The PCGS lawsuit against coin doctors was thrown out, so did their failure....

[James_OldeTowne]

.... ultimately weaken, or strengthen, the position of coin doctors? I assume that most reasonable people knew it was a frivolous lawsuit that PCGS was unlikely to win, whether or not one agrees with the actions of coin doctors.

 

Now, coin doctors can basically proceed with even less fear of reprisal than in the past. They can get proxy submitters to send in their coins, and feel pretty well insulated from threats of lawsuit or other legal action against them.

 

Personally, I thought the lawsuit was a poor idea from the get-go. There simply is absolutely nothing illegal about doctoring coins. And contracts like the one PCGS had submitters sign ("thou shalt not knowingly submit doctored coins") are terribly weak at best.

[HiHoAudio]

Coin doctors prey on new collectors and those are the people who will be hurt the most. And with matters such as this, once bitten, twice shy.

 

Personally, I say off with their heads!

 

Too extreme?

[Coinsman63]

While I will agree there is nothing illegal for anyone to "doctor" up coins, as there are so many eBay auctions containing such specimens, I will state that it is unethical.

 

As mentioned by HiHo, new/young numismatists starting out in collecting will be the ones getting burned by these individuals. This has been a long respected hobby with the majority of collectors maintaining high standards of respect and reputation.

 

I feel as though it is our responsibility to maintain numismatics for future generations as a highly respected hobby, and pass on the ethical, and reputable aspects of this hobby to the newcomers to numismatics.

 

 

[okbustchaser]

While I will agree there is nothing illegal for anyone to "doctor" up coins, as there are so many eBay auctions containing such specimens, I will state that it is unethical.

 

As mentioned by HiHo, new/young numismatists starting out in collecting will be the ones getting burned by these individuals. This has been a long respected hobby with the majority of collectors maintaining high standards of respect and reputation.

 

I feel as though it is our responsibility to maintain numismatics for future generations as a highly respected hobby, and pass on the ethical, and reputable aspects of this hobby to the newcomers to numismatics.

 

 

, this has NEVER been a hobby with "high standards of respect and reputation." Collectors and dealers both have been ripping off the uneducated since the days of the Roman empire.

 

As for coin doctors targeting new collectors...the defendants in the PCGS case don't. There isn't enough money involved in "beginner" coins to make it worth their time. They work on turning 5 figure coins into 6 figure ones (or more). And if any collector (new or otherwise) is buying 5 to 6 figure coins then he had better be able to depend on a TPG's ability to combat the doctors.

[James_OldeTowne]

new/young numismatists starting out in collecting will be the ones getting burned by these individuals

I submit that in the context of this lawsuit, those getting burned are not even remotely "numismatists starting out", but rather, it is PCGS. And quite the opposite, PCGS allegedly has long, innumerable decades of numismatic experience, and should not be fooled by doctored coins.

[Keigwin]

It's my understanding that the lawsuit isn't dead. There was a jurisdictional issue and will be handled by another court.

 

The doctors in question violated written agreements with PCGS. You can argue all day about whether experts should be held liable for being fooled by doctors. But breach of contract is the heart of the suit.

Lance.

[gmarguli]

I'm not sure it did anything to the coin doctors other than give them some publicity. Buyers will forget about these people very quickly, but those that need some hairlines lasered off a coin will remember them.

 

I thought the lawsuit was an awful idea from the start. All a TPG has is its reputation and PCGS publicly admitted they were not expert enough to catch coin doctors and even worse, they posted some images (the worked SLQ that turned in the holder) that made them look like amateurs. Awful decision!! Whoever decided to file this suit really needs to take a refresher course at a business college. It had the potential for very little good to come from it and the likelihood of a whole lot of bad. Just an awful decision.

 

I never expected them to win the suit considering they would have to admit in court that they slab doctored (dipped) coins knowing full well they are doctored and even worse, they themselves doctor (dip) coins to remove issues. No way a common person on the jury would be able to understand the difference between doctoring methods and acceptability.

[robec1347]

So, since the coin doctors can't be sued successfully and it's not illegal to doctor coins, is it still slanderous to "out" a known coin doctor?

[MarkFeld]

The thread title is misleading, as the lawsuit was thrown out of federal court, but portions of it can be refiled in state court.

 

And I disagree about your characterization of it as frivolous. I believe that PCGS has an excellent chance of winning, based on breach of contract.

