Here is a fun little stat I saw on another chat room about CAC -I have no proof of these numbers being accurate or when they were from.
626,775 coins received the Green Sticker (41.8%) 7,573 Gold Sticker (.5%) 865,652 rejected or passed for a sticker (57.7%)
Total 1.5M coins reviewed
While I also don’t know if those numbers are accurate, I find no surprise with them.
Steve
I think the data and stats are a useful set of facts for the @CAC_Team and @JACAC to confirm or correct so we can see accurate information here. In addition, it would be nice to see published CAC metadata as it relates to submission and approval trends.
Here's an interesting one that did not CAC. I was told that there was not enough luster. Personally, I thought when tilted you could see the hidden luster there but it is difficult with the toning. Looking at the detail, I felt it was a very strong AU55 and the eye appeal is extraordinary if you enjoy toning. Still love the coin just wished it would have beaned!
Here's an interesting one that did not CAC. I was told that there was not enough luster. Personally, I thought when tilted you could see the hidden luster there but it is difficult with the toning. Looking at the detail, I felt it was a very strong AU55 and the eye appeal is extraordinary if you enjoy toning. Still love the coin just wished it would have beaned!
While your dime looks pretty damn solid from here, TV's can often obscure marks. And I'd never hazard a guess based on consistently distorted underlying lustre. Its major fault may be that it's "too original". I still like it But I'd bet it's two shades too red where actual deeper brown appears. A very consistent TV distortion.
At Baltimore, my first show in four years, I went out for a meal with a retailer, a high-level EAC collector and two other world-class graders who are not yet partially blind. Without much prodding, and with but short discussion, the use of TrueViews was disparaged as misleading and confusing to their customers. Much too often, the tints and brightness are distorted from the "typical" in-hand experience. As I said, it was a short discussion; Mostly about it being a pain-in-the-ass. Over-promises what often can't be delivered. Self-produced was always preferred as more consistent with the in-hand experience.
An example that came up on the PCGS Forum recently. A 1935 S$1 PCGS MS67. Only the TrueView was presented. The collectors tended strongly in the camp of amazing frost/lustre but too "dusky" - perhaps needed a dip. Below it is the Heritage-produced image of the coin in its slab. To me, on a $50,000 coin, I want it right, not pimped. Especially (he cynically adds, with accompanying rim-shot) that poorly Just an anecdote, but a very notable misrepresentation of fact.
@ptolemyII I agree 100% re TVs. I have a couple of coins where they are actually "true", but most times they are red emphasized and badly distort what it "truly" looks like. It bothers me that they are so celebrated in the hobby. No coin photo is perfect, but in the TV case, I can't believe they cannot fix this issue despite the demand volume. I know when I buy a coin, I'd rather not have a TV associated with the coin since they are so consistently off the mark.
I agree also on the TVs. They frequently look much better than the coin in hand. I’m weary of buying a coin from the TV image only. Many dealers just show the TV view. Some show both TV and coin in slab, which I prefer. It it’s TV only, I will often ask for a picture of the coin in the slab so I can get a better picture of what it will more closely look like in hand. I’ve passed on TV image only since it might be much duller in hand. I don’t really think the TVs are that true to the “in hand” look. But it’s the same coin and lighting and angle make a big difference. I suppose in some cases they are really TVs.
If CAC accepted coins from everyone, I would definitely assume that no sticker = no good. Needing an approved dealer or collector CAC member makes it a bit cloudier.
I believe there are many coins on the market today that have not been to Cac. I would not hesitate to send any coin to Cac for fear it has already been there. It is obvious some dealers use Cac and it shows on the coins they have for sale. Even so, with the amount of coins these dealers bring in they might be very choosy on the coins sent to Cac. Many dealer will only send higher grade or harder date coins to Cac. My opinion is if you like the coins you purchase it's a small price to pay to have a chance at a green or possibly gold Cac pass! It certainly adds value and a great seal of approval to any coin that receives a pass!
@ptolemyII I agree 100% re TVs. I have a couple of coins where they are actually "true", but most times they are red emphasized and badly distort what it "truly" looks like. It bothers me that they are so celebrated in the hobby. No coin photo is perfect, but in the TV case, I can't believe they cannot fix this issue despite the demand volume. I know when I buy a coin, I'd rather not have a TV associated with the coin since they are so consistently off the mark.
Exhibit A: TrueView compared to Eagle Eye Photo Seal (which is how it really looks in hand).
Crack it out and have PCGS regrade it. It would probably come back RB. Then you could CAC it. Just an idea. It is a beauty.
Why would he want to take the financial hit to have the coin (accurately) designated “RB”?
PCGS doesn’t guarantee the Red designation on copper only the MS grade?
Correct, as far as I know. I’m not sure what that has to do with the idea to which I responded, however.
I guess I was thinking there would be no financial hit if PCGS would make up the difference in money between rd and rb
True, but in addition to PCGS no longer guaranteeing copper for it’s color, the proposed idea was to crack the coin out and submit it. That would void any guarantee, anyway.
Comments
Its major fault may be that it's "too original". I still like it
At Baltimore, my first show in four years, I went out for a meal with a retailer, a high-level EAC collector and two other world-class graders who are not yet partially blind. Without much prodding, and with but short discussion, the use of TrueViews was disparaged as misleading and confusing to their customers. Much too often, the tints and brightness are distorted from the "typical" in-hand experience. As I said, it was a short discussion; Mostly about it being a pain-in-the-ass. Over-promises what often can't be delivered. Self-produced was always preferred as more consistent with the in-hand experience.
An example that came up on the PCGS Forum recently. A 1935 S$1 PCGS MS67. Only the TrueView was presented. The collectors tended strongly in the camp of amazing frost/lustre but too "dusky" - perhaps needed a dip. Below it is the Heritage-produced image of the coin in its slab. To me, on a $50,000 coin, I want it right, not pimped. Especially (he cynically adds, with accompanying rim-shot) that poorly
I agree also on the TVs. They frequently look much better than the coin in hand. I’m weary of buying a coin from the TV image only. Many dealers just show the TV view. Some show both TV and coin in slab, which I prefer. It it’s TV only, I will often ask for a picture of the coin in the slab so I can get a better picture of what it will more closely look like in hand. I’ve passed on TV image only since it might be much duller in hand. I don’t really think the TVs are that true to the “in hand” look. But it’s the same coin and lighting and angle make a big difference. I suppose in some cases they are really TVs.
Correct, as far as I know. I’m not sure what that has to do with the idea to which I responded, however.
Needing an approved dealer or collector CAC member makes it a bit cloudier.
True, but in addition to PCGS no longer guaranteeing copper for it’s color, the proposed idea was to crack the coin out and submit it. That would void any guarantee, anyway.