CAC Subjectivity

[Hard Times]

Folks don't get me wrong, I like to have CAC's opinion on a coin and I have explained why too many times on these boards and overall CAC is good for the collector if what they do is kept in perspective. Grading consistently is hard and challenging and CAC has some of the best and most experienced graders.

 

Here is their pledge on their home page:

 

"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 $275 million of CAC verified coins.

 

Want confidence in the quality of a coin?

 

Look for the CAC sticker!"

 

Given their statement for confidence above on their home page, what do you think of this (sorry Bob if I put you on the spot):

 

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/bean-wars-cac.254721/

 

Best, HT

[coinman_23885]

There are inconsistencies as with the TPGs and even among other experts. Coin grading is, has always been, and will always be subjective. No one is a 100% consistent; the important thing is that the opinions are substantially consistent in the larger scheme of things.

[DaveG]

I think the owner of the coin should talk to CAC about it.

[Afterword]

I would be wondering when the mistake was made - when the coin graded MS65 received the bean or when the same coin graded MS64 failed to receive the bean?

[robec1347]

I think the owner of the coin should talk to CAC about it.

I sent an email with photos this morning. No word yet.

[MJ]

CAC is not infallible. Not hard to understand.

 

MJ

[Coinbuf]

There are inconsistencies as with the TPGs and even among other experts. Coin grading is, has always been, and will always be subjective. No one is a 100% consistent; the important thing is that the opinions are substantially consistent in the larger scheme of things.

 

Here is the answer.

[Afterword]

CAC's opinions are consistently subjective.

[wheat'swheats]

Send it back to CAC and ask for a second look. Is it possible that something on the surface of the coin has changed , and we are not able to see it in a photo ? There could be several valid reasons , as well as just a simple mistake. I read some of the post on the forum you referenced and this is the second time I have gone there when someone has linked it and both times I came away feeling that some of those people (a lot) do not have a clue. If you were to call John he will tell you send it back with a note, and he would be happy to personally look at the coin, and give you the reason why it did not pass this time if that is the result.

[jpcienkus]

In my mind, it means that CAC is not the final answer? To ensure your investment, it's still up to the collector to do the work. The TPG's and CAC help seperate the wheat from the chaff, but there's still work to be done.

 

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm not insinuating that this hobby is retirement investment, but we are investing time and money in the hobby. And to preserve that investment, it's still up to the collector to do the work.

[Matt_dac]

More importantly to me, this shows the risk of cracking cases in search of higher grades.

[Hard Times]

CAC is not infallible. Not hard to understand.

 

MJ

 

Absolutely no question about it, that is the point. What is hard to understand is the marketing claim that continuously uses the word 'confidence'. And, as I have always said, if you are going to grade the TPG graders, you have to be better than them. Simply, CAC is just another expert opinion among many but a learning tool nonetheless.

 

So the take home message in this case is that they will bean a coin that was in a 65 holder, and when it comes back in a 64, not bean it for whatever reason. Given the price differences between A,B 65, and C 64 in many series, the collector should be concerned about that 'confidence' part...........

 

I think the study that Brandon (brg) suggested a few months ago that so many CAC apologists took issue with really needs to be done, then we can determine how much 'confidence' to put into CAC's decisions. As a collector, I want to know how consistent they are because it matters to my pocketbook.

 

Best, HT

[Raisethis2]

I think there's another obvious inconsistency here. It's PCGS determining the coin to be MS64 rather than MS 65. In looking at the coin based upon superior photos there's nothing about that coin that's MS 64.

 

Since CAC has a purchasing component to it's willingness to sticker coins, it might be something as simple as JA's willingness to buy MS 65 examples but refusal to consider the same coin in MS 64.

 

 

[bsshog40]

This can really confuse collectors like me that try to have confidence in a reputable grading company to be able to evaluate and grade my coin(s) accordingly. I agree in the statement made "CAC is not infallible". What bothers me is this looks like inconsistency in both PCGS and CAC. And not to directly point at just the two companies, where does this leave the confidence of the collectors when they look to the TPG's to grade and guarantee thier coins? I agree that mistakes can and will be made, but I wouldn't want mistakes made with my coins!!!! When you claim to be as good as you are, then you have to be consistent. No excuses!!! Jmo

[okbustchaser]

TPGs don't make "mistakes" when grading coins. In order for a posted grade to be a mistake grades would have to be facts not opinions. The same holds true with CAC. On the day that the coin was evaluated as a 65 JA was willing to put his money on the line. Over time (and slab changes) that opinion changed.

