Bean Wars - CAC

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by robec, Oct 28, 2014.

Page 4 of 8
  1. geekpryde

    geekpryde Husband and Father Moderator

    No, that's not what I meant at all. You (the human) are not telling the computer what is attractive and not, you are showing examples of a certain grade only. You are showing a variety of examples. Examples that humans may think are attractive, and others that are considered unattractive. Some that are dipped (blast white), some that have colorful toning, and ugly toning, Weak strikes, and great strikes, etc.

    You are NOT telling the computer any of these descriptors. You are simply handing it 1000 examples of a MS65 Morgan Dollar. The computer knows only two things: (1) Its a Morgan Dollar, (2) its MS65 according to whatever grading system you are teaching it, lets say ANA for simplicity.

    Now do you see what I am saying?
     
    geekpryde, Nov 1, 2014
    #61 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. torontokuba

    torontokuba Thread Crapper & Hijacker, TP please.

    Is this really the extent of your argument? You must have a few connections, invite them all to stop by here and tell me they are artists at grading and that a more scientific approach is not preferred by their customers.
     
    torontokuba, Nov 1, 2014
    #62 + Quote Reply
  4. torontokuba

    torontokuba Thread Crapper & Hijacker, TP please.

    While opinions vary, there is no shortage of science references...

    http://www.us-coin-values-advisor.com/grading-coins.html

    http://www.coingrading.com/preface1.html

    I'll meet you halfway, stating it can be both and art and a science combined.

    As usual, your statement seems antiquated, uninformed and just plain wrong to me.
     
    torontokuba, Nov 1, 2014
    #63 + Quote Reply
  5. -jeffB

    -jeffB Greshams LEO Supporter

    For this kind of AI, no, they actually aren't. They're developed by training, or by selection. Saying that the resulting algorithms (actually weighting sets) are written by human minds is a bit like saying that dog breeders "design" the genetic code that produces the features they want in a dog.

    Funny -- that's what people say about computer programming, too. ;)
     
    -jeffB, Nov 1, 2014
    #64 + Quote Reply
  6. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Yeah I understand now, but that only makes it worse. If you are not programming in grading criteria at all, then what exactly do you program in ? There has to be a program or the computer can't do anything. What you are assuming is that the computer will learn how to grade by merely "looking" at coins that are already graded. There's a couple problems with that idea.

    First of all, you can't even teach humans to grade with that method, and they can think. So how can you expect a machine to do it ? Secondly, the coins that are being used, somebody has to grade them. So do you use coins all graded by one person or by many different people ?

    Now the idea of the computer system you are proposing is to remove the subjectivity from the grading system, right ? So that would mean that you could only have 1 person do the grading on all coins. Otherwise this computer that can supposedly learn, would learn the very subjectivity that you are trying to get rid of. So let's say you do have 1 person do all the grading. The only thing the computer can "learn", assuming it can learn at all, is to grade coins the same way that 1 person does. But even that 1 person's grade is still subjective. And then what happens when half or more than half of all the people in the market disagree with the grades assigned by the computer ?

    You'd be right back to where we are now.
     
    GDJMSP, Nov 2, 2014
    #65 + Quote Reply
  7. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Well it's good you agree to meet halfway since in one of the opening paragraphs your first link says -

    "Developing a working knowledge of the art of coin grading is one of the first and most important steps in becoming a successful numismatist."



    Well that is no surprise. I could say the sky was blue and you'd say the same thing. You and I think very differently, see things completely differently. And that will never change.
     
    GDJMSP, Nov 2, 2014
    #66 + Quote Reply
  8. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    I guess there's a point that some people just don't understand. And that point is why computer grading failed the several times it has been tried before. Computer grading failed because the only thing a computer can do is to grade coins on a purely technical basis. And virtually every expert there is in the hobby will tell you that that cannot be done because it simply isn't good enough, it leaves too much out.

    Grading coins on a purely technical basis is what we had 50 years ago. The first ANA grading standards were based on technical grading. And it only took 10 years for even the ANA to learn that it just didn't work. That it just wasn't good enough because it left too much out. There is more to grading coins than just counting the number, size, and location, of marks. Abstract and esoteric ideas and concepts come into play. An apt comparison would be art. You can have two different paintings, one painted by a machine, the other by an artist. The machine painting has not a brush stroke or line out of place. But that doesn't mean the art is any good, it just looks dull, blah. But the one painted by an artist evokes emotion in us and makes us stand and stare at it in awe. And you can't teach a machine to do that, even if that machine is controlled by the most advanced computer in the world.

    When people say that they are in favor of computer grading, what they really want, what they are really in favor of is technical grading. But we had technical grading, tried it for years, and the consensus was it just doesn't work, because it cannot work.

    Now if you are young and didn't live through that, then you are probably not going to understand it because you have never experienced it for yourself. You were not there to see it. Those of us who are older were. We went through it step by step, we experienced each and every failure of the technical grading system, lived it. And so we know it doesn't work. We don't have to wonder about it.
     
    GDJMSP, Nov 2, 2014
    #67 + Quote Reply
    geekpryde likes this.
  9. WLH22

    WLH22 Well-Known Member

    Anybody else notice CAC coins are flying off the shelves and display cases? I just visited one of the websites I frequent on a regular basis. I had a few coins in my cart. They were priced high so I was trying to convince myself high end coins were worth much more then guide prices. All of the coins in my cart were CAC coins. In the last two days or so every coin has changed to SOLD or HOLD. Baltimore must have been a good show.
     
