Should a TPG cancel a cert# not in there possession

[copper toning]

An interesting thread I was reading at another forum.

 

I was surprised that a TPG could or would cancel a cert with the coin still out among the public.

 

I rarely check cert#s, could be a good reason to.

 

Has anyone heard of this happening before?

 

Do you know of any good reasons for this to happen?

 

Link

 

http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=162108

 

Jim

[KeeNoooo]

Wow. This thought me to declare the correct amount on my submissions! Geeez.

[Keigwin]

No. Canceling cert#'s for coins not in a TPG's possession is practically unheard of.

 

This is an unusual situation, however. It involves a customer very angry over damage to a coin.

 

PCGS followed the terms of their submission agreement and offered a payment equal to the insured value cited ($15). The dealer who submitted the coin lowballed the value to save on insurance.

 

Photos, email and phone calls were exchanged. PCGS realized the coin was inappropriately graded and also that the customer was ticked off enough to maybe play a game. Such as selling or giving it to someone who might then submit it to PCGS under their grade guarantee and get a much bigger (and inappropriate) buy-back offer.

 

To eliminate this possibility they cancelled the cert#. Pretty smart, really.

 

It's a sorry situation, though. Coin gets damaged, buyer gets screwed. He should settle with the lowlife dealer.

Lance.

 

 

[e1cnr]

how do you know the cert number is cancelled? did the guy complaining ever show the entire slab or truview? 1 sided stories are just that without facts.

[brg5658]

IMO, all the more reason to send your world coins to NGC. Most non-USA collectors prefer their coins in NGC plastic anyway (actually, most prefer raw coins -- but if they must be entombed, NGC is far and away the front-runner for respected world coin grading).

 

With regard to the cancelling of the cert #, I think that's a short-sighted knee-jerk reaction on PCGS' part. The "bad press" from this debacle far outweighs what could have been a $300-$400 check sent to this guy. Seriously, that's like chump change for PCGS.

 

 

[rainbow roosie]

If this is true, the dealer who wrote the slip is an insufficiently_thoughtful_person. I'm shocked that the damaged (visibly) coin is in a PCGS holder? Major mistake unless the holder says genuine.

[robec1347]

That was pretty fast work on PCGS's part.

 

I sent in some certs from regrades months ago and they still haven't deducted them from their population.

[rainbow roosie]

Cool, I just used a different word and NGCs program corrected it to insufficiently thoughtful person...too funny!,,,,

[copper toning]

how do you know the cert number is cancelled? did the guy complaining ever show the entire slab or truview? 1 sided stories are just that without facts.

 

That is a very good point. I got caught up in reading all the posts and failed to realize that he has not post a full obverse pic.

 

I have made a post requesting the holder be shown.

 

If the OP can not or will not produce them this would make much more sense to me.

 

I can not imagine a cert being canceled like this. If it were a mega coin it could cause a major lawsuit if it were sold in an authentic holder.

 

Sorry I missed that

 

Jim

[copper toning]

Is there any way to know for sure the pic posted was in fact a true view?

 

If so are the done and posted after grading?

[$ilverHawk]

No. Canceling cert#'s for coins not in a TPG's possession is practically unheard of.

 

This is an unusual situation, however. It involves a customer very angry over damage to a coin.

 

PCGS followed the terms of their submission agreement and offered a payment equal to the insured value cited ($15). The dealer who submitted the coin lowballed the value to save on insurance.

 

Photos, email and phone calls were exchanged. PCGS realized the coin was inappropriately graded and also that the customer was ticked off enough to maybe play a game. Such as selling or giving it to someone who might then submit it to PCGS under their grade guarantee and get a much bigger (and inappropriate) buy-back offer.

 

To eliminate this possibility they cancelled the cert#. Pretty smart, really.

 

It's a sorry situation, though. Coin gets damaged, buyer gets screwed. He should settle with the lowlife dealer.

Lance.

 

 

I agree on several points. PCGS was well within their rights, per their submission guidelines, to offer the insured value to the owner/submitter. The owner should go after the submitter for claiming a low value on the coin.

 

However, your scenario that rationalizes PCGS canceling the certification does not take into account that PCGS damaged the coin and a PCGS dealer/submitter chose to "low ball" the value of the coin to minimize submission charges. PCGS has a large network of dealer/submitters. If any of those dealer/submitters are not acting in the best interests of coin collectors/submitters, it is incumbent on PCGS to police their dealer network.

