Should JA automatically gold sticker a coin that is verified having agreen sticker at a higher grade — Welcome to the CAC Educational Forum

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Should JA automatically gold sticker a coin that is verified having agreen sticker at a higher grade

edited May 25 in Grading
I was just wondering if I buy say a NGC MS 66 green bean CAC coin and I mark cross at MS 65 or better at PCGS and it just happens to cross at 65, should JA now gold sticker this coin. After all it was solid or high as a 66. What are your opinions?
«13

Comments

  • Every coin is reviewed again on its merits if submitted again. I don't think there is anything automatic about their review process.
  • edited May 25
    I did this many years ago on a Barber 25c NGC PF67 CAC. I was dropping coins off at the office and showed it to @JACAC to get his confirmation before down-crossing it to PCGS PR66 CAC-gold. His green, red and yellow dots are but a part of what's available as advice, but the coin has to be in JA's hand to make any decision. Combine your extra shipping to/from CAC with quitea bit greater expense for the rest of the coin's progress.
  • No, of course not. The coin should be reexamined, before making a decision.
  • I have had this happen to me. I have a coin that was stickered as an AU58 NGC. I cracked it and it came back as PCGS 53. I sent the before pick to CAC and it came back with a gold sticker. I still think it was re-examined as it should be. Mistakes can be made on all sides.
  • I do not understand the logic for this method of 're-evaluation'. I would not think the business entity would be interested in 're-evaluating' that which it probably/possibly/most likely has a record of the piece being previously reviewed-stickered and/or not stickered- because it comes in with a lower TPG grade upon resubmittal to the TPG.

    Eventually, it could dilute the value of the entity, if every time a green was down graded by a TPG because the submitter deems it as an investment model, it is 're-evaluated' with a gold sticker reward.

    It would not be long before the street caught on, and the market would start experiencing skewed prices as population reports changed, and the very probable consequence would be a loss or dilution of the value of the entity 're-evaluating' a piece which it originally evaluated, simply because of a grade change by a TPG new lookatme label, and awarding a gold sticker, or, awarding a green to a previously rejected for a sticker submittal, simply because the grade was lowered by the TPG. Trust would certainly be diluted, and trust by the collecting community is the very strength of the entity.

    I would expect that skewed values of the lower grade pieces...unstickered or never submitted....would start experiencing misleading price points, along the lines of the Bust Half 58 graded fad.

    I don't think this type of musical chairs down grading request submittal/resubmittal/re-evaluation request, benefits the hobby.

    The greater danger is loss of confidence in the entity that joins in the musical chairs, especially when the entity has a reputation of explaining and openly discussing the reasons for the evaluation and would informally offer an opinion on the possible re-consideration of the original evaluation, if the piece deserves same.

    I will close with: Heavens To Murgatroyd. And....Yikes.

    Upon re-consideration, I will close with the thought that I am probably wrong, as usual.
  • john said:

    I do not understand the logic for this method of 're-evaluation'. I would not think the business entity would be interested in 're-evaluating' that which it probably/possibly/most likely has a record of the piece being previously reviewed-stickered and/or not stickered- because it comes in with a lower TPG grade upon resubmittal to the TPG.

    Eventually, it could dilute the value of the entity, if every time a green was down graded by a TPG because the submitter deems it as an investment model, it is 're-evaluated' with a gold sticker reward.

    It would not be long before the street caught on, and the market would start experiencing skewed prices as population reports changed, and the very probable consequence would be a loss or dilution of the value of the entity 're-evaluating' a piece which it originally evaluated, simply because of a grade change by a TPG new lookatme label, and awarding a gold sticker, or, awarding a green to a previously rejected for a sticker submittal, simply because the grade was lowered by the TPG. Trust would certainly be diluted, and trust by the collecting community is the very strength of the entity.

    I would expect that skewed values of the lower grade pieces...unstickered or never submitted....would start experiencing misleading price points, along the lines of the Bust Half 58 graded fad.

    I don't think this type of musical chairs down grading request submittal/resubmittal/re-evaluation request, benefits the hobby.

