PCGS setting it self up for another Jadecoin fiasco?

[truthteller]

"For example, in 1986 we had a dispute with a dealer because he purchased a MS65 1893-O dollar. The problem was the coin was a bag marked to death MS60 that no one in his right mind would ever consider even MS63 let alone MS65. The guiding concept with mechanical errors is common sense"

 

 

 

I remember this story when it first broke out. I never saw the coin, but was told by several dealers that the coin was indeed just an UNC. However, as the story goes, the dealer displayed the coin prominently in his showcase and advertised the coin for sale in the 'high tens of thousands' of dollars. After word got around, the coin was quickly purchased by PCGS to get it off the market. THAT WAS GOOD PR. Now, for a measly few hundred to thousand, PCGS won't buy coins with mechanical errors off the market? Not for good PR.? Ouch!

 

Again, this thread topic was brought to my attention from the PCGS forum, here's the link:

 

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=228436

 

 

TRUTH

[Tradedollarnut]

I absolutely agree that it would be in PCGS's best interest to buy mechanical errors off the market and then attempt to collect from the original submittor. That would be a very good way to deal with that problem.

 

But that's not the premise of this thread. The premise of this thread was that the FH designation on this 1927-S quarter was an example of PCGS falling flat on their face. And not being willing to live up to their guaranty.

 

Can anyone convince me that is so? Or do we really want this forum filled with flying mudpies with no true basis in fact?

[truthteller]

Well, I looked closely at Anaconda's NGC61 27S and at the closeup scan of the PCGS66FH coin on Heritage's website. My conclusion from looking at the scans is that the NGC coin is superior to FH than the PCGS coin. In addition, NGC does not give the coin FH. Again, judging from the scans, the PCGS coin is not FH. Now, if one were to show me ten 1927S Standing Liberty Quarters in high unc grade and determine which were FH and which were not, then I might change the premise of the thread. Otherwise, I feel the PCGS coin is not FH and neither is the NGC coin, although the NGC coin is closer to FH than the PCGS. My opinion.

 

 

TRUTH

[EVillageProwler]

Greg - don't bother trying to argue with TDN, he will just discard logic, reasoning as well as the facts to simply defend PCGS and David Hall.

 

 

Michael,

 

This is unbecoming of someone who purports to be clear-thinking and level-headed. You don't seem to know TDN very well; in fact, you probably know exceedingly little about him and how he behaves.

 

I know that you don't know me well either, and have no great cause to hold my words in great standing. But, you should know that TDN is not a Kool-Aid drinking HRH arse-kissing logic-be-darn partisan. He may be wrong, and you may be entirely correct regarding the merits of the PCGS guaranty issue. But, I think you are wrong to judge him so personally.

 

Assuming that you don't give a darn about my opinion of TDN, I still think you should not be hasty to get personal about someone with whom you have a technical difference of opinion in a message board forum.

 

BTW, I do know TDN well. He and I share many common interests. He may not be perfect, but neither am I.

 

EVP

 

[Tradedollarnut]

I see Michael has recovered from his infection and feeling as frisky as ever. Must have been one bad bug to take on a lawyer....

 

What's funny about his insinuation, EVP, is that just this week I was defending NGC against the very same thing on the CU chatroom. Some yahoo posts a scan of the 18/17 and starts ripping into NGC about their FH grading standards. I made the very same arguement to NGC's benefit. Where the heck was Michael? Probably sitting in a dark room figuring out how to 'get' HRH.

 

Oh, and how about the fact that I have a significant amount of my personal wealth sitting in NGC holders? Perhaps Michael would care to reveal to us how significantly he's put his money where his mouth is? Comeon, Frattlaw, what percentage by value of your collection is in NGC holders, eh? Mine's 40% [give or take a few %].

[Tradedollarnut]

My conclusion from looking at the scans is that the NGC coin is superior to FH than the PCGS coin. In addition, NGC does not give the coin FH.