[mike169]

.... ultimately weaken, or strengthen, the position of coin doctors? I assume that most reasonable people knew it was a frivolous lawsuit that PCGS was unlikely to win, whether or not one agrees with the actions of coin doctors.

 

Now, coin doctors can basically proceed with even less fear of reprisal than in the past. They can get proxy submitters to send in their coins, and feel pretty well insulated from threats of lawsuit or other legal action against them.

 

Personally, I thought the lawsuit was a poor idea from the get-go. There simply is absolutely nothing illegal about doctoring coins. And contracts like the one PCGS had submitters sign ("thou shalt not knowingly submit doctored coins") are terribly weak at best.

 

Whether there is anything illegal about doctoring coins, the suit was not a criminal one, so legality has little to do with the merits of the case.

 

I agree, though, with the rest of your statement. Furthermore, I agree with those who state that it is essentially the TPG's responsibility to assure the quality of their products. If they cannot detect coin doctoring, then perhaps they should remove their guarantees to their customers.

[michael]

pcgs created a monster and now it is hard to contain

[coinman_23885]

It's my understanding that the lawsuit isn't dead. There was a jurisdictional issue and will be handled by another court.

 

The doctors in question violated written agreements with PCGS. You can argue all day about whether experts should be held liable for being fooled by doctors. But breach of contract is the heart of the suit.

Lance.

 

This makes a lot more sense. Without the agreements, I was wondering how breach of contract was discussed as a cause of action.

[coinman_23885]

So, since the coin doctors can't be sued successfully and it's not illegal to doctor coins, is it still slanderous to "out" a known coin doctor?

 

Truth is a good defense.

[coinman_23885]

The thread title is misleading, as the lawsuit was thrown out of federal court, but portions of it can be refiled in state court.

 

And I disagree about your characterization of it as frivolous. I believe that PCGS has an excellent chance of winning, based on breach of contract.

 

I must confess that I haven't read the complaint, nor have I kept up with the suit, but why doesn't the case fall within diversity of citizenship jurisdiction? Surely , PCGS must be suing for more than $75k and I'm assuming that some of the doctors must have been out of state. Also, couldn't it have been filed as a class action suit with NGC as a co-plaintiff, invoking federal jurisdiction?

[DC Dawg]

Does anyone have the real facts on this or a pointer to the court filing? Was it dismissed with prejudice or is there an opening to refile again making technical changes to the pleading? It makes a difference if the case was dismissed on merits or was dismissed because it the court felt it was not the proper jurisdiction for the complaint. The discussion makes it sound like both are the case, and that is not possible. Facts can be really helpful!

 

Scott

[MarkFeld]

Does anyone have the real facts on this or a pointer to the court filing? Was it dismissed with prejudice or is there an opening to refile again making technical changes to the pleading? It makes a difference if the case was dismissed on merits or was dismissed because it the court felt it was not the proper jurisdiction for the complaint. The discussion makes it sound like both are the case, and that is not possible. Facts can be really helpful!

 

Scott

Parts of the case were dismissed with prejudice, but others, without prejudice. Sorry, I don't have the filings to copy.

[rons]

1/3/11 Coin World has an article on the specifics. I just got the freebie in the mail yesterday. "A federal judge dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, but dismissed all state claims without prejudice, allowing CU the option of refiling the case in a California state court where state law could govern." I hope this helps a little

[DC Dawg]

Scott, it is possible to dismiss the action (or some counts if you will) in part without prejudice and to dismiss the action in other parts with prejudice. FYI - I know nothing about the case. Facts would be very helpful as would a copy of the complaint if someone would know where to acquire one without having to pay for it through the court's electronic filing system.

I know this. But there is a lot being said without the facts. Rather than virtually shoot PCGS, let's get the facts first.

 

Parts of the case were dismissed with prejudice, but others, without prejudice. Sorry, I don't have the filings to copy.

Mark... I agree with what you said previously. This is why I asked about the facts rather than reading the gross generalizations.

 

Scott

[James_OldeTowne]

Let me say that when I referred to "PCGS failure" in the title of the thread, I am referring to the failure to nail the coin doctors right off the bat. Of course, I recognize that things may well change going forward (though I personally believe that will not be the case).

[Oldtrader3]

It occurs to me that this suit is an admission by PCGS that they in fact, can not provide certification of coins as being undoctored. So then, the entire issue becomes a civil damages suit to recover that which they can not warrantee in any substantive way to their customers.