    The greater danger is loss of confidence in the entity that joins in the musical chairs, especially when the entity has a reputation of explaining and openly discussing the reasons for the evaluation and would informally offer an opinion on the possible re-consideration of the original evaluation, if the piece deserves same.

    I will close with: Heavens To Murgatroyd. And....Yikes.

    Upon re-consideration, I will close with the thought that I am probably wrong, as usual.

    "Heavens To Murgatroyd."

    I didn't look it up to confirm if my memory and/or spelling are correct but when I read that, I immediately thought of Quick Draw McGraw. ;)
  • Actually SnagglePuss “exit…..stage left”
    I loved cartoons growing up (still do)

  • Yes, Mark, and more specifically, Snagglepuss.

    Although, your comment does inflict a slight passing depressing feeling on me, in that the only value my thoughts provoke is a Quick Draw flashback.

    But, that usually happens when I mouth off, so, no harm no foul....
  • Actually SnagglePuss “exit…..stage left”
    I loved cartoons growing up (still do)

    Sigh, my thoughts have the value of a cartoon redo. And, pink, yet.

    No respect, none at all.

    I am not going to try to play with the big boys anymore.
  • john said:

    Yes, Mark, and more specifically, Snagglepuss.

    Although, your comment does inflict a slight passing depressing feeling on me, in that the only value my thoughts provoke is a Quick Draw flashback.

    But, that usually happens when I mouth off, so, no harm no foul....

    John, don’t underestimate that value!
  • john said:
    Actually SnagglePuss “exit…..stage left”
    I loved cartoons growing up (still do)

    Sigh, my thoughts have the value of a cartoon redo. And, pink, yet. No respect, none at all. I am not going to try to play with the big boys anymore.
    No disrespect meant at all- SnagglePuss is the MAN!
    It’s all for fun here- a welcome distraction from the daily grind of work and family obligations.
  • edited May 25
    john said:

    I do not understand the logic for this method of 're-evaluation'. I would not think the business entity would be interested in 're-evaluating' that which it probably/possibly/most likely has a record of the piece being previously reviewed-stickered and/or not stickered- because it comes in with a lower TPG grade upon resubmittal to the TPG.

    Eventually, it could dilute the value of the entity, if every time a green was down graded by a TPG because the submitter deems it as an investment model, it is 're-evaluated' with a gold sticker reward.

    It would not be long before the street caught on, and the market would start experiencing skewed prices as population reports changed, and the very probable consequence would be a loss or dilution of the value of the entity 're-evaluating' a piece which it originally evaluated, simply because of a grade change by a TPG new lookatme label, and awarding a gold sticker, or, awarding a green to a previously rejected for a sticker submittal, simply because the grade was lowered by the TPG. Trust would certainly be diluted, and trust by the collecting community is the very strength of the entity.

    I would expect that skewed values of the lower grade pieces...unstickered or never submitted....would start experiencing misleading price points, along the lines of the Bust Half 58 graded fad.

    I don't think this type of musical chairs down grading request submittal/resubmittal/re-evaluation request, benefits the hobby.

    The greater danger is loss of confidence in the entity that joins in the musical chairs, especially when the entity has a reputation of explaining and openly discussing the reasons for the evaluation and would informally offer an opinion on the possible re-consideration of the original evaluation, if the piece deserves same.

    I will close with: Heavens To Murgatroyd. And....Yikes.

    Upon re-consideration, I will close with the thought that I am probably wrong, as usual.

    It is one thing to assign a green sticker to a coin that barely made it to a green sticker as a B rated grade. But when the coin got downgraded it needs to be re-looked to make sure it would attain a gold sticker.

    Re-evaluation each time makes sure mistakes do not creep into the CAC system especially when a coin can deteriorate in storage.
  • ptolemyII said:

    I did this many years ago on a Barber 25c NGC PF67 CAC. I was dropping coins off at the office and showed it to @JACAC to get his confirmation before down-crossing it to PCGS PR66 CAC-gold. His green, red and yellow dots are but a part of what's available as advice, but the coin has to be in JA's hand to make any decision. Combine your extra shipping to/from CAC with quitea bit greater expense for the rest of the coin's progress.

