CAC Subjectivity

[mommam17]

Yes, CAC is an opinion, that has years and years of experience behind it. That means a lot to me

[Hard Times]

 

..This is what I am talking about - one man making decisions on the fate of value of a coin. Bill Jones has noted this many times, the market (that means us) has bought into this yet we see two examples here of stunning coppers that are relegated to lower value simply because JA/CAC says so and we follow, amen...

 

I think that's a ludicrous claim. There are plenty of collectors and dealers who make their own value and purchase decisions, regardless of the opinion of NGC, PCGS or CAC.

 

 

Go to Greysheet Mark and see the prices on beaned vs unbeaned coins and tell me this is a ludicrous claim. The market, meaning collectors that buy coins, has bought totally into the idea that CAC beaned coins are better and those that aren't beaned are inferior and pay accordingly. Here are two examples shown where I disagree. There are 1000s more out there beaned and not beaned, that the same case can be made. Clearly many beaned coins are nice for their grades and worth a premium, but many are not any different than their unbeaned brethren. Surely there are some informed numismatists that make their own valuations of coins independent of the bean or not. But nevertheless, the market has spoken and I have heard from many how they rely on the bean to determine the value they will pay for a coin, not their personal grading or valuation skills. It is what it is.

 

Questionable color? I was not there during its whole life span to watch it change, so I can only go by what informed numismatists have told me about toning.

 

I state again, the toning on this coin, and on Bob's lincoln, do not have the toning attributes of something that was added quickly - for which I would call 'questionable color'. They have the attributes that suggest they took a long time to tone. So if you want to call it questionable, please lay our your evidence for it.

 

Best, HT

 

It doesn't matter what the CDN or any other publication says. You have stated that you form your own opinions about coins and their value. And so have numerous others. If that is the case, I repeat, all you should need to do is find a single individual who feels the way you do about the coin. Surely that person exists and can be located.

 

My "evidence" of the coin's color looking questionable is simply the color of the coin. It does not look like what I usually associate with a naturally toned coin of that type. I might feel differently, were to I see it in hand and either way, I very well might be mistaken.

 

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the response. I hear this all the time, 'color' looks questionable about coins, but again there is no evidence of rapid toning there based on what folks have said about what rapid toning would look like - my avatar is an example of that, toning 'rides' on the surface and extends across the stars, devices etc., so it could be AT. We simply don't know the history of these coins, there has been way too much subjectivity in interpreting toning. There seems to be some concept laid out in the community that toning must be a certain way or it is AT or not MA. But coins don't agree, they are going to all tone according to their environments, which are going to be different for every coin, so we can in no way quantify toning, we can only discern whether it looks like it took a long time or if it perhaps tone quickly. Color is in part going to depend on what is in the atmosphere during the toning time, heat, humidity, and alot of other environmental factors. For the quickly toned coins, we can look for those telltale signs of rapid toning. This one does not have it, so in such a case, it must have taken a long time to tone, and then, must be an NT coin.

 

I will be at the Smithsonian this morning, can't wait to see the small numismatic exhibit with the unique gold coins they have on display!

 

Best, HT

 

Your response assumes that slow toning versus rapid toning solves the questionable color debate. It does not. A coin may very well have toned again through normal processes over the years after having been treated chemically long ago and still acquire a predictable look later.

 

Honestly, I don't think anyone can say what the history of a coin has been with respect to how it acquired its toning in most cases. Based on what some informed numismatists (a Feld term I love to use ;-) have said about toning, this is the look that they consider takes a long time to acquire which gives it a better chance that it was not human assisted in some way. But these debates can and do go around in circles for ever, I am just saying what my interpretation is based on that observation, every one can decide for themselves.

 

Best, HT

[mommam17]

Nothing is 100%, but when these guys look at tons of coins over the years, they get a pretty good feel about what is natural. When they see a coin that doesn't fit in, they obviously will question if it's natural. It appears to me, experience is not as valued as it should be, in some cases. We have all read when Mark Feld sees a coin and says it seems off in it's color. Is he always right? Of course not, but from his years of experience he probably is, and the same with CAC.They have been looking at coins since the 60's and 70's.....

[Hard Times]

Nothing is 100%, but when these guys look at tons of coins over the years, they get a pretty good feel about what is natural. When they see a coin that doesn't fit in, they obviously will question if it's natural. It appears to me, experience is not as valued as it should be, in some cases. We have all read when Mark Feld sees a coin and says it seems off in it's color. Is he always right? Of course not, but from his years of experience he probably is, and the same with CAC.They have been looking at coins since the 60's and 70's.....

 

And yet, CAC admits that it beans blast white, dipped (i.e. doctored) coins.........

 

That kind of destroys the whole argument that they are the purveyors or originality.

 

[Hard Times]

And to add; One year they decide the MS70 'look' is okay, the next year they decide it is not. So,,,,, all that experience, 50 years worth, and they still can't get some reasonable consistency on issues that have been around for decades. Hmm...

