Why don't I start you off with a hard one. What are you looking forward to most regarding the opening??
Allowing members of this forum, that are not previous CAC members with direct submission privileges, to also have direct submission privileges. I understand that may need a cut-off date, but maybe anyone prior is grandfathered in.
I feel like an unanswered question orphan. That is how I felt when my parents ignored me. Not that they were not smart in doing so, but still...it leaves a psychological rejection scar.
Why don't I start you off with a hard one. What are you looking forward to most regarding the opening??
Allowing members of this forum, that are not previous CAC members with direct submission privileges, to also have direct submission privileges. I understand that may need a cut-off date, but maybe anyone prior is grandfathered in.
I feel like an unanswered question orphan. That is how I felt when my parents ignored me. Not that they were not smart in doing so, but still...it leaves a psychological rejection scar.
I will cosign this one. I tried to join CAC and even asked to be placed on the "waiting list". I was told that there is no waiting list. Recent interviews seem to imply that there is, in fact, a waiting list. Still hoping in the future that I can join CAC in some way or another.
Please know your question is not being ignored. Stay tuned, as you will get an answer very soon.
Boss, humbly and with hopeful appreciation for your understanding, the "very soon" part needs an amendment, to redefine the intent of the phrase.
Why don't I start you off with a hard one. What are you looking forward to most regarding the opening??
Allowing members of this forum, that are not previous CAC members with direct submission privileges, to also have direct submission privileges. I understand that may need a cut-off date, but maybe anyone prior is grandfathered in.
I feel like an unanswered question orphan. That is how I felt when my parents ignored me. Not that they were not smart in doing so, but still...it leaves a psychological rejection scar.
Why don't I start you off with a hard one. What are you looking forward to most regarding the opening??
Allowing members of this forum, that are not previous CAC members with direct submission privileges, to also have direct submission privileges. I understand that may need a cut-off date, but maybe anyone prior is grandfathered in.
I feel like an unanswered question orphan. That is how I felt when my parents ignored me. Not that they were not smart in doing so, but still...it leaves a psychological rejection scar.
I will cosign this one. I tried to join CAC and even asked to be placed on the "waiting list". I was told that there is no waiting list. Recent interviews seem to imply that there is, in fact, a waiting list. Still hoping in the future that I can join CAC in some way or another.
Please know your question is not being ignored. Stay tuned, as you will get an answer very soon.
Boss, humbly and with hopeful appreciation for your understanding, the "very soon" part needs an amendment, to redefine the intent of the phrase.
Don't yell at me. I am old.
Hahaha! I know, I know! Your patience is greatly appreciated, @john. I promise not to yell at you, as long as you promise not to yell at me.
The parameters pertaining to membership is something that falls outside of my jurisdiction at the moment, so I will defer to @JACAC for answering.
Why don't I start you off with a hard one. What are you looking forward to most regarding the opening??
Allowing members of this forum, that are not previous CAC members with direct submission privileges, to also have direct submission privileges. I understand that may need a cut-off date, but maybe anyone prior is grandfathered in.
Thankyou for the question, Mr. JA. This is Part 1. Part to follows.
Yep. Hence my Post. When it was open this year a few times, the waiting list slot was not known, but it did not really matter, because no more new submitters were being accepted due to the concentration to improve grading times, as an example. I concur that hopefuls were told there was no waiting list, and I can understand why. It was a series of issues that came together since Jan., that new members had to be put on hold. I think it will all work out.
Mr. JA, this is Part 2, that adds a bit more clarity. I have tried to join since last early Dec (when I became a member of this Forum) but there was awaiting list. It is just one of those situations that the opportunity never came about, due to CAC priorities and future plans and that is of course understandable.
The question is: will consideration be possible for forum members that have been here since the forum started last Dec., have any hope of being accepted so direct submission is possible? We could not join since Dec., since the waiting list was suspended, and no more applications were submitted. I (and I am certain others) have the requisite credentials...members of the CAC required organizations-ANA, etc.
Besides, I have been the bestest most loveable most shining personality and the King among kings of funny stuff on the forum, and everybody likes me. True.
Plus, I am old, and it is on my Bucket List.
So.... Logic is required here, which would mean I'm in, with all that going for me.
If a "legacy" MS65 coin has a CAC green sticker and is submitted to CACG and upgrades to MS66 would the "legacy" be noted on the new holder?
Similarly, if a "legacy" MS65 coin has a CAC green sticker and is submitted to CACG and downgrades to MS64+ would the "legacy" be noted on the new holder?
If a "legacy" MS65 coin has a CAC green sticker and is submitted to CACG and upgrades to MS66 would the "legacy" be noted on the new holder?
Similarly, if a "legacy" MS65 coin has a CAC green sticker and is submitted to CACG and downgrades to MS64+ would the "legacy" be noted on the new holder?
