yet the words in Print by the Entity direct the Public to this conclusion of interpretation, is not approaching the issue from a point of logic.

 

I would be VERY interested in a public poll, similar to that I mentioned much earlier, asking the question of the general Hobby public: what do you believe you are getting from the Brand, and by virtue of the Brand? I ask this randomly at every Show I attend. There are many that are on this Board that are familiar with this, and at least 3 that run Shows I attend. The answers are not as you perceive.

 

Yes. They should state the opinion is just that. The printed word by the Entity is somewhat lacking in this language. Why would you not want an Entity to state that is what it is? Is that not Truth in Branding, and good for the Hobby?

 

You are a person of Logic. Think in that vein before answering, and not as an advocate of notsure sureness in coin opinions. That is escapism. I know you not to be such a person.

[MJ]

Wow. Big thread.

 

Perhaps potential buyers of coins should be able to determine some things for themselves.

 

There exists a population of coins which have absolutely certainly been dipped, and another small subset which have absolutely never been dipped. The dipping status of coins in these groups should be more or less apparent to everyone. Everything else will land in the much larger "can't be sure" category. Having a grading company tell us that isn't terribly helpful.

 

Grading, regardless of format, is subjective, imprecise, and poorly reproducible. Even if the TPG's game us detailed descriptions of a coin's originality, crustiness factor, quality of surfaces, completeness of strike, depth of luster, or attractiveness of toning, it's still just an OPINION of such.

 

Perhaps an Entity that enjoys fiduciary Trust by the public-the 97% should not mislead the public by their silence and lack of clarity.

 

OK. I will concede valid points. If we were referring to the TPG. If we were referring to Grading. Even then I would claim there is a bust in the logic posit, but that is not what is being discussed.

 

We are...OK....I am...referring to the Entity that is judging the TPG and that the 97% rely on, and believe that they can place their Trust in the Brand. It is unfortunately not factual to state that the "dipping" status should be more or less apparent to everyone. I realize what you are stating...an example that is woefully not worth saving due to over bathing, and those that never took a bath. I would venture I can show you the opposite being true within these subsets, and you would identify incorrectly. No it is not apparent to everyone. That is why the 97% place reliance in the Brand. The problem is, the Brand is not described. I am sure you know exactly the issue and point I am stating. Why move the issue to a Plain that is not the issue?

 

Lets examine the "can't be sure" category. If the Entity, with their known Brand, can't be sure, then state they can't be sure. If they can be sure, state they can be sure.

 

The fact is the Entity by silence encourages the 97% to believe in the Brand, and the Entity is well aware that the public interprets an assumption of innocence of coin enhancement when a coin receives the Brand. To deny this is to be disingenuous.

 

John, where do you get the 97% to which you refer? Regardless, I disagree with your assertion that "the public interprets an assumption of innocence of coin enhancement when a coin receives the Brand". My guess - and I admit that it's a guess - is that the % of the public interpreting things that way is less than 20%.

 

Do you also want CAC to disclose that their opinion regarding grade is merely an opinion? And if not, why not?

 

 

I think he has been riding that 97% horse from a comment I made in another thread. I made the assertion that Bill Jones was in the top 3% of collectors. Therefore the balance was 97%. From my experience at least half of people that think they can grade really can't to TPG's market standards and that's really where I see the value in CAC. It levels the playing field. Anyways I think a lot people are too proud to ask for help and just go it alone. They in the end pay the steepest price. It was and is just my opinion………….MJ

 

<>

 

Come, come, now. I am not "riding" anything. You made a very valid statement concerning the lesser ability of Grading as a 97% hobbyist population. I stated that was probably very true, and is an example of why I ask what I ask...this 97% should be given the courtesy of definition of that which is stated by the Entity that the 97%...the public, places fiduciary Trust in.

 

I am perfectly capable of answering Mark. Please don't assume to speak on my behalf and to know my reasons for my words and phrasing. You are demonstrating that you don't.

 

John

 

1) you may agree in part with my 97% assessment and it was my opinion which I stand by. Fact it is not.

 

2) I didn't assume to speak on your behalf. I don't know what you are talking about a lot of the time so no way am I going there. I wrote the above on MY behalf so that Mark should see the context that it was used and not what you potentially perceived. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

MJ

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Hi John

 

Here is their phone number. 908-781-9101.

 

Here is some stuff from their site explaining pricing, mission statement , A/B/C coins etc:

 

CAC-verified.

Because Confidence in a Coin's Quality is Priceless.

 

Whether you're a novice or advanced collector, you know that quality is what determines the value of a rare coin.

However, within any certified coin grade, not all coins are "solid" quality coins.

Now there's an easy way to identify coins that are solid for the grade - a CAC verification sticker.

CAC was founded by leading members of the numismatic community who recognized the need for a higher level of grading.

With CAC, prices for the solid quality coins can be untethered from the lesser quality counterparts.

A CAC sticker means:

It has been verified as meeting our strict quality standards.

CAC is an active bidder on many CAC coins. In fact, CAC has purchased over $340 million of CAC verified coins.

 

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

 

Absolutely not. There are many coins that are certified accurately for their grade. Unfortunately, it is an inescapable reality that many are at the lower end of the quality range for the assigned grade. CAC’s rejection of a coin does not necessarily mean that CAC believes the coin has been over-graded. It simply means that there are other coins with CAC stickers that are of higher quality for the grade. CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins. Many of these rejected coins will be acceptable to numerous dealers and collectors and will continue to be available in the marketplace. For quality-conscious collectors and dealers, a coin with a CAC sticker will have significant meaning.

 

How will coins with CAC stickers be priced?

 

Ultimately, the free market decides the value of coins. It will be influenced by how many coins in a specific grade are considered low quality. For example, an MS 65 1922 $20 Saint with a CAC sticker might have a large bid price premium over market-acceptable non-stickered examples, because perhaps only 20% of those submitted will meet or exceed CAC’s high quality standards. A 1923-D $20 Saint could be a very different story, because there are a fairly large number of nice quality 1923-D Saints in MS 65 holders that should qualify for a CAC sticker. As a result, they will almost certainly trade at a smaller premium over the market-acceptable non-stickered coins.

 

It is CAC’s goal to recognize and give deserved credit to quality coins. It is our hope and strong belief that this process will minimize the unfair negative effect on quality coins by decoupling them from their lower-end counterparts. One can only wonder what the price of an MS 65 1922 $20 Saint would be today if the CAC stickering process had been in place five years ago.

 

CAC is currently working on an exchange for certified coins and other numismatic products. We expect that there will be enough activity on the new exchange to justify published CAC Values sometime in 2008.

 

I noticed that CAC uses the term “premium quality” to describe coins that receive a CAC sticker. How does CAC define premium quality?