 

I don't agree that this was a smart move by PCGS. If the owner of this coin is very savvy, then he should present this scenario to the world coin collecting fraternity. I believe that would be a red flag and would adversely effect world coin submissions to PCGS.

 

Something like this, "I gave my coin to a sanctioned PCGS dealer and upon submission, he undervalued my coin. PCGS damaged my coin and will not acknowledge the damage. Now they want to pay me for the damaged value of my coin."

 

IMHO, the coins owner has a very strong legal argument against the dealer/submitter and perhaps PCGS.

 

Carl.

[bstrauss3]

how do you know the cert number is cancelled?

 

Allow me, since I'm the one who posted it. There were sufficient details - a sufficiently rare world coin - to match up the population report which then showed the certificate number and no longer does. I'm pretty sure I have a .pdf print of the original page if I can figure out which machine I was on (sad story).

 

 

did the guy complaining ever show the entire slab or truview?

 

No!

 

However, the OP on that other board posted part of the slab - the diagnostics were spot on (other than the damage) so he's either made the whole thing up or... and there's no other reason I can come up with why the cert would be cancelled in this exact timeframe.

 

1 sided stories are just that without facts.

 

Too true. There were sufficient 'facts' posted to identify with reasonable probability the dealer who was involved. NOT a fly-by-night operation, btw, a well known and serious individual in that part of the world. I invited him to show up and tell his side, but haven't heard back. Probably smart on his part not to get involved in he-said he-said....

 

-----Burton

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Photos, email and phone calls were exchanged. PCGS realized the coin was inappropriately graded and also that the customer was ticked off enough to maybe play a game. Such as selling or giving it to someone who might then submit it to PCGS under their grade guarantee and get a much bigger (and inappropriate) buy-back offer.

 

To eliminate this possibility they cancelled the cert#. Pretty smart, really.

 

 

EDITED TO ADD: It has been brought to my attention that my initial post was based on the incorrect assumption that PCGS had no specific provision requiring the return of damaged coins. Since it does and I overlooked it, PCGS is off the hook for any damages in excess of $15 and any liability would seemingly rest with the dealer. With this said, I'm not sure that it is good for business if there is evidence that PCGS did damage the coin and if the collector had no knowledge of the dealer's wrongdoing even if there is no legal obligation on PCGS's part.

 

 

 

 

In my view, canceling the certification record is tantamount to revoking its certification status and the underlying PCGS guarantee. If this is the case, I don't see it as a smart move so much as I see it as a completely inappropriate one especially given that PCGS is breaching its contractual duties to the collector who is a third party beneficiary to the contract between PCGS and the dealer (i.e. once the coin has been certified and PCGS has accepted the fee, a contract is formed and the PCGS guarantee applies under the terms of the contract). PCGS cannot and should not be allowed to unilaterally revoke its guarantee (which attaches to the coin) and rescind the contract after the fact. If the collector wishes to sell the coin, he or she is free to do so, and the PCGS guarantee should still attach. Any subsequent owner should be able to submit the coin under the guarantee even if it means circumventing the declared value issue. A failure to do so constitutes a breach of contract (and the collector should have standing as a third party beneficiary to enforce the contract) at least, and also potentially tortious.

 

Now on to the declared value issue; I don't blame PCGS on this one point. It's common sense that you cannot receive more than you ask for, and per the plain terms of the form, PCGS owes you nothing more than you (or your agent/dealer) claims it is worth. Liability on this point would seemingly lie with the dealer.

[bstrauss3]

"I gave my coin to a sanctioned PCGS dealer and upon submission, he undervalued my coin. PCGS damaged my coin and will not acknowledge the damage. Now they want to pay me for the damaged value of my coin."

 

The coin, and the guarantee which attaches thereto, belong to the collector who should be able to sell the coin and the attached guarantee if he wishes.

 

I would suggest you read the submission contract more carefully... Sections 5, 10 and 12 for a start.

 

In 5 the customer agrees to promptly return any coins with damange or errors in description.

 

In 10 - in ALL CAPS - the customer agrees to the total liability.

 

In 12 the dealer submitting the coins warrants that the customer has signed this agreement.

 

In 14, the dealer cannot make different promises to the customer.

 

What's interesting is there's nothing in there about licensing the PCGS logo, name, etc. to the collector - so arguably you cannot use them to sell the coin w/o permission (may be why many auction houses cover the hologram), but equally PCGS doesn't seem to own what you do with the slab either...

