Something I didn't know about CAC

I guess they just have to have that look. Not so sure your coin has that look

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Just looking at your 1809 shows me i have no clue at grading. I'll keep trying. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut

 

It's here not hear

 

Now that makes perfect sense. Good as any other oppions

 

Damn. Just read baseballs link. Think it's a good read

 

You need to learn to use the "+quote" function.

 

Hows that

 

You can go to the "Support" forum for more info. But basically, you can quote multiple people and make one single reply to all of them instead of making 6 or 7 separate replies to a thread.

 

But a blind squirrel can't jump tree to tree....

 

I really wish I had not opened this discussion before leaving work. I wish this site had a LOL option and a way to safe drafts before posting.

C-B-D, posted: "I counted 9 marks in hand. And I don't own an ANA grading guide, so I'd love to know what that old book says. "

Good Eye! the largest is on the coat. I cannot believe you do not have an ANA Grading Guide. Folks, do not follow this example. Grading "GUIDES" are good, especially the introductory info.

Seven small marks and one very large all hidden by dark toning yet visible in an image puts your coin in the MS-65/66 range. No visible hairlines due to toning and above average luster (66 to 67) is good giving a bump for color if you like it. However, the eye appeal is in the MS-62/63 range as it is generally acceptable and rather attractive. IMO, your coin would have been maxed out as a 66.

1916D10C, post: "What's the matter, you can't face facts when they're staring you in the face?"

While you are on your way to becoming a knowledgeable numismatist, I'm afraid that some of your pasts posts have indicated that you are not yet qualified to distinguish facts from falsehoods.

1916D10C, posted: "No further comment required. Kudos to Jason for nailing this one, dead center in the middle of the target."

Yes, it the target is uninformed misinformation. IMO, Jason lacks a basic understanding of CAC. Perhaps a conversation with JA or at least read the link from that other TPGS website. Folks over there actually deal with JA, buy the big ticked CAC coins, and talk with him.


1916D10C, poster: "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?? [Nothing but money and the desire to try]. 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."
[I disagree].

TypeCoin971793, posted: "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. Yes, that's how it works. 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."

Great explanation. Except for the fact that you've pointed out: THERE IS NO STANDARD AND THE INSTANTANEOUS STANDARD CHANGES. Therefore, the "theory" is flawed and has no bearing on reality. As standards evolve, many coins are regraded to the new "non-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 [there is no standard so...] the grades of everything else becomes obsolete.”

Definition of “standard: “An idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations.”

 

While I have read the website, and followed the debate online for years, I would be absolutely interested in a conversation with JA. I have formed an opinion of CAC based on what I've seen, and what it's effect has been on the market. This may or may not be what JA intended. I feel like, from what I've seen, I have a basic understanding of CAC - which may differ significantly from the official propaganda.

The stuff put out online is dubious. I think a really good, heart-to-heart conversation with the premier grader of all time would go a long way to understanding why he's done this. There are a lot of questions I would ask.

I might be convinced.... and I may disagree with him. All I have to go on now is what I've seen.

 

I will agree to disagree on this one, @Insider, but thank you for sharing your insight, it is much appreciated.

 

I have to disagree here from what you have posted in this thread so far. The link I posted is a recount of what JA has actually told people which would be quickly corrected if false and matches up with my multiple experiences with them over several years.

They've almost certainly stickered more coins that he has no interest in trying to buy than ones he would be legitimately interested in.

 

The standard that I use is this:

1 - Is the coin attractive?
2 - Is the coin well struck for the series and mint?
3 - Is the coin priced right for the grade assigned to it?
3a - Is it under graded, but may have a premium assigned to it? That is ok.
3b - Is it over graded, but the price has been reduced because of that? That is ok, but RARELY occurs.
4 - Will I be happy with this coin, or always feel that I need to apologize for it?

If these criteria are met, then I am in. The number on the 2x2 or slab is just a rough estimate to me. I MAKE THE FINAL JUDGMENT OF GRADE and PRICE!

 

Lol

 

Thanks for the quote info. Will try.

 

Hey now I am a single barrel Blanton man and I know I am not from that side of the tracks. I just happen to like nice coins and good liquor.

 

I assembled a 212 coin “raw” proof and business strike WQ album. This took me a decade or so to complete. During that time, I realized that CAC’s opinion on coins, or what they found bean-worthy, was much the same as mine. In other words, a coin they stickered was 9/10 times a coin that I also believed was very strong for the grade and deserved to command a premium. With that said, every slabbed and CAC’d WQ I own has been cracked out. There’s no need for me to see a TPG assigned grade or a little green sticker on these coins because I’ll never willingly part w/ them.

CAC has unquestionably influenced my own eye for coins (at least in this series). I can’t speak to any of the other variables being discussed but will say that I do find their standards to be objective and very consistent in the WQ series. Original surfaces, luster, attractive NT, and technical grading are all terms that come to mind when I think of CAC. A novice or intermediary collector willing to pay a slight premium is usually going to do far better for her or his self w/ a slabbed/CAC’d example than they would any other way.