Some may know but I am pretty well done ....

[ant]

not cool!

[jgrinz]

Keep in mind - I spent around $180 for the first coin. Which they did an unwanted service to 'regrade' thus ELIMINATING ANY RETAIL POSSIBILITY TO THE COIN.

 

They Say they regraded the COIN and it was going to be a 66 when done and for this degrading 'service' they gave me the reholdering of the multi holder for nothing a value of $35 dollars or so AND THEY KEPT THE COIN!

 

Not to beat this into the ground but shouldn't I have gotten the coin back in its lesser holder and compensation for its degrade OR They refuse to reholder the coin and leaving it in its HOLDER and returning it to me UNTOUCHED ...

 

AS seen above I bought another one at around the same price as this one ...

I feel as though them compensating me the TRUE MARKET value of the coin OR a REPLACEMENT COIN of the same grade be offered to me .. not some token

$35 dollars ... AND the Multi Holder Set be created as I expended money to have MADE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EZ_E]

There's no doubt that you got jacked on this deal, Joker. What the heck was going through NGC's mind with this bruhaha?

[jgrinz]

There's no doubt that you got jacked on this deal, Joker. What the heck was going through NGC's mind with this bruhaha?

 

We will find out MONDAY what the resolve will be - I already forwarned SCOTT to expect my call

 

[MarkFeld]

There's no doubt that you got jacked on this deal, Joker. What the heck was going through NGC's mind with this bruhaha?

I think it would be best if we waited to hear NGC's side of the situation before passing (final) judgment. Hopefully that will occur soon, after Mike and Scott speak to each other.

[jgrinz]

There's no doubt that you got jacked on this deal, Joker. What the heck was going through NGC's mind with this bruhaha?

I think it would be best if we waited to hear NGC's side of the situation before passing (final) judgment. Hopefully that will occur soon, after Mike and Scott speak to each other.

 

As Mark knew, as he worked with Scott, that he is very professsional in his ability to explain what NGC's stance and position is concerning these types of situations.

I suggested to him to make it a little MORE CLEAR as to a policy which is not WELL known by all users of thier service even to a point of making it BOLD print somewhere.

 

Details are as follows:

 

I was credited the $35 reholder fees (I was told about on a previous phone call)

 

The Majority of my order was "LOST" in thier safe because I had the 'ship all when complete' checked off on the orders. The hold up being the Unwanted regraded DOWN grade which some one dropped the ball in communicating these facts to me. ( I know who but will be left un-named )

 

I was credited $100 - The stated Insurance amount on the invoice. ( I did not know about until I was told about it by Scott today )

 

I will be credited an additional $100 to cover ACTUAL retail recovery cost of the coin plus an amount to reholder the NEW MS68 purhased to be installed into the 1967 SMS holder. ( This was our mutual resolve with my monitary and holdering issues )

 

THE KEY POINT IS THEY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO RE-GRADE ANY AND ALL COINS GOING THROUGH THEM FOR "ANY" SERVICE TO MAINTAIN THAT THE QUALITY STANDARDS OF NGC ARE MAINTAINED IN THE MARKETPLACE.

 

I actually do not have a problem with this policy - but it needs to be more advertised and posted a little more conspicuously so these types of issues do not happen again. Please feel free to PM Scott Schechter on WHERE on the WEB site this policy should be placed to be TOTALLY unavoidable to see.

 

Consider this the end of this issue unless the new coin is a piece of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

I'm not at all surprised, but very glad to hear things were resolved. And, while I do agree with the re-grade policy referred to, I agree that it should be made clear and conspicuous.

 

Edited to add: Hopefully this will serve to remind submitters to list and insure their submissions at full value. In this particular case, I believe that NGC could have rightfully refused to compensate the submitter for any amount in excess of $100 (the stated insurance amount on the invoice).

[jackson64]

handled very professionally....

 

my only question would be if we, as submitters, could expressly state that we want a re-holder at the same grade or our coin and slab sent back to us un touched if they are not willing to do this?

 

Not to be a thorn--I understand that some coins may degrade a bit from milkiness,invisible corrosives, dipping residue etc...--- but I would hate to lose money/grade/registry points/ et al, because of a much stricter grading standard being practiced now than in the period 3-5 years ago...

 

What would stop them from simply downgrading coins at their whim because they don't meet the current VERY strict grading standards? ( I speak of non-moderns obviously)

 

I really am curious and not trying to be a jerk...there must be some kind of protections for us somewhere, right?..I mean sometimes the difference in that MS65 and MS66 is a 10X CDN price...that would really hurt to drop a grade trying to get a new, non scratched holder...