 

http://www.pcgs.com/submissionform/usaform2013.pdf

 

 

[e1cnr]

welcome to the boards BStrauss3

 

->Allow me, since I'm the one who posted it. There were sufficient details - a sufficiently rare world coin - to match up the population report which then showed the certificate number and no longer does. I'm pretty sure I have a .pdf print of the original page if I can figure out which machine I was on (sad story).

 

 

 

Who are you and where did you post it? PCGS does not post certificate numbers in their population report that I know of. The cropped tru-view has year/mo/date for file name. The PCGS poulation reports change all the time for errors / regrades / buy-backs.

 

I am still leaning towards bs unless I see entire truview with cert number or front of slab. I do agree that the pic before and in slab are the same coin, although possibly an unnoticed lamination or sandwich flap that flipped up inserting into insert.

[copper toning]

The OP posted a pic of the holder

 

http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/uploaded/serial/20131118_pic5b.jpg

[brg5658]

The partial image posted on the other website doesn't look like a TrueView to me. It looks like a CoinFacts image to me since there is no PCGS "background".

 

PCGS images coins that are submitted for grading that are not already pictured in their CoinFacts website at no charge to the submitter (but as far as I know, also without asking for the owners permission). In other words, if you submit a very scarce high grade coin, PCGS will image it without asking the owner of the coin (in the same quality as a TrueView image -- but TrueView service is a paid service initiated by the submitter). They will use this image in their online, paid subscription CoinFacts website as the example that others may view of the coin.

 

The quality of TrueView and CoinFacts images are the same, but one is a paid service by the submitter, the other is something PCGS does without asking permission to enhance their online (for-profit) website.

 

...

...

In the meantime, the owner posted slab pics on the other forum.

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

"I gave my coin to a sanctioned PCGS dealer and upon submission, he undervalued my coin. PCGS damaged my coin and will not acknowledge the damage. Now they want to pay me for the damaged value of my coin."

 

I would suggest you read the submission contract more carefully... Sections 5, 10 and 12 for a start.

 

In 5 the customer agrees to promptly return any coins with damange or errors in description...

 

 

What's interesting is there's nothing in there about licensing the PCGS logo, name, etc. to the collector - so arguably you cannot use them to sell the coin w/o permission (may be why many auction houses cover the hologram), but equally PCGS doesn't seem to own what you do with the slab either...

 

http://www.pcgs.com/submissionform/usaform2013.pdf

 

 

PCGS would have granted those rights in the last paragraph by slabbing/releasing the coin even if only implicitly.

 

In any event, you are correct about Section 5 which I didn't see. It looks like any potential liability would lie with the dealer.

[brg5658]

And....they did remove the cert number from their database, but they didn't remove the picture from the CoinFacts image database! It is clearly the same coin as in the slab, but at the time that PCGS photographed the coin it also clearly does not have the damage at 7-9 o'clock that is on the coin in the slab.

 

PCGS' own photographic evidence proves that THEY are responsible for the damage to the coin sometime between photography and slabbing...

 

http://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/28316473_large.jpg

 

[michael]

oh my

 

my my my my my my my my my my my my my my my my my

[e1cnr]

okay I see it now

[copper toning]

In my opinion if PCGS was acting with in their contractual rights then so be it.

 

However a situation like this should cause enough backlash that they may want to rethink their position.

 

Especially in a foreign market they should be wanting to make ground in.

 

I see the OP has posted this in the PCGS foreign coin section. It will be interesting to see the views ATS. If they do not nuke it.

[brg5658]

In my opinion if PCGS was acting with in their contractual rights then so be it.

 

However a situation like this should cause enough backlash that they may want to rethink their position.

 

Especially in a foreign market they should be wanting to make ground in.

 

I see the OP has posted this in the PCGS foreign coin section. It will be interesting to see the views ATS. If they do not nuke it.

 

Not only will it probably be nuked, the poor soul will probably be banned ...

 

[copper toning]

one post and gone. Not really funny.

 

If he posted in the us coin forum it would already be gone.

[stldanceartist]

Yeesh.

 

It feels like this should be a common-sense, make sure the paperwork fixes this error for future submitters, kind of situation for PCGS...

 

On the one hand, it seems plain to me that damage to this coin occurred sometime after grading and imaging...but during/before being encapsulated...either way, it was in PCGS' hands. And they published a photo of the undamaged coin online, which proves that they had it in pristine condition. And now the slab proves that PCGS damaged it in-house...

 

Having not scrutinized the PCGS submission form, I can't say what context they used to send the OP a $15 offer of compensation...but I've always wondered how exactly I'm supposed to put a value on a coin like a rare variety that might not have any published sale records...like a First Reported slab. What price would I put on that? How would I prove it's worth that if it came down to it in a case like this?

