Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;physics-fan3.14, post: 8733373, member: 19165&quot;]I&#039;m sorry, sometimes I forget who I&#039;m arguing with, their history, their perspective, and arguments we&#039;ve had in the past. </p><p><br /></p><p>Yes, CAC fundamentally changed the grading scale. They broke each grade down into an A, B, and C, and promised they&#039;d only give stickers to certain categories. Before that, a 65 was basically a 65. You&#039;d pay a bit more for a 65 with great eye appeal, or some other distinguishing quality, but a 65 was a 65. </p><p><br /></p><p>CAC changed that. </p><p><br /></p><p>As a response to CAC.... NGC and PCGS fairly quickly put out the Plus. Now, the Plus was supposed to be only the most premium for the grade. Kinda like, CAC, no? </p><p><br /></p><p>But, if these things were consistent, every Plus should have a CAC. That isn&#039;t the case, and won&#039;t ever be.</p><p><br /></p><p>CAC made sure that some 65s are better than others. CAC fomented the Plus nonsense. CAC sends out a monthly (is it weekly?) newsletter bragging about how CAC coins consistently win more money at auction. It&#039;s posted as a feature on the CoinWeek website. They would absolutely never dream of posting a coin that had a CAC and won less money! If that isn&#039;t elitism, I really don&#039;t know what is. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Sportsballing analogies mean absolutely nothing to me. I don&#039;t sportsball. Sorry if I can&#039;t follow you here.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in