I have no problem paying for expert opinions either. However, when consulting with a lawyer, I'm not going to pay $400 for an hour with him, as I lay out the situation, for him to turn around and simply state, "Sounds like a winner!" and have him leave home for the day. He's going to actually advise me of both the good and bad of the situation as far as the law is concerned. A plumber, likewise is not going to simply say, "The pipes are bad, I'll be replacing them." He's gonna tell me what happened to the pipes, even show me where the corrosion was, advise how I might take care of the new pipes, etc. The point is, the third party "expert" opinion gives you no real information to go by. The fact that they give no opinion but a letter-number combination makes it appear that it is all simply a money maker to them. They will spend just a moment to look over the coin, give a numeric-based "opinion" and move on to the next. There is no advisement, no assessment explaining the decision, no comments of either good nor bad...even the IRS does a better job in informing you of how they came to their decision.
A misconception some have, especially those very new to the industry, is to confuse the use of "TPG" with "grader". If the grader is worth their salt, they would be fairly consistent in their grading of coins, straight across. As an example in its simplest form, a "TPG" may grade the coin based on a quorum of graders. Not all graders must agree, but simply a majority must agree on an opinion of the coin. Now, the same graders may not always be involved in the same quorum. Because of this fact, coins of the same date, type, and grade may vary quite differently. Not only that, but within the standard itself, coins may have exceptional traits but a major detracting trait such as a large bag mark in a focal area to discount it from being in a higher grade. There are a number of different reasons a coin may receive the same grade, yet be drastically different...especially when it comes to "eye appeal". I must agree and disagree at the same time. We must realize that the auction prices have both collector and investor/speculator intrusion. The market is hybrid and thus you will see such a drastic oscillation in many "investment quality" series. In pure investment and speculation, within the same TPG, yes, the coin should be "worth" the same amount if investment resell is the determination of "worth". If that were not the case, then, in the eyes of investment and speculation, the third party grading and "sight-unseen" market have failed miserably. However, said market is flourishing well. As a collector, I would pay more for the coin if I desire it in my collection, and I am not able to find a similar coin that has not had its price skewed by sensationalism somewhere else for less. However, as an investor, I most definitely would not pay more for the CAC coin unless it was gold. The reason for this is that CAC is truly within a specific niche to itself. I desire a flourishing portfolio as an investor. I need something stable with a proven track record. If I know I can buy a TPG coin for a nominal price and be able to likely turn it around in the future for a sizable profit, I will do it. But to speculate is not the investor's game. CAC is a speculator's tool. As an investor, I will not spend more money to acquire my investment than is needed. Which, as a speculator, that CAC sticker, whether green or gold, is worth money. As a speculator, I will not be holding the coin for long, if at all. It will be a quick grab and unload. If I cannot unload it quickly, then it would be off to the TPG for upgrade consideration. Failing that, it drops quickly out of portfolio at a loss. And the cycle continues. Depending on the way you read these words, it says, "CAC is useless". Your speaking with two tongues here! if the coin is CAC stickered, you are most definitely paying more for the nicer coin, because the speculator, investor, or dealer selling the coin raises the price to cover costs. If the coin was never sent to CAC to begin with, then that higher price would not necessarily be sought by the seller. Sure, a collector will pay more for a nicer coin, but not if they do not have to.
It's a joke people...laugh! Not necessarily. If the seller is not "in the wise", then a smart collector could easily take advant^K^K^K^K^K^K^K^K^K^K^Ksteal^K^K^K^K^Kcherry-pick from the novic^K^K^K^K^Kignora^K^K^K^K^K^Kseller.
Scam, v : deprive of by deceit Now consider your own comment above. Your claim above alludes to the withholding of information in order to place worth in the service. this withholding of information is viewed by some as deceitful. Thus, to resubmit a coin numerous times to CAC because there is no sticker, or data by the service provider that such coin had previously been submitted, is looked upon by some as deprivation of the submitter's money. Put one and one together, and you have the appearance of deprivation by deceit. Are they really not involved with each other? If the TPGs did not exist, CAC would not exist in the form it is today. The whole purpose of CAC is to identify "correctly graded" or solidly graded coins as well as "exceptional" coins that may stand a chance for upgrade. The whole marketing for selling a gold CAC coin is the prospect of upgrade. On that point, the buyer is likely to resubmit to the TPG. Now you have a whole new slab for CAC to sticker once again. TPG...CAC...resell...TPG resubmit...CAC..resell... How is this not being involved nor benefiting from eachother? Read above a few times. It may stick.
