Blast White, weak obverse strike, and CACed

[coinman_23885]

John, there is a lot in your post. I will respond tomorrow. I enjoy the discussion.

 

P.S. I am not trying to belittle anyone, nor would I receive "joy" from doing so. I am interested in having an open discussion about CAC. My issue and analogy with the law concerned the use of the words "fiduciary trust," which have a very precise meaning other than the one you have ascribed to it. If you had left it at public trust, I wouldn't have posted that (although I would disagree).

 

Also, I will go back through this thread tomorrow. It is quite long, and perhaps I have wrongly attributed something to you. If so, I will publicly apologize to you, and correct my other post.

[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

 

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.

 

John

 

I'm not offended in the least. I didnt think you were attacking me. I wouldn't care if you were. I could less then zero about others who may have personalized attacks. You assume too much in my opinion.

 

I was not attacking you. I'm sincere.

 

MJ

[brg5658]

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.

 

You are taking my statement out of context Kenny. The "basal state" of the coin grading argument is one where a coin is simply MS or not. All "evolution" of that argument requires evidence to show utility thereof. The 1st evolution was the use of descriptors like "choice" or "gem". The 2nd evolution was using gapped MS descriptors on the Sheldon 70 scale (just like we don't currently use AU57 or AU59 -- it used to be MS60, 63, 65, and 67). The 3rd evolution was the introduction of the differentiation of MS60 - MS70 in one point increments. The 4th most recent evolution is that of "+" grading.

 

The 1st and 2nd levels of differentiation of MS coins were proven to be useful to collectors to differentiate different levels of mint state. The differences between an MS60 and MS63 coin could be described concretely and even novice collectors could quite consistently classify coins into 4 levels of MS.

 

The 3rd evolution has proven useful for making money for TPGs and registry set competition. It also has allowed less experienced people with more of an investor slant to not have to learn how to grade coins for themselves and have some level of protection of their investment (both physically and via guarantees offered by TPGs).

 

The 4th evolution of "+" grading has still not proven to be useful for much of anything. Again, it generates more resubmissions and profit for the TPGs, but it's mostly hand waving, and inconsistent at best.

 

The CAC business is a whole other can of worms, as it is not a grading company nor do they assign grades at all. Superficially they claim to differentiate between A/B and C coins, but in practice they are a sticker that represents the opinion of one man who runs a coin exchange for his personally-approved coins to be marketed to dealers. As I said, and will say again -- if you want your collection to be one based on the tastes and preferences of JA then focus on CAC stickers. If you want to actually build your own collection to your tastes and preferences, then CAC is nothing more than a shiny self-adhesive distraction.

 

I hope it is now clear to you how the "burden of proof" argument works. You don't assume the end state and prove backwards to basal state. Each additive state along the way should pass the burden of proof test to advance the basal state. Eleven separate MS grades is a stretch of this proof test, and "+" (and CAC approval) "grading" have proven themselves useful for nothing substantively relevant to actual collecting and the hobby -- but I won't deny they are associated with hype, higher prices, and a cult-like following.

 

Cheers.

 

[jom]

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.

 

You are taking my statement out of context Kenny. The "basal state" of the coin grading argument is one where a coin is simply MS or not. All "evolution" of that argument requires evidence to show utility thereof. The 1st evolution was the use of descriptors like "choice" or "gem". The 2nd evolution was using gapped MS descriptors on the Sheldon 70 scale (just like we don't currently use AU57 or AU59 -- it used to be MS60, 63, 65, and 67). The 3rd evolution was the introduction of the differentiation of MS60 - MS70 in one point increments. The 4th most recent evolution is that of "+" grading.

 

The 1st and 2nd levels of differentiation of MS coins were proven to be useful to collectors to differentiate different levels of mint state. The differences between an MS60 and MS63 coin could be described concretely and even novice collectors could quite consistently classify coins into 4 levels of MS.

 

The 3rd evolution has proven useful for making money for TPGs and registry set competition. It also has allowed less experienced people with more of an investor slant to not have to learn how to grade coins for themselves and have some level of protection of their investment (both physically and via guarantees offered by TPGs).

 

The 4th evolution of "+" grading has still not proven to be useful for much of anything. Again, it generates more resubmissions and profit for the TPGs, but it's mostly hand waving, and inconsistent at best.

 

The CAC business is a whole other can of worms, as it is not a grading company nor do they assign grades at all. Superficially they claim to differentiate between A/B and C coins, but in practice they are a sticker that represents the opinion of one man who runs a coin exchange for his personally-approved coins to be marketed to dealers. As I said, and will say again -- if you want your collection to be one based on the tastes and preferences of JA then focus on CAC stickers. If you want to actually build your own collection to your tastes and preferences, then CAC is nothing more than a shiny self-adhesive distraction.