 

If I were PCGS customer service, I would have found a number that the customer was happy with, gotten an OK from a manager, and settled the issue right there. I would want the coin/slab back, though...and I would find out who did that to that coin and take it out of their paycheck for not telling a supervisor what happened. That employee who damaged the coin doesn't deserve to be fired, but their actions are resulting in what could be a nice hit to PCGS' reputation...and how much is that worth? This would be something I would think needs to be addressed by a supervisor at PCGS...

 

I would do nothing less as the owner of the company. If you make a mistake, own up to it BEFORE it causes a bigger issue. And now it's caused a bigger issue.

 

If I were the OP, my next call would be to nothing less than a supervisor at PCGS. If I wasn't absolutely thrilled with their response, my next call would be to a lawyer. And if I wasn't happy with that response (is a lawyer going to take a case with such a low possibility for a fee?) then I would start writing letters to the editor at every single coin magazine/newsletter/coin forum/coin sales website. I would make sure my case and arguments were well thought out, well supported, and devoid of irrational angry thoughts...because I want to be seen as a rational customer, not a crazy person trying to blame someone else for my problem.

 

Just because something is in writing doesn't mean it has to be followed. PCGS wrote their submission form - they did something wrong - they have the power to go outside their written guidelines to make sure one unhappy customer doesn't turn into 100 or 1,000 customers that send their coins to NGC or ANACS after reading this story.

 

Just my opinion...which is worth absolutely nothing...

 

 

 

[WoodenJefferson]

The OP in this situation could have PM'ed Don Willis or Homerun Hal and avoided going public...at least they would have looked into this situation to see if there was any resolve. Don travels to Hong Kong about every other month, I'm certain he or David would have made the international customer whole. But, it's still not too late.

[FishyOne]

The OP in this situation could have PM'ed Don Willis or Homerun Hal and avoided going public...at least they would have looked into this situation to see if there was any resolve. Don travels to Hong Kong about every other month, I'm certain he or David would have made the international customer whole. But, it's still not too late.

 

Bingo! And that's what I suggested several times in the CCF thread. Yeah it's the submitting dealer's fault but PCGS' reputation is hanging out there too.

[Conder101]

In my view, canceling the certification record is tantamount to revoking its certification status and the underlying PCGS guarantee. If this is the case, I don't see it as a smart move so much as I see it as a completely inappropriate one especially given that PCGS is breaching its contractual duties to the collector who is a third party beneficiary to the contract between PCGS and the dealer (i.e. once the coin has been certified and PCGS has accepted the fee, a contract is formed and the PCGS guarantee applies under the terms of the contract). PCGS cannot and should not be allowed to unilaterally revoke its guarantee (which attaches to the coin) and rescind the contract after the fact. If the collector wishes to sell the coin, he or she is free to do so, and the PCGS guarantee should still attach. Any subsequent owner should be able to submit the coin under the guarantee even if it means circumventing the declared value issue. A failure to do so constitutes a breach of contract (and the collector should have standing as a third party beneficiary to enforce the contract) at least, and also potentially tortious.

But when they made their $15 settlement offer they satisfied their guarantee obligations and had the right to cancel the cartification. They would probably still honor the $15 offer to either the submitting dealer or the coin owner, but they are protected from having a larger liability passed on to another owner. I see the cancelling of the certificate as perfectly reasonable.

 

Just because something is in writing doesn't mean it has to be followed. PCGS wrote their submission form - they did something wrong - they have the power to go outside their written guidelines to make sure one unhappy customer doesn't turn into 100 or 1,000 customers that send their coins to NGC or ANACS after reading this story.

But not following their written guidelines sets a precedent and opens them up to everyone declaring $15 values and trying for full value windfall settlements on any damage or grading errors.

[messydesk]

There's no doubt that the coin in the holder is a degraded version of the raw one pictured. What's not proven is when the damage occurred and how. One thing that strikes me odd is that the damaged area does not show shiny signs of "fresh trauma". It makes me wonder if the coin had a serious planchet flaw that broke, although the "before" picture doesn't show signs of it on the surface of the coin.

 

But not following their written guidelines sets a precedent and opens them up to everyone declaring $15 values and trying for full value windfall settlements on any damage or grading errors.

 

Yup. If you underdeclare values to try and save a buck on postage, there are consequences clearly spelled out on the submission form.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

What is the PMD issue?