 

For many years, coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B, and C among themselves to further describe coins. C indicates low-end for the grade, B indicates solid for the grade, and A indicates high-end. CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker

 

Thank you.

 

I have read, and re-read all of this, many times in the past. I am familiar with the "principles", and Principals (from afar). It may help you to understand my thoughts if you were to visit ATS and retrieve the original Thread concerning the Entity when it was announced and not yet formally launched.

 

I like to believe, and I am sure many would disagree, that I am a reasonable person, and try to glean the logic of what I am pondering.

 

It is not necessary to coyly be condescending. I think you are better than that, and from what I interpret from your Posts intelligent and articulate. I am perfectly capable of finding a telephone number. I am sure know this. Attempting to belittle in this manner is somewhat personal, I think. That is not helpful.

 

Consider this: If you saw the exact same language as what you have courteously posted,substituting automobile or robots or toilet paper for coins, would you be impressed? I doubt it. You would interpret it on par with a TV commercial.

 

Setting aside the startling lack of clear language and unimaginative conveyance of the product Branding using words, the statements, while maybe intended to be heartfelt, are a sales statement that fails to clarify anything of substance.

 

Please direct me to any statement concerning that which you earlier attributed to the representative of the Entity.

 

I encourage a discussion about this subject. It is useful to the Hobby.

 

I think you may believe me to be a curmudgeon out to get the evil coin company preying on the uneducated. I have been thought of in worse terms. It does not change the issue. You raised, in innocence and without any fanatical intent, the "within reason" commentary. What this means has been questioned...by me, and specifically as it applies to enhancement of a coin. I encourage all to logically convince me that the Entity, by its inability and silence, is practicing quality, fiduciary responsibility toward the public, and clear definitions of the words they utter, that can be understood by those they purport to serve: the public.

 

Why would you not encourage this pursuit in a public coin forum? Why would you want the individual questioning the meaning of the statement that you conveyed via this Thread to make a phone call to find out? This seems like an attempt to remove the subject from the public venue and solve through a phone call, as if it is the ugly step child not to be seen or heard by the public.

 

It is not a subject that will change the world. It is not bashing. It is not us against them. Think of it as an exercise in logic and betterment of the Hobby as a whole, and try not to personalize the issue. That just causes silly thoughts of sulking to see the light of day. Totally unnecessary, I think.

 

 

John

 

They offer an service. It is not mandatory. I was not belittling you or being coy. I was encouraging you to call John to satisfy any curiosities you may have. He is readily available and the principal. At this point I don't know how else I can contribute to this thread.

 

MJ

 

Then it is in the best interest of the Entity to publicly make their position clear.

Why not? You interpret curiosity. I interpert inability to describe the Brand, by you, yet you support it, or by the representatives of the Brand. Again, remember you raised the issue being questioned, and could not clearly articulate what the words meant.

 

I could suggest that since you participate in that which the Brand offers, that you call for clarity of what within reason means, so that next time you are prepared to educate those that aren't as knowledgeable. I won't make such a suggestion, though. It is belittling and is not what I seek. I seek justification of Trust by the trusting. I don't seek interpretation of Automobile Ad language.

[Afterword]

"I have heard, many, many times, and read many, many times, commentary alluding to the rejection or non-branding of a coin by CAC must have been because they thought it was enhanced. I have read and heard many, many times the comment that a coin that was branded by the Entity was not enhanced."

 

 

 

 

 

People either accept TPGs as umpires who determine in-bounds or out-of-bounds or they do not. The same holds true for CAC. Accepting these entities as such certainly simplifies matters in terms of buying and selling. It does this by eliminating most but, obviously, not all of the bias and disagreement that existed before their acceptance as arbitrators.

 

The process of grading coins is subjective and ambiguous and mistakes can be made, but that holds true no matter who is doing the grading. With TPGs/CAC, however, there is (presumably) no bias in the equation and, in that respect, they are more objective than sellers or potential buyers. The resulting grade should be more accurate because of this objectivity than would be the case otherwise.

 

Are the TPGs and CAC really unbiased in all cases? Are they purposely ambiguous or silent when it comes to the particulars of the grading process or the process of sticker approval to facilitate confusion? I cannot answer these questions, because I have no way of knowing.

 

I do know that if people accept TPGs/CAC as arbitrators in spite of the unknowable/undisclosed, and they seem to do so, they will more often than not fair better than relying on the seller's or buyer's determination of the grade, and there will be much less aggravation involved.

 

I do not think that the disclosure you ask for will change anything in any significant way, including the comments in quotes above. However, I have no objection to said disclosure.

 

Perhaps you should start a petition to that end. I would have no problem signing it.

 

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

"I have heard, many, many times, and read many, many times, commentary alluding to the rejection or non-branding of a coin by CAC must have been because they thought it was enhanced. I have read and heard many, many times the comment that a coin that was branded by the Entity was not enhanced."

 

 

 

 

 

People either accept TPGs as umpires who determine in-bounds or out-of-bounds or they do not. The same holds true for CAC. Accepting these entities as such certainly simplifies matters in terms of buying and selling. It does this by eliminating most but, obviously, not all of the bias and disagreement that existed before their acceptance as arbitrators.

 

The process of grading coins is subjective and ambiguous and mistakes can be made, but that holds true no matter who is doing the grading. With TPGs/CAC, however, there is (presumably) no bias in the equation and, in that respect, they are more objective than sellers or potential buyers. The resulting grade should be more accurate because of this objectivity than would be the case otherwise.

 

Are the TPGs and CAC really unbiased in all cases? Are they purposely ambiguous or silent when it comes to the particulars of the grading process or the process of sticker approval to facilitate confusion? I cannot answer these questions, because I have no way of knowing.

 

I do know that if people accept TPGs/CAC as arbitrators in spite of the unknowable/undisclosed, and they seem to do so, they will more often than not fair better than relying on the seller's or buyer's determination of the grade, and there will be much less aggravation involved.

 

I do not think that the disclosure you ask for will change anything in any significant way, including the comments in quotes above. However, I have no objection to said disclosure.

 

Perhaps you should start a petition to that end. I would have no problem signing it.

 

 

 

Would you want disclosure when you purchase a Car, a House, Insurance, Stocks, Bonds, Medical Care, Medicine?

 

Is it not logical to ask for disclosure and description of that which you purchase?

 

I think we are apart on what is being discussed.

 

I think that you may be unsure of what is being purchased form the Entity, and what the Brand means.

[MJ]

Hi John

 

Here is their phone number. 908-781-9101.

 

Here is some stuff from their site explaining pricing, mission statement , A/B/C coins etc:

 

CAC-verified.

Because Confidence in a Coin's Quality is Priceless.

 

Whether you're a novice or advanced collector, you know that quality is what determines the value of a rare coin.

However, within any certified coin grade, not all coins are "solid" quality coins.

