Blast White, weak obverse strike, and CACed

[lordmarcovan]

Within "reason" is code language for market acceptable.

Translated, it's market acceptable double-talk. Not all double-talk, you know, is. Like, for example, bull. Bull is never market acceptable. It's just bull. Even when you have a bunch of it, it's just a bunch of bull.

If you don't like that explanation and think it's bull, how would you phrase it, to try to let people know that a certain level of dipping is acceptable?

I didn't say it's bull. I said it's market acceptable double-talk.

 

I maintain that there is no way to put it into words in an objective, measurable and practical fashion. I would love it if you can show me that I'm mistaken about that. Go for it.

It should be classified as, dipped. We'll figure out for ourselves whether it's reasonable.

You didn't answer the question that was posed.

What question would that be, Mark? I don't have time to play guessing games.

Guessing games? I asked a single question and included a question mark after it:

 

If you don't like that explanation and think it's bull, how would you phrase it, to try to let people know that a certain level of dipping is acceptable?"

Question: "How often do you beat your wife?"

Answer: "I don't beat my wife."

Reply: "You didn't answer my question."

 

Yes I did.

 

You didn't and I'm not surprised. Back to ignore, as I wasted too much time on your games.

 

I just wanted to see what would happen if we kept on quoting the quotes of people who quoted a quote, since the quote box shrinks a little each time. Could a fierce enough debate eventually quote itself out of existence?

 

Hmm...

[Afterword]

"I just wanted to see what would happen if we kept on quoting the quotes of people who quoted a quote, since the quote box shrinks a little each time. Could a fierce enough debate eventually quote itself out of existence? Hmm... "

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps even cause the whole universe to implode!

[Kurtdog]

Within "reason" is code language for market acceptable.

Translated, it's market acceptable double-talk. Not all double-talk, you know, is. Like, for example, bull. Bull is never market acceptable. It's just bull. Even when you have a bunch of it, it's just a bunch of bull.

If you don't like that explanation and think it's bull, how would you phrase it, to try to let people know that a certain level of dipping is acceptable?

I didn't say it's bull. I said it's market acceptable double-talk.

 

I maintain that there is no way to put it into words in an objective, measurable and practical fashion. I would love it if you can show me that I'm mistaken about that. Go for it.

It should be classified as, dipped. We'll figure out for ourselves whether it's reasonable.

You didn't answer the question that was posed.

What question would that be, Mark? I don't have time to play guessing games.

Guessing games? I asked a single question and included a question mark after it:

 

If you don't like that explanation and think it's bull, how would you phrase it, to try to let people know that a certain level of dipping is acceptable?"

Question: "How often do you beat your wife?"

Answer: "I don't beat my wife."

Reply: "You didn't answer my question."

 

Yes I did.

You didn't and I'm not surprised. Back to ignore, as I wasted too much time on your games.

Oh my, not again. I don't know if I can take much more of this. This time it's he runs off and hides because I refuse to answer a question that assumes facts. Understand one thing, friend. When you ASSUME, you make an out of U and ME.

[James_OldeTowne]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

I didn't read this entire thread, but agree with the statement above. In my experience, a substantial percentage of "white" silver with CAC stickers has been dipped. But, the market seems to like that, so be it.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

I didn't read this entire thread, but agree with the statement above. In my experience, a substantial percentage of "white" silver with CAC stickers has been dipped. But, the market seems to like that, so be it.

 

What, in your opinion, does "within reason" mean?

How would you identify "within reason"?

[MarkFeld]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

I didn't read this entire thread, but agree with the statement above. In my experience, a substantial percentage of "white" silver with CAC stickers has been dipped. But, the market seems to like that, so be it.

 

What, in your opinion, does "within reason" mean?

How would you identify "within reason"?

 

While the question wasn't posed to me, my answer would be along the lines of: 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.

 

Yes, I realize that is subjective, imprecise and ambiguous.

[MJ]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

I didn't read this entire thread, but agree with the statement above. In my experience, a substantial percentage of "white" silver with CAC stickers has been dipped. But, the market seems to like that, so be it.

 

What, in your opinion, does "within reason" mean?