 

Again:

[mommam17]

Blast white dipped coins have been accepted by the services for almost 30 years. Everyone knows this and sometimes impossible to tell if they've been dipped. Call it doctoring or what ever you want, but that's how it is. Toning that is off, is totally different. Better to have an original looking dipped coin, than one with questionable toning.......

 

[TonerGuy]

No , it's not that I would like the coin less if it wasn't stickered. Sometimes, pictures of coins don't really represent what the coin looks like. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it's nicer than the picture, sometimes not as nice. With the sticker, I know that it is probably a nice coin I will like, and not have problems like PVC contamination or something distracting. John's opinion means a lot to me and, as you say, is not important to you.

 

I get that. I just look at * coins the same way you look at CAC toners. Ive seen the premiums * usually bring - not always but in some denominations it adds huge value. I just havent done the research to see if CAC really adds anything to the value of a toned coin.

 

And to add; One year they decide the MS70 'look' is okay, the next year they decide it is not. So,,,,, all that experience, 50 years worth, and they still can't get some reasonable consistency on issues that have been around for decades. Hmm...

 

Again:

 

Agreed... Thats why CAC is really no different to me than a TPG.

 

And yet, CAC admits that it beans blast white, dipped (i.e. doctored) coins.........

 

That kind of destroys the whole argument that they are the purveyors or originality.

 

 

+1

 

Better to have an original looking dipped coin, than one with questionable toning.......

 

No thats about the same in my book. Dipped = AT both are ways to chemically enhance a coin with the object to increase value.

[mommam17]

Your book is different than the services and CAC. I get that, everyone has their own opinions.

[Hard Times]

Here is a question for the CAC all in advocates. So they changed their policy with respect to coppers that they claim have the 'MS70 look' a couple years back and now won't bean them. This policy change very likely means that many coppers with this look that is now out of greenie beanie fashion do in fact have the bean on their slabs. So what should CAC do about this to regain our confidence?

 

Here is my suggestion:

 

CAC home page:

 

Dear CAC members. We decided to institute a new policy. From now on, copper coins that have the MS70 look will not get the CAC approval and sticker as many did in the past. If you have one of these that we stickered previously, it is important that you send it back to us, and we will pay full market value for the coin in question. This is the only way we can get our mistakes off the market so that buyers won't be taken advantage of. We apologize for the inconvenience we caused to our members, and the affect this had on the market. No one is perfect, but we are willing to pay for our past mistakes.

 

 

[AHFreak]

I highly doubt they view it as a "mistake"... I wouldn't.

[mommam17]

Here is my suggestion- Talk to John directly. I've never heard of anybody having a "bad" conversation with him.....

[mommam17]

Also, after you bought, probably for big money, the most stunning half cent you have ever seen on the bourse floor and it didn't sticker, I can understand your disappointment.......

[Alan Glasser]

Hello, everyone.

 

I have always had a bit of trouble accepting the concept of CAC as that I paid $30 or more to have my coins certified, how do I know what is "worth" getting the green bean of CAC? Many of my slabs are "early" NGC's, green label PCGS and early ANACS...even a few ICG pieces. It just seemed to me to be paying more money for yet another opinion. Well...my viewpoint is changing. I have been a collector since age 7, that's over 55 years and as I contemplate liquidation (not sure NOW is a good time for a decent U.S. type set with no great rarities)...but there is some value there. I am now asking myself, should I send in my coins for a CAC judgement? There is a CAC "store" maybe half an hour from me and I am wondering if I should just gather up the good stuff and bring it in (if that is allowed). But how does one determine if a coin is especially "nice for the grade"...especially with the variances in grading these days as opposed to earlier times? I'm confused. I would like full value of course when I sell and Heritage has a great site that evaluates "My collection" online. (I used to work for Heritage as a remote cataloger some years ago...they were great to work for...it was only a temp position, sadly). So, I know where the better material is...but WHAT makes "better"? What does CAC look for?

 

If you were in my situation, how would you handle this? I really value the opinions of all you knowledgeable collectors out there, and I send sincere thanks!!

 

Alan in MA musiccoins

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Find a local collector that will let you piggy back on their submission and send all coins worth over $500 and all pieces that look under graded to CAC. Collectors don't pay for coins that don't sticker, dealers do.

 

P.S. CAC will sticker coins that are high end or solid for the grade, rejecting low end/over graded/ problem pieces.

[coinman_23885]

CAC will also only review NGC and PCGS coins. Depending on value, it might be worth considering crossing the ICG/ANACS pieces over to PCGS. NGC's "crossover" program for non-PCGS coins requires a crack out and is risky if you are unfamiliar with today's standards. Some standards are looser, others are much tighter in my opinion (CAM/DCAM/UCAM and PL/DMPL/DPL designations).