Cancelling any members account regardless of activity is not cool. I’m sure limiting membership has more to do with volume anyways. And inactive members are factored in to the equation
The total number of members is really irrelevant. It’s the activity of the current members that have caused the backlog. We made a decision to service our long term customers in a timely manner rather than taking on new members. Withholding a price increase this year has also contributed to increased submissions. JA
Mr. JA asked what the question/issue was/is, and received a response. A few other persons on this forum had similar comments, and I am sure the Boss will answer when he has reviewed all aspects before answering.
My perspective is whether it is a good or bad decision for me personally, it is not the end of my life as I know it. I have Faith in the wisdom and Logic of the Boss. (That is how to suck up, Ladies and Gentlemen).
Is CACs reasoning behind not accepting new membership based on the number of current members or on the volume of submissions they’re receiving? If it’s based on current member totals is there a way to see which of those members are no longer actively submitting? I’m sure there are some dealers and collectors that joined way back when CAC first started and haven’t submitted a coin in probably a decade. Can/should those memberships be terminated to open membership to new people?
It is a valid thought, but I don't think it is helpful to terminate a person, as I think that is a bit negative.
Maybe a path would be to encourage active participation of such members, via an email of a general notice on the Forum to notify the Boss of their intentions, etc., and find out if they are still interested.
Some may be deceased, or not participating in the hobby anymore. Some may be dealers and just never notified CAC.
To me, termination based on a quota without prior announcement, may cause more of an issue than it solves, because it is possible those members that appear not as active submitting directly, could have been submitting via a dealer or an auction venue because it was/is more convenient.
There must be many that have either passed or are just no longer involved in the hobby, and why should they retain membership when there’s obviously high demand for membership?
I didn’t expect that they’re memberships would just be terminated, as someone so hastily assumed - how pessimistic of them, but rather a few emails be sent to that member asking if they still wanted to retain their membership, as you suggested. I assumed that would have been obvious. But you know what happens when you assume…
I thought terminated, if used in opining on a subject, meant terminated. I should not have assumed using the word terminated, did not mean terminated. This is exactly why the Brits confuse me.
Noting whether it was formerly an NGC or a PCGS graded coin matters not imho. Knowing CAC previously considered it solid for the grade does matter. That’s the legacy issue for me.
But WHY does it matter? What possible difference does it make?
We're on the same page I believe. The argument that the legacy ID indicates that multiple TPG's have reviewed the coin and agree on the grade doesn't work if a gold bean is upgraded or if CACG adds a plus or a higher grade on a cross with a green bean - which will happen. Or, if the originating TPG has assigned a plus grade and CACG does not cross with the plus, which will also happen. The legacy designation does, however, set a "floor" vis a vis the original TPG. No information of value is provided if one has faith in CACG's ability to grade fairly and more conservatively than the other TPG's.
Noting whether it was formerly an NGC or a PCGS graded coin matters not imho. Knowing CAC previously considered it solid for the grade does matter. That’s the legacy issue for me.
But WHY does it matter? What possible difference does it make?
We're on the same page I believe. The argument that the legacy ID indicates that multiple TPG's have reviewed the coin and agree on the grade doesn't work if a gold bean is upgraded or if CACG adds a plus or a higher grade on a cross with a green bean - which will happen. Or, if the originating TPG has assigned a plus grade and CACG does not cross with the plus, which will also happen. The legacy designation does, however, set a "floor" vis a vis the original TPG. No information of value is provided if one has faith in CACG's ability to grade fairly and more conservatively than the other TPG's.
No value is added, I agree! BUT.... as we all know people will make a false market for the sheer fact a coin at one point in time resided in another holder. This just inflates prices for no ther reason than it was once graded by another company. The whole thing is ridiculous.
The last thing i would ever do is pay a premium because a seller told me that a CACG coin was in a PCGS holder with a CAC sticker in the past! That’s like telling someone they should pay more for a classic car because it was painted red in the past…yikes!
The last thing i would ever do is pay a premium because a seller told me that a CACG coin was in a PCGS holder with a CAC sticker in the past! That’s like telling someone they should pay more for a classic car because it was painted red in the past…yikes!
I agree. But I feel Legacy does just this. We all know PCGS trades at a premium over NGC. And...others above have already stated clearly that they would pay to know. So again...false value.
Even if no past TPG is listed and just the bean, it has the same effect.
Identifying a coin as a legacy (previously graded) coin simply provides additional information. The addition of this information does not add false value. Numismatists can charge and pay whatever they feel a coin is worth.
Some people choose to pay more for coins with provenance, old slabs, toning, varieties, striking characteristics, chopmarks, die states, errors, etc. Others will not pay anything for these things. It's important to allow all numismatists to decide what coins are worth rather than relying on grading companies to restrict provenance information to prevent numismatists from paying more for this information.