How would you identify "within reason"?

 

While the question wasn't posed to me, my answer would be along the lines of: 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.

 

Yes, I realize that is subjective, imprecise and ambiguous.

 

I actually think it's imprecise, ambiguous and subjective in that order

 

MJ

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

I didn't read this entire thread, but agree with the statement above. In my experience, a substantial percentage of "white" silver with CAC stickers has been dipped. But, the market seems to like that, so be it.

 

What, in your opinion, does "within reason" mean?

How would you identify "within reason"?

 

While the question wasn't posed to me, my answer would be along the lines of: 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.

 

Yes, I realize that is subjective, imprecise and ambiguous.

 

Good Evening, Mark.

Thank you for your thoughts.

The last sentence was not really necessary, but I understand the sentiment.

However, that is not the reason fro the question I posed.

The question was asked because it seems to me that if a person agrees with a statement, the person should be able to articulate the definition of what is being agreed to, in this case "within reason".

 

Subjectivity is fine, opinion is fine. Ambiguity and being imprecise, while understood to be a human condition, is not "within reason", when the public places fiduciary Trust in the opinion. Is it unreasonable and not logical to ask that the meaning be articulated by the speaker of the words?

[MarkFeld]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

I didn't read this entire thread, but agree with the statement above. In my experience, a substantial percentage of "white" silver with CAC stickers has been dipped. But, the market seems to like that, so be it.

 

What, in your opinion, does "within reason" mean?

How would you identify "within reason"?

 

While the question wasn't posed to me, my answer would be along the lines of: 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.

 

Yes, I realize that is subjective, imprecise and ambiguous.

 

Good Evening, Mark.

Thank you for your thoughts.

The last sentence was not really necessary, but I understand the sentiment.

However, that is not the reason fro the question I posed.

The question was asked because it seems to me that if a person agrees with a statement, the person should be able to articulate the definition of what is being agreed to, in this case "within reason".

 

Subjectivity is fine, opinion is fine. Ambiguity and being imprecise, while understood to be a human condition, is not "within reason", when the public places fiduciary Trust in the opinion. Is it unreasonable and not logical to ask that the meaning be articulated by the speaker of the words?

 

John, I think the meaning is articulated by the assignment (or lack) of a sticker by CAC. It is similar to the same way grading opinions are articulated. There is no statement regarding why a coin is graded a particular way/number. On a practical basis, how would you like the meaning to be articulated? Thanks.

[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.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

I didn't read this entire thread, but agree with the statement above. In my experience, a substantial percentage of "white" silver with CAC stickers has been dipped. But, the market seems to like that, so be it.

 

What, in your opinion, does "within reason" mean?

How would you identify "within reason"?

 

While the question wasn't posed to me, my answer would be along the lines of: 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.

 

Yes, I realize that is subjective, imprecise and ambiguous.

 

Good Evening, Mark.

Thank you for your thoughts.

The last sentence was not really necessary, but I understand the sentiment.

However, that is not the reason fro the question I posed.

The question was asked because it seems to me that if a person agrees with a statement, the person should be able to articulate the definition of what is being agreed to, in this case "within reason".

 

Subjectivity is fine, opinion is fine. Ambiguity and being imprecise, while understood to be a human condition, is not "within reason", when the public places fiduciary Trust in the opinion. Is it unreasonable and not logical to ask that the meaning be articulated by the speaker of the words?

 

John, I think the meaning is articulated by the assignment (or lack) of a sticker by CAC. It is similar to the same way grading opinions are articulated. There is no statement regarding why a coin is graded a particular way/number. On a practical basis, how would you like the meaning to be articulated? Thanks.

 

I think this discussion and both our thoughts happened a few Posts back.

 

Your thoughts...." I think the meaning is articulated by the assignment (or lack ) of a sticker by CAC"..... is the thrust of my position. The public placing fiduciary Trust in the opinion should be able to rely on this meaning, if that is the definition of "within reason". Just simply state what the definition is. Otherwise, it is subterfuge and misleading and does not clarify. The public should not have to "think" that is what it means. That is a wild west scenario of thought.