Now there's an easy way to identify coins that are solid for the grade - a CAC verification sticker.

CAC was founded by leading members of the numismatic community who recognized the need for a higher level of grading.

With CAC, prices for the solid quality coins can be untethered from the lesser quality counterparts.

A CAC sticker means:

It has been verified as meeting our strict quality standards.

CAC is an active bidder on many CAC coins. In fact, CAC has purchased over $340 million of CAC verified coins.

 

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

 

Absolutely not. There are many coins that are certified accurately for their grade. Unfortunately, it is an inescapable reality that many are at the lower end of the quality range for the assigned grade. CAC’s rejection of a coin does not necessarily mean that CAC believes the coin has been over-graded. It simply means that there are other coins with CAC stickers that are of higher quality for the grade. CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins. Many of these rejected coins will be acceptable to numerous dealers and collectors and will continue to be available in the marketplace. For quality-conscious collectors and dealers, a coin with a CAC sticker will have significant meaning.

 

How will coins with CAC stickers be priced?

 

Ultimately, the free market decides the value of coins. It will be influenced by how many coins in a specific grade are considered low quality. For example, an MS 65 1922 $20 Saint with a CAC sticker might have a large bid price premium over market-acceptable non-stickered examples, because perhaps only 20% of those submitted will meet or exceed CAC’s high quality standards. A 1923-D $20 Saint could be a very different story, because there are a fairly large number of nice quality 1923-D Saints in MS 65 holders that should qualify for a CAC sticker. As a result, they will almost certainly trade at a smaller premium over the market-acceptable non-stickered coins.

 

It is CAC’s goal to recognize and give deserved credit to quality coins. It is our hope and strong belief that this process will minimize the unfair negative effect on quality coins by decoupling them from their lower-end counterparts. One can only wonder what the price of an MS 65 1922 $20 Saint would be today if the CAC stickering process had been in place five years ago.

 

CAC is currently working on an exchange for certified coins and other numismatic products. We expect that there will be enough activity on the new exchange to justify published CAC Values sometime in 2008.

 

I noticed that CAC uses the term “premium quality” to describe coins that receive a CAC sticker. How does CAC define premium quality?

 

For many years, coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B, and C among themselves to further describe coins. C indicates low-end for the grade, B indicates solid for the grade, and A indicates high-end. CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker

 

Thank you.

 

I have read, and re-read all of this, many times in the past. I am familiar with the "principles", and Principals (from afar). It may help you to understand my thoughts if you were to visit ATS and retrieve the original Thread concerning the Entity when it was announced and not yet formally launched.

 

I like to believe, and I am sure many would disagree, that I am a reasonable person, and try to glean the logic of what I am pondering.

 

It is not necessary to coyly be condescending. I think you are better than that, and from what I interpret from your Posts intelligent and articulate. I am perfectly capable of finding a telephone number. I am sure know this. Attempting to belittle in this manner is somewhat personal, I think. That is not helpful.

 

Consider this: If you saw the exact same language as what you have courteously posted,substituting automobile or robots or toilet paper for coins, would you be impressed? I doubt it. You would interpret it on par with a TV commercial.

 

Setting aside the startling lack of clear language and unimaginative conveyance of the product Branding using words, the statements, while maybe intended to be heartfelt, are a sales statement that fails to clarify anything of substance.

 

Please direct me to any statement concerning that which you earlier attributed to the representative of the Entity.

 

I encourage a discussion about this subject. It is useful to the Hobby.

 

I think you may believe me to be a curmudgeon out to get the evil coin company preying on the uneducated. I have been thought of in worse terms. It does not change the issue. You raised, in innocence and without any fanatical intent, the "within reason" commentary. What this means has been questioned...by me, and specifically as it applies to enhancement of a coin. I encourage all to logically convince me that the Entity, by its inability and silence, is practicing quality, fiduciary responsibility toward the public, and clear definitions of the words they utter, that can be understood by those they purport to serve: the public.

 

Why would you not encourage this pursuit in a public coin forum? Why would you want the individual questioning the meaning of the statement that you conveyed via this Thread to make a phone call to find out? This seems like an attempt to remove the subject from the public venue and solve through a phone call, as if it is the ugly step child not to be seen or heard by the public.

 

It is not a subject that will change the world. It is not bashing. It is not us against them. Think of it as an exercise in logic and betterment of the Hobby as a whole, and try not to personalize the issue. That just causes silly thoughts of sulking to see the light of day. Totally unnecessary, I think.

 

 

John

 

They offer an service. It is not mandatory. I was not belittling you or being coy. I was encouraging you to call John to satisfy any curiosities you may have. He is readily available and the principal. At this point I don't know how else I can contribute to this thread.

 

MJ

 

Then it is in the best interest of the Entity to publicly make their position clear.

Why not? You interpret curiosity. I interpert inability to describe the Brand, by you, yet you support it, or by the representatives of the Brand. Again, remember you raised the issue being questioned, and could not clearly articulate what the words meant.

 

I could suggest that since you participate in that which the Brand offers, that you call for clarity of what within reason means, so that next time you are prepared to educate those that aren't as knowledgeable. I won't make such a suggestion, though. It is belittling and is not what I seek. I seek justification of Trust by the trusting. I don't seek interpretation of Automobile Ad language.

 

John

 

It is clear to me. I'm sorry it is not clear to you. It is not my job to make it so nor is it my responsibility. I'm not a brand ambassador nor have I ever submitted a coin to CAC. I've shared some some thoughts and based my opinions derived from real life experiences. Discount them if you will.

 

MJ

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Hi John

 

Here is their phone number. 908-781-9101.

 

Here is some stuff from their site explaining pricing, mission statement , A/B/C coins etc:

 

CAC-verified.

Because Confidence in a Coin's Quality is Priceless.

 

Whether you're a novice or advanced collector, you know that quality is what determines the value of a rare coin.

However, within any certified coin grade, not all coins are "solid" quality coins.

Now there's an easy way to identify coins that are solid for the grade - a CAC verification sticker.

CAC was founded by leading members of the numismatic community who recognized the need for a higher level of grading.

With CAC, prices for the solid quality coins can be untethered from the lesser quality counterparts.

A CAC sticker means:

It has been verified as meeting our strict quality standards.

CAC is an active bidder on many CAC coins. In fact, CAC has purchased over $340 million of CAC verified coins.

 

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

 

Absolutely not. There are many coins that are certified accurately for their grade. Unfortunately, it is an inescapable reality that many are at the lower end of the quality range for the assigned grade. CAC’s rejection of a coin does not necessarily mean that CAC believes the coin has been over-graded. It simply means that there are other coins with CAC stickers that are of higher quality for the grade. CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins. Many of these rejected coins will be acceptable to numerous dealers and collectors and will continue to be available in the marketplace. For quality-conscious collectors and dealers, a coin with a CAC sticker will have significant meaning.

