1) Is the CAC approval date stored in the CAC database? 2) If so, would CAC be willing to publish the CAC approval date on the CAC verification results page?
Maybe it could also list any changes to a previous CAC approval date, such as a reconsideration or upgrade.
If a CAC coin is, upon re-evaluation by the Promotion Board, elevated from a Green 3 Star General to a Gold 4 Star General, is the Green 3 Star General slot removed from the data base?
Just thinking out load, what are the pros and cons to this?
For one thing, it would answer the 'was it graded before or after JA left' question (should it arise in the future) without having to change sticker design.
1. Yes. 2. No. 3. CAC is not PCGS. They are not perpetually experimenting with new marketing tricks to entice you into repeatedly resubmitting the same coins so that they can continuously profit on the same finite supply of classic coins. CAC is not in it for the money; their goal is to educate consumers about quality. If JA and crew were in it for the bucks, they would significantly raise their fees because their brand is now extremely prestigious and thus sought-after (I for one would definitely pay JA's sky-high designer fees, despite being frugal).
@Seth_WitterCoin It would provide historical context and potentially create a new avenue of CAC collecting. Would collectors covet coins that were reviewed during the first day/week/month of CAC production? Possibly. We've seen this occur in the TPG marketplace with older holders becoming coveted by collectors. I don't see any cons to making this information available. It should only require minor technical changes if the information is already stored in the database.
@Seth_WitterCoin It would provide historical context and potentially create a new avenue of CAC collecting. Would collectors covet coins that were reviewed during the first day/week/month of CAC production? Possibly. We've seen this occur in the TPG marketplace with older holders becoming coveted by collectors. I don't see any cons to making this information available. It should only require minor technical changes if the information is already stored in the database.
I see that as taking the focus off of the coins. And while I believe that collectors should collect whatever they like, I don’t feel that placing the emphasis on the holders is necessarily a good thing for the hobby.
@Seth_WitterCoin It would provide historical context and potentially create a new avenue of CAC collecting. Would collectors covet coins that were reviewed during the first day/week/month of CAC production? Possibly. We've seen this occur in the TPG marketplace with older holders becoming coveted by collectors. I don't see any cons to making this information available. It should only require minor technical changes if the information is already stored in the database.
I see that as taking the focus off of the coins. And while I believe that collectors should collect whatever they like, I don’t feel that placing the emphasis on the holders is necessarily a good thing for the hobby.
I agree. Collectors should be able to collect what they like, and the focus should be on the coins. The older holders/albums/flips/books, etc. are part of numismatic history and have become collectables themselves. I don't see this as a negative for the hobby. I see it as one of the side effects of growth within the hobby.
It would provide historical context and potentially create a new avenue of CAC collecting. Would collectors covet coins that were reviewed during the first day/week/month of CAC production? Possibly. We've seen this occur in the TPG marketplace with older holders becoming coveted by collectors. I don't see any cons to making this information available. It should only require minor technical changes if the information is already stored in the database.
An interesting idea @kccoinguy but I'm not sure I see any real benefit to either CAC or collectors here. A good portion of my brain spends time in tech product management, and if we were debating this idea, I'd say:
* Things that sound like "minor technical changes" rarely are. There's time, cost, maintenance, bugs, etc. that happen with any new feature added.
* Is there demonstrated evidence that this is needed? You say "possibly" -- I'd want to see evidence that people actually want or need this info and would value it
* I'm not sure what the benefit to CAC would be. It sounds like extra effort to expose some information that has questionable value.
But these forums are for ideas and brainstorming, so I'm all for enjoying the thought exercise - thanks for sharing the idea and letting us peanut-gallery-goers think it through.
1) Fraud detection. An old CAC approval date on a new generation of slab could serve as an indication the certification is not authentic. Of course this would depend on how the CAC approval date is managed for re-holders. 2) Reconsiderations. I would be less likely to submit for reconsideration if I saw that it was recently approved.
Grading standards have evolved over time and we can use holder generations to help us identify approximately when a coin was certified, but there's no historical context for CAC approvals. Maybe it's just the coin geek in me that's wanting to associate a date to everything...
Now, what does everyone think about glow in the dark stickers?
1) Fraud detection. An old CAC approval date on a new generation of slab could serve as an indication the certification is not authentic. Of course this would depend on how the CAC approval date is managed for re-holders. 2) Reconsiderations. I would be less likely to submit for reconsideration if I saw that it was recently approved.
Grading standards have evolved over time and we can use holder generations to help us identify approximately when a coin was certified, but there's no historical context for CAC approvals. Maybe it's just the coin geek in me that's wanting to associate a date to everything...
Now, what does everyone think about glow in the dark stickers?