 

I do not agree that it is similar. There is a Grade assigned. There certainly are explanations of why a coin is graded a particular way/number. It is explained quite clearly in the PCGS book.

 

Where is this level of articulation in the CAC book, or website or anywhere else?

 

Again, I don't have anything against CAC. I simply believe it is in the interest of the Hobby to have as much clarity of fiduciary opinion, as can be defined...within reason (OK, I admit the last 2 words were a jab. I take them back.).

[MarkFeld]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

I didn't read this entire thread, but agree with the statement above. In my experience, a substantial percentage of "white" silver with CAC stickers has been dipped. But, the market seems to like that, so be it.

 

What, in your opinion, does "within reason" mean?

How would you identify "within reason"?

 

While the question wasn't posed to me, my answer would be along the lines of: 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.

 

Yes, I realize that is subjective, imprecise and ambiguous.

 

Good Evening, Mark.

Thank you for your thoughts.

The last sentence was not really necessary, but I understand the sentiment.

However, that is not the reason fro the question I posed.

The question was asked because it seems to me that if a person agrees with a statement, the person should be able to articulate the definition of what is being agreed to, in this case "within reason".

 

Subjectivity is fine, opinion is fine. Ambiguity and being imprecise, while understood to be a human condition, is not "within reason", when the public places fiduciary Trust in the opinion. Is it unreasonable and not logical to ask that the meaning be articulated by the speaker of the words?

 

John, I think the meaning is articulated by the assignment (or lack) of a sticker by CAC. It is similar to the same way grading opinions are articulated. There is no statement regarding why a coin is graded a particular way/number. On a practical basis, how would you like the meaning to be articulated? Thanks.

 

I think this discussion and both our thoughts happened a few Posts back.

 

Your thoughts...." I think the meaning is articulated by the assignment (or lack ) of a sticker by CAC"..... is the thrust of my position. The public placing fiduciary Trust in the opinion should be able to rely on this meaning, if that is the definition of "within reason". Just simply state what the definition is. Otherwise, it is subterfuge and misleading and does not clarify. The public should not have to "think" that is what it means. That is a wild west scenario of thought.

 

I do not agree that it is similar. There is a Grade assigned. There certainly are explanations of why a coin is graded a particular way/number. It is explained quite clearly in the PCGS book.

 

Where is this level of articulation in the CAC book, or website or anywhere else?

 

Again, I don't have anything against CAC. I simply believe it is in the interest of the Hobby to have as much clarity of fiduciary opinion, as can be defined...within reason (OK, I admit the last 2 words were a jab. I take them back.).

 

It appears that we disagree about whether the public should be able to have an explanation for/definition of what amount of dipping is within reason.

 

Additionally, I don't think that written standards adequately/meaningfully articulate grading of Proof and mint state coins. The terms used are often necessarily ambiguous. And enough so as to make it impossible to distinguish between 2 or more different grades.

[brg5658]

I think this discussion and both our thoughts happened a few Posts back.

 

Your thoughts...." I think the meaning is articulated by the assignment (or lack ) of a sticker by CAC"..... is the thrust of my position. The public placing fiduciary Trust in the opinion should be able to rely on this meaning, if that is the definition of "within reason". Just simply state what the definition is. Otherwise, it is subterfuge and misleading and does not clarify. The public should not have to "think" that is what it means. That is a wild west scenario of thought.

 

I do not agree that it is similar. There is a Grade assigned. There certainly are explanations of why a coin is graded a particular way/number. It is explained quite clearly in the PCGS book.

 

Where is this level of articulation in the CAC book, or website or anywhere else?

 

Again, I don't have anything against CAC. I simply believe it is in the interest of the Hobby to have as much clarity of fiduciary opinion, as can be defined...within reason (OK, I admit the last 2 words were a jab. I take them back.).

 

Dear John, (I have always wanted to write that) -- The less you (we) know about how the CAC sticker is applied and what it really means, then the more dealers and flippers (and delusional apologists and lemmings) can proclaim that it means the coin is something special. In the end, the sticker is a marketing tool -- plain and simple -- think of it as a black-box blessing.

 

[$ilverHawk]

I think this discussion and both our thoughts happened a few Posts back.