YES! You are right on the dot! Just do not try to lump collectors into this mold. In my opinion, CAC is worthless to a collector in its current state and business model.
Their support and opinion of CAC really shouldn't be all that surprising then, should it? It is interesting how people distance themselves even from DGS because they slab coins for DLRC (principle company of DGS), but praise the self-stickerers? If this comment is in regards to Legend and their opinion of CAC, read above.
Please explain exactly why this would be unrealistic. If Heritage is able to place a photo and complete description of each coin auctioned online, why can CAC not place some simple notes along with the TPG and cert number online? Databases have been used for well over a decade on the internet now. Whole books are published in web formats within days. Is there some sort of technical limitation that CAC comments cannot be published on the web? Or is there some new IP law out banning the use of product identification online? If they are not technically, or legally restricted from publishing their opinions about a coin online, what is stopping them? That should simply serve to show that CAC is not for everyone. Critics are a good thing. The time to worry is when nobody is disagreeing with you anymore.
Many see that last clause as the key behind it all. Ignorant or misinformed resubmission. Some view it as business savvy, others as fraud. It reeks of both. And in neither case do the clients, the investors, nor the collectors come out on top.
While you may be referring to the TPGs in the above quote, it is worth noting that the CAC does provide reasons for coins that don't sticker to those that request it. Furthermore, I know of several collectors who have spoken to JA about their coins. So the above doesn't hold true in absolute terms when it comes to the CAC.
After sending a coin to the CAC, I realized a coin in my collection was puttied. I have since been in contact with both the dealer who sold me the coin and PCGS, both have pledged to make it right. Had I sold the coin at auction and bidding wasn't as strong as it might be otherwise, how can you say I, a client of the CAC and a collector, didn't come out on top?
You do not know me, and I do not know you. But I have watched your threads at Collectors Society for almost too long to count on two hands now. One thing I have always noticed is that you have a habit of underestimating the average collector, as well as view them as the average investor. Do not confuse a collector with an investor. If there is one thing a collector knows, it is what they like and what they dislike. This is the most important thing...the collector's opinion. And it does not matter if that opinion is "right" or "wrong" in your own opinion...the collector is the absolute expert in things about himself. Thus, the collector is the only one who will be able to determine what is "nice" or "not nice" to them. Interestingly, there are different standards used out there. In fact, many seasoned collectors and numismatists have their own set of standards they grade by. This in no way means they "misgrade" coins. Is DGS going to grade the same as PCGS? Absolutely not. They use two differing sets of standards. Does that mean that one or the other "misgrades". No, not necessarily. Now, they may skew from their own standard, and in that would certainly "misgrade". However, you already know that grading is subjective. That does not mean that grading is subjective so long as it is the same grade you or I would give the coin. That means that there are aspects within grading that would skew our views of the same coin to the extent that it is possible for our two grades for the same coin to be different! That is what subjectiveness is all about, and why some TPGs grade by quorum. Now, to call an MS coin circulated because of rub and not circulation, or to call a circulated coin MS simply because it has great luster, yet exhibits circulation on the high points, is what may be considered "misgrading". But, many times when that term is used, I have noticed it is usually, "it's 64..no it's not, it's 63...oh, you misgraded it!" kind of scenario. By the context you used it here, I would have to assume that is exactly the scenario you are using it for. But, when you say things like, "I taught the advanced grading class...and saw how dozens...(mis)graded..." has that certain "incompetent morons" ring to it. May not be what you intended, but it could come off to some that way. Consider the flip side of the argument in the possibility that coins given a sticker that are owned and subsequently sold by companies who share a CAC principle. Now, consider these companies make hundreds or thousands more per coin because of said sticker. The secondary affects would be the money maker. I personally believe it is the simple possibility, regardless of actuality, that brings much of the anti-CAC sentiment. There are a lot to be said for simple possibilities.