[MarkFeld]

What would stop them from simply downgrading coins at their whim because they don't meet the current VERY strict grading standards? ( I speak of non-moderns obviously)

 

1) Fairness; 2) Potential damage to their reputation; 3) Money - remember, if they change/lower the grade, they need to make up the difference in value to the submitter.

[Frank Provasek]

Keep in mind - I spent around $180 for the first coin. Which they did an unwanted service to 'regrade' thus ELIMINATING ANY RETAIL POSSIBILITY TO THE COIN.

 

Too bad NGC changed their policy of not slabbing coins after 1964. At one time

NGC published a free booklet "Are your coins worth 2 cents on the dollar?'

criticizing the concept of modern grade rarities that PCGS was advocating.

 

The only "retail possibility" in my view for 1967 SMS coins is that a nice original

mint packaged set is worth about $25.

[CHABSENTIA]

Did they change their Policy? I sent in a coin to be re-holdered last year. I specifically asked about it and was told that if you send in a coin to be re-holdered then it doesn't go to the Lab and is just put in a new holder.I had dropped the coin and it put a large blemish on the edge of the holder.

[cpm9ball]

Mike, I'm really sorry that you had to go through all of this, but I would hate to see you sever your ties with us and/or NGC because of it. True, a mistake was made, but at least NGC is trying to accept responsibility and make amends. We can't expect everyone to be perfect, and mistakes will be made. It all boils down to how we deal with each situation and use the lessons learned to make things better. I think that NGC will use this to try to improve their policies so that it doesn't happen again.

 

I would think that if they had denied all responsibility you would be justified. Tell me, how do you think another TPG might react if this same scenario arose?

 

Chris

[MarkFeld]

Mike, I'm really sorry that you had to go through all of this, but I would hate to see you sever your ties with us and/or NGC because of it. True, a mistake was made, but at least NGC is trying to accept responsibility and make amends. We can't expect everyone to be perfect, and mistakes will be made. It all boils down to how we deal with each situation and use the lessons learned to make things better. I think that NGC will use this to try to improve their policies so that it doesn't happen again.

 

I would think that if they had denied all responsibility you would be justified. Tell me, how do you think another TPG might react if this same scenario arose?

 

Chris

Chris, I don't claim to have all of the facts, but from what I gather, NGC's conduct doesn't sound nearly as bad as first described. It appears as if they initially credited Mike by $100 (the amount he insured the coin for on the submission invoice) plus $35 in free grading - that seems fair to me. But Mike was

unaware of the $100 portion. Then, after Mike and Scott spoke, Mike was or is to be given an additional $100.

 

It seems that the major problems were in not having the re-holder/re-grade policy spelled out clearly to submitters, in misplacement of the coins and in lack of communication. Hopefully this will lead to improvements in the future.

[cpm9ball]

Mike, I'm really sorry that you had to go through all of this, but I would hate to see you sever your ties with us and/or NGC because of it. True, a mistake was made, but at least NGC is trying to accept responsibility and make amends. We can't expect everyone to be perfect, and mistakes will be made. It all boils down to how we deal with each situation and use the lessons learned to make things better. I think that NGC will use this to try to improve their policies so that it doesn't happen again.

 

I would think that if they had denied all responsibility you would be justified. Tell me, how do you think another TPG might react if this same scenario arose?

 

Chris

Chris, I don't claim to have all of the facts, but from what I gather, NGC's conduct doesn't sound nearly as bad as first described. It appears as if they initially credited Mike by $100 (the amount he insured the coin for on the submission invoice) plus $35 in free grading - that seems fair to me. But Mike was

unaware of the $100 portion. Then, after Mike and Scott spoke, Mike was or is to be given an additional $100.

 

It seems that the major problems were in not having the re-holder/re-grade policy spelled out clearly to submitters, in misplacement of the coins and in lack of communication. Hopefully this will lead to improvements in the future.

 

Thanks, Mark! That is why I waited to hear all of the comments before expressing my view. Sometimes, I have interjected (my opinion) a bit prematurely, usually having a hard time getting my foot out of my mouth, but in this case I chose to wait because I have a lot of respect for both Mike and NGC. I consider Mike a good friend on these boards, and I admire the staff at NGC for their continuing efforts to "make things right."

 

Chris

[jgrinz]

Keep in mind - I spent around $180 for the first coin. Which they did an unwanted service to 'regrade' thus ELIMINATING ANY RETAIL POSSIBILITY TO THE COIN.

 

Too bad NGC changed their policy of not slabbing coins after 1964. At one time

NGC published a free booklet "Are your coins worth 2 cents on the dollar?'

criticizing the concept of modern grade rarities that PCGS was advocating.

 

The only "retail possibility" in my view for 1967 SMS coins is that a nice original

mint packaged set is worth about $25.