 

In addition to the possibility of scan variances, there are two flaws in your logic:

 

1) You assume that just because the NGC coin is not given FH by NGC that the PCGS coin was a mistake. Perhaps the NGC coin was the mistake?

 

2) You assume that PCGS and NGC have the exact same standards for FH. It is perfectly possible that PCGS's standards are different than NGC's and that the PCGS coin handily meets PCGS's standards.

[gmarguli]

1) we can't tell off that scan what is or isn't there. Saying yeah or nay off that picture is impossible.

 

2) we don't know what PCGS's definition of FH is, so how do we know it doesn't meet their definition quite handily? Just like PCGS has a 5 step requirement for Jefferson Full Steps and NGC has 6 required, the services have their own definitions of what it takes to be FH. I'd like to see PCGS's definition of what constitutes FH before I blast them for failing to grade to that definition.

 

I wonder if Rick M would chime in and tell us the requirements for a FH at PCGS?

 

I think that in order to get a FH you need an ear hole (which I see on this coin) and the helmet need to be defined (it might be) and the leaves (?) have to be visible (I think they are). If I had to guess I would say it makes FH. However, the coin still isn't fully struck.

 

Regardless of what you need to get the FH designation, I would think that on a coin this expensive that the PCGS graders would be damn sure it met the requirement before giving it out. We're talking about a 200K designation here.

 

[gmarguli]

Speaking of HRH, someone is going to flatten his bands in a California court one of these days. He runs a public corporation with fudiciary responsibility to it's shareholders, not a private fiefdom dedicated to his own warped sense of fairplay and ethics.

 

I noticed that CU was adding additional Board Members. Are they more of his toadies or are they independent?

 

1) I think the fall of DH will come from inside CU and not the outside shareholders.

 

2) If they are adding board members, then that must mean they have some profit that they need to get rid of and it is pay back time.

 

David Hall = Gray Davis.

[truthteller]

TDN,

 

I have a ton of cash in PCGS and NGC coins. The reason I tear into PCGS is so they will clean up their act. If not, the coins I own stand on their merits, inside or outside the holder. Of course I would take a hit if PCGS were to close their doors, but at the rate they are going, that might be a possibility. When the investor looses confidence in the grading service, that's something to be overcome. When the collector looses confidence, that is the bread and butter. I like your arguments, they make sense, I just don't always agree.

 

 

TRUTH

[Newmismatist]

Note the Hall post avoids answering the Norweb aspect of the Attribution of Provenance Q!!

 

Without spending too much time on this obvious set up Q & A, my only comment is what EXACTLY DO THEY GUARANTEE?

 

Example 1:

a clearly mint state frosty surface coin in a proof holder

Wait a minute!! Proof coins can have mint frost - they're double struck on planchets that are carefully selected, they have squared rims, - you don't have to polish the dies for it to be a proof, there's satin finish proofs, matte proofs, why can't there be proofs with mint frost. DOES HRH mean that we CANNOT rely on their designation of PR or MS?

 

Example 2:

a flat as a pancake band dime in a FB holder, etc.

The Coinguy case! The whole purpose of TPGSs was to allow coins to be sold sight-unseen in relience on the grade and designation on the holder. Is HRH saying that you cannot rely on what they put on their Holder?? The consumer has to determine the correct strike attribution?

 

Example 3:

The obvious mechanical error can sometimes be a grade. For example, in 1986 we had a dispute with a dealer because he purchased a MS65 1893-O dollar. The problem was the coin was a bag marked to death MS60 that no one in his right mind would ever consider even MS63 let alone MS65.

What!!, PCGS doesn't guarantee MS/Proof, Strike attribution (FH, FB, etc) or grade?? When they're "Obviously wrong" there is no guarantee!