 

I hope it is now clear to you how the "burden of proof" argument works. You don't assume the end state and prove backwards to basal state. Each additive state along the way should pass the burden of proof test to advance the basal state. Eleven separate MS grades is a stretch of this proof test, and "+" (and CAC approval) "grading" have proven themselves useful for nothing substantively relevant to actual collecting and the hobby -- but I won't deny they are associated with hype, higher prices, and a cult-like following.

 

Cheers.

 

I agree with most of what you said here: Two things I've felt about the coin market and specifically grading are articulated quite well in your post:

 

1) The number of numerical grades, for all practical purposes, is too high. You simply can't make something that is inherently in-accurate and subjective MORE precise. To someone that is in the sciences (actually engineering) such as myself that whole concept is rather absurd. But it definitely helps the TPGs though through more and more submissions due the aforementioned "subjective" nature of grading. Now with the addition of "+" it makes it even more ridiculous, IMO.

 

2) CAC is a based on the "tastes" (as you put) of one or, at least, of very few people. There is NOTHING wrong with that though. If one feels a coin with a sticker is worth more then by all means go for it. If the market at the same time devalues non-CAC material so be it. In the short term it could hurt the investment one has made in a coin. Over the long haul though things tend to average out and the coins will eventually fit into their "market derived" value...what ever that will be.

 

I just don't see the need to argue over all of this stuff about CAC. It's just another opinion...certainly a well respected opinion...but an opinion nonetheless. Take it for what it's worth. We are all adults here and we are fully capable of making our own choices. So even with all of this "hand holding" by TPGs and CAC when all is said and done most of us will buy the coins we like and pass on the ones we don't regardless of stickers, stars or plus signs.....

 

jom

 

 

 

 

[World Colonial]

You are taking my statement out of context Kenny. The "basal state" of the coin grading argument is one where a coin is simply MS or not. All "evolution" of that argument requires evidence to show utility thereof. The 1st evolution was the use of descriptors like "choice" or "gem". The 2nd evolution was using gapped MS descriptors on the Sheldon 70 scale (just like we don't currently use AU57 or AU59 -- it used to be MS60, 63, 65, and 67). The 3rd evolution was the introduction of the differentiation of MS60 - MS70 in one point increments. The 4th most recent evolution is that of "+" grading.

 

The 1st and 2nd levels of differentiation of MS coins were proven to be useful to collectors to differentiate different levels of mint state. The differences between an MS60 and MS63 coin could be described concretely and even novice collectors could quite consistently classify coins into 4 levels of MS.

 

The 3rd evolution has proven useful for making money for TPGs and registry set competition. It also has allowed less experienced people with more of an investor slant to not have to learn how to grade coins for themselves and have some level of protection of their investment (both physically and via guarantees offered by TPGs).

 

The 4th evolution of "+" grading has still not proven to be useful for much of anything. Again, it generates more resubmissions and profit for the TPGs, but it's mostly hand waving, and inconsistent at best.

 

The CAC business is a whole other can of worms, as it is not a grading company nor do they assign grades at all. Superficially they claim to differentiate between A/B and C coins, but in practice they are a sticker that represents the opinion of one man who runs a coin exchange for his personally-approved coins to be marketed to dealers. As I said, and will say again -- if you want your collection to be one based on the tastes and preferences of JA then focus on CAC stickers. If you want to actually build your own collection to your tastes and preferences, then CAC is nothing more than a shiny self-adhesive distraction.

 

I hope it is now clear to you how the "burden of proof" argument works. You don't assume the end state and prove backwards to basal state. Each additive state along the way should pass the burden of proof test to advance the basal state. Eleven separate MS grades is a stretch of this proof test, and "+" (and CAC approval) "grading" have proven themselves useful for nothing substantively relevant to actual collecting and the hobby -- but I won't deny they are associated with hype, higher prices, and a cult-like following.

 

Cheers.

 

Agree with these sentiments. The primary (my opinion is only) reason any one cares is because of money. You collect world coins just like I do, though I believe you also collect US which I do not.

 

The best evidence that this is all about money and wouldn't be a big deal otherwise if US coins were much cheaper and not bought as "investments" is that these practices are virtually non-existent elsewhere.

 

Most collectors outside the US don't care about TPG because their coins are so much cheaper, just like US coins used to be at which time these practices did not exist. And because they cost so much less, they don't pay attention or at least pay the ridiculous premiums US collectors do for what are often trivial differences in actual quality.