 

How will coins with CAC stickers be priced?

 

Ultimately, the free market decides the value of coins. It will be influenced by how many coins in a specific grade are considered low quality. For example, an MS 65 1922 $20 Saint with a CAC sticker might have a large bid price premium over market-acceptable non-stickered examples, because perhaps only 20% of those submitted will meet or exceed CAC’s high quality standards. A 1923-D $20 Saint could be a very different story, because there are a fairly large number of nice quality 1923-D Saints in MS 65 holders that should qualify for a CAC sticker. As a result, they will almost certainly trade at a smaller premium over the market-acceptable non-stickered coins.

 

It is CAC’s goal to recognize and give deserved credit to quality coins. It is our hope and strong belief that this process will minimize the unfair negative effect on quality coins by decoupling them from their lower-end counterparts. One can only wonder what the price of an MS 65 1922 $20 Saint would be today if the CAC stickering process had been in place five years ago.

 

CAC is currently working on an exchange for certified coins and other numismatic products. We expect that there will be enough activity on the new exchange to justify published CAC Values sometime in 2008.

 

I noticed that CAC uses the term “premium quality” to describe coins that receive a CAC sticker. How does CAC define premium quality?

 

For many years, coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B, and C among themselves to further describe coins. C indicates low-end for the grade, B indicates solid for the grade, and A indicates high-end. CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker

 

Thank you.

 

I have read, and re-read all of this, many times in the past. I am familiar with the "principles", and Principals (from afar). It may help you to understand my thoughts if you were to visit ATS and retrieve the original Thread concerning the Entity when it was announced and not yet formally launched.

 

I like to believe, and I am sure many would disagree, that I am a reasonable person, and try to glean the logic of what I am pondering.

 

It is not necessary to coyly be condescending. I think you are better than that, and from what I interpret from your Posts intelligent and articulate. I am perfectly capable of finding a telephone number. I am sure know this. Attempting to belittle in this manner is somewhat personal, I think. That is not helpful.

 

Consider this: If you saw the exact same language as what you have courteously posted,substituting automobile or robots or toilet paper for coins, would you be impressed? I doubt it. You would interpret it on par with a TV commercial.

 

Setting aside the startling lack of clear language and unimaginative conveyance of the product Branding using words, the statements, while maybe intended to be heartfelt, are a sales statement that fails to clarify anything of substance.

 

Please direct me to any statement concerning that which you earlier attributed to the representative of the Entity.

 

I encourage a discussion about this subject. It is useful to the Hobby.

 

I think you may believe me to be a curmudgeon out to get the evil coin company preying on the uneducated. I have been thought of in worse terms. It does not change the issue. You raised, in innocence and without any fanatical intent, the "within reason" commentary. What this means has been questioned...by me, and specifically as it applies to enhancement of a coin. I encourage all to logically convince me that the Entity, by its inability and silence, is practicing quality, fiduciary responsibility toward the public, and clear definitions of the words they utter, that can be understood by those they purport to serve: the public.

 

Why would you not encourage this pursuit in a public coin forum? Why would you want the individual questioning the meaning of the statement that you conveyed via this Thread to make a phone call to find out? This seems like an attempt to remove the subject from the public venue and solve through a phone call, as if it is the ugly step child not to be seen or heard by the public.

 

It is not a subject that will change the world. It is not bashing. It is not us against them. Think of it as an exercise in logic and betterment of the Hobby as a whole, and try not to personalize the issue. That just causes silly thoughts of sulking to see the light of day. Totally unnecessary, I think.

 

 

John

 

They offer an service. It is not mandatory. I was not belittling you or being coy. I was encouraging you to call John to satisfy any curiosities you may have. He is readily available and the principal. At this point I don't know how else I can contribute to this thread.

 

MJ

 

Then it is in the best interest of the Entity to publicly make their position clear.

Why not? You interpret curiosity. I interpert inability to describe the Brand, by you, yet you support it, or by the representatives of the Brand. Again, remember you raised the issue being questioned, and could not clearly articulate what the words meant.

 

I could suggest that since you participate in that which the Brand offers, that you call for clarity of what within reason means, so that next time you are prepared to educate those that aren't as knowledgeable. I won't make such a suggestion, though. It is belittling and is not what I seek. I seek justification of Trust by the trusting. I don't seek interpretation of Automobile Ad language.

 

John

 

It is clear to me. I'm sorry it is not clear to you. It is not my job to make it so nor is it my responsibility. I'm not a brand ambassador nor have I ever submitted a coin to CAC. I've shared some some thoughts and based my opinions derived from real life experiences. Discount them if you will.

 

MJ

 

I ask nothing of you, or on my behalf. You unfortunately have become defensive and are interpreting the comments I make as a personal attack. For this, I apologize. Don't be sorry it is not clear to me. There is no reason to. The only reason for making the statement you have, in the manner you have, is that you think I am attacking you personally, and you are upset. I sincerely regret you may feel this way. That is the least of my intents to accomplish. You had some very thought provoking comments, that made me test my posits, and I am grateful for this. It is very good to share thoughts about the subject under discussion. It is good for the Hobby.

 

I suspect that you have had others personalize, in a discourteous manner, discussions with you.

 

As the Great Saladin stated: I am not those Men.

 

I truly wish you well.

[Afterword]

"Would you want disclosure when you purchase a Car, a House, Insurance, Stocks, Bonds, Medical Care, Medicine?

 

Is it not logical to ask for disclosure and description of that which you purchase?

 

I think we are apart on what is being discussed.

 

I think that you may be unsure of what is being purchased form the Entity, and what the Brand means."

 

 

 

I think you just like creating obscenely long threads, and repeating yourself over and over again in an attempt to get others to unwitting do the same.

[coinman_23885]

"I have heard, many, many times, and read many, many times, commentary alluding to the rejection or non-branding of a coin by CAC must have been because they thought it was enhanced. I have read and heard many, many times the comment that a coin that was branded by the Entity was not enhanced."

 

 

 

 

 

People either accept TPGs as umpires who determine in-bounds or out-of-bounds or they do not. The same holds true for CAC. Accepting these entities as such certainly simplifies matters in terms of buying and selling. It does this by eliminating most but, obviously, not all of the bias and disagreement that existed before their acceptance as arbitrators.

 

The process of grading coins is subjective and ambiguous and mistakes can be made, but that holds true no matter who is doing the grading. With TPGs/CAC, however, there is (presumably) no bias in the equation and, in that respect, they are more objective than sellers or potential buyers. The resulting grade should be more accurate because of this objectivity than would be the case otherwise.

 

Are the TPGs and CAC really unbiased in all cases? Are they purposely ambiguous or silent when it comes to the particulars of the grading process or the process of sticker approval to facilitate confusion? I cannot answer these questions, because I have no way of knowing.

