Just wondering, why aren't the major TPGs competing with CAC?

Is it that they need to have the coins in hand and simply don't believe they're as proficient as CAC at judging grades through plastic? I suppose that could be. Another thing could be it just hadn't yet dawned on them, they're made-to-order for something like this.

It comes down this way. CAC already convinced a viable share of the market that paying money for second-opinions on slabs is worthwhile. In short, it's a money-maker. So, why aren't there yet PCGS stickers on NGC slabs, e.g., and vice versa? Help me out on that one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think PCGS actually considered this, they were providing for a short time a grade for coins that did not cross so we would know what they thought. But without being able to see the edges I think they thought the liability was too great.

 

Maybe they just think it's ridiculous, as I do.
Guy~

 

The way I like to think about it is that PCGS is like a big consumer electronics company. These companies get so big with so many products, not everything is a winner. Most people would not buy a TV from SONY just because it's SONY. They rely on consumer reviews on a specific product to make an informed purchase.

Just think of CAC as the consumer review on that slab.

 

Or maybe they don't want to consider and/or admit that large numbers of their coins are low end, over-graded or worked on? By the way, PCGS has already considered it and mentioned that publicly. So it is uninformed and/or a cheap shot for you to answer the original poster's question by saying "Maybe they just think it's ridiculous, as I do."

 

It was a valid response, Mark. Maybe they do think it's silly, or they probably would have come up with an alternative easily enough. Is it not likely the graders at major TPG's are not as talented or have just as good an eye as those at CAC? The expertise is there. So, then, what is your reasoning for them not pursuing it, and we'll see how cheap a shot your answers are.
Guy~

 

So you believe they think it's silly, but have considered and/or are considering it? THAT would be silly.

Even if I thought most of the graders at the major TPG's had as good of eyes as John Albanese does - I don't think that and have a feeling many of them would agree with me if they were asked - they still might not/probably wouldn't pursue direct competition with CAC. Again, why would they want to call attention to sub par and/or problem coins they have graded? How could they do what CAC is doing, without hurting themselves more than helping themselves? That would create huge potential liability on their part, a liability that CAC doesn't have to contend with.

 

Thats a great observation that I hadn't considered, Mark. Sorry I sounded a bit abrassive. I didn't take into account the coins they had already slabbed. I was thinking of the coins yet to be slabbed. The liability issue would be a problem, and I imagine that has been a factor in their reasons not to pursue competition with CAC.
Guy~

 

I totally agree with Mark.

 

I think the Sheldon scale from MS60-70 is way too limited. I would have a 100 point scale just for uncirculated coins.

 

I have to tell you, you lose me, there, Mark. And, I mean that, not in a challenging, but in a collaborative way. At least, I'd hope you could find it in yourself to approach it in that sense. Lo and behold, we might get someplace, then. Let's think this through, and see if we might figure it out. In that spirit, I'll suggest this, for now. A PCGS second opinion on a NGC slab, e.g., would mean nothing more or less than a CAC opinion on that very same slab. Namely, it would mean, based on the obvious limitations associated with viewing the coin through the plastic, the coin is either undergraded, good for the grade, or overgraded. If you will, chew on that. You can't swallow it, remember, we're collaborating, here...help me to understand. Thanks.

 

No problem and thanks for that.

While there are still a good number of certification-worthy coins out there, I believe that a very large majority of them have already been graded. And if NGC and/or PCGS were to start distinguishing/evaluating their newly graded coins in a CAC-like fashion, it would create a problem with their previously graded ones. The latter would be a much more significant portion than the former.

 

The grading companies already have enough trouble with consistency and accuracy under the current 70 point scale. On a realistic and practical basis, how do you expect them to try to be even more precise/accurate with a 100 point scale?

 

To a large extent, NGC and PCGS already give second opinions on each other's grading via their cross-over services. I doubt they would have any interest in evaluating them beyond that. Also, keep in mind that CAC makes markets in many of the coins they certify. I don't think PCGS or NGC would have any interest in doing that.

When I spoke of large potential liability, that was with respect to evaluating their own coins (not those of their competitors) as CAC does. If I lost you in that regard, please let me know and I will explain it.

 

go wash your mouth out with soap... JUST KIDDING!

Speedy

 

There can be alot of difference within a single grade, ie MS64...I guess I'm talking about moving the decimal point to include tenths...only for uncirculated coins. JMO

 

If, for example, they sometimes have trouble determining a 64 from a 65 (or in some cases from a 66), how do you expect them to differentiate between a 64.2 and a 64.3?

 

Well, if they can't...why would people pay for their expertise. I don't own a slab and have never submitted a coin. It seems pricey for what they're actually offering outside of authenticity. Probably exactly why CAC exists and people are willing to pay for a further opinion that does 'break down' the grade, if that makes any sense. I guess I just don't really get the concept of slabs.

 

CAC filled a void in the marketplace that was caused by and could not be filled by PCGS and NGC, at least that is how it seems to me. I am sure that PCGS and NGC are both thinking of ways to expand their business (any good business would) but I don't think the CAC business model is available to them. CAC has survived and expanded because of John Albanese's reputation, plain and simple. If his reputation was questionable or only respected by some, CAC's sticker would have carried little weight.

I am happy with the CAC sticker when I buy a coin that has it (I have never bought one because of it), mostly because I recognize that Albanese knows a lot more about grading than I will ever hope to. Because Mark graded at NGC as long as he did, his opinion is entitled to a little deference in this regard. I assume that professional graders know who the really talented eyes are.

I do think CAC, probably unintentionally, creates a dilemma for dealers, including many top ones of integrity. If a dealer is offering a high priced coin, and the buyer says he will buy it if the dealer can get it a CAC sticker first, it puts the dealer in a difficult position.

 

That same dilemma has been faced by some sellers for years, with respect to coins in NGC holders that certain buyers will only purchase if the coins can be crossed into PCGS holders.