 

Because coins (both US and otherwise) are so much more expensive than they used to be, anyone who doesn't want to treat their purchases as disposable consumption has to play this game, whether they want to or not. I have to do it along with everyone else. While I generally prefer coins that meet the "market acceptable" standards of the grading services, I dislike that it has even inflated the prices of the coins I buy, even though I have made good returns on some of them.

 

When I resumed collecting in 1998, I didn't pay any attention to any of this. It was only after my "investment" reached a certain level and the coins became more or a lot more expensive that I have. I would prefer that the coins I buy cost less so that I could buy more of them for the same money, as in the past.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

 

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

 

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.

 

John I apologize. In looking back through this thread, it is clear that I inadvertently misattributed a statement (and consequent question dodging) to you when it was in fact another post, not authored by you, that I had in mind when writing that. The thread is incredibly long and it is easy to overlook the original source. Nevertheless, that is no excuse at all, and I am very sorry. I do hope that you accept my apology and understand that nothing in this thread was meant personally as I believe you might have interpreted it to be. For whatever it is worth, I appended a correction to the original post that seems to have upset you.

 

Also, on another note, with regards to your other points, the internet makes it very difficult to convey language as is meant in a number of situations and there are a number of factors including (but not limited to) tone that might not accurately come across through a keyboard. None of my messages were meant in the fashion that you interpreted them to mean. I enjoy discussing and "debating" (although that is really too strong of a word here) with you and I enjoy reading your opinions, even when I disagree with them, because your posts tend to be logical. It was hoped that perhaps some solution to the problem that would ameliorate both your concerns and those posted by myself might surface as a result. I was in no way trying to demean or stifle the conversation. And with regards to the legal stuff, perhaps that was a bit out of left field; however, the term "fiduciary" implies a legal relationship and that is why I responded with the analogy and stuff that I did there. I think part of that is the result of a lot of the threads that have surfaced lately including both accurate/applicable and inaccurate/inapplicable citations of law (in my opinion) that prompted my response.

 

With regards to CAC, it appears that we fundamentally disagree on the role of CAC. I do not see it as a grading service in the traditional sense, but rather a trading network. If I am interpreting some of your posts correctly, reproduced at the end, it appears that you would like dipped coins to be labeled as such on an individual basis or that there would be an articulation of what dipping CAC finds acceptable. I agree with Mark here, that I do not think a rigid definition/bright line rule can be created and such a standard must necessarily be broad to cover all of the situations that are likely to present. There must be some ambiguity or vagueness. That's why I mentioned that "market acceptability" was the governing factor, and that I didn't think any standard could be more precise than that. Moreover, I think labeling of a coin as dipped is problematic for other reasons, including that it is not always apparent when a coin has in fact been dipped (see my post earlier concerning Morgan Dollars, etc.). The combination of these factors can create problems and only confuse the markets even more. Sometimes doing nothing is better than attempting to articulate a standard that is too rigid and that would only make things worse.

 

With all of this said, I think a lot of people are honing in on one isolated statement from CAC's website concerning the separation of so-called "A-B" and "C" quality coins, and I will concede that perhaps CAC should expand upon that to include that CAC includes market acceptability and other factors. This would be relevant for toning, dipping, and any number of other possibilities. I do not think it creates the clarity you hope for, but perhaps it would seem less deceptive to you or at least encourage market participants to take a more active role in learning and judging coins based on their own personal tastes and likes.

 

If, in fact, the statement concerning "reasonable dipping" is accurate, and I don't doubt the Poster that conveyed this is correct, this is deceitful, because no explanation of what reasonable enhancement is, and no visible labeling of an opinion of enhancement on the coin being reviewed, is very misleading. The average collector (the other 97% that is referred to by another Poster-rightly or wrongly) doesn't know that this is acceptable practice, and should be expected.

 

Creating a Market is one thing. Declaring a coin is the best of the best of the best, and not mentioning enhancement of the coin as the reason it may be the best of the best of the best, is self serving and hurts the Hobby. It is a reverse pyramid, ready to tumble one way or the other.

[Kurtdog]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

Creating a Market is one thing. Declaring a coin is the best of the best of the best, and not mentioning enhancement of the coin as the reason it may be the best of the best of the best, is self serving and hurts the Hobby.

Well, there it is. That bean could very well mean that A or B coin was dipped. CAC just doesn't want to admit it. Neither, for that matter, do the TPGs. Thus, they have this unwritten rule, "dipped within reason." It means, "acceptable to them." As "them" is all there is, it means they don't feel obliged to disclose it.