 

I do know that if people accept TPGs/CAC as arbitrators in spite of the unknowable/undisclosed, and they seem to do so, they will more often than not fair better than relying on the seller's or buyer's determination of the grade, and there will be much less aggravation involved.

 

I do not think that the disclosure you ask for will change anything in any significant way, including the comments in quotes above. However, I have no objection to said disclosure.

 

Perhaps you should start a petition to that end. I would have no problem signing it.

 

 

 

Would you want disclosure when you purchase a Car, a House, Insurance, Stocks, Bonds, Medical Care, Medicine?

 

Is it not logical to ask for disclosure and description of that which you purchase?

 

I think we are apart on what is being discussed.

 

I think that you may be unsure of what is being purchased form the Entity, and what the Brand means.

 

It is funny that you mention medicine John. And all along, I have been thinking of an analogy between CAC and the medical field. Just as pharmaceutical companies publish white papers containing the approved uses of pharmaceuticals, CAC has published and made clear from its inception that its role is as a market maker/trading network. And just as physicians prescribe medications for off label/unapproved uses, market participants (according to you) are also using CAC for an off label purpose and to calibrate their own grading standards. How then, can we infer/impute any sort of legal duty or liability onto the companies for off label use of their product in contradiction to their stated/approved uses when they work as prescribed/intended? This is exactly what you are implying when you throw around terms like "fiduciary trust"; you are implying that CAC owes a legal duty to purchasers of CAC coins, and I do not believe they do, and I challenge you to provide a legal basis otherwise (i.e. that there is liability or legal duty to consumers who use a product in a way that does not match the indications and directions for use published - I'll call it misuse or perhaps even abuse). If you are indeed making a legal argument, it would seem (to me at least) to turn tort and contract law on its head, overturn centuries of common and statutory law, and it would create ridiculous currently non-existent legal duties that would cripple the business sector and would have very negative consequences for society over all as novel products and services were discontinued. I do not believe that is your intent.

 

I can only assume, then (since I do not see this as an ethical issue), that you are attempting to make an argument based on flawed logic. You believe that the market would benefit from clarification from a standard, yet you have persistently dodged the questions raised by Mark and myself. How does one go about defining market acceptability in a bright line test that can be uniformly and consistently applied? And if there is no way to draw such rigid lines (as Mark and I both are asserting), then the creation of an arbitrary standard would only create confusion and further the putative malady that you see. How is that logical? You have identified a putative problem, but have not offered any sort of remedy.

 

APPENDED CORRECTION: In reading the thread again, it has come to my attention that I inadvertently misattributed a statement to you and it was another poster that was evading the question posed, and not you.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

"Would you want disclosure when you purchase a Car, a House, Insurance, Stocks, Bonds, Medical Care, Medicine?

 

Is it not logical to ask for disclosure and description of that which you purchase?

 

I think we are apart on what is being discussed.

 

I think that you may be unsure of what is being purchased form the Entity, and what the Brand means."

 

 

 

I think you just like creating obscenely long threads, and repeating yourself over and over again in an attempt to get others to unwitting do the same.

 

I am truly sorry you believe this. I can understand why. You are not familiar with me.

 

I won't try to justify or dissuade you of your opinion of me. I would say, though, that if you felt the need to attempt to belittle, you could have pm'd, instead of doing so in a public vein that adds nothing to the discussion. I do note that you did not answer the question. That is your Right. I am sorry my language usage offends you. Please know it was your choice to continue to post. I assume it was of some value for you to do so. I hope it was.

[coinman_23885]

 

I'm quite certain the "A/B" coin vs. "C" coin explanation was created post-hoc as a way of trying to describe their business model to the lay-public. Sadly, that supposed model doesn't hold water -- micro-grading at that level is simply a farce. Even two highly-experienced graders using highly-detailed published criteria don't agree on integer value numerical grades -- the idea of differentiating between A/B and C coins within a single integer grade is a joke.

Some (or a lot of) confusion comes from the fact that people still think CAC is a grading company. They are not. They are a review service that determines whether they would be willing to make a market in a coin in its current tomb and at its current grade on one of their coin exchanges (accessible or known really only to dealers). CAC is not a grading company.

 

 

 

I agree very much with your second paragraph; however, I disagree with regards to the stuff in red. Why is it unreasonable or a farce to say that a grader can distinguish between one that is low for the grade and superior PQ coins? Don't advanced collectors routinely do this already by cherry picking the nicest material and leaving the lower end stuff behind?

 

Because there is no evidence to support as much. When a coin submitted can come back +/- 2 points on either side fairly regularly, you are fooling yourself if you think that someone can tell the difference between (if there really is any difference between) an MS66 A-coin versus an MS66 B-coin. Yes, advanced collectors do what you say -- but when they are "cherry-picking the nicest material" it is to their own personal taste.

 

My point is that a coin may be reasonably stable at an integer grade level, but the determination of "A/B/C" or "+" is an added level of subjectivity and personal-preference that is bound to suffer from even less consistency than the numeric grade itself. If you wish to collect coins that are to the personal taste of some "magical" opinion in JA, then go for it. I just don't personally understand the almost religious following of said opinion.

 

==============

 

And, to MarkFeld's comment -- yes, I have the same problem with "+" grading. As best I can tell that was a business move by PCGS and NGC to increase resubmissions (and the revenue generated thereof).

 

You have not offered any true evidence (other than exaggerated anecdotes) to support your position either, and you are effectively recycling the very arguments that were used when PCGS introduced an eleven point integer mint state scale. The markets have seemed to adapt quite well, and participants, including yourself, seem to have little problem applying the 11 point scale. And given the coins you post (which appear to be high quality as best I can recall), it also seems that you can, even if only subconsciously, identify coins that are premium quality or solid for the grade as opposed to those that are not. If collectors can do this, then why can't CAC? I am also a bit surprised that you find it unreasonable to say, that in the vast number of cases, it is possible to discern qualitative differences within a grade interval. You have never looked at a coin that was low end for the grade, because of bag marks or other issues, and thought that it was inferior to another coin of the same grade? Now I turn in point to the +/- 2pt. change in grading that you reference. The only thing this proves is that there is subjectivity in coin grading; no one here will dispute that, especially when it comes to market grading. I still think that saying that is a far cry from stating that the plus grading or identifying high end for the grade coins is impossible and not feasible on a large scale basis. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

P.S. I also sense that some of your reaction is geared towards those who blindly assert that one opinion, whether the TPG or CAC, should be the "gospel" and be rigidly accepted as always correct. I don't see anyone in this thread advocating that, and in the grander scheme of coin collecting, these people make up a very small minority of collectors in the market.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

"I have heard, many, many times, and read many, many times, commentary alluding to the rejection or non-branding of a coin by CAC must have been because they thought it was enhanced. I have read and heard many, many times the comment that a coin that was branded by the Entity was not enhanced."

