Missing RD Designation on Ebay * Lincoln

[elspankdog-migration]

I recently followed an auction for a top pop 1961*RD cent on ebay, but for such a low pop coin, the pics were far from desirable. The label also seemed to be missing the RD designation, but the number on the slab checks out with NGC. Did somebody get taken, or is this legit?

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/1961-Lincoln-Cent-NGC-MS68-RED-in-Color_W0QQitemZ220165667560QQihZ012QQcategoryZ31373QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[James_OldeTowne]

Looks like a legitimate "mechanical error" to me.

[kryptonitecomics]

Looks like a legitimate "mechanical error" to me.

 

I agree with James....the RD just got missed

[gmarguli]

Someone just paid $769.39 for a $3 coin. It's a PROOF. You can see the mirrored fields. The Star * designation was for the obverse cameo!

[James_OldeTowne]

Yep. And I think NGC's going to end up eating this one.

[gmarguli]

Nope. This is a clear labeling error. NGC will reholder it for free. The owner might get a free submission if they are lucky, but that's about it.

[Tradedollarnut]

Nope. This is a clear labeling error. NGC will reholder it for free. The owner might get a free submission if they are lucky, but that's about it.

 

What good is a guarantee when you have such a large weasel factor? The right way to handle such a problem, IMO, is for the grading service to make the current owner whole and then go back to the original submittor for reimbursement.

[MarkFeld]

Nope. This is a clear labeling error. NGC will reholder it for free. The owner might get a free submission if they are lucky, but that's about it.

If that is correct, and I'm not saying it isn't, I think that's a terrible/unfair result. I also strongly believe that if it can be shown that a submitter of such a coin profited from the designation error, he should forfeit any profits he made as a result.

[jackson64]

it doesn't surprise me that the auction "winner" has a feedback of less than 20....another newbie gets burned---but what I find almost shocking are the 17 bids on this coin.....I had no idea that there were that many VERY uneducated collectors--I mean, can't recognize a proof?........

[Tradedollarnut]

Mark - you're really smart ... you keep repeating what I say!

[RGT]

Here's another he sold at the same time.

 

1963 PR68 Red

 

If you check closely you can see that these were on the same submission to NGC. It would be my guess that the seller was the submitter (Foxhillcoins) and he knew the coin was a proof. Yet this seller, whos ebay handle seems to indicate is a dealer and not a collector, has a 99.9% positive feedback.

 

Return policy not specified.

 

In my view, the seller is a crook or else he is blind and ignorant.

[MarkFeld]

Mark - you're really smart ... you keep repeating what I say!

Oops, Bruce, I hadn't seen your post when I started typing my reply. But I agree with you.

 

(thumbs u

[gmarguli]

Nope. This is a clear labeling error. NGC will reholder it for free. The owner might get a free submission if they are lucky, but that's about it.

If that is correct, and I'm not saying it isn't, I think that's a terrible/unfair result. I also strongly believe that if it can be shown that a submitter of such a coin profited from the designation error, he should forfeit any profits he made as a result.

 

There are some errors that are so obvious that a person should readily realize the mistake. Anyone buying this coin should be able to plainly see that this coin is a proof and not a MS coin.

 

Going after the submitter is unrealistic in most cases. While this case may be a little more clear cut, where does your liability for the submitter end? I did a bulk submission of SMS Buffalo 5c. NGC didn't put SMS on the insert. I sold a few clearly calling them SMS without realizing that SMS was not on the insert. The rest went back to NGC for correction. Am I liable for those few still floating around?

 

I sold a foreign coin which NGC listed the KM # (Krause catalog) on the insert. I never bothered to check it, but according to the buyer, NGC listed the incorrect number. The buyer noticed it and I'm going to get the insert fixed, but if they hadn't and the coin floated around for years, should I be liable later on?

 

Within the last week NGC shipped an invoice I submitted for a client directly back to the client. I am told that two of the coins are switched in the holders (coin A has the insert for coin B and vice-versa). Am I liable since I submitted them, yet never saw them after I mailed them raw to NGC? After all, I am the submitter.

 

The submitter of this 1c submitted a bunch of proofs on that invoice. The first half of them are Accented Hair Kennedys. The rest of the invoice appear to be all similar dated proofs. Likely they knew there was a problem when they got it back. However, many times people will not send the coins back to the TPG since they are not always compensated postage both ways. It is also possible that the original submitter never noticed the problem. Are they still liable?

[MarkFeld]

Nope. This is a clear labeling error. NGC will reholder it for free. The owner might get a free submission if they are lucky, but that's about it.

If that is correct, and I'm not saying it isn't, I think that's a terrible/unfair result. I also strongly believe that if it can be shown that a submitter of such a coin profited from the designation error, he should forfeit any profits he made as a result.

 

There are some errors that are so obvious that a person should readily realize the mistake. Anyone buying this coin should be able to plainly see that this coin is a proof and not a MS coin.

 

Going after the submitter is unrealistic in most cases. While this case may be a little more clear cut, where does your liability for the submitter end? I did a bulk submission of SMS Buffalo 5c. NGC didn't put SMS on the insert. I sold a few clearly calling them SMS without realizing that SMS was not on the insert. The rest went back to NGC for correction. Am I liable for those few still floating around?

 

I sold a foreign coin which NGC listed the KM # (Krause catalog) on the insert. I never bothered to check it, but according to the buyer, NGC listed the incorrect number. The buyer noticed it and I'm going to get the insert fixed, but if they hadn't and the coin floated around for years, should I be liable later on?

 

Within the last week NGC shipped an invoice I submitted for a client directly back to the client. I am told that two of the coins are switched in the holders (coin A has the insert for coin B and vice-versa). Am I liable since I submitted them, yet never saw them after I mailed them raw to NGC? After all, I am the submitter.

 

The submitter of this 1c submitted a bunch of proofs on that invoice. The first half of them are Accented Hair Kennedys. The rest of the invoice appear to be all similar dated proofs. Likely they knew there was a problem when they got it back. However, many times people will not send the coins back to the TPG since they are not always compensated postage both ways. It is also possible that the original submitter never noticed the problem. Are they still liable?

Fair questions Greg and I don't have all of the answers. But off the top of my head, generally, the more knowledgeable/aware the submitter, the more recent the submission and the more obvious the error, the tougher I would be on the submitter. Also, I believe that a submitter who knowingly (yes, it would be hard to prove his state of mind) sells a mislabeled/mis-graded coin is in violation of his submitter/membership agreement with the grading company.