How can they CAC a coin with no eye appeal?

Mark wise the coin is an easy 63, but with no eye appeal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

From their web site: Vintage coins with original, un-tampered with surfaces, all exhibit some degree of surface toning, even if it’s just a hint, that came from contact with their storage containers, whether those were paper bank rolls, cloth mint bags, coin envelopes, or old coin albums, for example. To the best of its ability, CAC wants the rare coins it endorses with its green stickers of approval to be unquestionably solidly-graded to premium-quality examples, and the company backs its seal of approval with “sight-unseen” market bid prices for CAC-stickered coins through CoinPlex, its dealer trading network.

 

So many Barber halves have issues that they probably enjoy stickering original no problem ones. You can't have everything you want at every grade.

 

I don't collect TPG coins and I don't have much insight there. I would really appreciate an explanation of tags like CAC. Are they simply saying, "I agree/don't agree with PCGS/NGC?" Are such designations just second opinions? After CAC, do you then submit your PCGS graded, CAC certified coin to MAC? Where is the line drawn. I realize that a difference of one number (say MS63 to MS64) can make a huge difference in price. I just don't understand multiple submissions, which, I'm guessing, are done in hopes of raising a coins grade. jack

 

CAC means no problem for grade, and a B or A coin. I sent in a bunch of coins recently and they explained why the failures did not pass 4 out of 12 or so. They said they were C coins that failed to pass, a little friction on a 60 and field chatter on a nice 65. Eye appeal but technically not there.

 

More like "in hopes of raising a coin's price" when reselling it.

And why should there be a "problem" for a given grade by the TPG? If an MS-65 has a "problem" then why wasn't it graded at 64, or call it AU-something?

A, B, C. Hmm. Sounds like we have just TRIPLED the 1-70 grading scale! Each grade gets a "subgrade" of A, B, or C.

The take-away: Humans are funny, since they can create markets out of thin air.

 

Thank you both for the input. Mlove43, I can tell by your post that you get what I'm saying. I suppose next they will add 1 - 5 stars to each subgrade A, B, or C. Your point about if a 65 has a problem, why isn't it simply rated as a 64.

Now I remember why I don't collect certified coins. Thanks, Jack

 

Believe me if you look at enough coins in a certain grade , you can start to see the high end coins just missing the next grade , and the low end coins that just barely make the grade . The difference is real whether you want to believe it or not .

 

Imagine how the dealers felt, trying to trade untrustworthy dogs in slabs between them. They do commerce sight-unseen, and not being able to trust the grade on a slab infuriated them. And dealer-dealer sales, if what I've read is correct, exceed retail coin sales. They need to be able to hit the network and find stuff they can trust, on a short turnaround. Or maybe take a 1000-coin position in MS66 Morgans for a big show. Without bagloads of overgraded coins only marginal collectors would buy. The system the TPG's created, which dealers embraced as their chance to truly do accurate business sight unseen - the system that changed the industry - was failing them.

Then imagine yourself one of the really big-fish dealers, a man of such entrepreneurial drive that he was not only involved with the founding of PCGS and NGC, but was also NGC's first President, in addition to building a class-leading high-end coin business. You think you're irritated at TPG grading, imagine John Albanese.

So he started CAC to fix what his earlier creations had lost.

 

Yes, there are a lot of walking wounded problem coins in NGC and PCGS (and other) slabs. Pictures can cover up problems too, some people have poor eyesight. As Tom Paine, the late numismatist once told me he wouldn't even sell a given coin to Ray Charles, but there are vision impaired people in the hobby, not a few, frankly I don't know many of the northeast show dealers who really know how to grade and those who do give nothing away. Looking at old purchase orders from HA and Rarcoa and the others I really have to hand it to them, sometimes they bought low end coins from me not giving me trouble.

 

Thanks again for your input. You certainly have a bigger/better view of the need for more than one level of certification than I do. I never understood the additional grading by CAC, MAC, etc. Your point about large volume dealers is an eye-opener for me. I've always felt that the hobby would filter out the possibility of cert + cert + cert, etc., if it wasn't useful. The companies that are tagging slabs after the major TPGs seem to be doing a lot of business and must, therefore, provide an important service. I simply didn't understand. Having said that, then where is the line drawn? At what point does the submitter say, "It's been graded and certified enough, I'm satisfied that the coin is properly graded?"

