Placing the iconic CAC bean on the back and top of the holder (in addition to the front) will cause no harm to anyone or anything but will make the slab instantly recognizable to all involved -- and more attractive and prestigious in my view. What or who could it possibly hurt?
As is, the back looks like that of many a "third world" slab, as dealers have been known to call less popular slabs, including those produced by self-slabbers who get away with defrauding naive members of the public including Ebay buyers despite blatantly violating Ebay's own policies by advertising their fraudulently represented plastic thereon.
Curiously, the majority of my suggestions posted in prior threads are now (or will be) in use by CAC despite the initial criticism of them by other forum members. I suspect that CAC had already thought of my ideas but this phenomenon proves that I am more in touch with CAC's mission than all of the aforementioned critics.
In other words, think outside the box like CAC does in order to improve the status quo. Three stickers are better than one.
I think we should have stickers all over it and pictures of the prior holder it was in to. And so many in fact that we can't even see the coin inside. Because with so many stickers who will care what coin is in there?
Completing a submission form for a third-party grader should NEVER be as tedious as filing your own taxes! Our plan is to keep our form simple and easy to use.
Completing a submission form for a third-party grader should NEVER be as tedious as filing your own taxes! Our plan is to keep our form simple and easy to use.
How does the diameter of your new slab compare in thickness to the current PCGS slab?
The overall dimensions of the CAC holder are approximately the same as what you see from the other third-party graders; give or take a millimeter or two in certain areas.
Placing the iconic CAC bean on the back and top of the holder (in addition to the front) will cause no harm to anyone or anything but will make the slab instantly recognizable to all involved -- and more attractive and prestigious in my view. What or who could it possibly hurt?
As is, the back looks like that of many a "third world" slab, as dealers have been known to call less popular slabs, including those produced by self-slabbers who get away with defrauding naive members of the public including Ebay buyers despite blatantly violating Ebay's own policies by advertising their fraudulently represented plastic thereon.
Curiously, the majority of my suggestions posted in prior threads are now (or will be) in use by CAC despite the initial criticism of them by other forum members. I suspect that CAC had already thought of my ideas but this phenomenon proves that I am more in touch with CAC's mission than all of the aforementioned critics.
In other words, think outside the box like CAC does in order to improve the status quo. Three stickers are better than one.
Why stop at three. Let’s go to 300.
MY REPLY: Because there are only three sides where the insert appears: the front, back, and top.
Having a sticker on the front, back, and top of the slab will make the CAC certification instantly recognizable. It will not cost more; there is no reason not to add this convenient recognition feature.
LOL! Thanks for making my post look extremely intelligent.
Why are the prongs not clear? I would like to view the entire edge.
I'm with clear prongs
As noted in comments above, the prongs ARE clear. Just enlarge the photo.
I'm in the no prong camp. If the TPGS was doing their job, the edge would not be needed to be seen EXCEPT for ID or research for some coins. The old, white inserts did not detract from the coin and make a "busy-looking" image.
Nevertheless, Prongs are the modern way to go and I like these because they do not overlap the rim.
Having a sticker on the front, back, and top of the slab will make the CAC certification instantly recognizable. It will not cost more; there is no reason not to add this convenient recognition feature.
LOL! Thanks for making my post look extremely intelligent.
I sill think that you should start your own slab sticker service, possibly to fill the void left by CAC's de facto exit. You have the passion and certainly the expertise. Your prior objection about being 70 is not valid because I have personally known people in their 90's who were still working, including an attorney who dropped dead in his office at age 96.
Look at the other lesser slab sticker services. I doubt that their owners spent more than a few hours starting those businesses. The amount of work involved is minimal, probably less than you are doing now.
I plan to die at my desk so neither my work nor my age is a consideration. I enjoy where I am now. It appears that CACG will have "standards" that will make any "sticker" service unnecessary. Just as in 1986 when PCGS and later NGC "standardized" commercial grading and made technical grading obsolete. In the future, if and when standards slip again as grading "evolves," some influential person may determine that a "new" sticker service is needed. It will not be me.
Thanks for your comments.
I plan to die at my desk so neither my work nor my age is a consideration. I enjoy where I am now. It appears that CACG will have "standards" that will make any "sticker" service unnecessary. Just as in 1986 when PCGS and later NGC "standardized" commercial grading and made technical grading obsolete. In the future, if and when standards slip again as grading "evolves," some influential person may determine that a "new" sticker service is needed. It will not be me.
May I ask what technical grading vs standardized commercial grading is ?
I plan to die at my desk so neither my work nor my age is a consideration. I enjoy where I am now. It appears that CACG will have "standards" that will make any "sticker" service unnecessary. Just as in 1986 when PCGS and later NGC "standardized" commercial grading and made technical grading obsolete. In the future, if and when standards slip again as grading "evolves," some influential person may determine that a "new" sticker service is needed. It will not be me.