 

Your thoughts...." I think the meaning is articulated by the assignment (or lack ) of a sticker by CAC"..... is the thrust of my position. The public placing fiduciary Trust in the opinion should be able to rely on this meaning, if that is the definition of "within reason". Just simply state what the definition is. Otherwise, it is subterfuge and misleading and does not clarify. The public should not have to "think" that is what it means. That is a wild west scenario of thought.

 

I do not agree that it is similar. There is a Grade assigned. There certainly are explanations of why a coin is graded a particular way/number. It is explained quite clearly in the PCGS book.

 

Where is this level of articulation in the CAC book, or website or anywhere else?

 

Again, I don't have anything against CAC. I simply believe it is in the interest of the Hobby to have as much clarity of fiduciary opinion, as can be defined...within reason (OK, I admit the last 2 words were a jab. I take them back.).

 

Dear John, (I have always wanted to write that) -- The less you (we) know about how the CAC sticker is applied and what it really means, then the more dealers and flippers (and delusional apologists and lemmings) can proclaim that it means the coin is something special. In the end, the sticker is a marketing tool -- plain and simple -- think of it as a black-box blessing.

 

 

Exquisite explanation of CAC. I have nothing to add.

 

Carl

[coinman_23885]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

I didn't read this entire thread, but agree with the statement above. In my experience, a substantial percentage of "white" silver with CAC stickers has been dipped. But, the market seems to like that, so be it.

 

What, in your opinion, does "within reason" mean?

How would you identify "within reason"?

 

While the question wasn't posed to me, my answer would be along the lines of: 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.

 

Yes, I realize that is subjective, imprecise and ambiguous.

 

Good Evening, Mark.

Thank you for your thoughts.

The last sentence was not really necessary, but I understand the sentiment.

However, that is not the reason fro the question I posed.

The question was asked because it seems to me that if a person agrees with a statement, the person should be able to articulate the definition of what is being agreed to, in this case "within reason".

 

Subjectivity is fine, opinion is fine. Ambiguity and being imprecise, while understood to be a human condition, is not "within reason", when the public places fiduciary Trust in the opinion. Is it unreasonable and not logical to ask that the meaning be articulated by the speaker of the words?

 

John, I think the meaning is articulated by the assignment (or lack) of a sticker by CAC. It is similar to the same way grading opinions are articulated. There is no statement regarding why a coin is graded a particular way/number. On a practical basis, how would you like the meaning to be articulated? Thanks.

 

I think this discussion and both our thoughts happened a few Posts back.

 

Your thoughts...." I think the meaning is articulated by the assignment (or lack ) of a sticker by CAC"..... is the thrust of my position. The public placing fiduciary Trust in the opinion should be able to rely on this meaning, if that is the definition of "within reason". Just simply state what the definition is. Otherwise, it is subterfuge and misleading and does not clarify. The public should not have to "think" that is what it means. That is a wild west scenario of thought.

 

I do not agree that it is similar. There is a Grade assigned. There certainly are explanations of why a coin is graded a particular way/number. It is explained quite clearly in the PCGS book.

 

Where is this level of articulation in the CAC book, or website or anywhere else?

 

Again, I don't have anything against CAC. I simply believe it is in the interest of the Hobby to have as much clarity of fiduciary opinion, as can be defined...within reason (OK, I admit the last 2 words were a jab. I take them back.).

 

What is all of this "fiduciary trust" about? A CAC sticker is simply a message to market participants that the CAC graders approve of the coin and are willing to buy it at certain predetermined bid levels that are often publicly reported (e.g. in the Bluesheet). Nothing more. Obviously to qualify the coin must be solid or high end for the grade based on CAC's internal standards, have sufficient eye appeal (which is weighed - although CAC likes richly toned coins, it will reject those that are too dark even if the grade is appropriate), and is otherwise market acceptable to them. I don't view CAC as a fourth party grading service per se in the way that people are describing it here.

[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.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

I didn't read this entire thread, but agree with the statement above. In my experience, a substantial percentage of "white" silver with CAC stickers has been dipped. But, the market seems to like that, so be it.

 

What, in your opinion, does "within reason" mean?