 

Frankly after reading the last post I'm a little concerned that maybe there is NO PCGS guarantee for anything. In the above quote from HRH re what's a "mechanical error" seems like Hall is saying a "mechanical error" is whatever they say it is INCLUDING their opinion of grade if everyone else disagrees with them. ie Our grade is SO wrong that it never could have been correct, therefore it's only a mechanical error, same w/MS PR & FB, FH, etc. .

 

Extend that just a little further, if it's close - they get to define whether their opinion is accurate or not, and if it's way off, then it "mechanical error". Between these two extremes, where exactly is their guarantee? It's beginning to sound like there is NO guarantee.

 

I guess my constant refrain: Buy the COIN, NOT the Plastic, is 110% accurate. Learn to grade guys - there's no guarantee of anything across the street!!

 

EDITED TO ADD: Whoops this is a little OT - sorry, but I had to say something about Hall's answer, because he's essentially saying that if common sense says they're incorrect, then there's no guarantee of anything. If that's really the case why the He!! are collectors and dealers paying to have their coins slabbed at PCGS? THere opinion has to mean something & if they don't stand behind it, then the entire rational for paying them for their OPINION is gone, because it means nothing - might as well just have ANACS tell us if it genuine or not & forget the rest of the BS opinion as to grade etc. (Maybe its time to sell CU stock short??)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tradedollarnut]

It truly would be better if there were a clear cut policy to buy back the mistake and then go after the original submittor who benefitted from the mistake.

[SilverEagleCoins]

Does not appear that the questions were fully answered in the Q&A section. I still do not know what recourse one has when his grading company makes a mechanical error OR how they record provenence. Sounded to me like they only have one shot at grading it and keep no records on it. Even if the same coin came back at a later date in their own holder they could not recertify as it would not meet any of those conditions.

[RobertB]

I'll say this for Heritage - they got the balls to list a coin at $240k and at the same time show a Value Index range of over $100k less!

 

I'm not the Heritage cheerleader, but I have had excellent business with them. Auctions anyways . But let's be honest it is the good old capitolist USA, and eventually some sucka will come along and for it over.

Maybe we should be thanking them for asking such an outrageous price. Maybe if it were listed for 100K I might sell our house to buy it .

 

Seriously though they are down right crazy with their inventory selections. I have done some serious house cleaning in their auctions though. I do believe they will 'listen to' offers on their inventory. They should be more mindful though of incorrect designations, if it is such.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is watch the inventory item, slam 'em on auctions and always buy the coin not the holder. We know that.

[gmarguli]

It truly would be better if there were a clear cut policy to buy back the mistake and then go after the original submittor who benefitted from the mistake.

 

There is frequently a problem with going after the submitter. About a year ago I submitted a coin that was a no doubt about it AU50. The coin came back MS62. I couldn't believe my eyes. I did NOT send the coin back for one simple reason. If the MS62 coin had come back AU50 I would be SOL on getting it regraded for free. I'd have to pay for the regrade and the postage and get nothing in return other than maybe an accurate grade that I should have gotten the first time. Am I liable for that overgrade?

 

Before direct submissions I used to submit thru dealers. Lets say I submit a coin, a 1945 Merc that is a nice MS65 (no bands) and it comes back MS65FB. A few years later I decide to sell it and I sell it on eBay for $5400. The coin finds its way back to PCGS and they want to go after the submitter. All they know is the dealer who submitted it. Do you think the dealer still has records of who submitted? Probably not. Who pays now, the innocent dealer?

 

About 15 years ago I purchased a gold commem from a friend. I didn't know how to grade it and neither did he. It looked like a slider to me. We settled on a price (AU/Unc money - maybe $300) and did the deal. A little while later I sent it to PCGS where it graded MS64 and became a $1500+ coin. Again, I had no idea how to grade it and I would have been happy had it come back AU58. I later sold this coin. Suppose that coin really were an MS60 that no one in their right mind would have thought was an MS64. Am I liable? Everything I did was in good faith and should the grade guarantee liability pass from PCGS onto me?

