I wonder if David Hall will answer Frattlaw's question.

[truthteller]

????

 

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=250482

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRUTH

[goose3]

ought to be interesting for sure.

 

I'm unfortunately getting ready to hit the sack so may not catch it until tomorrow.

 

Kinda tough for him to duck those excellent questions now especially since HRH told him he'd answer ANY question....

 

 

[goose3]

Truth and everyone else..............looks like they may be answered on here.............

 

the q and a forum

[truthteller]

Strange, I looked this word up in the dictionary and found the following definitions:

 

 

guarantee; n: 1:guarantor, 2: guaranty, 3: an assurance for the fullfillment of a condition, 5: something PCGS can not do, 6: an assurance of quality of or of the length of use to be expected from a product offered for sale often with a promise of reimbursement.

 

 

 

 

 

TRUTH

[dakra]

I check with all the operations people to make sure I give the right answers...i.e. I'll answer these tomorrow.

 

I check the same people, say must alcohol wear off fist.

 

 

[RobertB]

So with that QandA forum the administrators can ignore all questions that they're too scared to answer? PCGS is an outfit of weasels. Big bunch of rats. Whatever answer Hall gives will be a load of [!@#%^&^] and we all know this. Like all of a sudden he and PCGS are going to become ethical and proper? I think not.

[gmarguli]

I much prefer this thread.

 

DH's answer: Thanks for the heads up. This is pretty interesting wouldn't you say. I guess we need to just come flat out and say it's a price guide for PCGS coins.

 

Anyone want to ask this question:

 

 

Dear David,

 

How can David Hall Rare Coins afford to sell PCGS coins so cheaply against their published value? This is a mind blower. I see a 2003-S Silver 50c in PCGS PR70DCAM for only $675, yet the PCGS Price Guide lists the coin for $1500. This is just one of many coins that are selling for a fraction of their "value". David, oh David, how can you do this?

 

Sincerely,

 

Worried That You're Selling Coins Too Cheaply

 

 

[gmarguli]

So with that QandA forum the administrators can ignore all questions that they're too scared to answer? PCGS is an outfit of weasels. Big bunch of rats. Whatever answer Hall gives will be a load of [!@#%^&^] and we all know this. Like all of a sudden he and PCGS are going to become ethical and proper? I think not.

 

No, no, no, David Hall has repeatedly stated that he will answer ALL questions posted to the Q&A as long as they don't relate to inside information. The fact that he failed to answer several of my questions (before I was banned) is probably just an oversight.

[RobertB]

 

I bet I have a few million worth of coins lying around according to the CU guide.

 

I think David is a nice guy to offer such discounts at his own website. What a gentleman. I bet those low prices are just another one of his ways to help out the little guys!!!!

 

[jom]

Worried That You're Selling Coins Too Cheaply

 

OK, that's does it! I'm selling my CLTC stock....

 

jom

[TonerGuy]

I personally think he side stepped the real question in regards to the JadeCoin situation, so I followed up with this --

 

My Reponse to HRH's Answer

 

He didn't answer the second question either, but I understand that one. He probably does need to check that one out first before he provides any kind of response.

 

Thanks

Michael

 

 

[ER]

Michael,

I agree with you that HRH didn't answer your question about Jadecoin, just giving the BS run around. Jerk!

Let's see if he answer your new questions this time.

BTW, let me know the next time you organize another YN giveaway, so I can send my stuffs.

 

ER

[spy88]

I personally think he side stepped the real question in regards to the JadeCoin situation

 

Michael, you do not have to think very hard on this as that is exactly what he did. A blatant attempt to divert your/our attention away from your questions with "political rhetoric" concerning a small side-line to your post.

 

He did not just side-step it, he broad-jumped it and did more damage to his already feeble credibility by thinking this would pacify you and the rest of us interested in the TRUTH. Instead of taking one step forward toward that end, he basically fell flat on his face!

[jtryka]

Here's how I/we feel about the little guy/big guy issue. There are two types of ways we view customers. First...we think of customers as either dealers or collectors. Second, we think of customers as either big submitters or little submitters. The fact is that I/we cut more slack with collectors than dealers and we are more gentle with small customers than big customers. That's the fact.

 

I can say from my own personal experience that this is either false, or they must treat large/dealer customers so bad it's a wonder they have any such customers left. I was treated poorly with some nice fingerprinted proof coins, which would have cost next to nothing to fix, and was treated like dirt. That is why I am no longer a customer of theirs.

[Fairlaneman]

For the most part this thread has responses from some very astute collectors that really care about the Hobby and all aspects that relate to the Hobby. I guess thats the take I get from most of the responses. Hell I could be wrong and maybe the folks just have a different agenda. Could a different agenda actually be what is going on here and not the preservation of the betterment of the Hobby ?

 

Confused again.

[jtryka]

For the most part this thread has responses from some very astute collectors that really care about the Hobby and all aspects that relate to the Hobby. I guess thats the take I get from most of the responses. Hell I could be wrong and maybe the folks just have a different agenda. Could a different agenda actually be what is going on here and not the preservation of the betterment of the Hobby ?

 

Confused again.