 

 

 

 

 

People either accept TPGs as umpires who determine in-bounds or out-of-bounds or they do not. The same holds true for CAC. Accepting these entities as such certainly simplifies matters in terms of buying and selling. It does this by eliminating most but, obviously, not all of the bias and disagreement that existed before their acceptance as arbitrators.

 

The process of grading coins is subjective and ambiguous and mistakes can be made, but that holds true no matter who is doing the grading. With TPGs/CAC, however, there is (presumably) no bias in the equation and, in that respect, they are more objective than sellers or potential buyers. The resulting grade should be more accurate because of this objectivity than would be the case otherwise.

 

Are the TPGs and CAC really unbiased in all cases? Are they purposely ambiguous or silent when it comes to the particulars of the grading process or the process of sticker approval to facilitate confusion? I cannot answer these questions, because I have no way of knowing.

 

I do know that if people accept TPGs/CAC as arbitrators in spite of the unknowable/undisclosed, and they seem to do so, they will more often than not fair better than relying on the seller's or buyer's determination of the grade, and there will be much less aggravation involved.

 

I do not think that the disclosure you ask for will change anything in any significant way, including the comments in quotes above. However, I have no objection to said disclosure.

 

Perhaps you should start a petition to that end. I would have no problem signing it.

 

 

 

Would you want disclosure when you purchase a Car, a House, Insurance, Stocks, Bonds, Medical Care, Medicine?

 

Is it not logical to ask for disclosure and description of that which you purchase?

 

I think we are apart on what is being discussed.

 

I think that you may be unsure of what is being purchased form the Entity, and what the Brand means.

 

It is funny that you mention medicine John. And all along, I have been thinking of an analogy between CAC and the medical field. Just as pharmaceutical companies publish white papers containing the approved uses of pharmaceuticals, CAC has published and made clear from its inception that its role is as a market maker/trading network. And just as physicians prescribe medications for off label/unapproved uses, market participants (according to you) are also using CAC for an off label purpose and to calibrate their own grading standards. How then, can we infer/impute any sort of legal duty or liability onto the companies for off label use of their product in contradiction to their stated/approved uses when they work as prescribed/intended? This is exactly what you are implying when you throw around terms like "fiduciary trust"; you are implying that CAC owes a legal duty to purchasers of CAC coins, and I do not believe they do, and I challenge you to provide a legal basis otherwise (i.e. that there is liability or legal duty to consumers who use a product in a way that does not match the indications and directions for use published - I'll call it misuse or perhaps even abuse). If you are indeed making a legal argument, it would seem (to me at least) to turn tort and contract law on its head, overturn centuries of common and statutory law, and it would create ridiculous currently non-existent legal duties that would cripple the business sector and would have very negative consequences for society over all as novel products and services were discontinued. I do not believe that is your intent.

 

I can only assume, then (since I do not see this as an ethical issue), that you are attempting to make an argument based on flawed logic. You believe that the market would benefit from clarification from a standard, yet you have persistently dodged the questions raised by Mark and myself. How does one go about defining market acceptability in a bright line test that can be uniformly and consistently applied? And if there is no way to draw such rigid lines (as Mark and I both are asserting), then the creation of an arbitrary standard would only create confusion and further the putative malady that you see. How is that logical? You have identified a putative problem, but have not offered any sort of remedy.

 

The legality is not the issue. The Trust in the brand by the less knowledgeable, is. The usage of the term fiduciary Trust is used in the manner previously described and in the context described. Lets not be silly. You are very intelligent and know exactly what is being stated by me. You are applying legal analogy where none is claimed. You are, due to your training and choice of career, narrowly defining the words in a context not used.

 

As to what has been made clear, please read the words posted by Mr. MJ, that are the explanation of the intent of the Entity. It does not support your interpretation. Why would you object to clarity of phrase?

 

What is the arbitrary standard that would be created by stating that enhancement of a coin has been taken into consideration when making an opinion about the coin before Branding? Why is this so difficult to do? Is it not an opinion? Is consideration of Enhancement (or not) part of the opinion?

 

Please point to a question that I avoided, from you or Mark.

 

You have completely butchered what I state: using CAC for off label purpose to calibrate their own grading Standards? What the heck are you talking about? You are spouting Baloney, in a haughty intellectual manner. It is silly.

Comparing the issue to Physicians using a prescription off label? Please. I am not impressed that you may have encountered this situation in your profession. It does not equate with my position.

 

If you have been thinking all along of an analogy to use, and this is what you settled upon, it is the wrong one.

 

It is flawed logic to ask for clarity of that which the public purchases. So be it. You are correct. I am wrong. No problem. I am not here to have a my daddy is bigger than your daddy discussion.

 

You can not think of a method to clarify that which the Entity brands. I understand. This then means the only choice is to move the discussion to an unrelated and completely off target posit not stated, and use professorial phrases in an attempt to convince there is an issue that there is not.

 

I concede you are smart. I concede you are intellectually superior. I concede you enjoy attempting to belittle those you disagree with. It does not offend me.

 

However, when you state that I have persistently dodged questions from you and Mark, you are not being truthful. You know that is not the truth. You may have not liked the answers given. You may be an ego driven person that needs to win. No problem. Just try to be honorable in the discussion.

 

And I believe Mark can speak fro himself. This is not an us against them thing. Try not to be discourteous, and post with malice. It is not worth your time and energy to do so because of my words. It lowers you to my level of ignorance.

 

I wish you well, and it is not necessary to reply, courteously or not. We have both stated our thoughts. Should you like to pm me, please do so. It is rare for me to receive a PM, so I will welcome it, whether with malicious intent or not.

[MarkFeld]

"I have heard, many, many times, and read many, many times, commentary alluding to the rejection or non-branding of a coin by CAC must have been because they thought it was enhanced. I have read and heard many, many times the comment that a coin that was branded by the Entity was not enhanced."

 

 

 

 

 

People either accept TPGs as umpires who determine in-bounds or out-of-bounds or they do not. The same holds true for CAC. Accepting these entities as such certainly simplifies matters in terms of buying and selling. It does this by eliminating most but, obviously, not all of the bias and disagreement that existed before their acceptance as arbitrators.

 

The process of grading coins is subjective and ambiguous and mistakes can be made, but that holds true no matter who is doing the grading. With TPGs/CAC, however, there is (presumably) no bias in the equation and, in that respect, they are more objective than sellers or potential buyers. The resulting grade should be more accurate because of this objectivity than would be the case otherwise.

 

Are the TPGs and CAC really unbiased in all cases? Are they purposely ambiguous or silent when it comes to the particulars of the grading process or the process of sticker approval to facilitate confusion? I cannot answer these questions, because I have no way of knowing.

