Why doesn't CAC make its own grading service

I would...and have paid more for a CAC coin, because I know that it will command a higher resale, if I decide to sell it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

They wouldn't need no stinkin' slabs. Just put the sticker on the coin.
Cal

 

And, like good capitalists, they appear determined to maximize their shareholder value every quarter, regardless of the long term cost. It tells me patience will be rewarded, and NGC will likely be the survivor if only one emerges down the road. Pleasant thought.

 

Perhaps we are, but everything from simple misunderstandings to straight misinformation is very common in CAC threads, so care should be taken to avoid it and allow for educated decisions to be made.

And why would CAC buy TPG mistakes? You're deflecting away from the point which, in case you somehow missed it or are unfamiliar, is that the CAC sight-unseen policy is a "guarantee" unmatched by the TPGs and quashes your claim that they don't take the "financial responsibility" the TPGs do.

As for dogs residing in TPG plastic; they chose to grade/certify to their own standards just as CAC does to theirs, but they don't/won't buy anything residing in their holders; CAC will with what they've stickered. You can spin this however you wish as well, but it's the same thing... the TPGs didn't have to slab the dogs in the first place.

You really believe this?

From a simple business standpoint, if a counterfeit had slipped by NGC/PCGS and later CAC, it would be in their best interest to get it off the market without expecting the TPGs to do it for them. Just think about it for a moment.... does it make any sense to you that an entity who stands behind their opinion to the level that CAC does, with everything they sticker, would balk at standing behind authenticity and without a doubt pass responsibility along? Simple self-interest and common sense damage control should suggest otherwise.

 

Are you trying to create an argument? The link you gave on page 2 lists this direct quote from John in the interview, I'm showing the question so others can understand the context.

"MR: Besides the “A,” “B,” and “C” coins, we’ve seen what I describe as “D” and “F” coins, mistakes and horrible mistakes which lead us to wonder “What were they smoking when they holdered that coin.” I ask you, how did those coins get holdered in the first place?

JA: I wish I knew. I’ve already taken about 15 CAC labeled coins off the market that made me wonder how this happens. I think it’s just that graders are human. Try as we all do we’re not perfect. Clearly, you want to keep that to a minimum. We offer a buy-back guarantee. If I agree that the coin shouldn’t be labeled, I take it off the market, remove the label and sell it for a loss."

That is exactly what I said in my post. As far as the guarantee you talk about, it's not sight-unseen. They will buy any coin that ALREADY has a CAC sticker sight-unseen. But believe me, if it has a sticker, they have seen the coin. So it's not truly sight-unseen.

Did you actually read what I typed? I said: "I'm confident that if a counterfeit coin was presented to them, they may take it off the market and hand it over to either PCGS or NGC to honor their guarantee, but CAC is not taking on the responsibility of the coin being in a holder to begin with." What I meant and implied was that CAC will take the coin off the market. They will then pass the responsibility on the TPG that graded it in the first place. There is no business incentive for them to eat a mistake by a TPG when those TPG's offer their own guarantee on authenticity.

In what manner have I been wrong? You seem to be singling me out of the crowd and applying assumptions that I am anti-CAC. I am not. I simply was replying to the OP about why they won't start up their own slabbing company. Which incidentally was brought up in the article you posted.

"MR: Do you have any desire to one day start your own coin grading service?

JA: I really don’t, and even if I did, as I mentioned earlier, if a “C” coin came in it would have to be identified as being in its full numerical grade, not a point lower. I think the present services have established a nice baseline. Let’s remember also that most of the rare coins in existence have already been graded, so what would be the point? There would just be a lot of wasted plastic as people crack coins out of their holders. It would be very confusing. PCGS and NGC are already embedded in the market. Introducing CAC is confusing enough."

I'm confused with the argument that you are trying to drag me into. Why did you attack what I had to say? What I originally said may have been overly simple, but it was on target for the question presented by the OP. I have no wish to continue this circular argument, that amounts to essentially someone arguing with themselves.

 

If by "create an argument" you mean correct a questionable and misleading claim, yes, I am, but that's only because you seem to have taken offense over the fact I dared to do so instead of accept it for what it was. After all, the last I checked this is a discussion forum. If you misspoke or what you said read differently than intended, fine... correct/clarify and be done with it, but don't blame for what would be your mistake. Half of your initial post was a stretch (to say the least) - like the cost of plastic slabs and the means of sealing them is in any way a factor - so if I simply wished to argue, you gave plenty of ammunition to do so.

I don't know if you were simply assuming or perhaps repeating what you've read here, and are simply trying to save face or what, but doesn't matter. I haven't "singled" you out, nor have I accused you of being anti-CAC; I couldn't care less if you're pro, anti, or indifferent. Just more bs deflection. Whatever the case or what you wish to call it, they shoulder a "financial responsibility" every bit as equal and then some to ANY TPG; is this really so hard for you to understand?

Oh, and "no incentive" for them to eat what would also be THEIR mistake? Ridiculous! If you really wish to argue hypotheticals, they'd have nothing but "business incentive" to do so. Think, man, think!

 

A discussion forum? What on earth gave you that idea books

 

And if business credibility means anything, PCGS certainly hasn't done themselves any favors by grading a nail and a glorified hunk of sandpaper.

 

Not to mention stretching submission lengths out to ridiculous lengths.. A quarter of a year to get an economy submission graded is ludicrous.

 

Is it just me or does anyone else think its a logistics problem, seems everyone that calls to check on their submissions gets told they're being finalized. I feel like the grading part has been going fine, they just can't slab them fast enough and the rest of the process can't keep up

 

Probably like 95 percent of the service businesses in the US: long ago gave up the expensive idea of having enough employees to serve their customers.

 

Sad but true

 

Crazy, I know.... it's certainly more important that questionable statements go uncountered; someone's feelings may get hurt and, well, we just can't have that.

 

Ok, we need to teach Doug about capitalism. He probably won't like it though

 

The lesson goes like this...

@Cascade sends Doug coins.
Doug courteously gives a grade.
@Cascade sells the certificate for $10.
Doug finds out and goes on strike.
@Cascade outsources to Somalia.

@GDJMSP gives @Cascade a dislike.