How would you identify "within reason"?

 

While the question wasn't posed to me, my answer would be along the lines of: 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.

 

 

 

Yes, I realize that is subjective, imprecise and ambiguous.

 

Good Evening, Mark.

Thank you for your thoughts.

The last sentence was not really necessary, but I understand the sentiment.

However, that is not the reason fro the question I posed.

The question was asked because it seems to me that if a person agrees with a statement, the person should be able to articulate the definition of what is being agreed to, in this case "within reason".

 

Subjectivity is fine, opinion is fine. Ambiguity and being imprecise, while understood to be a human condition, is not "within reason", when the public places fiduciary Trust in the opinion. Is it unreasonable and not logical to ask that the meaning be articulated by the speaker of the words?

 

John, I think the meaning is articulated by the assignment (or lack) of a sticker by CAC. It is similar to the same way grading opinions are articulated. There is no statement regarding why a coin is graded a particular way/number. On a practical basis, how would you like the meaning to be articulated? Thanks.

 

I think this discussion and both our thoughts happened a few Posts back.

 

Your thoughts...." I think the meaning is articulated by the assignment (or lack ) of a sticker by CAC"..... is the thrust of my position. The public placing fiduciary Trust in the opinion should be able to rely on this meaning, if that is the definition of "within reason". Just simply state what the definition is. Otherwise, it is subterfuge and misleading and does not clarify. The public should not have to "think" that is what it means. That is a wild west scenario of thought.

 

I do not agree that it is similar. There is a Grade assigned. There certainly are explanations of why a coin is graded a particular way/number. It is explained quite clearly in the PCGS book.

 

Where is this level of articulation in the CAC book, or website or anywhere else?

 

Again, I don't have anything against CAC. I simply believe it is in the interest of the Hobby to have as much clarity of fiduciary opinion, as can be defined...within reason (OK, I admit the last 2 words were a jab. I take them back.).

 

What is all of this "fiduciary trust" about? A CAC sticker is simply a message to market participants that the CAC graders approve of the coin and are willing to buy it at certain predetermined bid levels that are often publicly reported (e.g. in the Bluesheet). Nothing more. Obviously to qualify the coin must be solid or high end for the grade based on CAC's internal standards, have sufficient eye appeal (which is weighed - although CAC likes richly toned coins, it will reject those that are too dark even if the grade is appropriate), and is otherwise market acceptable to them. I don't view CAC as a fourth party grading service per se in the way that people are describing it here.

 

You are simply being haughty. I am certain you know exactly what is meant by the words fiduciary Trust used in the context above.

 

It is not a simple message that is being discussed. It is the lack of a simple message that articulates what "within reason" means.

 

The "approval" by CAC of a coin that trades in the public domain, that is based on their opinion, does not stop at what is "acceptable to them". It is relied on by collectors/consumers....the 97% (and the 3%). It is a Brand. It is disseminated to the public. Money changes hands in relation to the Brand. With that comes a fiduciary responsibility, a moral responsibility and a duty to define.

 

OK. It is not a 4PG "per se". That changes nothing. Call or label the Entity whatever you prefer. It does not change the issue.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I think this discussion and both our thoughts happened a few Posts back.

 

Your thoughts...." I think the meaning is articulated by the assignment (or lack ) of a sticker by CAC"..... is the thrust of my position. The public placing fiduciary Trust in the opinion should be able to rely on this meaning, if that is the definition of "within reason". Just simply state what the definition is. Otherwise, it is subterfuge and misleading and does not clarify. The public should not have to "think" that is what it means. That is a wild west scenario of thought.

 

I do not agree that it is similar. There is a Grade assigned. There certainly are explanations of why a coin is graded a particular way/number. It is explained quite clearly in the PCGS book.

 

Where is this level of articulation in the CAC book, or website or anywhere else?

 

Again, I don't have anything against CAC. I simply believe it is in the interest of the Hobby to have as much clarity of fiduciary opinion, as can be defined...within reason (OK, I admit the last 2 words were a jab. I take them back.).