 

What happens if I submit a coin for a friend? Just today an invoice graded for me at NGC which had a coin I submitted for a friend. It's a 1956 Franklin that NGC graded PF68CAM. Let's say I personally graded the coin PF64. A few years from now the coin finds it way back to NGC where it regrades PF64. An "obvious mechanical error" and they go after the submitter - me. Am I liable for this coin which wasn't mine? Perhaps I now have no contact with the coin owner. Do I take on his liability?

 

The scenarios are endless where the submitter can't be found or shouldn't be liable. The submitter is also not the expert. Who should take the hit for a mistake, the experts at the service that made the mistake or others?

 

[RobertB]

All right. I thought I was done ranting, but....

I look at grading services as two things: authenticators and reasonable professional estimators. I appreciate PCGS and NGC, as well as ANACS, for their ability to firtst, tell me the coin is not cleaned and authentic, and second, for giving a reasonable grade. If a holder says MS65, I assume it could really be as low as 62 or as high as 67. Who knows how long it's been since the graders got some from the wife and how cranky they are?

 

There for I live by the: buy the coin not the holder' "oath." It should be an oath all of us numismatists take to ourselves. By doing do we'd say screw the side designations, because by all natural reason, the existence of the designation should already be factored in to the grade. I can't be the only one who believes that. Only profit and greed could convince me for their 'need.' It is just a matter of time before this designation bubble bursts and alot of people are going to be holding the bag. I won't, why should you? There's already no consistency between grading companies in regards to a definitive explanation of what these designations are. It's too gray. Look at the amount of money that could be lost over this FH designation. It just ain't worth it.

 

If you differ in opinion with me that's cool. If you appreciate designations that's cool too. I'm not calling you greedy or a scumbag in any means. I'm just saying think about it. I don't want you to loose money one day. Maybe if enough of us stopped playing the game, it'd all stop.

 

 

 

[Oldtrader3]

Is it Memorex, or is it FH? Here is a scan of a 1927-D SLQ for your viewing pleasure.

[braddick]

The end result of all of this is the Grading Service is absolutely and soley responsible to make it right. They may attempt to go after the original submitter but as Greg pointed out, it is unlikely they will succeed. Regardless, the Service is wrong and would need to correct that wrong (as unfair as they may seem to them- "mechanical error" or not).

Perhaps after paying a claim or two they'll tighten up their own Quality Control and we will be seeing less of these mistakes enter the market.

 

In the short term the Collector benefits and in the long term so will the Services.

[Tradedollarnut]

I have to agree that I believe the only way for TPG to work effectively is if the grading service has the responsibility to pay for all errors and then attempt to collect from the original submittor. And I also agree that bearing this responsibility will lead to fewer errors in the first place.

 

Now can we stop trying to critique TPG services off scans?

[EVillageProwler]

Now can we stop trying to critique TPG services off scans?

 

 

EVP

 

[nwcs]

2) we don't know what PCGS's definition of FH is, so how do we know it doesn't meet their definition quite handily?

 

TDN, remember PCGS has published their grading standard which does include the definition of FH.

[Tradedollarnut]

PCGS has published their grading standard which does include the definition of FH.

 

Where? I wish someone would post it so we could see and discuss it. Greg had some recollection of what they are looking for in a FH, but he also thought that the coin met the standards he remembered.....

[TonerGuy]

Wow, where do I start? I go out for a night on the town and I come back and this thread has just exploded.

 

Newmismatist -- I am more confused now. I read your first post and while I agree with you main points your second post seems to contradict the first. In your second post, you question exactly what does PCGS guaranty. If you missed some of my other posts ( and I believe you are also a lawyer and would know this ) PCGS bascially has to guaranty everything that they do. If they do something negligently, they should and would have to make the harmed party whole again, whether it was pedigree, designation, mechanical error ect. Now, granted grades and designation might be hard to prove in court since that is an opinion, misattribution of a pedigree and certainly "mechanical errors" could be much easier to make a claim that PCGS or NGC for that matter was negligent and they would have to reimburse the harmed party for any real loss.

there's no guarantee of anything across the street!!

