I agree with what you are saying.
The fact is most people forget that fro the very start the grading companies were just businesses trying to find a marketable plan to insert themselves between buyer and seller. Yes, they STATED at the stat that their cause was to make a way a buyer could buy a coin sight unseen and be certain of what they were getting. However most people who bought into the marketing department talk missed something very important: The companies always have used subjective grading and so their initial claim was not possible form the start! Yet people bought into it anyway.
The reslabbing Game (as I call it) has always existed also proving there initial statement of the companies wanting to make sure a buyer could be certain of what they were getting was nothing but marketing hype. Businesses exist to profit. That is why these companies exist. They are not there to be the best buddies of the hobby as their primary focus.
The fact the educational info they share with the hobby does benefit the hobby is not out of the goodness of their hearts, but is, as should be expected in any business, a direct result of marketing plans to benefit the business. There is nothing wrong with that, but losing sight of this reality is where a lot of false trust comes into play. Thus we have people not buying the coin, but buying the slab.
The new CAC problem
CAC marketed their new slabbing system as a way collectors could skip the middleman b/c people now only need pay CAC for slabbing. Just remember that CAC is also a BUSINESS. So while their main selling point does have truth to it, in reality we see just "marketer-speech" for something to the effect of, "We want a bigger slice of the pie and can divert business from slabbing companies to us. After all, people already pay us as the final word anyway." As a business move, CAC now slabbing is a good venture. But anyone thinking CAC board members sat around a table with the sole intent of finding a new way to benefit collectors is not understanding the business world.
What I get a kick out of is the COLLECTOR (not DEALER) market reaction from those who never did their homework about the grading systems to start with. Trying to summarize and using just PCGS for brevity but you could put in all grading company names:
To begin: 1. "Everyone KNOWS" PCGS is unquestionably THE AUTHORITY/EXPERTS in coins and grading/slabs.
2. The "Everyone KNOWS" crowd (ignoring the obvious contradiction) also "KNOWS" CAC is capable of somehow questioning PCGS's unquestionable grading/slabs ( :o ).
So people paid CAC hoping for a green bean (CAC sticker).
Next phase:3. CAC's slabs are now revealing people (were fooled) thought they had valuable coins that were housed in straight-graded PCGS holders...but CAC has proven the former slabs were wrong and the coins are actually NOT so valuable!
New conundrum:4. Do the people of "Everyone KNOWS" mentality now admit they were initially fooled by PCGS's subjective grading?
But...but...but...that means they have to also admit their coins are devalued (sometimes meaning huge $$$ loss!) :o
or
5. Do people decide CAC is actually full of baloney?
But...but...but that means they were fooled by the CAC sales pitch rendering former paid for green beans invalid since the company was baloney anyway! :o **
...and...that means all premiums paid for slabs with a green bean were also wasted money :o
Beanie babies tried to teach the public what happens when people invest in subjectivity.
When someone knows to buy the coin and not the slab, they are ahead of the game.
There is nothing wrong with collecting slabs since there is no right or wrong in a hobby. Hobbies are about fun. What I think is detrimental it is overall that so people do not understand the true nature of the companies and it costs people a lot of money as they line the company pockets.
It gets bad enough some people will almost fight to the death making claims as to how wonderful, flawless, and professional these companies are despite it being very easy to show otherwise. See the essay in my signature for proof from PCGS data linked to in their own website that the companies have over 30% error (that is being generous) in assigning a rookie level variety attribution of No FG to
Kennedy half dollars.
Posted 04/22/2024 10:13 pm