 

Dear John, (I have always wanted to write that) -- The less you (we) know about how the CAC sticker is applied and what it really means, then the more dealers and flippers (and delusional apologists and lemmings) can proclaim that it means the coin is something special. In the end, the sticker is a marketing tool -- plain and simple -- think of it as a black-box blessing.

 

 

Thank you.

 

By using those words, you reminded me of an unpleasant blow my face off piece of correspondence I received in my youth. Thanks.

 

As to the rest, well, I think that may have merit to some degree. I think it is more likely that the meaning is unknown by the Entity and the Entity does not know how to define that which is blessed (or not) by them. That is somewhat sad, when pondered. I can't think of any known public Brand that can not define that which it produces for consumption by the public, or would deny the public an explanation when asked what 'within reason" means.

[MarkFeld]

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.

[brg5658]

I think this discussion and both our thoughts happened a few Posts back.

 

Your thoughts...." I think the meaning is articulated by the assignment (or lack ) of a sticker by CAC"..... is the thrust of my position. The public placing fiduciary Trust in the opinion should be able to rely on this meaning, if that is the definition of "within reason". Just simply state what the definition is. Otherwise, it is subterfuge and misleading and does not clarify. The public should not have to "think" that is what it means. That is a wild west scenario of thought.

 

I do not agree that it is similar. There is a Grade assigned. There certainly are explanations of why a coin is graded a particular way/number. It is explained quite clearly in the PCGS book.

 

Where is this level of articulation in the CAC book, or website or anywhere else?

 

Again, I don't have anything against CAC. I simply believe it is in the interest of the Hobby to have as much clarity of fiduciary opinion, as can be defined...within reason (OK, I admit the last 2 words were a jab. I take them back.).

 

Dear John, (I have always wanted to write that) -- The less you (we) know about how the CAC sticker is applied and what it really means, then the more dealers and flippers (and delusional apologists and lemmings) can proclaim that it means the coin is something special. In the end, the sticker is a marketing tool -- plain and simple -- think of it as a black-box blessing.

 

 

Thank you.

 

By using those words, you reminded me of an unpleasant blow my face off piece of correspondence I received in my youth. Thanks.

 

As to the rest, well, I think that may have merit to some degree. I think it is more likely that the meaning is unknown by the Entity and the Entity does not know how to define that which is blessed (or not) by them. That is somewhat sad, when pondered. I can't think of any known public Brand that can not define that which it produces for consumption by the public, or would deny the public an explanation when asked what 'within reason" means.

 

Dear John (again), I agree with you wholeheartedly. But, that is the reality of CAC. They have no published standard -- you're paying for an opinion of essentially one man based on whether he would "make a market" in a particular coin.

 

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.

 

Now, in John Albanese's defense (who, by the way, I don't know from Adam), he saw a niche for this particular service and capitalized on it. He is a savvy businessman and an astute coin "god" in the eyes of many. But, apparently, even he didn't think that CAC would become the "religious experience" that it has become for so many collectors.

 

IMO (which is just a small-collector opinion), it is the primary fault of dealers who have been over-selling the idea of CAC as something more than it is. Because, let's be honest -- it's just a little holographic sticker on a piece of plastic which houses the little trinket of circular metal that some of us collect. Even though it sparkles, it is not "magical".

 

[coinman_23885]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

I didn't read this entire thread, but agree with the statement above. In my experience, a substantial percentage of "white" silver with CAC stickers has been dipped. But, the market seems to like that, so be it.

 

What, in your opinion, does "within reason" mean?

How would you identify "within reason"?

 

While the question wasn't posed to me, my answer would be along the lines of: 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.

 

 

 

Yes, I realize that is subjective, imprecise and ambiguous.

 

Good Evening, Mark.

Thank you for your thoughts.

The last sentence was not really necessary, but I understand the sentiment.

However, that is not the reason fro the question I posed.

The question was asked because it seems to me that if a person agrees with a statement, the person should be able to articulate the definition of what is being agreed to, in this case "within reason".

 

Subjectivity is fine, opinion is fine. Ambiguity and being imprecise, while understood to be a human condition, is not "within reason", when the public places fiduciary Trust in the opinion. Is it unreasonable and not logical to ask that the meaning be articulated by the speaker of the words?