 

In other words PCGS is admitting that they can not protect themselves against loses through the actions of Coin Doctors, plus there is no basis for criminal action. Therefore, PCGS can only ask for damages to recover lost revenue from a warrantee that is rendered moot and in most cases never comes back even on PCGS.

 

How many times have I personally been caught in the web of deceit and deception at the underbelly of this hobby with Coin Doctors? More than I care to recount, enough to create painful awarness of how vulnerable we all are as collectors. Where I been suckered is a few times is by seemingly above-board dealers passing on their problem coins without honesty about what they are selling. These dealer's cred gets them by because I give them a pass by not looking closely enough, critically soon enough, because of their reputation. Shame on me, shame on thee!

[grade it-migration]

.

If they cannot detect coin doctoring, then perhaps they should remove their guarantees to their customers.

 

AMEN

[grade it-migration]

.... ultimately weaken, or strengthen, the position of coin doctors? I assume that most reasonable people knew it was a frivolous lawsuit that PCGS was unlikely to win, whether or not one agrees with the actions of coin doctors.

 

Now, coin doctors can basically proceed with even less fear of reprisal than in the past. They can get proxy submitters to send in their coins, and feel pretty well insulated from threats of lawsuit or other legal action against them.

 

Personally, I thought the lawsuit was a poor idea from the get-go. There simply is absolutely nothing illegal about doctoring coins. And contracts like the one PCGS had submitters sign ("thou shalt not knowingly submit doctored coins") are terribly weak at best.

 

The decision for the coin doctor lawsuit was rendered by the Federal Judge on 12/13/10

 

 

From 12/13/10 till 12/22/10....... 30,500 shares where sold or $427,000+ by Michael McConnell CEO

 

From that date 12/13/10 till 12/22/10 26,373 shares were sold or $373,912+ by Richard Kennith Duncan SR. Director of CU

 

There have been no shares traded by these two insiders or any insiders since 12/22/10...

 

 

 

[GoldFinger1969]

I was somewhat disappointed to see the posts berating PCGS....the increased sophistication and cutting-edge technology that the Coin Doctors employ are dishonest and hurt the entire industry. PCGS could drop their $$$ guarantee but they want to keep it for the honest collectors...and if they have to spend minutes checking each coin it impacts the fees they have to charge.

 

Imagine the revenue loss from having to spend 5x as much time per coin. No wonder the TPGs like doing newly - minted First Strikes and stuff like that...at least counterfeits and doctoring aren't something to slow you down.

[ldhair]

Did you notice how old this thread is?

[James_OldeTowne]

....the increased sophistication and cutting-edge technology that the Coin Doctors employ are dishonest and hurt the entire industry.

This is a sweeping statement which categorically dismisses the "good acts" (depending on one's point of view) that coin doctors carry out.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

....the increased sophistication and cutting-edge technology that the Coin Doctors employ are dishonest and hurt the entire industry.

This is a sweeping statement which categorically dismisses the "good acts" (depending on one's point of view) that coin doctors carry out.

 

By good acts, is this a nod to those coin doctors that have found a numismatic god, and want to repent and have shared their talents and methods with those that are trying to stop the dishonest practice?

 

Is it a nod to those that "restore" coins sent as a submittal for evaluation, in a manner that suggests acceptability and respectability, because it is not covert but overt, and the coin, after it has undergone a transformation is forwarded to a TPG, and thus the coin benefits from a level of numismatic respect, because of the method and pathway it was restored and submitted to the TPG?

 

Is it a nod to those that practice market acceptability retraint, while performing a restoration.....all for the greater good and historic survival of the coin?

 

Is it a nod to restoration specialists that save the coin from the sea/earth ravages and restore the coin to its natural original beauty so the coin can be sent to market with some greater level of respectability or acceptance?

 

"Good acts" is somewhat of a sweeping comment too, and categorically dismisses the fact that a restored coin is just that, a restored coin.

 

Lipstick on the pig?

[Nutmeg Coin]

Just curious if anyone here has had experience with Allan Stockton's "restoration" service? He has advertsed for years in The Numismatist and elsewhere.

[James_OldeTowne]

....the increased sophistication and cutting-edge technology that the Coin Doctors employ are dishonest and hurt the entire industry.

This is a sweeping statement which categorically dismisses the "good acts" (depending on one's point of view) that coin doctors carry out.

 

By good acts, is this a nod to those coin doctors that have found a numismatic god, and want to repent and have shared their talents and methods with those that are trying to stop the dishonest practice?

