Something I didn't know about CAC

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by C-B-D, Dec 7, 2018.

  1. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    No it’s not.
     
    Insider likes this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. 1916D10C

    1916D10C Key Date Mercs are Life! 1916-D/1921-D/1921

    What's the matter, you can't face facts when they're staring you in the face?
     
  4. IBetASilverDollar

    IBetASilverDollar Well-Known Member

    I normally avoid these back and forths but come on like baseball said you really think John is over there chomping at the bit ready to buy up all 5500 1881-S Morgan’s he’s stickered? He stickers the coins that meet his grading standards no matter if he wants to buy them or not. Now if it is stickered he will make an offer if you ask but I guarantee you he has little interest in buying over 99% of the coins he’s stickered.
     
    Insider and baseball21 like this.
  5. 1916D10C

    1916D10C Key Date Mercs are Life! 1916-D/1921-D/1921

    It is their business model, and also their own claims that they "verify a coin is solid for the grade", which is a complete joke. If PCGS and NGC cannot maintain enough consistency with their grading and standards to satisfy collectors, to the extent that now the TPG's need their grades verified by some other company or person, what is to stop another service from coming along to verify their grades, and so on and so on?? Are we going to get to a point in the hobby where slabs are so covered in "verification stickers" of other companies to such a degree that we can no longer even view the coin inside the holder anymore? How many more services do collectors need to shortcut the hobby and avoid learning on their own?? How many more services are needed so collectors don't have to select coins or make decisions for themselves based on their own tastes, but instead, solely rely on and trust the "experts" to do it for them?

    ETA: Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying for one minute I know more than JA or he doesn't know his stuff; to say so would be extremely presumptuous. All I'm saying is Jason's assessment is spot on as far as what they are doing.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2018
    Paul M. likes this.
  6. IBetASilverDollar

    IBetASilverDollar Well-Known Member

    Oh, okay.
     
  7. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    No I am well aware of the fact that the people with your opinions are completely wrong.

    No it's not even close to it. It has been shown time and time again it isn't.

    The only joke is the people who think that.

    The people that hold these believes are the people that overwhelmingly have never dealt with them or just want to pretend to know what they do. There is also the other side of people that are bitter it gets in their way to say everything they have is undergraded and PQ.

    They literally gave CBD free of charge notes on his submission and don't even charge collectors for coins that don't sticker, but sure I guess they sticker all those sub 200 dollar coins because they're money driven.....
     
    Insider and Paul M. like this.
  8. Mainebill

    Mainebill Bethany Danielle

    I think the btw is a 65+ or maybe A 66 but totally ugly in my opinion. I wouldn’t buy it with or without the bean. The bust is nice and original. Not ugly to me. I know from my experience that JA loves good original surface circulated bust and seated coins in original gray. Get an accurate grade and nice surface and 90% of the time you’ll get a bean on this.
     
    Insider, Cheech9712 and baseball21 like this.
  9. 1916D10C

    1916D10C Key Date Mercs are Life! 1916-D/1921-D/1921

    Ok Baseball21, Take your stand and state your stance as to why we are totally wrong. Let's get this debate rolling.
     
    heavycam.monstervam likes this.
  10. Santinidollar

    Santinidollar Supporter! Supporter

    Pretty clear thumbprint, too.

    88FED234-B367-426B-AB75-C596FA415267.jpeg
     
  11. 1916D10C

    1916D10C Key Date Mercs are Life! 1916-D/1921-D/1921

    You did not address my question baseball, but strategically avoided it. My question is when and where does this end. Are we no longer going to be able to view our coins inside the slabs because they are covered with stickers from companies symbolizing that the evaluation of another company's evaluation of another company's evaluation of another company's evaluation of another company's evaluation of the coin is accurate?

    You can support CAC all you want but where does it end? When is CAC going to loosen their standards and another verification company is needed to verify that their sticker symbolizes what it is intended to?

    Where does this madness end?

    From a strictly capitalistic standpoint, more power to JA and CAC. There is obviously a market, a demand, and a desire for their services and they are filling the need.

    The vexing aspect of the idea of such a company is it displays that collectors are continuing to need more and more validation from those in the field that they deem "experts", instead of learning the market, training their eye and learning over time the subtleties and intricacies of eye appeal, grading, etc.

    This constant habit of putting experts on a pedestal and relying on more and more services to state what to trained collectors should be obvious, is extremely bothersome and we should all be looking at ourselves and our weaknesses and the holes in our knowledge that we need to work on.

    Instead of "teaching a man to fish", or, more accurately, "learning how to fish" in regards to learning from and talking with experts about coins, too many collectors instead want to be spoon fed- this trend started with the TPG's, and now continues to get more ludicrous with such companies as CAC. Continuing this analogy and train of thought, more and more often, collectors want to be fishermen, but refuse to learn how to fish, what lures to use, what spots to cast at, etc. They want the experts to fish for them and do all the work. One does not start out on day one landing the 12 lb largemouth, just like collectors from day one do not start out dropping thousands of dollars on key dates. To expect to be able to do so in both situations is just plain foolish.

    We need to all stop being kleptomaniacs and get back to coin collecting, not collecting colorful adornments on a piece of plastic .
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2018
    TypeCoin971793 and halfcent1793 like this.
  12. Paddy54

    Paddy54 Well-Known Member

    I saw that dude at a Waffel house.....:watching:
     
    Santinidollar likes this.
  13. ldhair

    ldhair Clean Supporter

    We all learn from others and that should include the opinions of the TPGs and CAC. You should get all the opinions possible and form your own opinion. Use every tool that is out there. I see no reason to limit who you learn from.
     