 

People change their minds continuously. Doo doo occurs.

[MarkFeld]

This can really confuse collectors like me that try to have confidence in a reputable grading company to be able to evaluate and grade my coin(s) accordingly. I agree in the statement made "CAC is not infallible". What bothers me is this looks like inconsistency in both PCGS and CAC. And not to directly point at just the two companies, where does this leave the confidence of the collectors when they look to the TPG's to grade and guarantee thier coins? I agree that mistakes can and will be made, but I wouldn't want mistakes made with my coins!!!! When you claim to be as good as you are, then you have to be consistent. No excuses!!! Jmo

 

Guess what? There will be other inconsistencies and/or "mistakes" based on subjectivity - I guarantee it. It's a fact of numismatic life and it's nothing the least bit new or surprising.

 

You and others need to decide for yourselves how much or how little to rely upon expert opinions and what you might learn from them.

[bsshog40]

This can really confuse collectors like me that try to have confidence in a reputable grading company to be able to evaluate and grade my coin(s) accordingly. I agree in the statement made "CAC is not infallible". What bothers me is this looks like inconsistency in both PCGS and CAC. And not to directly point at just the two companies, where does this leave the confidence of the collectors when they look to the TPG's to grade and guarantee thier coins? I agree that mistakes can and will be made, but I wouldn't want mistakes made with my coins!!!! When you claim to be as good as you are, then you have to be consistent. No excuses!!! Jmo

 

Guess what? There will be other inconsistencies and/or "mistakes" based on subjectivity - I guarantee it. It's a fact of numismatic life and it's nothing the least bit new or surprising.

 

You and others need to decide for yourselves how much or how little to rely upon expert opinions and what you might learn from them.

I agree and fully realize that Mark! But the market also relies on the experts opinions. It's much easier to learn by mistake than it is inconsistency!!!

Both are not the same!

[brg5658]

CAC is not infallible. Not hard to understand.

 

MJ

 

Absolutely no question about it, that is the point. What is hard to understand is the marketing claim that continuously uses the word 'confidence'. And, as I have always said, if you are going to grade the TPG graders, you have to be better than them. Simply, CAC is just another expert opinion among many but a learning tool nonetheless.

 

So the take home message in this case is that they will bean a coin that was in a 65 holder, and when it comes back in a 64, not bean it for whatever reason. Given the price differences between A,B 65, and C 64 in many series, the collector should be concerned about that 'confidence' part...........

 

I think the study that Brandon (brg) suggested a few months ago that so many CAC apologists took issue with really needs to be done, then we can determine how much 'confidence' to put into CAC's decisions. As a collector, I want to know how consistent they are because it matters to my pocketbook.

 

Best, HT

 

HT, how dare you bring science into numismatics? That would be like teaching evolution in schools...big no-no.

 

The true way to enlightenment in numismatics is one of religious mantra. If you repeat something enough times (no matter how absurd), people will start to believe it.

 

the mighty JA.

 

-Brandon

[MarkFeld]

This can really confuse collectors like me that try to have confidence in a reputable grading company to be able to evaluate and grade my coin(s) accordingly. I agree in the statement made "CAC is not infallible". What bothers me is this looks like inconsistency in both PCGS and CAC. And not to directly point at just the two companies, where does this leave the confidence of the collectors when they look to the TPG's to grade and guarantee thier coins? I agree that mistakes can and will be made, but I wouldn't want mistakes made with my coins!!!! When you claim to be as good as you are, then you have to be consistent. No excuses!!! Jmo

 

Guess what? There will be other inconsistencies and/or "mistakes" based on subjectivity - I guarantee it. It's a fact of numismatic life and it's nothing the least bit new or surprising.

 

You and others need to decide for yourselves how much or how little to rely upon expert opinions and what you might learn from them.

I agree and fully realize that Mark! But the market also relies on the experts opinions. It's much easier to learn by mistake than it is inconsistency!!!