    WLH22, Nov 2, 2014
    #68 + Quote Reply
  10. geekpryde

    geekpryde Husband and Father Moderator

    Seems to me that CAC proponents like myself are mostly quiet (not me). The anti-CAC people are mostly boisterous. But like you said, CAC coins sell, and often bring more money. CAC marketing cleverly tells you its not the sticker, but the premium quality of the coin. Money talks, and CAC buyers are speaking with their money. if you only read the forums, CAC would seem like a scam. obviously there are enough of us out there that feel strongly otherwise, even if most are quiet about it online.
     
    geekpryde, Nov 2, 2014
    #69 + Quote Reply
  11. torontokuba

    torontokuba Thread Crapper & Hijacker, TP please.

    I've known about the secret gullible army out there for years. One day they will take over and only CAC coins will have any value.;) GDJMSP is already discounting all modern TPG practices. I have to read more of his opinions on CAC.

    There is nothing easier than hiding behind an artsy term for a precise skill. It really makes life easier when 3 or 4 top experts are asked to grade the same coin and we end up with 3 or 4 contradicting grades. That's when they roll up your sleeves and claim that coin grading is an art.:rolleyes: I thought a real sought after art would command a higher premium. Instead, we have various reasonably priced top dog options in the industry, each struggling from within not to contradict themselves in their own slabs, from one uncirculated coin to another. It has gotten so bad, now we're seeing the combination of one opinion with another (the CAC sticker). How many forms of art can you find, listed on the NASDAQ?:D Commercialized guessing, that's what some of us are paying for and collecting. If the experts applied a scientific approach, maybe even go together and tried to establish some common scientific standards for grading, we might see a bit more consistency. Instead, we have a bunch of old guys claiming they are practicing an age old art, that in some cases allows for a grade after the coin has met face to face with an SOS pad. Somehow, the real art world seems to represent a much higher level of integrity.
     
    torontokuba, Nov 2, 2014
    #70 + Quote Reply
  12. Tom B

    Tom B TomB Everywhere Else

    I haven't read the entire thread, but will mention that it might be entirely possible that CAC agrees with the grade or thinks it currently undergraded while at the same time the coin might have been a "liner" in terms of acceptable color or carbon spotting.
     
    Tom B, Nov 2, 2014
    #71 + Quote Reply
  13. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    I don't think anybody who knows coins thinks it's a scam at all. They know and understand exactly what CAC is and what they do. Huge numbers of people have lost confidence in the TPGs, so they want that extra reassurance from CAC.

    Why ? Because they know that in today's world they can sell their coins easier with it, than without it. It's really just that simple.
     
    GDJMSP, Nov 2, 2014
    #72 + Quote Reply
  14. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    I'm pretty sure that Ruben thought CAC was a scam/fraud. My argument with him about it in 2008 on this forum led to a very nice forum friendship.

    With regards to computers grading coins, I think that computers could be programmed to grade surface preservation and possibly strike. I don't think a computer could evaluate luster or eye appeal. But even if only two elements of coin grading were standardized by computers, I think it would vastly improve the consistency of grading.
     
    Lehigh96, Nov 2, 2014
    #73 + Quote Reply
  15. Analyst

    Analyst Reporter, Researcher

    GDJmsp: Knowledgeable people <<know and understand exactly what CAC is and what they do. Huge numbers of people have lost confidence in the TPGs, so they want that extra reassurance from CAC. ... Why ? Because they know that in today's world they can sell their coins easier with it, than without it. It's really just that simple. >>

    The reasons are not entirely financial. JA and BS really are among the top graders in the coin business. Moreover, doctored coins sometime slip by experts at the TPGs. JA catches many of these. At the beginning of this thread, one contributor seemed to be in an uproar because JA made a mistake.

    I like to think of JA as the Ted Williams of the coin business; he has the highest batting average, though he is not infallible. Ted Williams struck out on some occasions. It does not make sense to draw conclusions about a grader based on the grading of one coin, just like it does not make sense to draw conclusions about a baseball player from one 'at bat.' Of course, I realize that this analogy is very imperfect. I hope that collectors get the point.

    The Formal Introduction of the PCGS 'Coin Sniffer' at the PCGS Luncheon

    Defining Coin Doctoring and Dipping, Additions to the PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors – 09/08/10
     
    Analyst, Dec 17, 2014
    #74 + Quote Reply
    geekpryde likes this.
  16. torontokuba

    torontokuba Thread Crapper & Hijacker, TP please.

    The BS initials sound a little funny. I got JA, who is BS?
     
    torontokuba, Dec 17, 2014
    #75 + Quote Reply
  17. rzage

    rzage What Goes Around Comes Around .

    Man toronto you don't know Bob Smith ? ;)
     
    rzage, Dec 17, 2014
    #76 + Quote Reply
  18. torontokuba

    torontokuba Thread Crapper & Hijacker, TP please.

    No, I also never checked to see what CAC stands for.:sorry: That one I can look up.
     
    torontokuba, Dec 17, 2014
    #77 + Quote Reply
  19. ksparrow

    ksparrow Coin Hoarder Supporter

    Bill Shamhart. (Numismatic Americana)
     
    ksparrow, Dec 17, 2014
    #78 + Quote Reply
    torontokuba likes this.
  20. talkcoin

    talkcoin Well-Known Member

    ...Barry Stuppler with the PQ sticker I assume ;)

    Erik
     
    talkcoin, Dec 17, 2014
    #79 + Quote Reply
  21. torontokuba

    torontokuba Thread Crapper & Hijacker, TP please.

    I found the following description of CAC on CH...

    I believe @geekpryde mentioned sending coins in on his own. Was this an exclusive acceptance standard they dropped or changed along the way? Just asking, because if they went from "exclusive and approved dealers" to private citizens to current restrictions of not accepting new customers, well, seems awfully inconsistent.
     
    torontokuba, Dec 18, 2014
    #80 + Quote Reply
67 more messages...
Page 4 of 8
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page