Is NGC on the hook for this? The auctioneer? Or me?

[jtryka]

5. After this (and other) problem purchases, I feel that it is unwise for me to purchase Heritage auction coins unless I have the ability to see the coin in person or have a trusted representative see the coin.

 

I have never had a problem with Heritage, and it might be an overreaction to blame this problem on them entirely. To be sure, they bear some responsibility, but in my mind, NGC bears more. I don't know what other problems you've had with Heritage, but it seems to me they shouldn't be held solely responsible for this one.

[IrishMike]

If this was such a recognizable variety and the TPG grading company should have caught it, why did the buyer not catch it?

 

If I were in the market for a coin and I knew about the varieties attributed for that date, bought the coin and found out months later it was an overdate, I'd just shut up about it and take responsibility, but hey that's just me.

[DirtyGoldMan]

Re: Heritage:

 

I have never had a problem, per se, the coins that I have purchased sight unseen from their auctions have generally been low-end for the grade. Their photography has not done a consistently good job in characterizing their coins. I would gladly buy from Heritage on a sight-seen basis, or if a respected third party has seen and approved the coin.

 

Re:

If this was such a recognizable variety and the TPG grading company should have caught it, why did the buyer not catch it?

 

It actually is not easily recognized. It is not an obvious overdate. It was sold to me by a numismatic expert (Heritage) who was also fooled by the variety. Frankly, at the time, I was unaware of the variety distinction of that issue. Perhaps not a great analogy, but if a jeweler sold a diamond which was certified to have certain characteristics (color, clarity, etc), and it turned out that the diamond had other characteristics that made it less valuable, is the customer then stuck with the less valuable diamond? Is it the customer's responsibility to be the expert in recognizing the all of the diagnostic characterisics of the diamond?

[IrishMike]

No its not the customer's responsibility, all of the time, every time. I was responding to your question in the title and wondering why suddenly it has become an obvious variety to some and not the buyer. Nothing personal was meant. If it was so obvious to some that it should have been noted on the holder, then why did so many miss it, including the TPG, the seller and the buyer? I don't collect gold but whenever I buy copper I start looking immediately for any vairety. Maybe its different in the world of gold collectors.

 

Sorry if I seemed crabby, just spent a week in Vegas and as usual United made the trip interesting.

[Wihlborg]

At the risk of being considered a NGC cool aid drinker, I have to say that I do not think NGC bares any responsibility for an error such as this. As has been stated, in the case of this coin the variety is not easily recognized.

 

NGC offers a number of grading services, one of which is VarietyPlus. NGC describes this service as so, quote ‘Upon request, NGC examines coins for recognized varieties and certifies with applicable designation’ end quote.

 

I feel the real issue here is how the coin was originally submitted to NGC for grading. The coin was most likely submitted as an 1846-O under one of the regular grading tiers (not the VarietyPlus service) by someone who did not know that the coin was a variety.

 

If this were the case there would be no reason for NGC to have checked if the coin was a variety as the submitter did not request that extra service, and by all accounts without carefully checking, the coin does indeed look like a normal 1846-O.

 

On the other hand, if it were found that the coin was originally submitted under the VarietyPlus service, than I do indeed believe that NGC bares full responsibility.

 

However, in my mind it is much more likely that the coin was not submitted under the VarietyPlus service originally. With all that being said I believe that in a case like this responsibility falls to the seller.

 

BTW, I would feel the same if this were a PCGS graded coin.

 

John

[Tradedollarnut]

If I were a submittor, and I submitted a bunch of Merc dimes, Buff nickels and SLQ quarters under the regular service, I'd be pretty darn torqued off if the overdates came back as regular dates because I didn't submit them under the variety service!

 

It just goes to show what I've been saying all along - that the two top grading services are more alike than not.

[Wihlborg]

If I were a submittor, and I submitted a bunch of Merc dimes, Buff nickels and SLQ quarters under the regular service, I'd be pretty darn torqued off if the overdates came back as regular dates because I didn't submit them under the variety service!

 

 

TDN,

 

I own two variety coins where the variety is not easily visible to the naked eye. One is a 1874 over 3 gold 10 kronor from Sweden, and the other is a 1955 triple die reverse proof Jefferson nickel. Both of these coins require 7x – 10x magnification to be able to see the variety clearly.

 

If I submitted these coins to either of the top two grading services under a regular grading tier and did not ask for them to be checked for a variety, I would not be upset with the grading service if they came back without the variety listed on the label. If they happened to notice the variety and list it, GREAT! THANKS for catching MY mistake, but should I EXPECT a company to take the extra time to check for something that I did not ask for, or pay for, and my not be there?