 

It's like, "properly cleaned." They don't feel obliged to disclose that, either, only when it's "improperly cleaned." When it's graded, and when it's graded and beaned, it's acceptable to them, and "them" is all there is. Take it or leave it, but that's how it works.

[Hard Times]

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.

 

You are taking my statement out of context Kenny. The "basal state" of the coin grading argument is one where a coin is simply MS or not. All "evolution" of that argument requires evidence to show utility thereof. The 1st evolution was the use of descriptors like "choice" or "gem". The 2nd evolution was using gapped MS descriptors on the Sheldon 70 scale (just like we don't currently use AU57 or AU59 -- it used to be MS60, 63, 65, and 67). The 3rd evolution was the introduction of the differentiation of MS60 - MS70 in one point increments. The 4th most recent evolution is that of "+" grading.

 

The 1st and 2nd levels of differentiation of MS coins were proven to be useful to collectors to differentiate different levels of mint state. The differences between an MS60 and MS63 coin could be described concretely and even novice collectors could quite consistently classify coins into 4 levels of MS.

 

The 3rd evolution has proven useful for making money for TPGs and registry set competition. It also has allowed less experienced people with more of an investor slant to not have to learn how to grade coins for themselves and have some level of protection of their investment (both physically and via guarantees offered by TPGs).

 

The 4th evolution of "+" grading has still not proven to be useful for much of anything. Again, it generates more resubmissions and profit for the TPGs, but it's mostly hand waving, and inconsistent at best.

 

The CAC business is a whole other can of worms, as it is not a grading company nor do they assign grades at all. Superficially they claim to differentiate between A/B and C coins, but in practice they are a sticker that represents the opinion of one man who runs a coin exchange for his personally-approved coins to be marketed to dealers. As I said, and will say again -- if you want your collection to be one based on the tastes and preferences of JA then focus on CAC stickers. If you want to actually build your own collection to your tastes and preferences, then CAC is nothing more than a shiny self-adhesive distraction.

 

I hope it is now clear to you how the "burden of proof" argument works. You don't assume the end state and prove backwards to basal state. Each additive state along the way should pass the burden of proof test to advance the basal state. Eleven separate MS grades is a stretch of this proof test, and "+" (and CAC approval) "grading" have proven themselves useful for nothing substantively relevant to actual collecting and the hobby -- but I won't deny they are associated with hype, higher prices, and a cult-like following.

 

Cheers.

 

I agree with most of what you said here: Two things I've felt about the coin market and specifically grading are articulated quite well in your post:

 

1) The number of numerical grades, for all practical purposes, is too high. You simply can't make something that is inherently in-accurate and subjective MORE precise. To someone that is in the sciences (actually engineering) such as myself that whole concept is rather absurd. But it definitely helps the TPGs though through more and more submissions due the aforementioned "subjective" nature of grading. Now with the addition of "+" it makes it even more ridiculous, IMO.

 

2) CAC is a based on the "tastes" (as you put) of one or, at least, of very few people. There is NOTHING wrong with that though. If one feels a coin with a sticker is worth more then by all means go for it. If the market at the same time devalues non-CAC material so be it. In the short term it could hurt the investment one has made in a coin. Over the long haul though things tend to average out and the coins will eventually fit into their "market derived" value...what ever that will be.

 

I just don't see the need to argue over all of this stuff about CAC. It's just another opinion...certainly a well respected opinion...but an opinion nonetheless. Take it for what it's worth. We are all adults here and we are fully capable of making our own choices. So even with all of this "hand holding" by TPGs and CAC when all is said and done most of us will buy the coins we like and pass on the ones we don't regardless of stickers, stars or plus signs.....

 

jom

 

 

 

 

I think both comments above by Brandon and jom are correct and well presented. The reason we discuss CAC so much is because they have become a market mover and thus important given the cost of these things we collect. Also, it has become fairly clear that CAC does sticker a particular type(s) of coins (especially with respect to types of toning and the issue of their opinion of NT vs human assisted toning - HAT) and not others with some natural human subjectivity and we all want to know try to understand how they delineate between A/B and C given the market issue. But, when it all comes down to it, nice coins, even if they don't sticker, are still nice and as jom says, value should even out over the long term. I guess it is the short term traders that have to be particularly concerned about their coins that don't sticker.

 

Given the market importance of CAC it is good we continue to discuss them with cool heads even when opinions differ and learn and value each others opinions. This thread has been much better at that than some previous ones I and others started. Good job folks.

 

Best, HT