There is, you just have to be willing to plop down your filing fees and hire a lawyer to enforce your guaranty that's all. Or again, a class action might be a better way to enforce warranty/guaranty claims if you can have the class certified.

 

EVP -- While I am not trying to judge TDN personally, I was merely judging him based upon his actions and demeanor in regards to issue presented by this thread and the Jadecoin thread. No personally attacked was levied against him this time as I did in the Jadecoin thread -- which I did apologize to TDN for. I believe I have a right to my opinion just as TDN has his right to his opinion of me.

 

The only problem that I have is that he is in a position where many members of this forum and PCGS forum might look to his posts for information, he does own one of the top Trade Dollar registry sets and works closely with Legend. Which might provide him with credibility in the eyes of some. And he is just simply providing false information as to the issue of the PCGS guaranty. Here are two quotes from TDN.

Now of course the attorneys can get involved and force the company back toward our erroneous perceptions utilizing California law and all that stuff

If I have a bias, it's a pro business bias. I'm sick and tired of businesses being wrong until proven right. Sick and tired of the mentality in this country regarding entitlement. Spill your hot coffee on your lap - sue! Blechhh!

Obviously he is biased and he is trying to provide information which he has no knowledge of -- California law, negligence and guaranty. As a lawyer that does bother me, since there might be someone reading this who has been screwed by a TPG and might consider what TDN says and accept the position they are in.

Once you admit to being biased, you cannot remain neutral and a fair arbitrator of the facts. Judges are removed from cases based upon bias alone.

 

TDN --

 

I made the very same arguement to NGC's benefit. Where the heck was Michael? Probably sitting in a dark room figuring out how to 'get' HRH.

 

Yeah, that dark room was called Intensive Care -- I was hospitalized with a heart attack or I probably would have been ripping on you in that thread as well.

 

Perhaps Michael would care to reveal to us how significantly he's put his money where his mouth is? Comeon, Frattlaw, what percentage by value of your collection is in NGC holders, eh? Mine's 40% [give or take a few %].

 

Here's my passion, you tell me.

 

Many of the coins use to reside in PCGS holders.

 

Michael

[Tradedollarnut]

Michael: I now agree that TPG services should compensate for any grading error on their slab and then go after the original submittor themselves. I've so stated in this thread, which you have conveniently ignored. I still question how a person can post a somewhat unclear image of a coin for sale and rip into PCGS for "setting up another Jadecoin fiasco". Just as I questioned the same when it was done to NGC. What is the standard the TPG service uses to determine the attribute in question? If you don't know the standard, how do you know the TPG service is messing up?

 

And he is just simply providing false information as to the issue of the PCGS guaranty.

 

I've attempted to address the issue at hand - is the coin an obvious error on PCGS's part. No, it's not. Any information regarding PCGS's guaranty was an aside. After our last little fiasco, I've attempted to leave the lawyering to those that care. Try to focus on the 50 posts where I addressed the issue and not the one where I got off track.

 

Yeah, that dark room was called Intensive Care

 

You were in intensive care this past weekend? My condolences.

 

or I probably would have been ripping on you in that thread as well.

 

Your bias is showing. You have no idea what I said in that thread. This leads me to believe that you are biased against anything I might present, no matter what direction I am taking.

 

Many of the coins use to reside in PCGS holders

 

Again, your bias is showing! You hate PCGS so much that you pay good money to change the plastic on your coins? Sad...

[nwcs]

PCGS has published their grading standard which does include the definition of FH.

 

Where? I wish someone would post it so we could see and discuss it. Greg had some recollection of what they are looking for in a FH, but he also thought that the coin met the standards he remembered.....

I'll try and remember to post it when I get home from work.