 

HI Frank .. It was my intention to make the rest of this 1967 multi set compliment the ONLY exisiting MS69 5c NGC coin which I own ( Which has obvious retail possibilities ) . I am a firm believer of HIGHER technical grade over CAMEO's so the MS68 was what I had purchased in the set to compliment the others. May be not be a real BIG issue to you on this year set but I respect your comments anyway.

Mike

[jgrinz]

NGC and I have not parted ways as I told them to keep the money as an IN HOUSE credit ...

[jgrinz]

Chris, I don't claim to have all of the facts, but from what I gather, NGC's conduct doesn't sound nearly as bad as first described. It appears as if they initially credited Mike by $100 (the amount he insured the coin for on the submission invoice) plus $35 in free grading - that seems fair to me. But Mike was

unaware of the $100 portion. Then, after Mike and Scott spoke, Mike was or is to be given an additional $100.

 

Th additional 'monetary' adjustment was because of my having to spend another $180 to secure another MS68 coin to put into this Multi holder.

 

The reholdering cost ($25) plus the descrepancy between the market price from stated insurance value ($80) is how we came to an additional $100 credit to my account plus or minus $5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Coin]

So , Mike , you gonna get that MULTI-HOLDER back and post pictures , right?

 

I mean after all these hurdles , that set outta be one mean holder , ya know ?

 

I hope you aren't gonna call it quits with the NG Company an all , cause I really really really do enjoy your zeal about those MULTI...... I did say MULTI .........multi-holders and how you have come up with decent ways to store those behemoth slabs . More importantly , to me , is that you have found soo many nice upper end moderns and put them together in a nice presentable way versus a boxfull of 'one-of-each's' .

 

Whatcha say ? You gonna give us a look-see at it when it gets back?

-John

 

PS , How's all the remanufactured parts from the last hospital stay holding up...it seems like your back in the groove to me !?!

[vapor]

So, what should a coin submitter put as the insurance value on the submission form ?

 

Raw coin value ?

NGC slabbed value ?

Or ... replacement cost off ebay?

 

This is something I have wondered about when I have submitted coins in the past.

[jgrinz]

So, what should a coin submitter put as the insurance value on the submission form ?

 

Raw coin value ?

NGC slabbed value ?

Or ... replacement cost off ebay?

 

This is something I have wondered about when I have submitted coins in the past.

 

Replacement COST ( AKA retail Value if coin is lost or damaged )

 

 

 

[jgrinz]

So , Mike , you gonna get that MULTI-HOLDER back and post pictures , right?

 

I mean after all these hurdles , that set outta be one mean holder , ya know ?

 

I hope you aren't gonna call it quits with the NG Company an all , cause I really really really do enjoy your zeal about those MULTI...... I did say MULTI .........multi-holders and how you have come up with decent ways to store those behemoth slabs . More importantly , to me , is that you have found soo many nice upper end moderns and put them together in a nice presentable way versus a boxfull of 'one-of-each's' .

 

Whatcha say ? You gonna give us a look-see at it when it gets back?

-John

 

PS , How's all the remanufactured parts from the last hospital stay holding up...it seems like your back in the groove to me !?!

 

Hi John - Thanks for the note. I have still decided to unload the 1968 - 1998 5 coin

sets The Silvers that were in corporated into any of thise years are in thier OWN three coin holders and will not be sold - The BIG Heads ( Ikes ) that were incorporated into year sets also will not be sold and some are already housed in Clad / Silver two coin sets and had started its own Registry for those only ( Proofs )

 

AS far as the Recent surgery was concerned - it is doing well HOWEVER because of a serious lifestyle change, I have been going through a different kind of recovery, which will take a little longer to recover from. I may or may not get into further details in the future but I am doing well at this time.

 

Mike

 

 

[Just Bob]

HOWEVER because of a serious lifestyle change, I have been going through a different kind of recovery, which will take a little longer to recover from. I may or may not get into further details in the future but I am doing well at this time.

 

Mike

 

 

Does this mean that you finally decided to have that sex change operation?

[Coin]

Very glad to hear that you are , still complete and well . As far as change of life styles , no hurry there , those things are like plants and have to set roots to take hold .

but..........

 

Sooo....any chance we will ever get to see this particuler set when ya get it back , uh barring any extended journeys through the postal system and the slab factory an all ....?

 

On a side note , I can sympathize with your reaction to this episode as it was told here , but am also happy to hear it got resolved somewhat fast compared to what I was thinking it was going to take . I've dealt with you before and know that you are a stand-up guy that delivers what ya promise , so it is double sad that the whole thing with the set went down the way it did , seems like a simple phone call at the onset woulda saved a lot of headaches . I just hope I don't have to send all my stuff to a CAC or something to avoid worrying about simple re-holdering issues like this .