Both are not the same!

 

Bobby, how do you distinguish inconsistency from "mistake"?

 

If the same coin is graded differently on different occasions, that amounts to inconsistency. But is it also a mistake? Personally, I think it depends on the coin.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

This can really confuse collectors like me that try to have confidence in a reputable grading company to be able to evaluate and grade my coin(s) accordingly. I agree in the statement made "CAC is not infallible". What bothers me is this looks like inconsistency in both PCGS and CAC. And not to directly point at just the two companies, where does this leave the confidence of the collectors when they look to the TPG's to grade and guarantee thier coins? I agree that mistakes can and will be made, but I wouldn't want mistakes made with my coins!!!! When you claim to be as good as you are, then you have to be consistent. No excuses!!! Jmo

 

Guess what? There will be other inconsistencies and/or "mistakes" based on subjectivity - I guarantee it. It's a fact of numismatic life and it's nothing the least bit new or surprising.

 

You and others need to decide for yourselves how much or how little to rely upon expert opinions and what you might learn from them.

I agree and fully realize that Mark! But the market also relies on the experts opinions. It's much easier to learn by mistake than it is inconsistency!!!

Both are not the same!

 

Bobby, how do you distinguish inconsistency from "mistake"?

 

If the same coin is graded differently on different occasions, that amounts to inconsistency. But is it also a mistake? Personally, I think it depends on the coin.

 

Maybe a review of what the word "confidence" means is a better path of thought.

 

A feeling or belief that someone or something is good or has the ability to succeed at something.

 

Trust or faith in a person or something.

 

Confidence is no more an absolute truth than being subjective is an absolute truth.

 

I am confident that people are caring individuals. If one person commits a crime against society, is that proof that I am incorrect in being confident that people are caring individuals?

 

It seems the discussion is applying confidence to a test of subjective consistency. That seems at odds with faith and belief and trust in ability.

 

An individual determines if confidence exists....not the person or entity declaring that an individual can have confidence.

[MarkFeld]

This can really confuse collectors like me that try to have confidence in a reputable grading company to be able to evaluate and grade my coin(s) accordingly. I agree in the statement made "CAC is not infallible". What bothers me is this looks like inconsistency in both PCGS and CAC. And not to directly point at just the two companies, where does this leave the confidence of the collectors when they look to the TPG's to grade and guarantee thier coins? I agree that mistakes can and will be made, but I wouldn't want mistakes made with my coins!!!! When you claim to be as good as you are, then you have to be consistent. No excuses!!! Jmo

 

Guess what? There will be other inconsistencies and/or "mistakes" based on subjectivity - I guarantee it. It's a fact of numismatic life and it's nothing the least bit new or surprising.

 

You and others need to decide for yourselves how much or how little to rely upon expert opinions and what you might learn from them.

I agree and fully realize that Mark! But the market also relies on the experts opinions. It's much easier to learn by mistake than it is inconsistency!!!

Both are not the same!

 

Bobby, how do you distinguish inconsistency from "mistake"?

 

If the same coin is graded differently on different occasions, that amounts to inconsistency. But is it also a mistake? Personally, I think it depends on the coin.

 

Maybe a review of what the word "confidence" means is a better path of thought.

 

A feeling or belief that someone or something is good or has the ability to succeed at something.

 

Trust or faith in a person or something.

 

Confidence is no more an absolute truth than being subjective is an absolute truth.

 

I am confident that people are caring individuals. If one person commits a crime against society, is that proof that I am incorrect in being confident that people are caring individuals?

 

It seems the discussion is applying confidence to a test of subjective consistency. That seems at odds with faith and belief and trust in ability.

 

An individual determines if confidence exists....not the person or entity declaring that an individual can have confidence.

 

That appears to jive with part of what I had posted:

 

"You and others need to decide for yourselves how much or how little to rely upon expert opinions".

[jom]

If the market continues to rely on the TPGs as the know-all-end-all, you won't have a lot of "decide for yourself" if people fear that their coin could get downgraded at the whim of the graders who might be having a bad day.

 

jom

[newprepper]

Just an observation, but this is what happens when you buy stickers and slabs, not coins..........apparently CAC buys stickers and slabs also, because before the coin was cracked and resubmitted, they would have bought it, now they won't............what changed? The coin is the same, the only thing different is it's new environment.