 

I do know that if people accept TPGs/CAC as arbitrators in spite of the unknowable/undisclosed, and they seem to do so, they will more often than not fair better than relying on the seller's or buyer's determination of the grade, and there will be much less aggravation involved.

 

I do not think that the disclosure you ask for will change anything in any significant way, including the comments in quotes above. However, I have no objection to said disclosure.

 

Perhaps you should start a petition to that end. I would have no problem signing it.

 

 

 

Would you want disclosure when you purchase a Car, a House, Insurance, Stocks, Bonds, Medical Care, Medicine?

 

Is it not logical to ask for disclosure and description of that which you purchase?

 

I think we are apart on what is being discussed.

 

I think that you may be unsure of what is being purchased form the Entity, and what the Brand means.

 

John, CAC offers opinions and doesn't claim to do otherwise. Those opinions are what's being purchased. Opinions can't be described and disclosed in the way that cars, homes, etc. can.

 

If they sticker a dipped coin, it means that the coin still meets their subjective standards. It doesn't imply that the coin hasn't been dipped or altered.

 

You seemed to think there was some merit to the potential disclosure language that I suggested earlier in this thread. But 1) I indicated that even I, the originator, didn't think such language would serve a useful purpose. And I have yet to see you propose language that you think would do so.

 

This will be my last post to this thread (unless I forget), as anything else from me would likely be repetition.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Good Morning Mark.

 

My first thought is that we don't disagree, because we have to clarify what we would possibly disagree about.

 

I am not stating what AMOUNT of dipping is within reason. I am stating that a definition of what "within reason" means should be articulated. Remember, we are talking about the 97% that place Trust in the opinion.

 

 

 

I can't think of any other purchase a person would make that would not have a definition of what is being bought/paid for.

 

"I THINK THIS COIN IS NICER THAN THE OTHER COINS. I AM GOING TO PUT A SEAL OF APPROVAL ON IT. GIVE ME $20.00 (or whatever amount).

That is not reasonable, or within reason.

 

Your final paragraph/thought is another playing field and is somewhat re-directing the logic posit and misdirecting the issue under discussion; however, the fact remains that a rather significant amount of written explanation of Grading levels is available to the collector that sends a coin to a TPG like ANACS/PCGS/NGC.. No such effort that I can find exists for the Entity under discussion. I did not utter the words "within reason" The representative of the Entity did. I, and any other collector, would logically ask what this means.

 

If the public should not have a definition of what the words mean, then exactly what is the collector/consumer entitled to? You are not suggesting that obfuscation and an uninformed consumer is good business, are you? of course not. If the opinion/blessing of the coin is based on a factor of whether or not the coin has been enhanced, then simply state this opinion. If not sure, state not sure.

 

John, my belief is that submitters and/or buyers of CAC certified coins are entitled to CAC's oipinion as to whether the (dipped or non-dipped looking) coin meets their standards. And that's what they get.

 

If CAC feels that a coin is over-dipped, they wont's sticker it. Likewise, if a grading company feels that a coin is ovedipped, they wont assign it a problem-free grade.

 

I don't feel that CAC owes anyone a written explanation regarding what level of dipping they believe to be acceptable or "within reason". They need to see the coins to be able to make such assessments. And I don't think it could be articulated in a way that would be particularly helpful or meaningful to consmers.

 

I understand, Mark.

An opinion not explained and without disclosure and without a clarification of the meaning under question, is not fulfilling a duty to the public. It is obvious that they do see the coins. That is how they render their opinion. They see it, they judge it, they use factors in arriving at a decision. Define the factors. Define 'within reason. I don't care if the Entity states we gave it to Joe Blitzelflick, he sort of thought it was nicely enhanced and not damaging, so we branded it. The point is that I don't care what definition/explanation/clarity is used. Just do something. The 97%...should they blindly trust without explanation? No, Mark, you argue for less quantity of explanation, I argue for consumer interest quality via Brand explaining.

 

The Entity can't meaningfully articulate their Brand to the consumer? Mark, that is just not straightforward. That is a Brand that should definitely be questioned.

 

John, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

As I mentioned previously, my articulation would be along the lines of what I have copied below. But I don't think it or anything else I can think of would be practical or meaningful wth respect to the the disclosure you apparently seek.

 

"The dipping did not diminish the luster and appearance of the coin to the extent that the assigned grade would appear to be higher than deserved. In other words, considering the luster, eye appeal and overall appearance of the dipped coin, it meets CAC's standards for the assigned grade."

 

 

 

 

Mark, that is Disclosure!

 

Wonderful!

 

That is all the Entity has to do. It is logical, it is human fault admitting, it admits enhancement, it is Truthful and Trust building. It give the public an opportunity to decide the worth of the Brand.

 

See? I knew we could reach a mutually beneficial suggestion of our positions. We have done so on tougher hypotheticals.

 

The Entity doesn't even need to use the word dipping. They can use enhancement, if preferable. The public can decide this.

 

So, you agree the Entity COULD articulate and define.

 

I like logic posit endings.

 

Mark, you probably missed this, where I agree wholeheartedly with your suggested wording. Your above Post appears to me that you did not see this.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Hi John

 

Here is their phone number. 908-781-9101.

 

Here is some stuff from their site explaining pricing, mission statement , A/B/C coins etc:

 

CAC-verified.

Because Confidence in a Coin's Quality is Priceless.

 

Whether you're a novice or advanced collector, you know that quality is what determines the value of a rare coin.

However, within any certified coin grade, not all coins are "solid" quality coins.

Now there's an easy way to identify coins that are solid for the grade - a CAC verification sticker.

CAC was founded by leading members of the numismatic community who recognized the need for a higher level of grading.

With CAC, prices for the solid quality coins can be untethered from the lesser quality counterparts.

A CAC sticker means:

It has been verified as meeting our strict quality standards.

CAC is an active bidder on many CAC coins. In fact, CAC has purchased over $340 million of CAC verified coins.

 

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

 

Absolutely not. There are many coins that are certified accurately for their grade. Unfortunately, it is an inescapable reality that many are at the lower end of the quality range for the assigned grade. CAC’s rejection of a coin does not necessarily mean that CAC believes the coin has been over-graded. It simply means that there are other coins with CAC stickers that are of higher quality for the grade. CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins. Many of these rejected coins will be acceptable to numerous dealers and collectors and will continue to be available in the marketplace. For quality-conscious collectors and dealers, a coin with a CAC sticker will have significant meaning.

 

How will coins with CAC stickers be priced?

 

Ultimately, the free market decides the value of coins. It will be influenced by how many coins in a specific grade are considered low quality. For example, an MS 65 1922 $20 Saint with a CAC sticker might have a large bid price premium over market-acceptable non-stickered examples, because perhaps only 20% of those submitted will meet or exceed CAC’s high quality standards. A 1923-D $20 Saint could be a very different story, because there are a fairly large number of nice quality 1923-D Saints in MS 65 holders that should qualify for a CAC sticker. As a result, they will almost certainly trade at a smaller premium over the market-acceptable non-stickered coins.

