How about CAC tell you if your coin has been previously tried, provided you can prove you own it?

MeantToBeSpent

What would be the downside in that?

MarkFeld

The downside - If the coin had been submitted previously, the submitter, (who might have also been the seller) probably wouldn’t want others to know. And while it’s certainly understandable that a buyer and/or owner of the coin would like to know, the submitter is entitled to that privacy.

WilliamJ

 Also,  Pcgs and ngc do not tell us how many times the coin has been regraded, or should they?
  Privacy rights can be complicated....

Catbert

I would love to be able to pay for the privilege so I could save time and shipping risk 

Pyrite

I vote no.

john

MarkFeld said:

The downside - If the coin had been submitted previously, the submitter, (who might have also been the seller) probably wouldn’t want others to know. And while it’s certainly understandable that a buyer and/or owner of the coin would like to know, the submitter is entitled to that privacy.

Good Morning, Mark. I agree, there is a non-disclosure agreement between the submitter and CAC, unless the submitter agrees to public disclosure.

I am not so certain that the submitter should be entitled to the same privacy, when the submitter becomes a seller to the public, of the same unaltered 'rejected piece' still in the original holder that it was submitted to CAC, and sells the piece without disclosure.

Continuing with the disclosure opinion, if a Dealer submits a piece to CAC and it is 'rejected', and the Dealer then offers the piece to the general public in the same unaltered condition, the buyer/seller position transcends the "probably"  level and enters the honesty (or dishonesty) level.

I am not referring to a piece that the Dealer may buy and re-sell and does not know the piece he/she purchased for re-sale had previously been submitted.

After all, the very foundation of the hobby, as I have previously opined, is honesty at all levels....collector/buyer/seller/TPG and 4PG Graders.

My opinion, and I can certainly rely upon the unstated fact that many others would disagree.

MarkFeld

Good morning, John.

As much as I believe in transparency, I still think it should be the submitter-seller's decision whether to disclose that his/her coin failed to sticker. The same goes for coins that have failed to upgrade or cross. Of course, if asked by a potential buyer, I would hope he/she would be truthful.

john

Thank You Mark.
Is there an economic level of a transaction that would give you pause to reconsider the position that it is up to the submitter-seller to disclose?

I am not ignoring the often stated position of the seller/buyer that the condition of the piece is subjective.... only an opinion by the seller/buyer/TPG/4PG.

But (and you know what I am going to type.... there is always a "But"), honesty does not have a $ value required that triggers the application, to my knowledge, and accordingly a hobby/business that has honesty as the foundation is not to be jackhammered by selective disclosure.

Zoins

One thing I liked about Mark's coin listings when he was still selling coins is that he would disclose things like this in his descriptions.

What if it was up to the submitter, or current owner, to indicate if CAC should show if a coin did not pass? Then certain dealers could build up a reputation for 100% transparency, by having all their inventory listed in the public CAC database.

It would be opt-in so others could still use the current system. And if a new owner wanted it hidden, they either ask CAC to hide it going forward, or submit for a new cert number.

john

Why substitute the word "transparency" for honesty?

To me, opting in or out of a transparency option is escapism, and hobby deconstructing.

I do think such an option at the CAC level is of no value to the business model, and would most certainly be a bridge to far.

It is not the purview of CAC to police the honesty of the submitter/
seller after an opinion....up or down....has been offered by CAC. It would simply destroy confidence in what CAC does best, honestly evaluate the piece without regard to the eventual ownership outside their own stated interest of buying back what CAC stickers.

That is making a market, is it not? CAC will not buy it if it was not stickered by them. CAC openly states this. That is honesty, and full disclosure, to me.

I have read and heard opinions that if the piece is not stickered, then it must not be deserving, or otherwise it would be stickered, and buy/sell accordingly. Maybe that is the best approach, if non-disclosure by the seller is considered acceptable to the hobby. I think that would do more harm to the hobby long term, though. Why? Because there are many pieces held by collectors/Trusts/families that have never been on the market, and many that have not been TPGd or 4PGd. 

MarkFeld

john said:

Thank You Mark.
Is there an economic level of a transaction that would give you pause to reconsider the position that it is up to the submitter-seller to disclose?

I am not ignoring the often stated position of the seller/buyer that the condition of the piece is subjective.... only an opinion by the seller/buyer/TPG/4PG.

But (and you know what I am going to type.... there is always a "But"), honesty does not have a $ value required that triggers the application, to my knowledge, and accordingly a hobby/business that has honesty as the foundation is not to be jackhammered by selective disclosure.

I don't think there is an economic level that would cause me to change my opinion.  Also, in reply to a subsequent post of yours - "Why substitute the word "transparency" for honesty?" - I'm all for both, but I don't get to decide whether CAC allows information regarding failed submissions to be divulged. My guess is that CAC might not exist if they weren't willing to keep such information confidential. 

john

I think you have misinterpreted my position, Mark I absolutely support the CAC position of non-disclosure. I have stated this in every post in this thread.

I have stated it is the responsibility of the seller, after the event, to disclose. If you are of the opinion that there is a submitter-CAC contract clause that prevents the submitter from disclosing the result, then we are in very new privacy territory. I would be very surprised if that is a contract obligation of the submitter/seller. I would be very disappointed and would not do business with an entity that objects, to the level of not allowing, honesty by the client, if the client discloses.

That is not confidentiality. That is intentional manipulation of the acts of the client. I can not think of a situation that would support CAC doing so.

