| Author |
 Replies: 11 / Views: 2,907 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
373 Posts |
The answer to this question is probably obvious to everyone, but I have been wondering... Does CAC use its own set of grading standards, or does it certify relative to the TPG's standards? For example, PCGS has a reputation of grading coppers more strictly than NGC. Would a CAC sticker on, say, an NGC MS63 large cent mean "this coin is average or better for an NGC MS63", or would it mean that "this coin is average or better for an MS63, regardless of grading service"? The first scenario would mean that an NGC MS63/CAC might not be good enough to earn the CAC if it were in a PCGS MS63 slab. The second scenario would mean that once the CAC is awarded, the TPG becomes irrelevant, and there should not be a price differential between PCGS and NGC. Any comments, discussion, etc.? I'd like to understand this better! |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2543 Posts |
CAC does not grade coins, they either confirm or question the grades that TPG's have already given. If it is a strong example of the grade, they sticker it, if it is not a strong example they don't sticker it, be it a PCGS or NGC. I don't believe CAC accepts ANACS or ICG for review. Edited by denco7
05/15/2013 7:56 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
They dont take ANACS or ICG and probably wont.
For the OPs question I believe they use the same standard regardless of PCGS or NGC. The difference in the TPGs standards may affect how many of their coins will sticker. If anything CACs stickering probably has more of an affect on how hard the TPGs are on coins since it doesn't look good if very few of them get it
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
The standards don't differ by TPG - they can't. Don't forget, CAC has skin in the game. They're truly staking their businesses on the outcome of their opinions, saying, "You don't have to see this coin to buy it, if I've put the Bean on it." Only the number matters, not the letters on the label, and bias would only limit them without any concurrent upside. Yes, I'm plainly a CAC fanboi. The TPG's are basing their business on the stock price; CAC is basing their business on the coins and the opinions. CAC dealers aren't publicly traded. They only make money if the coins are good. This isn't rocket science. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1590 Posts |
Why don't they grade ANACs or ICG? It really should not matter as long as it is a reputable grading service.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
The guy who started CAC also founded PCGS and NGC. Their may be some bad blood there from his time there. But it could also just be that PCGS and NGC are considered the top two and considering CACs focus is higher end coins they only stick with them
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1590 Posts |
That would lead to the natural question; does he still have an interest in either company? If he still has any ownership at all in these companies it would seem to be a conflict of interest to exclude companies he does not have ownership in. In other words CAC would simply then be a shill for PCGS and NGC.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Theres no conflict of interest at all. He can exclude whatever he wants, if he doesn't want to use ANACS or ICG he doesn't have too its his company. The simple fact is a lot of those coins do get less than they would in PCGS or NGC holders.
The only interest CAC has is stickering top quality coins. He could own PCGS and NGC currently and it wouldnt matter because the only thing he can do to help them is only take their slabs other than that they have to live up to the CAC standards not the other way around
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1590 Posts |
Basebal, we usually agree, but this time...not so much.
IF he owned PCGS and NGC, and only accepted coins from those companies then he is creating more demand for those companies by those who want CAC stickers. And lessening demand for companies he does not own.
And if he owned those companies then he would be saying that the grading for his other holdings are substandard, and would in effect be getting paid twice for grading the same coin.
As a business it would not make any sense to not grade other companies, and lessen your volume. Because in effect YOU ( meaning, CAC; in this instance) are the new standard. NOT PCGS or NGC.
By lessening the number of companies you accept for grading to those companies that you own you would be increasing your bottom dollar by both increasing revenues for those companies you own and for the new company that re-grades the coins your other companies have already graded.
BUT that is only if he owned, or had holdings in, PCGS or NCG.
That is why it would be a conflict of interest. Because at that point it is no longer about grading coins but about adding a perceived value to something that you have already been paid for.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1796 Posts |
Point of order: Quote:CAC does not grade coins, they either confirm or question the grades that TPG's have already given. Which is -- functionally -- grading a coin and then comparing it to what's on the label. :-) Quote:The standards don't differ by TPG - they can't. Every time a magazine does a "let's submit this one coin to all major TPGs one after the other and see what they say" the numbers rarely come back the same. Grading standards are different, and even the introduction to the latest edition of the ANA Grading Standards discusses how grading rules are actively changing (driven by the industry). All of this said, I prefer me beans in bar (read: chocolate) or liquid (read: coffee) form. ;-) And finally, with that last bit said, I'm waiting for a smaller bean that will be stuck on the bigger bean to say that some fifth party agrees with CAC's fourth party assessment about a third party's grading. :-) Aaand getting back to the OP: That is a very good and important question. I think that CAC's position, given its history and principles, is in a very gray area that could resolve poorly if there are a few missteps in short succession. Everyone wants to be the *final* authority in this field... because it can be very lucrative. :-) Edited by SteveCaruso
05/16/2013 12:28 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Kendall He doesn't have any interest in those companies anymore as far as I know. Cant agree one everything I guess, oh well a good back and forth is always fun.
But even if he did own them it wouldnt be a conflict of interest in any way unless he made it one. Stickering coins that dont cut it would be a conflict of CACs interest, their coins do look better than their non stickered peers for the most part which is why theyre around. If that ever changed theyll have a long hill to get relevant again. Its not worth risking that imo. Plus you can sell them their own coins so they wouldnt want to be stuck holding the bag for coins they did just to add a value to it.
Demand is highest for PCGS and NGC by far, I dont think thats ever in-question. CAC helps them in a way, but theyre supposed to be geared towards high end coins. You dont get a high end rep by stickering any companies slab. Theres just no way around the fact that ANACS and especially ICG coins bring less than PCGS and NGC. If you want the high end reputation you stay with the best not expand out. Itd be like a Maserati dealership also selling Hondas to get a different kind of customer. Just look at a PCGS modern 70 then an ICG modern 70 and see the extreme price difference, CAC doesn't deal in moderns but you dont really want your stickers on slabs like that
If you cant tell I dont like ICG and really arent a fan of ANACS either. Theyre fine for real or fake but thats about all Id use either for. The ANACS holder feels so cheap I have a hard time taking it seriously, its by far the easiest one to crack too.
But what I was getting at was that even if there was still an interest, serving an interest to PCGS/NGC would destroy the interest of CAC so they are at odds with each other in that regard. PCGS/NGC could of course just start being harder with their grades which PCGS at least seems to have done to do better with CAC, but it is possible to be impartial even with a vesting interest in all three being successful.
Edited by basebal21
05/16/2013 2:10 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2543 Posts |
I think everyone needs to step back and realize what CAC is. It is not a grading company, it is not really even a company per se. It is a group of dealers who got together to form a group in which they could buy, sell, and trade coins sight unseen. If one CAC member/dealer verifies a coin by putting a CAC sticker on it, other members can then buiy that coin, sight unseen and be sure that it is a strong coin in that grade. The members of this " club " are a small experienced group who by their small, handpicked membership implicitly trust each other. They pick who verifies the grade, they pick what coins to verify (they don't do bullion or moderns)and they pick what TPG's they are going to verify. If one dealer miss verifies a PCGS coin because he is bias, he is ruining his reputation and messing with his fellow members/dealers. I will say again, CAC is not a grading service nor do they have any dogs in the TPG fight, other than it benefits " them " to only verify coins from what they consider the top two grading services. |
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 2,907 |
|
Posted 05/15/2013 8:42 pm