 

It is CAC’s goal to recognize and give deserved credit to quality coins. It is our hope and strong belief that this process will minimize the unfair negative effect on quality coins by decoupling them from their lower-end counterparts. One can only wonder what the price of an MS 65 1922 $20 Saint would be today if the CAC stickering process had been in place five years ago.

 

CAC is currently working on an exchange for certified coins and other numismatic products. We expect that there will be enough activity on the new exchange to justify published CAC Values sometime in 2008.

 

I noticed that CAC uses the term “premium quality” to describe coins that receive a CAC sticker. How does CAC define premium quality?

 

For many years, coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B, and C among themselves to further describe coins. C indicates low-end for the grade, B indicates solid for the grade, and A indicates high-end. CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker

 

 

Mark,

Read this.

I didn't post it. I didn't write it.

 

The word "opinion"?

The word "dipped/dipping/enhanced"?

"Confidence in a coins' quality"?

"Now there is a way to identify solid for the grade"?

"Rejected coins"?

 

I too, will not post anymore, because it appears discourtesy by Posters is rearing its ugly head. That I detest.

 

Some day, we will talk.

[brg5658]

 

I'm quite certain the "A/B" coin vs. "C" coin explanation was created post-hoc as a way of trying to describe their business model to the lay-public. Sadly, that supposed model doesn't hold water -- micro-grading at that level is simply a farce. Even two highly-experienced graders using highly-detailed published criteria don't agree on integer value numerical grades -- the idea of differentiating between A/B and C coins within a single integer grade is a joke.

Some (or a lot of) confusion comes from the fact that people still think CAC is a grading company. They are not. They are a review service that determines whether they would be willing to make a market in a coin in its current tomb and at its current grade on one of their coin exchanges (accessible or known really only to dealers). CAC is not a grading company.

 

 

 

I agree very much with your second paragraph; however, I disagree with regards to the stuff in red. Why is it unreasonable or a farce to say that a grader can distinguish between one that is low for the grade and superior PQ coins? Don't advanced collectors routinely do this already by cherry picking the nicest material and leaving the lower end stuff behind?

 

Because there is no evidence to support as much. When a coin submitted can come back +/- 2 points on either side fairly regularly, you are fooling yourself if you think that someone can tell the difference between (if there really is any difference between) an MS66 A-coin versus an MS66 B-coin. Yes, advanced collectors do what you say -- but when they are "cherry-picking the nicest material" it is to their own personal taste.

 

My point is that a coin may be reasonably stable at an integer grade level, but the determination of "A/B/C" or "+" is an added level of subjectivity and personal-preference that is bound to suffer from even less consistency than the numeric grade itself. If you wish to collect coins that are to the personal taste of some "magical" opinion in JA, then go for it. I just don't personally understand the almost religious following of said opinion.

 

==============

 

And, to MarkFeld's comment -- yes, I have the same problem with "+" grading. As best I can tell that was a business move by PCGS and NGC to increase resubmissions (and the revenue generated thereof).

 

You have not offered any true evidence (other than exaggerated anecdotes) to support your position either, and you are effectively recycling the very arguments that were used when PCGS introduced an eleven point integer mint state scale. The markets have seemed to adapt quite well, and participants, including yourself, seem to have little problem applying the 11 point scale. And given the coins you post (which appear to be high quality as best I can recall), it also seems that you can, even if only subconsciously, identify coins that are premium quality or solid for the grade as opposed to those that are not. If collectors can do this, then why can't CAC? I am also a bit surprised that you find it unreasonable to say, that in the vast number of cases, it is possible to discern qualitative differences within a grade interval. You have never looked at a coin that was low end for the grade, because of bag marks or other issues, and thought that it was inferior to another coin of the same grade? Now I turn in point to the +/- 2pt. change in grading that you reference. The only thing this proves is that there is subjectivity in coin grading; no one here will dispute that, especially when it comes to market grading. I still think that saying that is a far cry from stating that the plus grading or identifying high end for the grade coins is impossible and not feasible on a large scale basis. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

P.S. I also sense that some of your reaction is geared towards those who blindly assert that one opinion, whether the TPG or CAC, should be the "gospel" and be rigidly accepted as always correct. I don't see anyone in this thread advocating that, and in the grander scheme of coin collecting, these people make up a very small minority of collectors in the market.

 

Kenny, firstly, in an evidence-based world, the onus of proof is on the entity making the claims, not on those who refuse to believe something blindly. You should know this. Your statement supports my claim that CAC is truly a religious experience for some people -- I just don't buy into the whole "just have faith" load of horse-dung. My point is a really a simple one. In the end, a coin is what it is regardless of the numbers printed on the little slip of paper in the slab and regardless of the other paraphernalia and stickers attached to the outside of the slab. I actually do see a lot of people on coin forums treating grades as some sort of sacrosanct religious experience. That we have to rehash the same old topic literally every day is tiresome.

 

And, for the record, when I first started collecting coins the grading of MS60, 63, 65, and 67 for the mint-state realm pretty much covered the bases. Given the variability and inconsistency (or as you call it subjectivity -- which is just a newspaper-speak way of saying inconsistency) in the ability of TPGs to consistently assign the same grade to the same coin, for the most part that system of 4 MS state grades is still the standard. There are perceivable clear differences between those 4 grade levels, and "choice" or PQ examples in each grade. Breaking it into 11 pieces, and now the almost laughable "+" pieces, and further the application of the CAC stickers that supposedly represent 1/3 divisions into A/B/C -- "UNCLE" already.

 

I like TPG holders for the protection they offer my coins and some guarantee / liquidity. The CAC nonsense IMO doesn't really add much on top of that besides a crutch for the dogmatic minded to lean on. I don't see it genuinely helping the majority of collectors. I do see it as a way for dealers to milk just a little more out of buyers with an "official" PQ designation instead of just their sticky notes of the olden days.

 

I guess I'm just having a particularly cynical day To each his/her own.

[coinman_23885]

Kenny, firstly, in an evidence-based world, the onus of proof is on the entity making the claims, not on those who refuse to believe something blindly.You should know this.

 

Exactly - you made the claim that TPG grading cannot be more consistent than 11 point integer scale without plus designations, and I was asking for proof. I believe I initially responded to a post and material that you introduced here. If it comes to burden of proof, I believe the burden would be on you. With regards to the things I posted regarding grading scales, I recognize that those are opinions and are not intended to be represented as facts or scientific evidence. I lack the resources (including time and money) to conduct a scientific study worthy of discussion, which is why I keep an open mind and tend not to express things as absolute truths.