    It seems like the cost of gasoline is catching up to the cost of postage at least in the short run.


  • john said:

    Actually SnagglePuss “exit…..stage left”
    I loved cartoons growing up (still do)

    Sigh, my thoughts have the value of a cartoon redo. And, pink, yet.

    No respect, none at all.

    I am not going to try to play with the big boys anymore.

    No disrespect meant at all- SnagglePuss is the MAN!
    It’s all for fun here- a welcome distraction from the daily grind of work and family obligations.

    No, no, I did not in any passing manner interpret disrespect. Not at all!!

    Those that know me, would most likely describe me as being an overboard admirer of British dry humor. The no respect thing....I miss Dangerfield, and my mind wanders. I enjoyed you post. I really did, which is why I responded in the manner I did. I apologize for causing you to think I may have thought you were intending anything other than humor.

    Yes, I still wallow in happiness and the world of giggling that watching cartoons causes. You are not alone.....
  • MarkFeld said:

    john said:

    Yes, Mark, and more specifically, Snagglepuss.

    Although, your comment does inflict a slight passing depressing feeling on me, in that the only value my thoughts provoke is a Quick Draw flashback.

    But, that usually happens when I mouth off, so, no harm no foul....

    John, don’t underestimate that value!
    As usual, Mark, that was great!

    A classic British humor smackdown/complement in the same sentence.

    You win that Round.
  • oreville said:

    john said:

    I do not understand the logic for this method of 're-evaluation'. I would not think the business entity would be interested in 're-evaluating' that which it probably/possibly/most likely has a record of the piece being previously reviewed-stickered and/or not stickered- because it comes in with a lower TPG grade upon resubmittal to the TPG.

    Eventually, it could dilute the value of the entity, if every time a green was down graded by a TPG because the submitter deems it as an investment model, it is 're-evaluated' with a gold sticker reward.

    It would not be long before the street caught on, and the market would start experiencing skewed prices as population reports changed, and the very probable consequence would be a loss or dilution of the value of the entity 're-evaluating' a piece which it originally evaluated, simply because of a grade change by a TPG new lookatme label, and awarding a gold sticker, or, awarding a green to a previously rejected for a sticker submittal, simply because the grade was lowered by the TPG. Trust would certainly be diluted, and trust by the collecting community is the very strength of the entity.

    I would expect that skewed values of the lower grade pieces...unstickered or never submitted....would start experiencing misleading price points, along the lines of the Bust Half 58 graded fad.

    I don't think this type of musical chairs down grading request submittal/resubmittal/re-evaluation request, benefits the hobby.

    The greater danger is loss of confidence in the entity that joins in the musical chairs, especially when the entity has a reputation of explaining and openly discussing the reasons for the evaluation and would informally offer an opinion on the possible re-consideration of the original evaluation, if the piece deserves same.

    I will close with: Heavens To Murgatroyd. And....Yikes.

    Upon re-consideration, I will close with the thought that I am probably wrong, as usual.

    It is one thing to assign a green sticker to a coin that barely made it to a green sticker as a B rated grade. But when the coin got downgraded it needs to be re-looked to make sure it would attain a gold sticker.

    Re-evaluation each time makes sure mistakes do not creep into the CAC system especially when a coin can deteriorate in storage.
    Of course, and I agree. That is not the thrust of my thoughts, though.

  • And now.....for something completely different.

    ...........................The Ministry for Silly Coins. :p
  • edited May 27
    Actually, it was Shakespeare who said "exit.... stage left....". That was Hamlet. "Heavens to Murgatroyd" is directly from MacBeth. :#
    Including the Minister of Disinformation, John Cleese will play all three roles. ;)

    The below is a verifiable image of @JACAC's phone a number of years ago. He calls that little fellow "Sticker 2.0"




  • It's scratched. :|
  • I didn't know Bausch & Lombe did phones :)
Sign In or Register to comment.