 

John, I think the meaning is articulated by the assignment (or lack) of a sticker by CAC. It is similar to the same way grading opinions are articulated. There is no statement regarding why a coin is graded a particular way/number. On a practical basis, how would you like the meaning to be articulated? Thanks.

 

I think this discussion and both our thoughts happened a few Posts back.

 

Your thoughts...." I think the meaning is articulated by the assignment (or lack ) of a sticker by CAC"..... is the thrust of my position. The public placing fiduciary Trust in the opinion should be able to rely on this meaning, if that is the definition of "within reason". Just simply state what the definition is. Otherwise, it is subterfuge and misleading and does not clarify. The public should not have to "think" that is what it means. That is a wild west scenario of thought.

 

I do not agree that it is similar. There is a Grade assigned. There certainly are explanations of why a coin is graded a particular way/number. It is explained quite clearly in the PCGS book.

 

Where is this level of articulation in the CAC book, or website or anywhere else?

 

Again, I don't have anything against CAC. I simply believe it is in the interest of the Hobby to have as much clarity of fiduciary opinion, as can be defined...within reason (OK, I admit the last 2 words were a jab. I take them back.).

 

What is all of this "fiduciary trust" about? A CAC sticker is simply a message to market participants that the CAC graders approve of the coin and are willing to buy it at certain predetermined bid levels that are often publicly reported (e.g. in the Bluesheet). Nothing more. Obviously to qualify the coin must be solid or high end for the grade based on CAC's internal standards, have sufficient eye appeal (which is weighed - although CAC likes richly toned coins, it will reject those that are too dark even if the grade is appropriate), and is otherwise market acceptable to them. I don't view CAC as a fourth party grading service per se in the way that people are describing it here.

 

You are simply being haughty. I am certain you know exactly what is meant by the words fiduciary Trust used in the context above.

 

It is not a simple message that is being discussed. It is the lack of a simple message that articulates what "within reason" means.

 

The "approval" by CAC of a coin that trades in the public domain, that is based on their opinion, does not stop at what is "acceptable to them". It is relied on by collectors/consumers....the 97% (and the 3%). It is a Brand. It is disseminated to the public. Money changes hands in relation to the Brand. With that comes a fiduciary responsibility, a moral responsibility and a duty to define.

 

OK. It is not a 4PG "per se". That changes nothing. Call or label the Entity whatever you prefer. It does not change the issue.

 

I find it unfair and unreasonable to impose a fiduciary relationship on a party who never intended such an arrangement to result from the contractual submission agreement. CAC cannot help that market participants rely on CAC's opinion for selling and buying coins in transactions that do not involve CAC. I do find it material that CAC is more of a market maker/trading network as opposed to a traditional grading service.

 

Moreover, how would you define the issue for the public if you were CAC? If CAC did publish a rigid definition, it would prove to be quite unworkable as the level of dipping and the amount of originality and luster, if any, can vary significantly among samples depending on the strength and duration of dip, and the amount of time that has elapsed since the dip. Any definition must be broad enough to accommodate a wide range of circumstances or else it would confuse the markets even more and open CAC to criticism.

[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?

[MarkFeld]

 

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?

 

Although your post was directed elsewhere, I agree. And I wonder if the same criticism is leveled against grading companies that use plus grades, which attempt to distinguish coins of the same numerical grade.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

I didn't read this entire thread, but agree with the statement above. In my experience, a substantial percentage of "white" silver with CAC stickers has been dipped. But, the market seems to like that, so be it.

 

What, in your opinion, does "within reason" mean?

How would you identify "within reason"?

 

While the question wasn't posed to me, my answer would be along the lines of: 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.

 

 

 

Yes, I realize that is subjective, imprecise and ambiguous.

 

Good Evening, Mark.

Thank you for your thoughts.

The last sentence was not really necessary, but I understand the sentiment.

However, that is not the reason fro the question I posed.

The question was asked because it seems to me that if a person agrees with a statement, the person should be able to articulate the definition of what is being agreed to, in this case "within reason".