May I ask what technical grading vs standardized commercial grading is ?
Look forward to saying hello at FUN .
My answer would be that technical grading assesses the coin’s actual state of preservation/condition, without regard to to eye-appeal or value. On the other hand, commercial grading attempts to value coins, while taking into account factors such as attractive color and eye-appeal. Many numismatists, myself included, believe that the latter often results in grades that are higher than the coins deserve.
As just one example, recently, I saw a spectacularly toned common date Buffalo nickel that was graded 67+. But it had a bad scratch on the obverse, that probably would have resulted in a grade of 64 (at best), were it not for the toning. So in my opinion, the coin received a 3+ point upgrade for the color. Yet, it brought a price commensurate with the (unjustified) high grade. So as much as it disturbed me, commercial grading did its job.
Thanks for your comments.
I plan to die at my desk so neither my work nor my age is a consideration. I enjoy where I am now. It appears that CACG will have "standards" that will make any "sticker" service unnecessary. Just as in 1986 when PCGS and later NGC "standardized" commercial grading and made technical grading obsolete. In the future, if and when standards slip again as grading "evolves," some influential person may determine that a "new" sticker service is needed. It will not be me.
May I ask what technical grading vs standardized commercial grading is ?
Look forward to saying hello at FUN .
My answer would be that technical grading assesses the coin’s actual state of preservation/condition, without regard to to eye-appeal or value. On the other hand, commercial grading attempts to value coins, while taking into account factors such as attractive color and eye-appeal. Many numismatists, myself included, believe that the latter often results in grades that are higher than the coins deserve.
As just one example, recently, I saw a spectacularly toned common date Buffalo nickel that was graded 67+. But it had a bad scratch on the obverse, that probably would have resulted in a grade of 64 (at best), were it not for the toning. So in my opinion, the coin received a 3+ point upgrade for the color. Yet, it brought a price commensurate with the (unjustified) high grade. So as much as it disturbed me, commercial grading did its job.
Thank you Mark . Couldn’t think of a better person to answer that question. Someone with actual grading experience.
One comment on your last comment “commercial grading did its job “. I guess it depends on whether you are the seller or buyer. It did its job for the person who had it graded but a disservice to the person buying .
It would seem the coin should be graded for what it is and let the market decide how much extra they’ll pay for its attributes such as toning and luster . I like the * NGC used to denote a coin of beauty .
I plan to die at my desk so neither my work nor my age is a consideration. I enjoy where I am now. It appears that CACG will have "standards" that will make any "sticker" service unnecessary. Just as in 1986 when PCGS and later NGC "standardized" commercial grading and made technical grading obsolete. In the future, if and when standards slip again as grading "evolves," some influential person may determine that a "new" sticker service is needed. It will not be me.
May I ask what technical grading vs standardized commercial grading is ?
Look forward to saying hello at FUN .
My answer would be that technical grading assesses the coin’s actual state of preservation/condition, without regard to to eye-appeal or value. On the other hand, commercial grading attempts to value coins, while taking into account factors such as attractive color and eye-appeal. Many numismatists, myself included, believe that the latter often results in grades that are higher than the coins deserve.
As just one example, recently, I saw a spectacularly toned common date Buffalo nickel that was graded 67+. But it had a bad scratch on the obverse, that probably would have resulted in a grade of 64 (at best), were it not for the toning. So in my opinion, the coin received a 3+ point upgrade for the color. Yet, it brought a price commensurate with the (unjustified) high grade. So as much as it disturbed me, commercial grading did its job.
Thank you Mark . Couldn’t think of a better person to answer that question. Someone with actual grading experience.
One comment on your last comment “commercial grading did its job “. I guess it depends on whether you are the seller or buyer. It did its job for the person who had it graded but a disservice to the person buying .
It would seem the coin should be graded for what it is and let the market decide how much extra they’ll pay for its attributes such as toning and luster . I like the * NGC used to denote a coin of beauty .
Thanks again Mark
You’re most welcome.
So you know, when I said “commercial grading did its job”, I meant that it achieved its goal of valuing the coin. But I’m adamantly opposed to such grading.