 

I just don’t see how a grading company should be held responsible for not doing something that was not requested in the first place and cannot be easily seen with the naked eye. If a submitter feels they may need this extra service, ask for it. Then if the grading company gets it wrong THEY are responsible.

 

John

[jom]

What does all this boil down to?

 

1) If you are an expert in a certain series YOU should be responsible for asking for the attribution. Especially one that is not obvious.

 

2) If the coin comes back with the wrong attribution just send the coin back and have them do it right for free or whatever is agreeable.

 

3) ..and for the love of GOD, do not buy coins sight unseen! C'mon people...regardless of whether it's Hertitage or any other auction house or dealer NO picture in a catalog or on the internet will tell you about the coin. If you have to get a coin sight unseen make sure there is a RETURN POLICY! That way you'll actually see it before you commit to buying. No return policy, No buy. PERIOD.

 

jom

[EVillageProwler]

Quick question: how can the var be worth less than the non-var, and are we sure about the pricing? Doesn't seem right to me...

 

EVP

[Wihlborg]

Quick question: how can the var be worth less than the non-var, and are we sure about the pricing? Doesn't seem right to me...

 

EVP,

 

I thought the same thing, so I took a quick look at the 2004 red book before my first post on this subject. The red book shows both varieties valued the same for all grade levels listed. I do not however have access to any other price lists at this time.

 

John

[Tradedollarnut]

I own two variety coins where the variety is not easily visible to the naked eye. One is a 1874 over 3 gold 10 kronor from Sweden, and the other is a 1955 triple die reverse proof Jefferson nickel. Both of these coins require 7x – 10x magnification to be able to see the variety clearly.

 

That's a far cry from missing a Redbook included overdate.

 

EVP - I agree with you that the pricing seems suspicious. Read my post on the first page.

[EVillageProwler]

This is something it seems that PCGS would get ripped to shreads for on this (and the other) board.

 

Another thought I've had on this is that this place either is or seems different than across the street in the following ways:

 

- fewer participants

- more veterans

- greater %-age of cerebral discourse

- more opportunity for reflection

- less of a mob effect

 

I do not, of course, make any implication regarding any causal linkages among the above comments.

 

EVP

[Wihlborg]

That's a far cry from missing a Redbook included overdate.

 

Well, the 10 kronor is not a U.S. coin so it would not be listed in the red book, but the 1955 triple die reverse proof Jefferson nickel while not listed in the red book is listed in the cherrypicker’s guide. Never the less, the point remains the same, why should I hold a grading company responsible for not doing something that I did not request them to do and did not pay for?

 

This is different than asking to have a variety or a pedigree checked and the grading company getting it wrong. In that case you paid for an expert opinion and the grading company did not do their job correctly.

 

I know that if I, as a collector buy or own any coin for which there are varieties listed I check the coin to see if it my be one of the listed varieties. If I am not sure it is one of the listed varieties, or I want the variety listed on the holders label, I have the option of sending it into one of the grading companies to be checked for the variety if it is that important to me.

 

John

[Tradedollarnut]

Never the less, the point remains the same, why should I hold a grading company responsible for not doing something that I did not request them to do and did not pay for?

 

 

Hmmmm. If that's the case, I think I can make a small fortune by buying up all the 46/5's and resubmitting them to NGC to get them holdered as normal 46's!

[Leothelion]

Never the less, the point remains the same, why should I hold a grading company responsible for not doing something that I did not request them to do and did not pay for?

 

 

Hmmmm. If that's the case, I think I can make a small fortune by buying up all the 46/5's and resubmitting them to NGC to get them holdered as normal 46's!

 

 

Leo

[DirtyGoldMan]

Quick question: how can the var be worth less than the non-var, and are we sure about the pricing? Doesn't seem right to me...

 

I have the April 2004 Trends open, and here is the pricing for 40/45/50:

46-O: $700/2400/4800

46/5-O: $1050/1550/3100

 

Additional commentary:

I suspect many of these were graded and slabbed as 46-O before the 46/5-O was recognized as a variety. This is pure speculation.

 

Unlike some varieties (VAMs come to mind), this coin has a unique identifier number. PCGS and NGC both consider it part of their service to put the coin appropriate holder even if the submitter makes an error. For example, if I submit a 1912 Liberty nickel and accidently submit it as a 1913 Liberty nickel, both services will correct my mistake for me and put the coin in the appropriate holder.