 

Subjectivity is fine, opinion is fine. Ambiguity and being imprecise, while understood to be a human condition, is not "within reason", when the public places fiduciary Trust in the opinion. Is it unreasonable and not logical to ask that the meaning be articulated by the speaker of the words?

 

John, I think the meaning is articulated by the assignment (or lack) of a sticker by CAC. It is similar to the same way grading opinions are articulated. There is no statement regarding why a coin is graded a particular way/number. On a practical basis, how would you like the meaning to be articulated? Thanks.

 

I think this discussion and both our thoughts happened a few Posts back.

 

Your thoughts...." I think the meaning is articulated by the assignment (or lack ) of a sticker by CAC"..... is the thrust of my position. The public placing fiduciary Trust in the opinion should be able to rely on this meaning, if that is the definition of "within reason". Just simply state what the definition is. Otherwise, it is subterfuge and misleading and does not clarify. The public should not have to "think" that is what it means. That is a wild west scenario of thought.

 

I do not agree that it is similar. There is a Grade assigned. There certainly are explanations of why a coin is graded a particular way/number. It is explained quite clearly in the PCGS book.

 

Where is this level of articulation in the CAC book, or website or anywhere else?

 

Again, I don't have anything against CAC. I simply believe it is in the interest of the Hobby to have as much clarity of fiduciary opinion, as can be defined...within reason (OK, I admit the last 2 words were a jab. I take them back.).

 

What is all of this "fiduciary trust" about? A CAC sticker is simply a message to market participants that the CAC graders approve of the coin and are willing to buy it at certain predetermined bid levels that are often publicly reported (e.g. in the Bluesheet). Nothing more. Obviously to qualify the coin must be solid or high end for the grade based on CAC's internal standards, have sufficient eye appeal (which is weighed - although CAC likes richly toned coins, it will reject those that are too dark even if the grade is appropriate), and is otherwise market acceptable to them. I don't view CAC as a fourth party grading service per se in the way that people are describing it here.

 

You are simply being haughty. I am certain you know exactly what is meant by the words fiduciary Trust used in the context above.

 

It is not a simple message that is being discussed. It is the lack of a simple message that articulates what "within reason" means.

 

The "approval" by CAC of a coin that trades in the public domain, that is based on their opinion, does not stop at what is "acceptable to them". It is relied on by collectors/consumers....the 97% (and the 3%). It is a Brand. It is disseminated to the public. Money changes hands in relation to the Brand. With that comes a fiduciary responsibility, a moral responsibility and a duty to define.

 

OK. It is not a 4PG "per se". That changes nothing. Call or label the Entity whatever you prefer. It does not change the issue.

 

I find it unfair and unreasonable to impose a fiduciary relationship on a party who never intended such an arrangement to result from the contractual submission agreement. CAC cannot help that market participants rely on CAC's opinion for selling and buying coins in transactions that do not involve CAC. I do find it material that CAC is more of a market maker/trading network as opposed to a traditional grading service.

 

Moreover, how would you define the issue for the public if you were CAC? If CAC did publish a rigid definition, it would prove to be quite unworkable as the level of dipping and the amount of originality and luster, if any, can vary significantly among samples depending on the strength and duration of dip, and the amount of time that has elapsed since the dip. Any definition must be broad enough to accommodate a wide range of circumstances or else it would confuse the markets even more and open CAC to criticism.

 

They never intended? Please, this Entity is as well versed in business acumen as any other in the U.S. Whether it is unfair or not, it it is not unreasonable to impose a duty of relationship. It is certainly not unfair for the consumer to question that which is offered and not explained. The rest is, frankly, Baloney. If the Entity didn't want the responsibility/burden, the Entity should not have entered the public consumer Arena. It is for CAC to clarify, not the public. The public will decide if the clarification meets their individual needs. OK. The definition has to be broad. No problem. But, (blah blah) state the definition. State if it was enhanced. Let the public then decide if the product is for them. Any criticism of the Entity is no more or no less than what any other Brand in the U.S. is subjected to, or questioned about. Paraphrasing the Bard's Writings, and with apologies, Me thinks thou dost protest to much.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[MarkFeld]

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."

 

 

 

 

[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.

[Catbert]

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