If a "legacy" MS65 coin has a CAC green sticker and is submitted to CACG and upgrades to MS66 would the "legacy" be noted on the new holder?
Similarly, if a "legacy" MS65 coin has a CAC green sticker and is submitted to CACG and downgrades to MS64+ would the "legacy" be noted on the new holder?
Your second scenario can’t happen.
I agree it shouldn't happen often but it is surely going to happen. It happens at every TPG.
CAC hasn't seen the coin outside of a holder and things can occur after CAC has seen it. Plus mistakes happen in every grading room, CAC is no exception. Surely there are green stickered coins out there that, once cracked out, no longer warrant their previously assigned grade.
If a "legacy" MS65 coin has a CAC green sticker and is submitted to CACG and upgrades to MS66 would the "legacy" be noted on the new holder?
Similarly, if a "legacy" MS65 coin has a CAC green sticker and is submitted to CACG and downgrades to MS64+ would the "legacy" be noted on the new holder?
Your second scenario can’t happen.
I agree it shouldn't happen often but it is surely going to happen. It happens at every TPG.
CAC hasn't seen the coin outside of a holder and things can occur after CAC has seen it. Plus mistakes happen in every grading room, CAC is no exception. Surely there are green stickered coins out there that, once cracked out, no longer warrant their previously assigned grade.
And THAT'S why when submitting a coin with a CAC sticker to CACG for crossover, it pays to CLEARLY indicate only to cross at the same grade or higher!
I truly do not understand the need for the "Legacy" and a bean on holders that were previously CAC approved in other holders. To me it adds absolutely no value.
I am buying the coin. Not the holder. Why would I pay a premium because a coin in a CACG holder used to be in PCGS plastic with a bean? Why would it matter if the coin was PCGS MS65, or 63 gold CAC and crossed to CACG as MS65? You trust CACG so why does anyone care where it was before or what grade it had?
If everyone trusts CAC and their grading skills it's is absolutely irrelevant whether the coin was crossed from PCGS or NGC or if it had a bean or not. All it does is add yet another fake market value to the coins.
Just my opinion, but I truly don't understand this want for legacy bean tracking.
I truly do not understand the need for the "Legacy" and a bean on holders that were previously CAC approved in other holders. To me it adds absolutely no value.
I am buying the coin. Not the holder. Why would I pay a premium because a coin in a CACG holder used to be in PCGS plastic with a bean? Why would it matter if the coin was PCGS MS65, or 63 gold CAC and crossed to CACG as MS65? You trust CACG so why does anyone care where it was before or what grade it had?
If everyone trusts CAC and their grading skills it's is absolutely irrelevant whether the coin was crossed from PCGS or NGC or if it had a bean or not. All it does is add yet another fake market value to the coins.
Just my opinion, but I truly don't understand this want for legacy bean tracking.
At least you admit you truly don’t understand.
I’m not the one to explain it thoroughly but allow me to make a comment or two.
You say buy the coin not the holder. Ok we agree but if you’re buying a coin online how do you know the coin lives up to its grade ? Which you are paying for . CAC had the coins in hand to evaluate and affixed a green bean if it met standards . The collecting community trusts cac and their opinion thus are willing to pay a premium for such coins that have been found to be solid for the grade.
The legacy of that assurance must be protected. I know I and a lot of others want to know if the coin had previously been cac approved .
I’m sure cacg will figure it all out but for right now I believe their should be a distinction between coins previously cac approved and coins that are now just being straight graded by cacg and placed in holders .
I’m interested in how they’ll deal with the + grades since premiums have been quite steep. I wouldn’t want my + coin with green bean simply placed in a holder with a grade without mention of its history or of being solid for the grade .
I truly do not understand the need for the "Legacy" and a bean on holders that were previously CAC approved in other holders. To me it adds absolutely no value.
I am buying the coin. Not the holder. Why would I pay a premium because a coin in a CACG holder used to be in PCGS plastic with a bean? Why would it matter if the coin was PCGS MS65, or 63 gold CAC and crossed to CACG as MS65? You trust CACG so why does anyone care where it was before or what grade it had?
If everyone trusts CAC and their grading skills it's is absolutely irrelevant whether the coin was crossed from PCGS or NGC or if it had a bean or not. All it does is add yet another fake market value to the coins.
Just my opinion, but I truly don't understand this want for legacy bean tracking.
At least you admit you truly don’t understand.
I’m not the one to explain it thoroughly but allow me to make a comment or two.
You say buy the coin not the holder. Ok we agree but if you’re buying a coin online how do you know the coin lives up to its grade ? Which you are paying for . CAC had the coins in hand to evaluate and affixed a green bean if it met standards . The collecting community trusts cac and their opinion thus are willing to pay a premium for such coins that have been found to be solid for the grade.
