Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="NPCoin, post: 627764, member: 5629"]The TPGs are generally in the practice of providing along with the "bodybag" the reason behind their decision, if I am not mistaken. My understanding of non-sticker CAC submission is that the reason is not explained with the returned slab. Now, please correct me if I'm wrong on that point. I don't know if CAC sent you a statement with your non-sticker submission explaining the reason behind it, or if you had to jump through loops, or if you simply had to call them. If the reason was not sent to you along with your returned slab, then there is a slight, but significant, difference between the "body bag" by the TPG and the non-sticker by CAC. In both scenarios, the submission is returned in the original state it was received. In both scenarios, there is the possibility for the coin to be sold to another party and it be resubmitted to the grading or evaluating company. The difference lies in the fact that the owner of the TPG "body bag" coin has reason to believe that there is a prospective problem with a coin. The owner of the CAC non-sticker coin would not have reason to believe that there is a prospective problem with the coin and grade assigned excepting that it did not meet with CAC expectations. To resell the "body bag" coin as a "problem free" coin would be deceptive on the part of the seller, though PCGS, NGC, et al, would likely be indemnified. The TPG does not have a definitive means of tracking these problem coins, as they do nothing with them, but return them. To resell the "non-sticker" CAC coin as a "possible CAC candidate" could well be deceptive and misleading on the part of the seller, but CAC may well also be faulted because they do in fact have a very viable means of tracking the submissions. It is also plausible for them to implement this tracking to be able to keep people from submitting coins that had already been through CAC, so as not to even have the appearance of deception on their part. As well, CAC would necessarily need to keep record of submitted coins and serial numbers. To this effect, if a slabbed coin makes its second trip into CAC, are they notifying the submitter of this fact? Are they informing the submitter that the coin had previously been processed through CAC, and are they re-evaluating the coin, or sending it back non-stickered, or what is it they are doing? What they do with such coins could very well be perceived as deceptive or misleading practice. Here is my concern for all of this. Though I could care less for CAC as a collector, their usefulness in the investor and speculator markets is there. And that is where the possibility lies with legal problems. We should remember the economic situation and markets as they were almost two decades ago. They were similar to what we see today. There are investors flooding into the rare coin and precious metals market, looking for a stronger or more stable investment opportunity where the stocks and banks have or are failing. There is a player in this market that, at its face, seems to offer a genuine expert opinion, that may possibly be construed as an objective audit and assessment of an investment commodity. It is very probable that the current market is going to crash fast and furious. There well may be heavy loss on the part of investors, and even more on speculators, when this happens. With hard financial loss comes even harder feelings, and people will be looking for a scapegoat. It was two decades ago that PCGS went through this, and rightfully, as one of their pitches was objective grading of investment quality coins. Though CAC may not be making the pitch of objectiveness, there is a perceived objectiveness. As well, there are holes in the business practices of CAC that may well open them to direct involvement in the deception of consumers and investors. What I am referring to are the various scenarios laid out in this post. For their own good, I believe CAC should work quickly on closing as many of these holes as possible before the markets take a complete dive. If the market does not belly up, then CAC can only be all the better because of it, and will be prepared to defend itself if the situation ever arises and they are investigated for possible deceitful practices. And just because they are investigated does not mean that they have done anything wrong. It simply means that there are quite a few angry people looking for someone to blame. And it is hard to see the storm ahead when there are few clouds in the sky, but one should always have a plan anyway for the eventuality. As it is right now, there are just too many open holes that lend themselves to derogatory appearances and chance possibilities, and it could well scare some away who may actually even use the service.[/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches