CAC Launching Grading Service

I'd be interested in learning about "How and Why" it failed. If it failed because the evaluations were wildly inconsistent with human opinions, then the problem would be with the technology and analysis methods. We simply need to figure out a way to collect measurements and rank the package in a way that correlates with human opinions.

Whether the process is working in a satisfactory manner or not with respect to grades, one thing that we shouldn't be able to criticize is the consistency. And, in the end, consistency is the ultimate goal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Seriously. Several posts in the thread and nothing relevant to the OP.

 

If the transcripts of this linked law suit are reviewed: https://news.coinupdate.com/1-9-million-fraud-judgment-raises-compelling-hobby-issues/
it's believed a related conditions class-action is supported.

There are others, litigated based on standards fraud that are believed related for class-action lawsuit support.

JMHO

 

Doug, I beg to differ with your believed inaccurate lay-persons' statements, where pertinent facts should/can be disclosed only after filing of a lawsuit.

It's believed that undue/unlawful procedures have been utilized by certain principals to slowly devour/reduce the value of collectors investments in the Numismatic "Industry", where I believe my disclosures on this site have been met with parallel responses to that of past "discussion", supporting improper grading practices by some firms.

It's believed that the 1977 copyright has never been legally voided, and properly publicly replaced with a new published universal standard.

Yes, you are correct, Defendants attorneys have purchased closure in "letter of law" Numismatic lawsuits, where it's believed the proper legal fault hasn't been addressed.

JMHO

 

I’ve always understood CAC to be a safeguard against overgrading by TPG’s, as well as a market maker for coins meeting CAC’s standards. Therefore it’s hard for me to picture CAC becoming just another grading service applying the same standards as the others. It seems they would lose their influence in the market if they did that.

Assigning too high of a numerical grade is one issue, but an even bigger question in my opinion is what should be done with coins that are “market acceptable” to TPG’s but are dipped or have other issues such as minor rim dings that make them unacceptable to CAC. The paper money grading system already has this worked out. They have “EPQ” for fully original notes, regular straight grades for notes that are washed or pressed or otherwise not fully original but still market acceptable, and “apparent”/“net” grades as equivalent to “details”. There’s even another category of straight grades with “comments”. Why not have the same for coins? To me a CAC sticker is like “EPQ”, but non-CAC is still okay.

 

https://www.caccoin.com/forums/disc...-company-announcement-faq-question-submission

Answers directly from JA

"f a coin isn’t sticker worthy, it will wind up in a details holder, or a lower grade holder. As stated earlier, CAC coin collectors won’t have to be concerned with C coins diluting their holdings." -JA

This is a huge takeaway so far

 

It's believed John A. and I, understood the limitations of only grading certain TPG that have become immune to the believed only valid pictorial objective minimal standard, delivering less desirable product than other TPG, that grade, but disclose potential problems.

The service you suggest was already available, but found unacceptable by buyers.

Post 47 is believed to clarify Johns' reasoning in providing grading services, instead of showing that an average of crap is representative of a firms' product, especially above gem grade.

JMHO

 

I have samples from other grading firms that have a diminished grade, but a specific statement of a potential unacceptable coin condition.

Buyers generally buy a stated perfect grade slab, rather than an imperfectly graded discounted coin, as I have occasionally posted to show elevated degree of imperfection.

JMHO

 

IMO, AI coin grading is a very long way of if at all.
Humans grading a coin and putting images to ID the coin forever into a computer so it will grade the same forever (as long as its condition remains the same) could be started in a month or two. HOWEVER, that is not AI grading.

As for CAC's grading service affecting ANACS & ICG I seriously doubt it.
CAC WILL NEVER be able to match the SPEED of turnaround, Low PRICES , and CUSTOMER SERVICE of those two services. Additionally (laugh all you wish) IMO, the top guys at those two services are better NUMISMATISTS. JA and his CAC staff rank with the top coin dealer$. There is a big difference.

Furthermore, if CAC would have stickered INS and ANACS slabs , then and only then would those services have possibly been affected.

Time will tell.

PS CAC is starting the new service at a very bad time in the world.

 

That is an interesting way of saying the difference in the top brass is Numismatists verse Coin Dealer. I would have never thought of it that way.

 

So we are agreeing that the ABC are turning into F's?

 

This time in the world, is only what you make it. You don't like the direction, You!, get the chance to change it.

 

It's believed that a jury would bely that myth when presented with a published pictorial written standard relative to an image of elevated position graded product, upgrade published standard where images don't coincide with written verbiage, and product value is established by possibly unsupported documents, generated by "dealers".

JMHO

 

Thats the same edited show we are accustomed to, It's dreck. For me was the extra graded Franklin that we saw a couple years ago.
a member here tracked the history, You want to know why we have been losing members is because the market has gone crazy. Those that know grading are disappointed.
I am disappointed. Grading shouldn't coincide with the newest trend.

 

"Keep asking until you get the answer you want" and "give people reasons to keep coming back for your service" aren't exactly new trends, though, are they?

 

If the “market acceptable” coins are going to get detailed as opposed to just being given a lower grade, then yes, that appears to be the case. It makes me wonder how viable that business model will be, especially for early US coins that most often are not “CAC worthy” even if straight graded. Where will they find enough new coins to grade? People won’t bother to send stuff in if they expect it to come back ungradeable.

It’s my understanding that CAC’s business model is based on their being a market maker, more so than on the nominal sticker fees. Moving into the grading business, however, would change that IMO.

 

A number of the questions and/or comments concerning CAC are readily available on the CAC Forum. Questions are welcome....and are answered, via a Thread established for just that purpose. A few here use/participate/comment on the CAC Forum. If you don't know about it, navigate to it.

What grading standards are and will be used are being shared daily on the website. Comprehensive visual examples of grading criteria is being built...multiple sets... at a very substantial cost. The Sets will be displayed at various numismatic venues.

In fact, if a collector/dealer/hobbyist/numismatist wants to lend/sell a piece to CAC for this purpose, go to the Thread and let JA know. It is a very important undertaking, and has never been done before.

This undertaking is for the benefit of the collector. Those that don't think so or raise eyebrows at such a remark, will be the persons that benefit the most from going to the website.

There will be Registries. There will be more than 1 Registry. It is explained....again...on the CAC Forum.

 

No one said that it wasn't a great business model. I just think that they have gone way too far. You can have that same model without diminishing the quality of service.