Some people have said that TPGs are tightening there standards due to FPGs and/or whiners like a certain part-owner of a large auction/gallery house , but I personally think they are tightening way too much if they hafta drop a modern coin two grades ....now I have to go and re-assess my take on what I think a modern 68 , 69, and 70 are not just from 2 different companies 'standards' but now 2 companies standards today versus only a few years ago , or face having the high grade ones dropped in grade and be microscoped to death upon any future re-holder or service feature. Oh well , guess grading is more fluid than solid .

 

I will clarify that I do understand that coins which suffer environmetal damage in a holder to it's surfaces , can be expected to maybe downgrade , occassionally graders being human can err , yes both the graders and the finalizer can all be having a bad day concurrently , but well , I hope that it is not too often that that many people can miss a coins grade on the same day by that many grades , one person sure , but that many on the wrong sheet of music makes very bad music , lets just say. I hope they aren't implying that they really couldn't grade that well back then , but now today they are gonna correct all their early day mistakes as they go .....geez just pick a standard and stick to it , market grading fluctuates too much for anyone to get a good grip on it anyway.

 

Just to let ya know I feel yer pain/headache ...like a blindside swipe , but glad you got through the minefield .

[jgrinz]

As far as taking a picture of the holder in its present state will just upset me have a 67 in a slot where the 68 should be.

 

I will though when completed.

 

And Yes I am complete as in one piece, but not necessarily well

 

The replacement coin came in yesterday and it looks good to me ... I guess I have to put it under a microscope before sending it in now ...

 

m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jgrinz]

Sooo....any chance we will ever get to see this 1967 SMS set when ya get it back , uh barring any extended journeys through the postal system and the slab factory an all ....?

 

This will be sent in shortly but will look like this ...

 

1967 SMS

1967 1C MS 68 RD NGC

1967 5C MS 69 NGC

1967 10C MS 69 CA

1967 25C MS 69

1967 50C MS 68 CA

 

I thought this was a good time to rebring this to the top as I send in more coins for "reholder" service ... I am still nervous though. New users here may also learn from my ordeal.

 

I already sent in my 5 Coin GOLD 1984 Olympic set for reholder and should be back shortly ... cannot wait to see that ... people had expressed interest in seeing that also ... I have the ORIGINAL box a three piece set came in and a NGC multi coin holder fits the box perfectly.

 

I don't claim to have all of the facts, but from what I gather, NGC's conduct doesn't sound nearly as bad as first described. It appears as if they initially credited Mike by $100 (the amount he insured the coin for on the submission invoice) plus $35 in free grading - that seems fair to me. But Mike was

unaware of the $100 portion. Then, after Mike and Scott spoke, Mike was or is to be given an additional $100.

 

Just a follow up to your comment - Even though I was given Insurance value - Don't you think I should have gotten the coin back

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mark T]

I don think they should down grade a coin with out the approval from the owner first.

If I send in a coin for a re holder and someone decides that the coin was not graded properly they better contact me before they put it in a holder with a lower grade. I would take the down grade if I was compensated fairly for it.

 

Look at the attached picture of this Indian Head cent I have . I am not sure what it looked like when it was slabbed 10 plus years ago but many would say it is RB and not Red. In my opinion it has very attractive toning and looks great in hand. I was going to send it to NGC for a re holder but was advised against it because they might downgrade it without my approval.

[coinman1794]

This coin is in the post-2001 slab, therefore the Red designation is guarranteed for 10 years.

[Mark T]

This coin is in the post-2001 slab, therefore the Red designation is guarranteed for 10 years.

 

NGC said the coin was graded over ten years ago, so the guarantee has expired.

The only reason I wanted it re slabbed was because the coin is tilted in the slab .

[coinman1794]

It must have been reholdered recently then because thats a very recent holder. And, if so, then it was examined recently, and i wouldnt expect a problem. Did NGC actually say the coin was problematic?

[lehigh96]

I don think they should down grade a coin with out the approval from the owner first.

If I send in a coin for a re holder and someone decides that the coin was not graded properly they better contact me before they put it in a holder with a lower grade. I would take the down grade if I was compensated fairly for it.

 

Look at the attached picture of this Indian Head cent I have . I am not sure what it looked like when it was slabbed 10 plus years ago but many would say it is RB and not Red. In my opinion it has very attractive toning and looks great in hand. I was going to send it to NGC for a re holder but was advised against it because they might downgrade it without my approval.

 

I bid on that coin when Anaconda went out of business. My bid was lowball, but the coin isn't RD. If I remember correctly, Brandon had a price tag of $1,000 on it on the ARC site.