SuperDave - If I understand correctly, the creation of CAC is a response to the untrustworthy grading of PCGS, and NGC? If that's the case, why not just by-pass them and go straight to CAC alone, where the grading is apparently more trusted? Be patient with me, I'm only trying to understand. Certification isn't cheap.

 

My opinion on CAC - seems like if a coin is nicely dipped, it gets the CAC sticker. I dislike dipped coins, so I avoid coins with the CAC sticker.

 

I prefer my "green beans" sautéed in a little olive oil, and just a touch of freshly ground black pepper.

If John sells CAC, we'll need yet another opinion piece. Why? Because grading is harder than paying for opinions.

 

Because CAC doesn't put a # grade on a coin . What would be nice is if the tpgs tightened there standards , but we have so many dealers and collectors playing crack out in hopes of getting that next higher grade . Results are more coins that are low for the grade or graded a pt. higher than they should be . But since it makes the tpgs so much money , why should they change ?

 

I think Kurts and rzage point to the crux of the issue? In other words if folks are cracking slabs and re-submitting that seems like a strong indictment for a lack of grading standards among certifying services. I realize that there will always be some subjective margins for different grades, and maybe that's the essence of services like CAC. The problem is that if opinions can vary that much, what's actually gained with certifications? I'm pretty sure that I'm a victim of my own ignorance here. I see the ads in The Numismatist for CAC and MAC and I've seen how tags from those services raise auction prices on TPG coins. I was just trying to wrap my head around the concept. Jack

 

What they (CAC and MAC and QC-check) offer is a 2nd opinion, just like you get for medical diagnoses. That makes remote buyers more confident. I use a different 2nd opinion service - the neuron pile twixt my ears - when I'm buying for my collection. Heck, sometimes I use it as the only opinion, because I buy a lot of raw coins. When I buy slabbed, I give NGC or PCGS the benefit of first doubt, but if I don't see it, I don't buy it. I'm in no rush. I'm in it for the hunt itself. I lose no sleep over coins I passed by, ever. There's always another one.

 

CAC would probably like nothing more than to become unneccessary. It has to be a pretty big hassle for them to add this effort to their primary business; these were not guys sitting around on their hands to begin with. But they need the sight-unseen market.

Aside Mr. Albanese' contention - which I agree with - that market grading and slugs in slabs have artificially depressed the price of "nice" coins in similarly-graded slabs, any benefit we might obtain from a Beaned slab is not deliberate. We're already supposed to know how to grade for ourselves anyway.

 

A green CAC bean simply means that they agree with the grade, it makes no statement to being of a higher quality than any other of the grade. If a coin is a C class of the grade, CAC generally considered the coin overgraded. This makes its way back to the original question, CAC will sticker a coin if it agrees with the grade, eye appeal has nothing to do with it. I believe that this is just a product of people recognizing a coin with a CAC sticker is nice for the grade but really they are just seeing what the grade should be anyway. I have much respect for JA, but I fail to see how these stickers benefit the hobby. Sure people will pay a high price for a sticker, but if everybody would just learn how to grade, none of it, TPGs included, would matter at all. Perhaps I just like the good old days when you can look at a coin, argue the grade with the dealer a bit and get a nice coin for a fair price.

 

Oh, I believe it. My question is why can't we trust our own eyes to do that? And that's not a rhetorical question just to sound like a smartass, that's a real question of mine. It's as if we are abandoning our ability to grade (or micro-grade if that blows one's skirt up) the coins that we as enthusiasts collect.

Forget about the journey of becoming an expert (which I would like to take) and knowing your series better than your dealer, huh? That's too hard. Is this a function of the current phenomenon in which everything in life is supposed to be fast, easy, and fun all the time for this current generation of humans?

And in this case, increasingly more expensive.

Green Beans... well, as they say, each to his own...