My Suggestion to the Consortium

[wayneherndon]

Take high resolution images of every coin screened (pass or fail) and put them on a website available to the public along with the basics about the current holder (e.g., Service, Grade, Cert Number, etc.). Not only will this be a great resource (similar to Heritage archives) but it will also assist in identifying changes to a coin's surface that could discourage the very types of activities the Consortium opposes. Make it searchable by cert number as well as denomination/date.

 

WH

[Tradedollarnut]

While I have no specific information if this is being considered, personally as a collector I doubt I'd be inclined to submit my coins to any service if they were permanently 'branded' in a negative manner simply because someone was having a bad day in the grading room.

[carson city]

Wonderful Idea ! Maybe CAC will take this idea and incorporate it into their Business Model ?

[Tradedollarnut]

Wonderful Idea ! Maybe CAC will take this idea and incorporate it into their Business Model ?

 

That cinches it - no way, Jose'!

[wayneherndon]

I guess it will depend on where marketing and public perception place the Consortium sticker. But, at this point, I don't see failing to get a sticker as necessarily negative. If the sticker means they are eligible for premium bids, then absence of the sticker means they are eligible for the regular bids. While bad coins won't have the sticker, neither will all the okay-for-the-grade coins. Not all coins can be PQ; some have to settle for being normal. There's plenty of collectors for "normal" coins at "normal" prices.

 

Yes, having a record that a coin is "normal" makes it harder for an owner to sell it as "premium" but why should that be a problem for the consortium. In fact, isn't that a valid objective? Sure there are guys out there peddling "normal" (and even "below normal") coins as "premium" but they're not going to be submitting those coins to CAC anyway.

 

In any event, a potential submitter would weigh the potential benefit with the potential risk. This would cause them to better screen their coins and be a bit more choosy about what is submitted. That sounds like a good thing to me.

 

WH

[Tradedollarnut]

neither will all the okay-for-the-grade coins.

 

I believe that you are mistaken.

 

[wayneherndon]

Are you saying okay-for-the-grade (i.e., average) coins will be stickered too? If so, then yes, my premise is off a bit. I thought just premium coins would be stickered.

 

WH

[DC Dawg]

Hey TDN... there are Internet rumors that you are a partner or part-owner of Legend Numismatics whose president, Laura Sperber, is one of the drivers of CAC. Is this true?

 

Scott

[BankNote1]

Hey TDN... there are Internet rumors that you are a partner or part-owner of Legend Numismatics whose president, Laura Sperber, is one of the drivers of CAC. Is this true?

 

It isn't a rumor it is a fact!

[MikeInFL]

I agree with Wayne -- what a wonderful resource that would work in the favor of the goals of the Consortium (or at least how I understand it).

 

However, there's a great deal of truth in TDN's perspective -- I'm not sure I would want my dogs classified as such for all to see.

 

My suggestion, therefore, is as follows:

 

1) All approved coins will be stickered and photographed and placed on a publically-available website.

2) All refused coins will not be stickered and will only be photographed and placed on a publically-available website if the owner agrees.

 

You could also make the entire photographic record be optional, but I like the requirement of forcing approved coins into the database for the common good.

 

All IMHO...Mike

[PerryHall]

Hey TDN... there are Internet rumors that you are a partner or part-owner of Legend Numismatics whose president, Laura Sperber, is one of the drivers of CAC. Is this true?

 

Scott

 

This is common knowledge among most forum members. TDN never tried to keep it secret that he had a financial interest in Legend Numismatics.

 

 

 

[DC Dawg]

This wasn't a "gotcha" question. It was pure curiosity. I find it interesting that TDN is against this venture and his "partner" is one of the drivers. I'm sure he wouldn't explain the difference in opinion, but it would sure be interesting!!

 

Scott

[ziggy29]

This wasn't a "gotcha" question. It was pure curiosity. I find it interesting that TDN is against this venture and his "partner" is one of the drivers. I'm sure he wouldn't explain the difference in opinion, but it would sure be interesting!!

Where did you get the idea that TDN was against this venture? He is apparently one of its primary financial backers.

[DC Dawg]

This wasn't a "gotcha" question. It was pure curiosity. I find it interesting that TDN is against this venture and his "partner" is one of the drivers. I'm sure he wouldn't explain the difference in opinion, but it would sure be interesting!!

Where did you get the idea that TDN was against this venture? He is apparently one of its primary financial backers.

I thought he was... maybe it was a senior moment. There was so much fur flying in some of these posts I can't keep up! I'll have to go back and look... sorry!

 

Scott