Regarding the NGC “Star” for exceptional eye-appeal - one issue I have with it is that often “Star” coins have already received numerical grade bumps for eye-appeal. So they’re not merely technically graded, but rather, they’re commercially graded and then still receive a “Star”. It’s like a double (commercial) bump.😉
Mark , In my opinion a coin should be graded for what it is , period . I’m completely opposed to graders taking the Liberty to assign value by adding grade . That is just wrong imho! I get that it seems to be common practice . I think I know the answer but do you think CAC grading will avoid assigning higher grades based on eye appeal or technically grade only ? ( I think the latter , but people are people and a dazzler may get a bump based on that ) 🤷🏻♂️
Mark , In my opinion a coin should be graded for what it is , period . I’m completely opposed to graders taking the Liberty to assign value by adding grade . That is just wrong imho! I get that it seems to be common practice . I think I know the answer but do you think CAC grading will avoid assigning higher grades based on eye appeal or technically grade only ? ( I think the latter , but people are people and a dazzler may get a bump based on that ) 🤷🏻♂️
My guess is that in general, CACG will assign grades somewhere in between the two. Like it or not, eye-appeal is a component of a coin’s grade - especially in the case of those graded 60 and higher.
Thanks for your comments.
I plan to die at my desk so neither my work nor my age is a consideration. I enjoy where I am now. It appears that CACG will have "standards" that will make any "sticker" service unnecessary. Just as in 1986 when PCGS and later NGC "standardized" commercial grading and made technical grading obsolete. In the future, if and when standards slip again as grading "evolves," some influential person may determine that a "new" sticker service is needed. It will not be me.
May I ask what technical grading vs standardized commercial grading is ?
Look forward to saying hello at FUN .
My answer would be that technical grading assesses the coin’s actual state of preservation/condition, without regard to to eye-appeal or value. On the other hand, commercial grading attempts to value coins, while taking into account factors such as attractive color and eye-appeal. Many numismatists, myself included, believe that the latter often results in grades that are higher than the coins deserve.
As just one example, recently, I saw a spectacularly toned common date Buffalo nickel that was graded 67+. But it had a bad scratch on the obverse, that probably would have resulted in a grade of 64 (at best), were it not for the toning. So in my opinion, the coin received a 3+ point upgrade for the color. Yet, it brought a price commensurate with the (unjustified) high grade. So as much as it disturbed me, commercial grading did its job.
Seems to me that PCGS and NGC often do overgrade based on eye appeal factors. On the other hand CAC tends to overcompensate and grade too much on the technical factors of the coin. I see too many CAC high grade coins with too much negative eye appeal. I don’t see the happy medium between CAC and the TPG services. So my strategy is to buy coins only with high eye appeal that is also CAC approved
Comments
The overall dimensions of the CAC holder are approximately the same as what you see from the other third-party graders; give or take a millimeter or two in certain areas.
MY REPLY: Because there are only three sides where the insert appears: the front, back, and top.
I'm in the no prong camp. If the TPGS was doing their job, the edge would not be needed to be seen EXCEPT for ID or research for some coins. The old, white inserts did not detract from the coin and make a "busy-looking" image.
Nevertheless, Prongs are the modern way to go and I like these because they do not overlap the rim.
Look at the other lesser slab sticker services. I doubt that their owners spent more than a few hours starting those businesses. The amount of work involved is minimal, probably less than you are doing now.
I plan to die at my desk so neither my work nor my age is a consideration. I enjoy where I am now. It appears that CACG will have "standards" that will make any "sticker" service unnecessary. Just as in 1986 when PCGS and later NGC "standardized" commercial grading and made technical grading obsolete. In the future, if and when standards slip again as grading "evolves," some influential person may determine that a "new" sticker service is needed. It will not be me.
My answer would be that technical grading assesses the coin’s actual state of preservation/condition, without regard to to eye-appeal or value. On the other hand, commercial grading attempts to value coins, while taking into account factors such as attractive color and eye-appeal. Many numismatists, myself included, believe that the latter often results in grades that are higher than the coins deserve.
As just one example, recently, I saw a spectacularly toned common date Buffalo nickel that was graded 67+. But it had a bad scratch on the obverse, that probably would have resulted in a grade of 64 (at best), were it not for the toning. So in my opinion, the coin received a 3+ point upgrade for the color. Yet, it brought a price commensurate with the (unjustified) high grade. So as much as it disturbed me, commercial grading did its job.
It would seem the coin should be graded for what it is and let the market decide how much extra they’ll pay for its attributes such as toning and luster . I like the * NGC used to denote a coin of beauty .
It would seem the coin should be graded for what it is and let the market decide how much extra they’ll pay for its attributes such as toning and luster . I like the * NGC used to denote a coin of beauty .
You’re most welcome.
So you know, when I said “commercial grading did its job”, I meant that it achieved its goal of valuing the coin. But I’m adamantly opposed to such grading.
Regarding the NGC “Star” for exceptional eye-appeal - one issue I have with it is that often “Star” coins have already received numerical grade bumps for eye-appeal. So they’re not merely technically graded, but rather, they’re commercially graded and then still receive a “Star”. It’s like a double (commercial) bump.😉
Thank you