[MarkFeld]

If the market continues to rely on the TPGs as the know-all-end-all, you won't have a lot of "decide for yourself" if people fear that their coin could get downgraded at the whim of the graders who might be having a bad day.

 

jom

 

Sure you will. If people fear down-grades, they will decide for themselves not to crack coins out.

[coinman_23885]

Absolutely no question about it, that is the point. What is hard to understand is the marketing claim that continuously uses the word 'confidence'.

 

A small sample size doesn't establish a trend, and I don't think a small population of errors will undermine CAC's confidence. I have yet to see anyone come forward and claim that CAC is infallible. I don't even think that CAC would claim that. The linked thread proves that CAC, like the TPGs and everyone here, can make mistakes. That's hardly surprising and certainly not news. What separates CAC from TPG's in my opinion is that CAC will purchase the coin regardless of whether an error results or not. That is where the confidence in CAC comes from. There is no fee for grading service review, no delay in reviewing the piece, no return handling fees, or question about what remedy will be offered. To CAC, the result is the same: the same outright purchase price offer.

 

And, as I have always said, if you are going to grade the TPG graders, you have to be better than them. Simply, CAC is just another expert opinion among many but a learning tool nonetheless.

 

I agree with the very last sentence. CAC isn't grading the grading services per se but offering a second opinion. Why should a second opinion be held to a higher standard than the first? Collectors should consider both and their own.

 

So the take home message in this case is that they will bean a coin that was in a 65 holder, and when it comes back in a 64, not bean it for whatever reason. Given the price differences between A,B 65, and C 64 in many series, the collector should be concerned about that 'confidence' part...........

 

I think the study that Brandon (brg) suggested a few months ago that so many CAC apologists took issue with really needs to be done, then we can determine how much 'confidence' to put into CAC's decisions. As a collector, I want to know how consistent they are because it matters to my pocketbook.

 

Best, HT

 

I think it shows that collectors shouldn't blindly rely on others and should accept responsibility for their own education.

[jom]

If the market continues to rely on the TPGs as the know-all-end-all, you won't have a lot of "decide for yourself" if people fear that their coin could get downgraded at the whim of the graders who might be having a bad day.

 

jom

 

Sure you will. If people fear down-grades, they will decide for themselves not to crack coins out.

 

 

jom

[bsshog40]

This can really confuse collectors like me that try to have confidence in a reputable grading company to be able to evaluate and grade my coin(s) accordingly. I agree in the statement made "CAC is not infallible". What bothers me is this looks like inconsistency in both PCGS and CAC. And not to directly point at just the two companies, where does this leave the confidence of the collectors when they look to the TPG's to grade and guarantee thier coins? I agree that mistakes can and will be made, but I wouldn't want mistakes made with my coins!!!! When you claim to be as good as you are, then you have to be consistent. No excuses!!! Jmo

 

Guess what? There will be other inconsistencies and/or "mistakes" based on subjectivity - I guarantee it. It's a fact of numismatic life and it's nothing the least bit new or surprising.

 

You and others need to decide for yourselves how much or how little to rely upon expert opinions and what you might learn from them.

I agree and fully realize that Mark! But the market also relies on the experts opinions. It's much easier to learn by mistake than it is inconsistency!!!

Both are not the same!

 

Bobby, how do you distinguish inconsistency from "mistake"?

 

If the same coin is graded differently on different occasions, that amounts to inconsistency. But is it also a mistake? Personally, I think it depends on the coin.

MISTAKE:1.

an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.

CONSISTENCY: Steadfast adherence to the same principles.

[Hard Times]

Absolutely no question about it, that is the point. What is hard to understand is the marketing claim that continuously uses the word 'confidence'.

 

A small sample size doesn't establish a trend, and I don't think a small population of errors will undermine CAC's confidence. I have yet to see anyone come forward and claim that CAC is infallible. I don't even think that CAC would claim that. The linked thread proves that CAC, like the TPGs and everyone here, can make mistakes. That's hardly surprising and certainly not news. What separates CAC from TPG's in my opinion is that CAC will purchase the coin regardless of whether an error results or not. That is where the confidence in CAC comes from. There is no fee for grading service review, no delay in reviewing the piece, no return handling fees, or question about what remedy will be offered. To CAC, the result is the same: the same outright purchase price offer.