That is good information to know. However, it would make one wonder why they are not simply up front about this information to everybody. If they are able to supply the information upon request, why not place it into a searchable online database so that people are able to lookup any coins (especially since each graded coin from PCGS and NGC have unique serial numbers), and anybody would be able to make a lookup on a certified coin and know if CAC has already looked at it before. At that point, it would then be upon the collectors and investors (or their agents) to do their homework on any given coin.
Please re-read Mark's quote. He was responding to a question concerning putting A, B, and C labels on coins, not adding notes for why coins didn't sticker to a database. That said, my understanding is that the CAC doesn't want to make this information (i.e. reasons for not stickering a coin) publically available for a number of reasons, including hurting the resale value of submitted coins and being viewed as overly critical fo the TPGs.
This is were perception is key. Although it may not be fraud, there are "appearances" of deception. Take the fact of non-disclosure of coins submitted to CAC but not "given a sticker" (would that be the same as a bodybag?). This is probably where the perception of deception occurs.
Even if CAC did not want to publicly state the exact reasons for not "stickering" a coin, non-disclosure of the very fact the coin had been submitted could be viewed by some as deceptive. In my opinion, this would only promote the view of fraud and scam that is seen regarding CAC. I would think they would want to do something, even if not a database of submitted coins' serial numbers and TPG so people would know. It makes you wonder if they have even considered what would happen if somebody bought a number of graded coins on speculation and submitted a rather large number (in the hundreds) to be CAC considered to later find out they had already been submitted at one point in the past? I would most certainly not want to be involved in that legal mess.
It's much later than I realized here, so I must be off to bed, and won't be around until tomorrow afternoon. But, would you explain how exactly it was you came to realize the coin was puttied?
I am not confusing collectors with investors. My comments regarding the grading abilities of "collectors" (and some dealers) were just that. And I stand by them. The fact that a collector knows what he likes and what he dislikes, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with his grading abilities. That said, I firmly believe that collectors should buy what they like and not buy what they dislike. But I hope they do so in an informed fashion. Yes, there are different grading standards and grading is subjective. But, for example, when most knowledgeable numismatists (collectors and/or dealers) would grade a particular coin either MS65 or MS66 and someone else grades it AU58, his "standard" is off/wrong. Or if you prefer, it's so different as to be meaningless with respect to other standards.
No I'm not. Yes there are exceptions to everything. And there are most definitely plenty of coin dealers out there who could not tell a premium coin for the grade from a bottom of the barrel coin for the grade. There are far more collectors with the same problem. But I was speaking about what I would consider as a knowledgeable seller. And you are making assumptions that are not necessarily true, just because a dealer is selling a coin with a CAC sticker on it, that does not mean that he was the one who submitted the coin to CAC and paid their fees. Same thing is true of any slabbed coin. I for example have owned thousands of slabbed of slabbed coins, but never once have I paid even 1 cent to any TPG. No reason to, it is way too easy to buy a coin already slabbed. Same thing is true about CAC stickered coins. Yeah, somebody, at some point paid the fees to the TPG and to CAC. But you are too knowledgeable to even pretend that you think that the costs for these things is just added on top of the price. Yeah they are part of the whole equation, but grading fees are a very, very minor consideration in the scheme of things when a dealer is figuring out how much to ask for any given coin. Most of the time they are not even considered.
Then please tell me how you define a collector. Are you trying to say that just because someone is a collector that they have the ability to tell a premium coin for the grade from a poor coin for the grade ? And you say that a collector should buy what he likes - well I agree with that 100%. But how is that collector to know if he is over-paying for what he likes ? You must not read very many threads here, for the single most asked question, the single most posted about subject that we ever see is something like this - did I do OK for the price ? So what do you call all these people - if not collectors ?
In response to another posters comments, I was speaking about it being unrealistic to expect further refinement of grade opinions within each specific numerical grade assigned to a coin. I don't know what that has to do with the on line information you are talking about. The comment I was responding to was: "Now if CAC would stick their neck out a little and put a different colored sticker , for high for the grade , middle for the grade and low for the grade and keep their gold sticker for premium or upgradable coin they would gain a lot more credit" In another post you wrote: "It is interesting how people distance themselves even from DGS because they slab coins for DLRC (principle company of DGS), but praise the self-stickerers?" You are incorrect. No one with or without a stake in CAC evaluates or stickers their own coins. There are no "self stickerers".