[TonerGuy]

TDN My posts aren't meant to address the true nature of the original thread. I couldn't tell a FH SLQ from a barn door. My area of study is not SLQ, so I thought I would leave that part of the discussion to the true experts. However, you did raise the legal issue and I thought I would respond. Until then I had been quite watching the discussion about FH and non-FH.

 

The FH and non-FH was the basis for realizing that if a company slabs it and it is wrong --- they guaranty it. Perhaps I shouldn't use the term guaranty since that is misleading. My point is, if a company provides a service and the quality of the service is subpar and below recognizable standards, that could be considered negligence. If it is deemed by a court/judge/jury to be negligent, then that company will have to reimburse the harmed party for actual as well as potential punitive damages for their mistake.

 

Of course grading and designations such as FH, FBL, FB and FS are harder to prove since it appears that each service has created this standard and applies it differently. However, if a particular coin in a PCGS holder attributed as a FH doesn't match their own standard, then perhaps their might be some negligence on their part and they would be hit with damages. Obviously you would have to look at hundreds of FH quarters to see if the differences are real or perceived.

 

You must understand TPGs do more then just guaranty the grade. Based upon the theory of negligence, they basically have to stand behind everything they put on the slab. I haven't ignored you agreement to grading errors, you just have to understand the broad application as to what I am saying. It goes beyond grading errors.

 

As for my bias, I hold no bias against you personally, I just forgot to put the smilely thingy in my last post.

 

And as for my bias against PCGS, I don't hate PCGS. I crossed my Peace $ because I simply like the white holder better for toned coins. However, I do believe that NGC is a more customer oriented company and I enjoy my transactions with them better. I won't submit coins to PCGS because of the turnaround times but I will still buy coins in PCGS plastic though.

 

 

 

[Newmismatist]

Newmismatist -- I am more confused now. I read your first post and while I agree with you main points your second post seems to contradict the first. In your second post, you question exactly what does PCGS guaranty.

 

Fratlaw

 

My first post specifically addresses the topic of the thread and that there is AT THIS TIME, no contraversy because no one has requesteed PCGS to honor any grade guarantee as to the 27-S MS65FH SLQ. In a different way than East Vilage Prowler, I also pointed out that your comments re TDN's position was perhaps a bit "harsh". TDN is not a lawyer, he was articulating a practical position that the Buyer has some responsibility to be aware of what he's doing when he buys something - kind of a layman's version of contributory/comparative negligence. TDN obviously does not know CA law, but unless you can cite me a CA case dealing with the enforceability of PCGS's guaranty, his practical assessment of that coin (don't buy it if you don't think it's FH AND don't buy it if you think the premium is way out of whack) may be be far more accurate than a hypothetical position of IF you spend $250K on that coin and it's not FH, you'll be able to enforce PCGS's grade guarantee in a CA court. That may be true, but you may be out one hell of a lot of money if you spend that kind of money on that premise.

 

My 2nd post as I pointed out is actually OT for this thread. It's a very surprised reaction to HRH's 10/14/03 post in the PCGS Q&A forum. Taken literally HRH seems to be saying "Our guarantee is only what we say it is." If that's HRHs position, than my Rhetorical Q as to What is PCGS guaranteeing is very valid. I'm not a CA lawyer, but if I were to guess on the out come of litigation on HRH's statement, I would make an educated guess that a Judge would not agree with HRH, for many different reasons.

 

But that does not change my position that

1) there is presently no issue as to PCGS honoring any guarantee regarding the 27-S SLQ and

2) One would be very foolish to spend $250K to find out whether the PCGS guarnatee applied the their FH desiganation for that coin.

 

PM me and we can further discuss this

 

Pleased to see that you are recovering from you recent illness.

