I do not want to open a can of worms, but does anyone else think that sending coins to CAC is a little stupid? Do you trust a "team of experts" with only 4 years in the business over the TPG's who have been around for 20 some odd years?? To me it makes no sense, but to others I guess it might. I send my coins in to get graded once, not to get graded twice.
I dont see them as bringing in a higher value, to me personally. I am sure looking at heritage/teletrade past auctions, CAC coins bring in a great permium, or atleast attract more bidders. My only problem is if you reslab or reholder the coin, you loose that sticker. To me, it doesnt make a difference (unless of course you have the CAC gold sticker :devil
From what I understand, a bean sticker on a slab indicates that the coin is a strong grade for whatever the grade is. And if there is a huge price difference between grades, then the CAC sticker can get more value for the coin. For example if you have a coin at MS65 slabbed, and the avg price paid for that coin is 3000.00, but you get a CAC sticker on it, and you can sell it for 5000.00 (because it's a coin on the high end of 65) when the price of a MS66 would be 5500.00. I think it makes sense then.
Ya but if that grade "flew under the radar" at NGC, then what's to say CAC isn't lying? If NGC did not want to grade the coin at MS65, and you send it off to CAC and they say it's MS65, then who is telling the truth? I'm not bashing CAC, but I trust NGC when it comes to grading. They have been doing it for much longer than CAC.
Cac doesn't grade the coin, really. In other words, CAC will not take a MS65 coin from NGC and label it as a 66 or even higher. They will simply indicate that, independent of NGC - in this example - that it deserves their sticker, or that it doesn't. It's a separate checks and balances for people who think they need it on their slab/coin. If you don't see the value in it, then don't ever send a coin to CAC. Pretty simple, right? I have no coins that I think that CAC would be needed on. And if you are buying the coin and not the slab, and you know how to judge grades very well, then you don't need a CAC sticker to tell you if you have a great coin for the grade, or something that is barely passable in that grade or even misgraded.
First off, John Albanese has as much experience as the TPGs. Don't let the fact that the CAC has only been in business for a short time to fool you. That said, and just like grading, it makes sense for some coins and doesn't make sense for others. I would recommend the same evaluation be done to assess if a coin should be graded by the TPG also be used in evaluating if a coin should be sent to CAC -- if there's a high likelihood that the coin will appreciate in value as a result. Lastly, if you are OK with sending a coin in to be graded once, what's the big deal in sending it in twice. Said a bit differently, if once is good, why isn't twice better? Particularly if the coin appreciates in value both times. It seems to me that the vast majority of those who dislike the CAC (a) have never used the service, or (b) apply faulty logic to the situation (as you have). Of those who have used the service, I've yet to meet someone dissatisfied with it. If you asked me to trust either (a) CAC, (b) PCGS, or (c) NGC. I would pick none of the above, but if you forced me to choose one, I would pick CAC every time. In my experience they are more consistent and the most conservative of the 3. So, who are you going to believe? People (like you) who dismiss the service out of ignorance, or people who have actually used the service?
I've used the service -- on my own coins -- and to the best of my recollection I have only purchased one coin with the CAC label already affixed. Personally, I submitted coins to the CAC to (a) broaden my understanding of grading and problem coins, and (b) increase their value when/if it comes time to sell. Does that change your opinion, or am I the exception to the rule?
You are wrong. JA has been grading coins for longer than NGC has been in business. He was one of the founders of PCGS in 1986.
You are most welcome. There is a lot of misinformation about the CAC -- much like I understand there was when the TPGs first came into existence. In the end they, will both be judged by the success they have in the marketplace. While the TPGs have been successful for a long time now, the CAC is still relatively new. It will take some time for it to shake out, but I must admit I like what I see from CAC. They provided a valuable service to me, personally, and that's really all I can speak to with authority. Are they perfect? No. Are they right for all coins? No....but neither are the TPGs. Take care....Mike
I just wish there was some way CAC would re-sticker holders if they get re-slabbed with the same verification number.
The CAC sticker is simply a way of "proving" a coin is good/high end for the grade. Its basically making "provable" dealer assertions that its a "good" 65, etc. Its amazing that when dealers sell a coin none are ever advertised as overgraded, but at least half they infer are undergraded. The TPG must be ultra conservative, huh? Btw Leadfoot, I think you were a little harsh: "So, who are you going to believe? People (like you) who dismiss the service out of ignorance, or people who have actually used the service?" Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/t203315/#ixzz1qFKLNuUS There are reasons for people to not be a fan of the service, and its not out of ignorance. I just thought maybe you were having a bad day, so no use getting into it. Chris
Not having a bad day, but perhaps it came out a bit on the blunt side. This is not a new topic here or elsewhere, and I've yet to read a logical argument against CAC that doesn't also apply to the TPGs or is made out of complete ignorance (as Detecto's suggesting JA is less experienced than NGC). Not saying there aren't diverging viewpoints -- there certainly are -- but rather those viewpoints are centered around fallacies or emotion. When evaluated with the logic suggested above (i.e. chance for increased value/liquidity), the arguments against it seem to wither. You are, of course, free to disagree.
Well my disagreement would be simply economics in coin collecting. I mean, TPG are paid well to give opinions on a coins grade. Just this action takes tens of millions of dollars out of the hobby every year, money that instead could be used to buy more coins. Now, that isn't enough money that the hobby "needs" to pay, somebody else wants millions more a year to "confirm" the grade the TPG gave a coin. Where does it end? How many more millions of dollars a year need to fill the pockets of people providing "services" to the hobby, and not actually buying or selling any coins? All this does, to me, is jack up the cost of the hobby and make it more and more expensive to buy coins. Its effectively taking coin money and paying you back with green stickers. So, my argument is on a global economic perspective. I do not think its out of ignorance, nor does it preclude TPG, just saying how many people has to charge collectors money to look at their coin? How much money must we spend on non-coin charges? Will there be a new company started by David Bowers that will look at CAC stickered, TPG slabbed coins, and if HE agrees he will put a little blue triangle on the slab?
Leadfoogt has it right so I ditto everything said so far. Ask knowledgeable numismatists and they will voice a 100% approval for the high skills John Albanese exhibits as well as his extreme professionalism - they don't come any better. Hunt1 - CAC charges $3 to resticker same number slabs. I have had them do this countless times. Did everyone know that they only charge $10 for stickered slabs - nothing if not stickered? Did you know they no longer take applications for new dealer or collector members? They did not want to become so large as to be impersonal. They stopped over a year ago. If value has any meaning to your collecting experience I challenge you to run the numbers. CAC coins consistantly sell before non-stickered and always bring higher prices. Yes I said always. I know all of us on CT display gut reactions some time; but this is a case for skeptical people to do the research before pontificating.
Nobody says you have to use the CAC, and your argument is no different than the TPGs. Certainly you have a valid point about the amount of funds being diverted, but let's remember if the services weren't providing value, nobody would use them. Just because you don't see the value, doesn't mean the market does not. To the contrary, I would argue the TPGs and the CAC are both successful because they address a market need. If there was no need for the TPGs -- and raw coins were sold with equal abandon -- there would be no TPGs. Similarly, if there was no need for the CAC -- and the TPGs were doing a good enough job to begin with -- there would be no CAC. Yet there is, and by all accounts it is a successful endeavor if the number of coins submitted and bought/sold is the measure. All that said, you do make a good point about my comment -- it didn't leave the door open for any other arguments against the CAC. I've just yet to read one that I think is sound, but I'm certainly not the judge and jury over anything but my own opinion. Take care...Mike