I am glad that you surmise a difference between the word honesty and transparency, though.

I can understand not offering a position on other thoughts I have stated. I would not have done so, either, but I do not have the restraints and daily responsibility that you have, to the hobby.

I do always enjoy our hypotheticals and logic posits, and I am certain you recognize I was maneuvering a bit toward that self-gratifying opportunity.

I will have to try again, on another less volatile subject.

MarkFeld

john said:

I think you have misinterpreted my position, Mark I absolutely support the CAC position of non-disclosure. I have stated this in every post in this thread.

I have stated it is the responsibility of the seller, after the event, to disclose. If you are of the opinion that there is a submitter-CAC contract clause that prevents the submitter from disclosing the result, then we are in very new privacy territory. I would be very surprised if that is a contract obligation of the submitter/seller. I would be very disappointed and would not do business with an entity that objects, to the level of not allowing, honesty by the client, if the client discloses.

That is not confidentiality. That is intentional manipulation of the acts of the client. I can not think of a situation that would support CAC doing so.

I am glad that you surmise a difference between the word honesty and transparency, though.

I can understand not offering a position on other thoughts I have stated. I would not have done so, either, but I do not have the restraints and daily responsibility that you have, to the hobby.

I do always enjoy our hypotheticals and logic posits, and I am certain you recognize I was maneuvering a bit toward that self-gratifying opportunity.

I will have to try again, on another less volatile subject.

Sorry for my misinterpretation, John. 

Now that I hopefully understand the issue you have raised, I don't mind stating my position - I feel that sellers should disclose such information, but it's not something that I expect from many.

vulcanize

In my humble opinion, it should be similar to CarFax model using VIN

john

MarkFeld said:

john said:

I think you have misinterpreted my position, Mark I absolutely support the CAC position of non-disclosure. I have stated this in every post in this thread.

I have stated it is the responsibility of the seller, after the event, to disclose. If you are of the opinion that there is a submitter-CAC contract clause that prevents the submitter from disclosing the result, then we are in very new privacy territory. I would be very surprised if that is a contract obligation of the submitter/seller. I would be very disappointed and would not do business with an entity that objects, to the level of not allowing, honesty by the client, if the client discloses.

That is not confidentiality. That is intentional manipulation of the acts of the client. I can not think of a situation that would support CAC doing so.

I am glad that you surmise a difference between the word honesty and transparency, though.

I can understand not offering a position on other thoughts I have stated. I would not have done so, either, but I do not have the restraints and daily responsibility that you have, to the hobby.

I do always enjoy our hypotheticals and logic posits, and I am certain you recognize I was maneuvering a bit toward that self-gratifying opportunity.

I will have to try again, on another less volatile subject.

Sorry for my misinterpretation, John. 

Now that I hopefully understand the issue you have raised, I don't mind stating my position - I feel that sellers should disclose such information, but it's not something that I expect from many.

Thanks Mark. No apology required at all.

Concerning your expectation, you have a much more broad understanding of the present market seller psyche than I do, and I think you are correct (however disappointing and defeatist that reads), based only on my human nature experience, and not actual market experience.

That does not really change my thought that, for the hobby to survive and remain robust, the lack of disclosure going forward is going to have to change dramatically and quickly, or all participants in the hobby will regret not demanding same.

I could list a number of particulars, without using illogical strawman examples. That will really accomplish nothing, though, if the participants making a market don't lead by example.

EarlyFederalCoinage

WilliamJ said:

 Also,  Pcgs and ngc do not tell us how many times the coin has been regraded, or should they?
  Privacy rights can be complicated....

Not if they want revenue from resubmissions.

MeantToBeSpent

Thanks for the thoughtful posts. My thoughts are

1) It'd be a big benefit to collectors (or secondary dealers) in not wasting time/energy/money/risk in sending in already tried coins (esp considering there's now even a cac only pcgs registry).

2) It'd be a minor amount of work by cac to implement the policy. It seems like they don't look to make money on "resubmissions" (unlike the TPGs unfortunately) so I don't think they'd worry about that. If the policy is more than a minor amount of work I suppose they could charge some very small fee (ie like $1/coin or a bulk rate of even less).

3) I've tried to think of a scenario where a previous owner (and/or the original submitter) would care about the coin anymore once they've sold it. Maybe only on some ultra rarity? But even then unless they outright lied about it then what downside is it in knowing it was tried and didn't make it? (As an upside it at least means the coin is not so low end that it wasn't even worth trying).

4) Even if the current owner learns that it was tried before, there's no proof (nor needs to be any proof) that the seller or auction house he/she bought it from was the one who tried it.

WilliamJ

How do you prove that you still own the coin? 100%

MeantToBeSpent

Very good question. CAC would have to decide where to be on the trust vs security tradeoff. At one extreme they could just require a current photo of the coin (say as what the pcgs registry requires to release cert #s). On the other extreme maybe you need to include your license, a document with the current date, and the receipt for the coin, all with the coin in the same photo. (and maybe have it be more than 30 days from the date of purchase to ensure that you don't just have the coin on approval with the intent to return it if it had failed).

WilliamJ

Could be a bit tricky?
     Back to honesty;
Trust vs security, Sometimes the few ruin it for the majority.
 

fathom

It's about perception IMO.

The mission of CAC is certifying choice coins. There are no secrets in this market.
If coins are not passed and signified as incertifiable then that relates a negative perception. They could be more than solid for the grade. Why attach a negative?

Is that scenario good for the marketplace is the concern IMO.