i believe that there are other solutions for your use cases that will have significant advantages / benefits
imagine if the pcgs and the ngc records for authentic coins also show the cac status .. i think the entries in pcgs db and the ngc db would solve other use cases similar to the anti-fraud problem(s) too
.. and i also believe we should be permitted (perhaps with both authn and authz) public api access to each db for us to advance our hobby, but my personal / private db is all about the coin and not the slab https://www.caccoin.com/faq/
in case you all are also interested in a time series snapshot of the cac db results for the pop report captured from a few rows and columns (the same cells at different dates) in the following tables that i have "collected" for my own personal analysis:
~4 years ago 65 66 67 68 11 6 3 4 3 65 63 5 1
~2 years ago 65 66 67 68 10 5 3 4 3 1 67 55 4 1
now 65 66 67 68 10 7 3 0 4 3 2 0 74 58 4 1
i have too many questions about the cac db that i am almost certain will remain unanswered and will continue to be a mystery about the pop report trends without the associated detailed coin records
you all are probably aware that the pop report did not show 0 in the "sparse" tables until recently
i would like to follow up briefly to make it clear that i believe the cac db is super valuable and the integrity of the data is equally important to all of us
my example pop report changes over time was to illustrate an interesting aspect to the way the api with pcgs and ngc can update the counts to actually decrement the total number for a particular grade within a series .. an example decrement may occur when a coin is submitted to either pcgs or ngc and receives a higher grade and the previous serial number is no longer valid
i did learn today that it is unlikely that any previously cac stickered coin in it's holder was sent back to @JACAC for "official" reconsideration of previous approval and subsequent removal of the sticker as well as decrementing the cac db
to simplify my example, i show the following for the ms65, ms66, and ms67 $10 gold 1907 wire edge indian head eagle green sticker pop report of 3 snapshots going back in time:
~4 years ago 65 66 67 11 6 3
~2 years ago 65 66 67 10 5 3
now 65 66 67 10 7 3
if we had authorized api access to query the pop report data to show the serial numbers, then we would have a much better understanding of the changes over time .. but i understand why that may introduce other issues for the @CAC_Team
i should also mention that there are occasions when a coin without a sticker is reholdered (eg. even for the same grade from pcgs) and then submitted to cac, the same coin in the new holder may end up stickered and the cac db pop is then incremented
i can go back through my records to find the new serial number, but the following is an example coin that (shortly after the auction) ended up in a new ms66+ pcgs holder and it now has a green bean sticker on the slab:
I am not in favor of adding to the CAC workload as it takes away from the review process itself. At the very least, a review year could be published rather than the hourly or even the minute date stamp. Where will it end?
It wouldn't necessarily add to the workload. Unless the database does not have an entry date field. The only way I could see it as needed would (will ?) be if at some time in the future, the CAC sticker becomes either classic or "in question." God forbid that circumstances develop that coins require an "OLD" sticker to be acceptable.
Comments
Maybe it could also list any changes to a previous CAC approval date, such as a reconsideration or upgrade.
If a CAC coin is, upon re-evaluation by the Promotion Board, elevated from a Green 3 Star General to a Gold 4 Star General, is the Green 3 Star General slot removed from the data base?
2. No.
3. CAC is not PCGS. They are not perpetually experimenting with new marketing tricks to entice you into repeatedly resubmitting the same coins so that they can continuously profit on the same finite supply of classic coins. CAC is not in it for the money; their goal is to educate consumers about quality. If JA and crew were in it for the bucks, they would significantly raise their fees because their brand is now extremely prestigious and thus sought-after (I for one would definitely pay JA's sky-high designer fees, despite being frugal).
* Things that sound like "minor technical changes" rarely are. There's time, cost, maintenance, bugs, etc. that happen with any new feature added.
* Is there demonstrated evidence that this is needed? You say "possibly" -- I'd want to see evidence that people actually want or need this info and would value it
* I'm not sure what the benefit to CAC would be. It sounds like extra effort to expose some information that has questionable value.
But these forums are for ideas and brainstorming, so I'm all for enjoying the thought exercise - thanks for sharing the idea and letting us peanut-gallery-goers think it through.
1) Fraud detection. An old CAC approval date on a new generation of slab could serve as an indication the certification is not authentic. Of course this would depend on how the CAC approval date is managed for re-holders.
2) Reconsiderations. I would be less likely to submit for reconsideration if I saw that it was recently approved.
Grading standards have evolved over time and we can use holder generations to help us identify approximately when a coin was certified, but there's no historical context for CAC approvals. Maybe it's just the coin geek in me that's wanting to associate a date to everything...
Now, what does everyone think about glow in the dark stickers?
imagine if the pcgs and the ngc records for authentic coins also show the cac status .. i think the entries in pcgs db and the ngc db would solve other use cases similar to the anti-fraud problem(s) too
https://www.caccoin.com/faq/
~4 years ago
65 66 67 68
11 6 3
4 3
65 63 5 1
~2 years ago
65 66 67 68
10 5 3
4 3 1
67 55 4 1
now
65 66 67 68
10 7 3 0
4 3 2 0
74 58 4 1
i have too many questions about the cac db that i am almost certain will remain unanswered and will continue to be a mystery about the pop report trends without the associated detailed coin records
you all are probably aware that the pop report did not show 0 in the "sparse" tables until recently
my example pop report changes over time was to illustrate an interesting aspect to the way the api with pcgs and ngc can update the counts to actually decrement the total number for a particular grade within a series .. an example decrement may occur when a coin is submitted to either pcgs or ngc and receives a higher grade and the previous serial number is no longer valid
i did learn today that it is unlikely that any previously cac stickered coin in it's holder was sent back to @JACAC for "official" reconsideration of previous approval and subsequent removal of the sticker as well as decrementing the cac db
to simplify my example, i show the following for the ms65, ms66, and ms67 $10 gold 1907 wire edge indian head eagle green sticker pop report of 3 snapshots going back in time:
~4 years ago
65 66 67
11 6 3
~2 years ago
65 66 67
10 5 3
now
65 66 67
10 7 3
if we had authorized api access to query the pop report data to show the serial numbers, then we would have a much better understanding of the changes over time .. but i understand why that may introduce other issues for the @CAC_Team
thank you so much!
i can go back through my records to find the new serial number, but the following is an example coin that (shortly after the auction) ended up in a new ms66+ pcgs holder and it now has a green bean sticker on the slab:
https://www.pcgs.com/auctionprices/item/1907-10-wire-edge/8850/-4121367244606423147
you will notice that this particular coin in my example is very easy to identify without the slab
The only way I could see it as needed would (will ?) be if at some time in the future, the CAC sticker becomes either classic or "in question."
God forbid that circumstances develop that coins require an "OLD" sticker to be acceptable.