 

I am not sure what agenda you are implying, but if you care to elaborate on your theory I'm sure many of us would discuss it rationally.

 

I am all for the betterment of the hobby, and I think that by and large, independent grading and authentication have done a lot to better our hobby. We no longer get ripped off by unscrupulous dealers as often, grades seem a little more objective, and we have better security over the authenticity of coins (i.e. less rip-offs in counterfeit and altered dates etc.). However, the only way that third party grading helps the hobby is if the graders stand behind their service. Offering "independent" grading without such a guarantee really only makes matters worse than they were before. The guarantee alone makes grading companies beneficial to the hobby. Here's a simple example. Before TPG, unscrupulous dealers could pass off AU/Cleaned/Whizzed coins to unknowing collectors as MS-65 gems, merely because they said they were MS-65. Now, if a grading service had no guarantee, and these same unscrupulous dealers gave that grading company a lot of business, they might put those same AU/Cleaned/Whizzed coins in holders that were "certified" MS-65, with no penalty, since there is no guarantee. In this case, the matter is worse, since there is now an illusion of independent certification and grade accuracy when in fact there is none. It is only the grading companies' willingness to stand behind their service that gives anyone a reason to trust them.

[Fairlaneman]

Hey that is a pretty good response for people that were not around before third party grading. I was though and can relate to exactly what you said.

 

Basically I am still confused by which service does not stand behind their product. Should any company give in to the whims of every customer ? If a company does then you are correct, the guarantee would be worthless because the company would be defunct, kaput and out of business.

 

Maybe through this whole one coin incident that everyone keeps bringing up I missed something. Has anyone said for sure No Adjustment was ever made ? Again, just curious.

[dakra]

Could a different agenda actually be what is going on here and not the preservation of the betterment of the Hobby ?

Confused again.

 

If I had to guess, Collectors are being vocal about what is hurting the hobby. Since these collectors are not seeing resolution to the issue, they will continue to bring things to light until they see a resolution.

 

-Dave

[jtryka]

I am not intimately familiar with this particular incident, however from what the folks at Jade Coin have posted on this and other forums, the coin was pedigreed, they questioned it, David Hall reviewed it, agreed that the pedigree was incorrect and removed it from the holder and returned the coin to them. I would think that at the very least they should have included a note, saying in effect we made a mistake, let's talk about how to resolve it.

 

Now this is just one incident, but it illustrates a very important idea, that every participant knows the rules of the game before they play. And I think this incident illustrates that not everyone knew the rules of the game. For instance, what constitutes a mechanical error? What items are not covered? Is a mistake in grading a mechanical error, a difference of opinion, or something else not covered? I think the problem that PCGS has had is that they have expanded some of the definitions in their guarantee so as to make it less valuable. For example, most companies would look at the mechanical error exception as clearly a factual error that is obvious from looking at the coin itself, like mis-labeling a 1907 NM Saint as a 1907 HR Saint, when it's clear the coin in the holder is low relief. PCGS has in the past used the mechanical error exception to apply to grade errors, designation errors and now pedigree errors.

 

To me, if I know ahead of time that PCGS does not stand behind pedigree attribution, then I will know to place zero value on their pedigrees when purchasing a coin unless it's accompanied by other evidence supporting the pedigree. Similarly, if I look at a coin PCGS graded MS-65 but it looks like an MS-62 to me, then I won't pay more than MS-62 money or the coin, since I know that an obvious grading error is likely a typo and not covered. I think this is what people have a problem with. Do I think they should let themselves get ripped off? Absolutely not, but I also think they should either make a greater effort to ensure these errors do not occur, or step up and make them right when they do. If not, they are only serving to decreased the value of their service over the long-term.

 

As for other services, I have not heard much regarding ICG's guarantee, I have heard a couple of negative stories on ANACS, and I have heard mainly positive results from people dealing with NGC's guarantee.

 

Perhaps in the future if there is some sort of independent oversight/reporting on these companies, they might publish statistics on the number of guarantee claims and how they were resolved. This might go a long way in providing clarity on the issue across companies. Imagine how useful that would be! Knowing that 2% of a company's coins graded were reviewed under the guarantee, and of that, 5% were adjusted pursuant to the guarantee terms, would be useful when comparing to another company where 20% of the coins graded were reviewed and 1% were adjusted.

[TonerGuy]

Perhaps in the future if there is some sort of independent oversight/reporting on these companies, they might publish statistics on the number of guarantee claims and how they were resolved. This might go a long way in providing clarity on the issue across companies. Imagine how useful that would be! Knowing that 2% of a company's coins graded were reviewed under the guarantee, and of that, 5% were adjusted pursuant to the guarantee terms, would be useful when comparing to another company where 20% of the coins graded were reviewed and 1% were adjusted]

 

jtryka -- Not often he we seen eye-to-eye, but this is just an excellent idea! This stats need to be revealed and reported. I believe that each company should indicate what their policies are precisely. And this isn't aimed just @ PCGS. NGC, ICG & ANACS should all follow suit.

 

Excellent post! And thank you for providing a new idea and a fresh way to look at this problem!

 

Michael