The legacy of that assurance must be protected. I know I and a lot of others want to know if the coin had previously been cac approved .
I’m sure cacg will figure it all out but for right now I believe their should be a distinction between coins previously cac approved and coins that are now just being straight graded by cacg and placed in holders .
I’m interested in how they’ll deal with the + grades since premiums have been quite steep. I wouldn’t want my + coin with green bean simply placed in a holder with a grade without mention of its history or of being solid for the grade .
I get what you are saying. But I whole heartedly disagree.
You are basically saying if CAC put their sticker on a coin, it means it's premium for the grade so you want that preserved to show continuity. I understand. But....if CAC is keeping with the same standards they use for snickering, then it is irrelevant what the grade was prior to crossing to CACG because in theory all coins in CACG plastic should cross to any other TPG at the appropriate grade.
So who cares if the coin was PCGS MS66 or 65 green bean or 63 gold bean. If it's in a CACG holder at 65 that means it's a 65 regardless of how it was graded previously.
You are all way over thinking the legacy issue and I think all it does is develop a false premium for otherwise appropriately graded coins....
Comments
Don't yell at me. I am old.
I promise not to yell at you, as long as you promise not to yell at me.
The parameters pertaining to membership is something that falls outside of my jurisdiction at the moment, so I will defer to @JACAC for answering.
I DON'T YELL (see what I did there-clever, huh?). I am married and learned 53 years ago that doing so results in Emergency Room visits to fix me.
Thank You. Really.
This is Part 1. Part to follows.
I have tried to join since last early Dec (when I became a member of this Forum) but there was awaiting list. It is just one of those situations that the opportunity never came about, due to CAC priorities and future plans and that is of course understandable.
The question is: will consideration be possible for forum members that have been here since the forum started last Dec., have any hope of being accepted so direct submission is possible? We could not join since Dec., since the waiting list was suspended, and no more applications were submitted. I (and I am certain others) have the requisite credentials...members of the CAC required organizations-ANA, etc.
Besides, I have been the bestest most loveable most shining personality and the King among kings of funny stuff on the forum, and everybody likes me. True.
Plus, I am old, and it is on my Bucket List.
So.... Logic is required here, which would mean I'm in, with all that going for me.
Similarly, if a "legacy" MS65 coin has a CAC green sticker and is submitted to CACG and downgrades to MS64+ would the "legacy" be noted on the new holder?
I have an idea!
Lets hide Grandpa's cane so he can't go to the coin show...
CAC hasn't seen the coin outside of a holder and things can occur after CAC has seen it. Plus mistakes happen in every grading room, CAC is no exception. Surely there are green stickered coins out there that, once cracked out, no longer warrant their previously assigned grade.
Steve
I am buying the coin. Not the holder. Why would I pay a premium because a coin in a CACG holder used to be in PCGS plastic with a bean? Why would it matter if the coin was PCGS MS65, or 63 gold CAC and crossed to CACG as MS65? You trust CACG so why does anyone care where it was before or what grade it had?
If everyone trusts CAC and their grading skills it's is absolutely irrelevant whether the coin was crossed from PCGS or NGC or if it had a bean or not. All it does is add yet another fake market value to the coins.
Just my opinion, but I truly don't understand this want for legacy bean tracking.
At least you admit you truly don’t understand.
I’m not the one to explain it thoroughly but allow me to make a comment or two.
You say buy the coin not the holder. Ok we agree but if you’re buying a coin online how do you know the coin lives up to its grade ? Which you are paying for . CAC had the coins in hand to evaluate and affixed a green bean if it met standards . The collecting community trusts cac and their opinion thus are willing to pay a premium for such coins that have been found to be solid for the grade.
The legacy of that assurance must be protected. I know I and a lot of others want to know if the coin had previously been cac approved .
I’m sure cacg will figure it all out but for right now I believe their should be a distinction between coins previously cac approved and coins that are now just being straight graded by cacg and placed in holders .
I’m interested in how they’ll deal with the + grades since premiums have been quite steep. I wouldn’t want my + coin with green bean simply placed in a holder with a grade without mention of its history or of being solid for the grade .
You are basically saying if CAC put their sticker on a coin, it means it's premium for the grade so you want that preserved to show continuity. I understand. But....if CAC is keeping with the same standards they use for snickering, then it is irrelevant what the grade was prior to crossing to CACG because in theory all coins in CACG plastic should cross to any other TPG at the appropriate grade.
So who cares if the coin was PCGS MS66 or 65 green bean or 63 gold bean. If it's in a CACG holder at 65 that means it's a 65 regardless of how it was graded previously.
You are all way over thinking the legacy issue and I think all it does is develop a false premium for otherwise appropriately graded coins....
(don't hit me...I am not a member yet).
I find myself waffling back and forth on the whole legacy thing. Good arguments from both sides.
It provides some history on the coin, and we all know there is value to history.