 

[TonerGuy]

I will post the case law I believe that supports my statements. This paragraph is from North American Chemical Company vs. Superior Ct. 59 Cal App 4th 764 (1997) ----

 

However, for over 50 years California has also recognized the fundamental principle that " '[a]ccompanying every contract is a common-law duty to perform with care, skill, reasonable expedience, and faithfulness the thing agreed to be done, and a negligent failure to observe any of these conditions is a tort, as well as a breach of the contract.' The rule which imposes this duty is of universal application as to all persons who by contract undertake professional or other business engagements requiring the exercise of care, skill and knowledge; the obligation is implied by law and need not be stated in the agreement [citation]. " (Roscoe Moss Co. v. Jenkins (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 369, 376 [130 P.2d 477]; see also Kuitems v. Covell (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 482, 485 [231 P.2d 552].) fn. 6 Both Roscoe Moss Co. and Kuitems involved contracts for the performance of services rather than the sale of goods. As we discuss below, that is an important distinction. A contract to perform services gives rise to a duty of care which requires that such services be performed in a competent and reasonable manner. A negligent failure to do so may be both a breach of contract and a tort. (Perry v. Robertson (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 333, 340 [247 Cal.Rptr. 74].) In such a hybrid circumstance, the plaintiff is entitled to pursue both legal theories until an occasion for an election of remedies arises. (Ibid.) {Page 59 Cal.App.4th 775}

 

Michael

[IrishMike]

This has all been tried before. One of the grading companies who is well known for overgrading coins was sued by someone who claimed they relied on the grade of the coin issued by the grading company only to find out that they had grossly overpaid for the coins. The coins were overgraded using most any other grading companies standard.

 

The courts ruled agains the plaintiff and stated that you bought a coin in this companies slab on which was their opinion of the grade. The company stood behind its opinion and the court ruled that as long as grading coins was an opinion base on subjective matters and that grading companies couldn't really provide a nonobjective set of grading guidelines the purchaser got what they paid for, an opinion.

 

I may not have the legal verbage correct, but this is how the case was decided. I can't imagine suing over whether or not someone got a fullhead or not on their coin that is. I think you would have to be at least half-empty in the head to even try it.

 

Edited to add: my undestanding is that they couldn't even get the grading experts to agree what a grade really was or how it was arrived at.

[truthteller]

Mike,

 

I vaguely remember the case. I believe you are correct. What stood out most clearly was indeed most graders could not come to a concensus. This begs the question: How do we assign value to what's on the label. By the sight unseen trading? By auction? By offers? If this is the case, then there is no standardized price structure for any graded coin, only offers to buy and sell? Does this mean that having a coin graded by a third party offers liquidity, NO! Only the illusion of liquidity or fair prices is offered. Since the grading companies offer no compensation, the dealer networks are not obliged to buy graded coins, why have coins graded in the first place? When dealers drop all their sight unseen prices before a major show, can this be considered collusion?

 

 

TRUTH

[SilverEagleCoins]

This has all been tried before. One of the grading companies who is well known for overgrading coins was sued by someone who claimed they relied on the grade of the coin issued by the grading company only to find out that they had grossly overpaid for the coins. The coins were overgraded using most any other grading companies standard.

 

The courts ruled agains the plaintiff and stated that you bought a coin in this companies slab on which was their opinion of the grade. The company stood behind its opinion and the court ruled that as long as grading coins was an opinion base on subjective matters and that grading companies couldn't really provide a nonobjective set of grading guidelines the purchaser got what they paid for, an opinion.

 

I may not have the legal verbage correct, but this is how the case was decided. I can't imagine suing over whether or not someone got a fullhead or not on their coin that is. I think you would have to be at least half-empty in the head to even try it.

 

Edited to add: my undestanding is that they couldn't even get the grading experts to agree what a grade really was or how it was arrived at.

 

I do not know these cases but I think someone suing because they thought it was misgraded is in the grey area. However in Jadecoin and this recent FH issue PCGS agreed there were error. That would make it completely different situation than a difference in professional opinion. If PCGS cannot even agree among themselves then why even bother with PCGS?