 

And, as I have always said, if you are going to grade the TPG graders, you have to be better than them. Simply, CAC is just another expert opinion among many but a learning tool nonetheless.

 

I agree with the very last sentence. CAC isn't grading the grading services per se but offering a second opinion. Why should a second opinion be held to a higher standard than the first? Collectors should consider both and their own.

 

So the take home message in this case is that they will bean a coin that was in a 65 holder, and when it comes back in a 64, not bean it for whatever reason. Given the price differences between A,B 65, and C 64 in many series, the collector should be concerned about that 'confidence' part...........

 

I think the study that Brandon (brg) suggested a few months ago that so many CAC apologists took issue with really needs to be done, then we can determine how much 'confidence' to put into CAC's decisions. As a collector, I want to know how consistent they are because it matters to my pocketbook.

 

Best, HT

 

I think it shows that collectors shouldn't blindly rely on others and should accept responsibility for their own education.

 

All good points coinman and thanks for your comments, which is why I like to open us these debates by posting the issue I did. Having said that, I do think CAC has to be better than the TPG's they are grading, simply because by giving their opinion it either increases or reduces the value of a coin on the market. The market has spoken on that as we all know. Is that CAC's fault? Maybe, maybe not, but it is what it is and they have to be held to a higher standard because of it. If too many more inconsistencies turn up however, that might change.

 

Best, HT

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

This can really confuse collectors like me that try to have confidence in a reputable grading company to be able to evaluate and grade my coin(s) accordingly. I agree in the statement made "CAC is not infallible". What bothers me is this looks like inconsistency in both PCGS and CAC. And not to directly point at just the two companies, where does this leave the confidence of the collectors when they look to the TPG's to grade and guarantee thier coins? I agree that mistakes can and will be made, but I wouldn't want mistakes made with my coins!!!! When you claim to be as good as you are, then you have to be consistent. No excuses!!! Jmo

 

Guess what? There will be other inconsistencies and/or "mistakes" based on subjectivity - I guarantee it. It's a fact of numismatic life and it's nothing the least bit new or surprising.

 

You and others need to decide for yourselves how much or how little to rely upon expert opinions and what you might learn from them.

I agree and fully realize that Mark! But the market also relies on the experts opinions. It's much easier to learn by mistake than it is inconsistency!!!

Both are not the same!

 

Bobby, how do you distinguish inconsistency from "mistake"?

 

If the same coin is graded differently on different occasions, that amounts to inconsistency. But is it also a mistake? Personally, I think it depends on the coin.

MISTAKE:1.

an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.

CONSISTENCY: Steadfast adherence to the same principles.

 

I understand what you are conveying. But, there is no evidence that steadfast adherence to the same principles was not in practice at the time. Consistency is not perfection, nor will it guarantee an equal result every time, when a subjective opinion is the method used to effect an end result.

 

Lets think about what is being asked of the entity: using knowledge, experience, physical (visual) ability, to conclude the title/description/acceptability level of a coin on behalf of thousands of individuals with a vested interest, who may or may not have the knowledge,experience and visual ability that is equal to the entity, and if it is not equal, will usually profess to the High Heavens it is equal, so their opinion(suggestive) is heard.

 

I don't think the description of mistake can ever be used to describe an issue of difference, under such a scenario. Impossibility of consistent selective performance of subjective pontificating would be a reasonable description, though.

[jom]

The market has spoken on that as we all know. Is that CAC's fault? Maybe, maybe not, but it is what it is and they have to be held to a higher standard because of it. If too many more inconsistencies turn up however, that might change.

 

Even if CAC is "at fault" they do put their money where their mouth is. Beyond making a mistake in terms of authenticity the TPGs really don't do that for most of the coins they grade. You can argue MS64 vs. MS65 or whatever but the TPGs aren't going to compensate owners for that. JA and CAC will once they sticker the coin....they WILL buy the coin at their published prices.

 

Once I figured out the CAC is really only a self-serving entity (in a positive way really) I just use it as a guide. No more no less.

 

jom