 

Is it a nod to those that "restore" coins sent as a submittal for evaluation, in a manner that suggests acceptability and respectability, because it is not covert but overt, and the coin, after it has undergone a transformation is forwarded to a TPG, and thus the coin benefits from a level of numismatic respect, because of the method and pathway it was restored and submitted to the TPG?

 

Is it a nod to those that practice market acceptability retraint, while performing a restoration.....all for the greater good and historic survival of the coin?

 

Is it a nod to restoration specialists that save the coin from the sea/earth ravages and restore the coin to its natural original beauty so the coin can be sent to market with some greater level of respectability or acceptance?

 

"Good acts" is somewhat of a sweeping comment too, and categorically dismisses the fact that a restored coin is just that, a restored coin.

 

Lipstick on the pig?

Nope. A simple reference to, for example, the millions upon millions of coins that have been doctored via coin dip, and considered "improved".

 

Mine was not a "sweeping statement" as I did not even allude to "the entire industry", or any other entire population.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

....the increased sophistication and cutting-edge technology that the Coin Doctors employ are dishonest and hurt the entire industry.

This is a sweeping statement which categorically dismisses the "good acts" (depending on one's point of view) that coin doctors carry out.

 

By good acts, is this a nod to those coin doctors that have found a numismatic god, and want to repent and have shared their talents and methods with those that are trying to stop the dishonest practice?

 

Is it a nod to those that "restore" coins sent as a submittal for evaluation, in a manner that suggests acceptability and respectability, because it is not covert but overt, and the coin, after it has undergone a transformation is forwarded to a TPG, and thus the coin benefits from a level of numismatic respect, because of the method and pathway it was restored and submitted to the TPG?

 

Is it a nod to those that practice market acceptability retraint, while performing a restoration.....all for the greater good and historic survival of the coin?

 

Is it a nod to restoration specialists that save the coin from the sea/earth ravages and restore the coin to its natural original beauty so the coin can be sent to market with some greater level of respectability or acceptance?

 

"Good acts" is somewhat of a sweeping comment too, and categorically dismisses the fact that a restored coin is just that, a restored coin.

 

Lipstick on the pig?

Nope. A simple reference to, for example, the millions upon millions of coins that have been doctored via coin dip, and considered "improved".

 

Mine was not a "sweeping statement" as I did not even allude to "the entire industry", or any other entire population.

 

Thanks.

 

Sometimes it is not what we say; it is the phrasing used.

 

Your phrasing, upon your clarification, identifies dipping as coin doctoring.

 

Agreed.

 

Good Acts and Coin Doctors used in, and identifying the act as good by coin doctors, is a sweeping statement.

 

Maybe dipping does improve, maybe it does not.

 

Dipping is a degree of coin doctoring that may or may not be acceptable, depending on individual opinion. It may or may not be an intention to deceive.

Yes, it is and was a sweeping statement.

[Kurtdog]

....the increased sophistication and cutting-edge technology that the Coin Doctors employ are dishonest and hurt the entire industry.

This is a sweeping statement which categorically dismisses the "good acts" (depending on one's point of view) that coin doctors carry out.

By good acts, is this a nod to those coin doctors that have found a numismatic god, and want to repent and have shared their talents and methods with those that are trying to stop the dishonest practice?

 

Is it a nod to those that "restore" coins sent as a submittal for evaluation, in a manner that suggests acceptability and respectability, because it is not covert but overt, and the coin, after it has undergone a transformation is forwarded to a TPG, and thus the coin benefits from a level of numismatic respect, because of the method and pathway it was restored and submitted to the TPG?

 

Is it a nod to those that practice market acceptability retraint, while performing a restoration.....all for the greater good and historic survival of the coin?

 

Is it a nod to restoration specialists that save the coin from the sea/earth ravages and restore the coin to its natural original beauty so the coin can be sent to market with some greater level of respectability or acceptance?

 

"Good acts" is somewhat of a sweeping comment too, and categorically dismisses the fact that a restored coin is just that, a restored coin.

Lipstick on the pig?

Nope. A simple reference to, for example, the millions upon millions of coins that have been doctored via coin dip, and considered "improved".

 

Mine was not a "sweeping statement" as I did not even allude to "the entire industry", or any other entire population.

James_EarlyUS, CU got dismissed-out for failure to serve any of the named defendants, it's as simple as that. They never had any intention of pulling the trigger on this one.