 

Robert

[Wihlborg]

Hmmmm. If that's the case, I think I can make a small fortune by buying up all the 46/5's and resubmitting them to NGC to get them holdered as normal 46's!

 

True, but than you as the seller would be responsible for any claims by the buyers when they receive the coins and realize that they were misattributed and not the variety you claimed them to be when you sold them.

 

John

[Tradedollarnut]

Sorry, but you're wrong. Since NGC recognizes this as a separate coin, they would be negligent to let me get away with it.

 

Unlike some varieties (VAMs come to mind), this coin has a unique identifier number. PCGS and NGC both consider it part of their service to put the coin appropriate holder even if the submitter makes an error. For example, if I submit a 1912 Liberty nickel and accidently submit it as a 1913 Liberty nickel, both services will correct my mistake for me and put the coin in the appropriate holder.

 

This makes the point exactly. Despite your efforts to obfuscate the issue with examples of varieties available only under a different submission tier, the truth is that the coin was holdered as the wrong coin. And financial liability for such was denied by NGC. That's fine... but next time PCGS does it just don't be howling with the pack!

[Wihlborg]

Since NGC recognizes this as a separate coin, they would be negligent to let me get away with it.

 

Despite your efforts to obfuscate the issue with examples of varieties available only under a different submission tier, the truth is that the coin was holdered as the wrong coin. And financial liability for such was denied by NGC. That's fine... but next time PCGS does it just don't be howling with the pack!

 

TDN,

 

I don’t know if NGC recognizes the coin separately or not, but the situation is not the same as submitting a 1912 nickel and accidentally listing it as a 1913 nickel on the submission form. I also am not trying to ‘obfuscate’ the issue. I stated my thoughts on the matter. You replied with yours. We disagree, there is nothing more to it than that. Also just for the record, as I stated in my original post, I would feel the same about this issue if the coin were in a PCGS holder. When an issue such as this comes up my posts are based upon what I feel is right, not on what holder the coin is housed in!

 

John

[Tradedollarnut]

Sounds good!

[Wihlborg]

So, we are still friends?

 

John

[Tradedollarnut]

[EVillageProwler]

[EZ_E]

I believe that the structure and operation of third party grading services are largely responsible. The only way a grader can make a decent wage is through quantity. This encourages the grader to spend a minimum amount of time grading most coins, which, understandably, can allow some more obscure varieties to slip past. I feel that the remedy to this problem is to salary the grader and add more of them to the staff, even to the detriment of profit.

[DaveG]

Just in case anyone's interested in the 1846/5-O eagle, Doug Winter says that the "normal" date is rarer than the "overdate" especially in higher circulated grades.

 

Also, there's some difference of opinion as to whether the "overdate" really is a "6" over a "5", since the presumed "knob" of the "5" that is visible in the loop of the "6" isn't in the right position to actually be a "knob"!

[Leothelion]

I just don't see it!

 

Leo

[EVillageProwler]

DaveG, et al,

 

Oftentimes, the overdate (or, RPD) is merely an earlier die state of the perfect date. Take the 1859S $1 as an example. Breen lists two "varieties" of it: RPD and perfect date.

 

In actuality, it is agreed upon by most experts that the RPD characteristics disappeared after repeated strikings of the obverse die, and thus became the perfect date.

 

For this date, the RPD details took a while to disappear. Therefore, RPD specimens are far more commonplace.

 

As for the value of the perfect date "variety", there is no two-way secondary market to support it. Most people don't care or even realize. So, no premium attached.

 

I know that the 1859S $1 isn't a perfect metaphor for the RPD Eagle in question. But, there are similarities.

 

Regards,

 

EVP

[DaveG]

Actually, I'm glad you asked!

 

The 1846/5-O eagle is one of the few O-mint eagle varieties and is the only other one recognized by the Red Book (besides the 1854-O large and small date varieties).

 

Doug Winter, in his 1992 book, says there are actually four varieties of the 1846-O eagle: 1) Normal Date and Stars; 2) Normal Date, Thin Stars; 3) First Overdate (the coin in question, where the knob of the 5 shows in the loop of the 6); and, 4) Second Overdate (the curve of a 5 can be seen within the loop of the 6 and part of the 5 can be seen to the right of the 6).

 

The coin illustrated above, from the Bass collection does not appear to be the First Overdate; it might be the second.

 

Personally, I've only ever seen two 1846-O eagles, both of which were the first overdate.

 

As far as pricing goes, Trends does show a price difference, although the Grey Sheet doesn't; the coins I've seen offered reflect the Trends differential.

 

As far as anyone caring - those who collect O-mint gold are a pretty small group!