Identifying a coin as a legacy (previously graded) coin simply provides additional information. The addition of this information does not add false value. Numismatists can charge and pay whatever they feel a coin is worth.
Some people choose to pay more for coins with provenance, old slabs, toning, varieties, striking characteristics, chopmarks, die states, errors, etc. Others will not pay anything for these things. It's important to allow all numismatists to decide what coins are worth rather than relying on grading companies to restrict provenance information to prevent numismatists from paying more for this information.
I don't agree clearly but feel I'm just repeating myself over and over.
If you want to pay more for a coin because at one point it was in another holder then have at it. Just know you are rising the prices for everyone including people like me who could care less just because plastic clearly holds value for you.
To be clear, I simply think the legacy bean idea is pretty silly and can be misleading if not thought through by a buyer. However, I see no great harm and if some people place value on it, so be it. I'm a fan of CAC and will be a fan of CACG, my behavior won't change one iota.
Identifying a coin as a legacy (previously graded) coin simply provides additional information. The addition of this information does not add false value. Numismatists can charge and pay whatever they feel a coin is worth.
Some people choose to pay more for coins with provenance, old slabs, toning, varieties, striking characteristics, chopmarks, die states, errors, etc. Others will not pay anything for these things. It's important to allow all numismatists to decide what coins are worth rather than relying on grading companies to restrict provenance information to prevent numismatists from paying more for this information.
Sure, people can pay for whatever they want.
But a TPG deliberately making the hobby more confusing, difficult and expensive for potential collectors and young numismatists is something I will never advocate.
I've read all the comments here and I think I can summarize pretty well: If you care about knowing that both PCGS + CAC think a coin is solid for the grade, then keep the coin in a PCGS holder w/ a CAC sticker. Problem solved.
For the same reason that PCGS does not honor a "CAC legacy" or "NGC legacy" when they holder a coin or NGC does not honor a "PCGS legacy" when they holder a coin, CACG should not have such a concept. PCGS & NGC are competitors - their opinion of a coin that now lives in a CACG holder is irrelevant once it leaves their holder.
None of us are obligated to cross over coins to CACG. The only thing that matters when you're submitting to CACG is the grade that CACG assigns to the coin. What holder it was in or whether it was previously stickered is irrelevant.
I may have missed the answer to this, but consider: CAC has been doing this for 15 years. We've all seen RD copper morph into RB over time. Suppose a stickered 65RD is submitted, but due to improper care or whatever it is now RB at best. Does the crossover "guarantee" still apply, or would CACG grade it RB or return it with apologies?
Comments
That was good. I will definitely remember that one.
I didn’t expect that they’re memberships would just be terminated, as someone so hastily assumed - how pessimistic of them, but rather a few emails be sent to that member asking if they still wanted to retain their membership, as you suggested. I assumed that would have been obvious. But you know what happens when you assume…
I thought terminated, if used in opining on a subject, meant terminated. I should not have assumed using the word terminated, did not mean terminated. This is exactly why the Brits confuse me.
I need to stop being pessimistic.
Have you thought of pricing between a CAC stickered PCGS/NGC slabbed coin crossed to CAC 2.0 vs a raw coin graded into CAC 2.0 ?
Ouch!….well there goes that pedicure.
We're on the same page I believe. The argument that the legacy ID indicates that multiple TPG's have reviewed the coin and agree on the grade doesn't work if a gold bean is upgraded or if CACG adds a plus or a higher grade on a cross with a green bean - which will happen. Or, if the originating TPG has assigned a plus grade and CACG does not cross with the plus, which will also happen. The legacy designation does, however, set a "floor" vis a vis the original TPG. No information of value is provided if one has faith in CACG's ability to grade fairly and more conservatively than the other TPG's.
Even if no past TPG is listed and just the bean, it has the same effect.
Some people choose to pay more for coins with provenance, old slabs, toning, varieties, striking characteristics, chopmarks, die states, errors, etc. Others will not pay anything for these things. It's important to allow all numismatists to decide what coins are worth rather than relying on grading companies to restrict provenance information to prevent numismatists from paying more for this information.
If you want to pay more for a coin because at one point it was in another holder then have at it. Just know you are rising the prices for everyone including people like me who could care less just because plastic clearly holds value for you.
Off my soapbox now.
But a TPG deliberately making the hobby more confusing, difficult and expensive for potential collectors and young numismatists is something I will never advocate.
For the same reason that PCGS does not honor a "CAC legacy" or "NGC legacy" when they holder a coin or NGC does not honor a "PCGS legacy" when they holder a coin, CACG should not have such a concept. PCGS & NGC are competitors - their opinion of a coin that now lives in a CACG holder is irrelevant once it leaves their holder.
None of us are obligated to cross over coins to CACG. The only thing that matters when you're submitting to CACG is the grade that CACG assigns to the coin. What holder it was in or whether it was previously stickered is irrelevant.