    Insider likes this.
  14. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    I do commend them for doing that. That is a very useful resource, and I won't argue that.
     
    baseball21 likes this.
  15. halfcent1793

    halfcent1793 Well-Known Member

    It's fascinating to me that we are having a big "discussion" over the issue of a sticker on a slab and how opinions as to quality have drifted substantially over the years. All this proves is that your slab grade means nothing except if you give the date it was slabbed.

    Further proof, if any were needed, that the slabsters have only brought even MORE chaos to coin grading.

    One day their house of cards will crash.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2018
  16. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random guy on the internet

    Here is a screenshot from their website.

    B08982BF-C114-4E32-9287-AD9BE12FA48C.jpeg

    Apparently they can’t, so JA saw an opportunity and founded CAC. The premiums for CAC-approved coins show that people put more faith in the accuracy of CAC than the TPGs alone.

    People are stupid, and they prefer to remain that way. Thinking for one’s self is a rare American pastime nowadays.

    He does that, particularly when asked a tough direct question where answering either way might violate his agenda.

    FBE7D87B-A671-46DA-A7A3-EC32352AFE82.jpeg
     
    IntenseBlue likes this.
  17. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random guy on the internet

    A question I asked in another thread but was never answered was this:

    “So coins are graded by PCGS or NGC, and they are set to an instantaneous standard. In theory, this should be the standard to which all other coins are compared to. But as the standard changes, coins are graded to a new standard, while the other ones stay graded to the old standard. Which is correct? Which standard should I be comparing to. Now let’s factor in the yearly cycles of tightening/loosening standards. Which are right? Which are obsolete? Which should be compared to as the standard? If the answer is “all of them”, then there is no standard; it’s completely arbitrary. If the answer is “the newest one,” then the grades of everything else becomes obsolete.”

    Definition of “standard:”

    “an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations.”
     
    Insider likes this.
  18. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    According to some, the standard has behaved like this over time:

    [​IMG]

    I like to think the standard has behaved more like this over time:

    [​IMG]

    If you look at an MS-65 graded 30, 20, 10, and 1 year ago, sure, there may be some differences. But, they're probably all within a point of each other. Periods may have been a little looser (a 66 then may only be a 65 today), but just as many periods have been tighter (a 64 then would be a 65 today).
     
    1916D10C likes this.
  19. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    It already has stopped and it's been stopped for years. The reason CAC works is because of the expert reputation of those involved with it. Many others have tried and non of the other stickers have gained the acceptance and reputation CAC has. The only one that has come close is the Eagle Eye one from Rick Snow, but even there most people would prefer CAC over his if they aren't a specialist.

    There's a fundamental misunderstanding of what CAC is and what their function is if people think that is going to happen.

    Just like there is a fundamental misunderstanding with these people that act like more companies are just going to keep popping up and everyone is going to rush to them. Well guess what they did keep popping up, even ones that don't directly compete with CAC and their acceptance has been mediocre at best. They made some decisions that hurt their ability to draw in collectors but at the end of the day it's the unquestionable expertise that drives the CAC success and that isn't something that just anyone can replicate.

    Again that isn't what is happening at all. People are using the TPGs and CAC to learn and improve their skills and be more informed collectors. The existence of them is what has allowed the market to grow and reach out in areas it never would have been able to without them or the internet. Type collecting and branching out into other areas is another major benefit that collectors have been able to do with them. The simple fact is that collecting would be a ghost town if you had to study every series for years before you could ever buy anything nice.

    Coin doctoring and fakes have gotten good enough that without them collectors would be the biggest marks on the planet, some still are over estimating their ability.

    CAC was never developed for the majority of coins that get sent to it now. In fact they raised prices twice to try and chase off some of the cheaper coins that were getting sent. They were made for the high end coins where people do want multiple opinions even the most knowledgeable of them and make no mistake A LOT of the most knowledgeable collectors that could run circles around most people in their series see the value of CAC. It was collectors that started to raise the demand and sending more and more things to them that ended up expanding their reach into lower value areas

    Except for the slab collectors who collect various types that isn't what people are doing at all. There's nothing wrong with the people that collect slabs either, but don't fall for the nonsense that some of the people push that people are just buying slabs not the coins. They wouldn't have bought the slab if they didn't like the coin unless they're just filling a hole they don't care about in a set.
     
  20. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random guy on the internet

    Nice.

    I’m in the second group, though I am more of a cos(2πt)-0.005t kind of guy.

    But still, which standard should I be comparing coins to in order to determine their grades?
     
  21. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    Pick your favorite standard, and try to stick to it as closely as you can. Every group has their own standard, whether they publish that or not. And every standard is different. It really is anarchy, although there is usually pretty good agreement between the standards. For example, the ANA has a published standard guide for grading coins, and PCGS has published their official grading guide. The ANA one is probably the most official.

    You have to realize, though, your interpretation and my interpretation could be different. This goes back to the discussion we were having about hairlines - the standard says "a few scattered hairlines", but what that means to you may be different from what that means to me. This is why grading is so difficult, and this is why there is no concrete, hard and fast answer to your question. You want a definitive answer, but there isn't one.
     
    Insider and 1916D10C like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page