This should open some eyes about CACG

Insider3

Catching up on my reading this weekend and saw this in a December 12th Coin World Guest Commentary:

The title was CAC GRADING WILL CHANGE THIRD-PARTY SERVICES, BUT HOW WILL IT ALL END?

Great title about a very obvious change that is coming when CACG opens its doors, right? Who could disagree? The writer gave a run-down on how thigs work at present. It was a nice bit of writing until it crashed and burned when he left his opinon at the end. IMO, the writer seems to be very uninformed about the future as he wrote: "With so many important coins already in PCGS and NGC slabs, I'm guessing the market will ultimately reject CAC's effort to brand itself in this unnecessarily less relevant manner."

Obviously this writer has no clue as to why a CAC was even needed to begin with. The proof of this need is shown by their success! Now, there is going to be a CACG that the writer feels is unnecassary.

Well it is not. The same day I read his comentary I read a letter to the Editor in the December 19th issue of Coin World by Sam Lukes.

One of the issues Mr. Lukes brought up was the total disregard of the commercial grading system by one of the top TPGS when they straight graded an obviously damage rare coin. I can only guess that one of the reasons not mentioned in the letter was that the TPGS knew anyone could see that the coin was obviously damaged so what the heck. That my friends, is the reason why CACG will also be a winner for Mr. Albanese and his investors. Hopefully the writer of that original commentary will change his short-sighted opinion so he does not remain foolish. What do you think?

MarkFeld

Presumably, you can’t or don’t think you should post the article here. But regardless, it’s difficult to make meaningful comments without seeing it.

Bushmaster

It was nice of Coin World to publish the guys letter but clearly the Dec 12 writer's pretzel logic was flawed.

CW must have been in a playful mood to publish such a flawed op-ed...

Realone

What is unnecessary is once CACG is established and online and grading then NGC & PCGS will be the unnecessary ones.

DeplorableDan

MarkFeld said:

Presumably, you can’t or don’t think you should post the article here. But regardless, it’s difficult to make meaningful comments without seeing it.

"agree"

Bushmaster said:

CW must have been in a playful mood to publish such a flawed op-ed...

I presume that the authors use of "I guess..." in his statement was enough for the editors to consider it accurate, and fair. Below are the criteria they have posted for "Guest Commentary" letters.

"When we consider whether to publish a submission, we look at its suitability: Is it on a numismatic-related topic, are the comments accurate, are they fair, do they single out a single person or business/government entity in an inappropriate manner."

john

MarkFeld said:

Presumably, you can’t or don’t think you should post the article here. But regardless, it’s difficult to make meaningful comments without seeing it.

Good day, Mark. Having had the opportunity to read the commentary, remember the very first day of Logic Class? There you go. It ain't. Not difficult, at all.

Insider3

This is not going to be published. This is my opinion of another person's opinion in a numismatic publication about the effect CACG will have on other TPGS written exclusively in the CAC forum. We'll need to see.

Insider3

DeplorableDan said:

MarkFeld said:

Presumably, you can’t or don’t think you should post the article here. But regardless, it’s difficult to make meaningful comments without seeing it.

"agree"

Bushmaster said:

CW must have been in a playful mood to publish such a flawed op-ed...

I presume that the authors use of "I guess..." in his statement was enough for the editors to consider it accurate, and fair. Below are the criteria they have posted for "Guest Commentary" letters.

"When we consider whether to publish a submission, we look at its suitability: Is it on a numismatic-related topic, are the comments accurate, are they fair, do they single out a single person or business/government entity in an inappropriate manner."

If you would have closely read what I wrote, you would see that IMO, the writer did a very good job - until the end.

Both CW and NN love to post and seek good articles/letters, etc. that educate readers and generate both thought or replies. The Big Secret is just about anyone here can write something they will like and publish for us to enjoy. The commentary I read is an example.

MarkFeld

Insider3 said:

DeplorableDan said:

MarkFeld said:

Presumably, you can’t or don’t think you should post the article here. But regardless, it’s difficult to make meaningful comments without seeing it.

"agree"

Bushmaster said:

CW must have been in a playful mood to publish such a flawed op-ed...

I presume that the authors use of "I guess..." in his statement was enough for the editors to consider it accurate, and fair. Below are the criteria they have posted for "Guest Commentary" letters.

"When we consider whether to publish a submission, we look at its suitability: Is it on a numismatic-related topic, are the comments accurate, are they fair, do they single out a single person or business/government entity in an inappropriate manner."

If you would have closely read what I wrote, you would see that IMO, the writer did a very good job - until the end.

Both CW and NN love to post and seek good articles/letters, etc. that educate readers and generate both thought or replies. The Big Secret is just about anyone here can write something they will like and publish for us to enjoy. The commentary I read is an example.

I did closely read what you wrote. That doesn't change the fact that I have your opinion about an article I haven't read, so I will continue to withhold commenting on it.

Bidask

MarkFeld said:

well when are you going to read the article ?😀

I hope when you do you would please post
your  professional opinion 🤓

Presumably, you can’t or don’t think you should post the article here. But regardless, it’s difficult to make meaningful comments without seeing it.

"agree"

CW must have been in a playful mood to publish such a flawed op-ed...

I presume that the authors use of "I guess..." in his statement was enough for the editors to consider it accurate, and fair. Below are the criteria they have posted for "Guest Commentary" letters. "When we consider whether to publish a submission, we look at its suitability: Is it on a numismatic-related topic, are the comments accurate, are they fair, do they single out a single person or business/government entity in an inappropriate manner."

If you would have closely read what I wrote, you would see that IMO, the writer did a very good job - until the end. Both CW and NN love to post and seek good articles/letters, etc. that educate readers and generate both thought or replies. The Big Secret is just about anyone here can write something they will like and publish for us to enjoy. The commentary I read is an example.

I did closely read what you wrote. That doesn't change the fact that I have your opinion about an article I haven't read, so I will continue to withhold commenting on it.