Should a TPG cancel a cert# not in there possession

[CaptHenway]

Having worked for ANACS back when it was the only certification service around, I have a few observations.

 

Accidents happen. Once, when weighing a rather nice Denarius of Julius Caesar, it broke in two in my hand. Oh, sheboygan! A microscopic examination of the broken ends revealed an old crystalization flaw that may have been aggravated during shipping. Imagine the envelope getting bent in transit. Whatever. We contacted the submittor, explained what happened, and offered to reimburse him his $750 (reasonable at the time) declared value. He asked to see it before he decided, then sent it back and took the money. The coin, now carefully glued back together by a former Curator, is on display in the ANA Museum.

 

If the owner of the Travancore coin told the dealer to declare a value of $150 or $300 or whatever, and the dealer declared a value of $15 and pocketed the difference in fees, then the dealer owes the owner the difference between the owner's declared value and the $15 that PCGS is offering. Period. Morally the dealer also owes the collector a refund of his fees, since he did not do what the owner requested.

 

PCGS owes $15. Period.

 

TD

[e1cnr]

on the reverse of submission forms under PCGS GRADING TERMS & CONDITIONS item 4. says stuff and ends with IN NO EVENT SHALL THE TOTAL LIABILITY EXCEED THE DECLARED VALUE OF THE COIN.

 

I am not sure who filled out and signed the submission form, but the declared value seems low - to lower submission fees, to lower customs problems, to lower shipping insurance???

 

But the anger and lawyer should be directed in that direction, rather than PCGS.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Having worked for ANACS back when it was the only certification service around, I have a few observations.

 

Accidents happen. Once, when weighing a rather nice Denarius of Julius Caesar, it broke in two in my hand. Oh, sheboygan! A microscopic examination of the broken ends revealed an old crystalization flaw that may have been aggravated during shipping. Imagine the envelope getting bent in transit. Whatever. We contacted the submittor, explained what happened, and offered to reimburse him his $750 (reasonable at the time) declared value. He asked to see it before he decided, then sent it back and took the money. The coin, now carefully glued back together by a former Curator, is on display in the ANA Museum.

 

If the owner of the Travancore coin told the dealer to declare a value of $150 or $300 or whatever, and the dealer declared a value of $15 and pocketed the difference in fees, then the dealer owes the owner the difference between the owner's declared value and the $15 that PCGS is offering. Period. Morally the dealer also owes the collector a refund of his fees, since he did not do what the owner requested.

 

PCGS owes $15. Period.

 

TD

 

Lets turn this around a little, for fun.

 

Lets say the declared value was $5,000.00, and the same circumstances (damage) happened.

 

Would the TPG pay $5,000.00? I don't think so. The TPG would use the latest fair and equitable pricing available, and make an Offer of compensation.

 

The TPG position is that in no circumstance will the compensation be MORE than the declared value. It doesn't state it can not be LESS. While this is a business protection position, and there is nothing wrong with such a position, it is not a very good advertising position when there is a situation like the present unfortunate happening. It is obvious, I am sure, to the TPG that the coin is worth more than the Declared Value, and it is equally obvious to the TPG that a person will use a lesser value to save on shipping.

[messydesk]

Lets say the declared value was $5,000.00, and the same circumstances (damage) happened.

 

Would the TPG pay $5,000.00? I don't think so. The TPG would use the latest fair and equitable pricing available, and make an Offer of compensation.

That is consistent with what is shouted in the policy above.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Lets say the declared value was $5,000.00, and the same circumstances (damage) happened.

 

Would the TPG pay $5,000.00? I don't think so. The TPG would use the latest fair and equitable pricing available, and make an Offer of compensation.

That is consistent with what is shouted in the policy above.

 

Lets comment on my thoughts as a whole, not one sided consistency.

Would it not be consistent to use the same method of compensation when the coin value is declared as $15.00, when it is clearly worth more? This is not shouted in the policy. I am sure you know what my point is.

[nk1nk]

I think a situation like this is very rare for PCGS and I can't believe they wouldn't make it right, they wouldn't be setting any precedent, he ll no one would have ever known had they made it right. The declared value drives me nuts, PCGS is the expert that's why people send them their coins, how is the average joe supposed to know the value until PCGS gives it a a grade? It could have been fake. A sweet grandma could have bought it at a yard sale for 15 dollars and declared that as it's value. I agree with johncurlis, if you over declare they would pay a reasonable fair market value, if you under declare you should do the same. I own a small business and I understand the legal cover your side of it but if I make a blatant mistake you bet I will do whatever it takes to make it right. Shame on PCGS IMO.

 

Nick

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I think a situation like this is very rare for PCGS and I can't believe they wouldn't make it right, they wouldn't be setting any precedent, he ll no one would have ever known had they made it right. The declared value drives me nuts, PCGS is the expert that's why people send them their coins, how is the average joe supposed to know the value until PCGS gives it a a grade? It could have been fake. A sweet grandma could have bought it at a yard sale for 15 dollars and declared that as it's value. I agree with johncurlis, if you over declare they would pay a reasonable fair market value, if you under declare you should do the same. I own a small business and I understand the legal cover your side of it but if I make a blatant mistake you bet I will do whatever it takes to make it right. Shame on PCGS IMO.

 

Nick

 

Yes, and I am not stating the TPG will not act in good faith and do so fairly and equitably.

 

I am simply calling attention to the problem, in answer to those that consider the TPG is completely correct to refund only $15.00, because that is the printed rule, and too bad for the person that had a coin submitted with a very deflated value.

 

Reliance on the stated policy would not hold up very well, if challenged, in a situation where the coin is worth thousands (I only use such an amount to illustrate that a coin would have to be worth thousands to file a legal challenge. It is not worth doing so for a few hundred).

 

What can happen to one person, can happen to another, and you are correct, there is not a precedent at stake here. Fairness and equity and perception of same by the numismatic community is what is at stake.

 

When we say too bad for the other person, and forget the real issue of what is the right thing to do, then what is the point of even having a rule/policy, if it is perceived to be one sided? I very much doubt this was the original intent of the rule/policy. Lets not help the intent be changed, to the detriment of fairness and equity and good business practice in the numismatic world. There is enough of that kind of thing in other corporate communities, and it does not help any of us.

[FishyOne]

I think a situation like this is very rare for PCGS and I can't believe they wouldn't make it right, they wouldn't be setting any precedent, he ll no one would have ever known had they made it right. The declared value drives me nuts, PCGS is the expert that's why people send them their coins, how is the average joe supposed to know the value until PCGS gives it a a grade? It could have been fake. A sweet grandma could have bought it at a yard sale for 15 dollars and declared that as it's value. I agree with johncurlis, if you over declare they would pay a reasonable fair market value, if you under declare you should do the same. I own a small business and I understand the legal cover your side of it but if I make a blatant mistake you bet I will do whatever it takes to make it right. Shame on PCGS IMO.

 

Nick

 

Huh? Let's start submitting with minimal declared values so our grading fees, shipping costs, and insurance rates are reduced. Then if there's any problem just expect to get the fair market value for our coins from the grading companies. Sounds like a plan........

[nk1nk]

Huh? No. What im saying is it's a reasonable thought that an average collector who cannot grade would undervalue or even overvalue a coin. That's the main reason most people send in coins, to establish a grade and value. I think PCGS should enforce the declared value rule to the extreme if something out of there control happens like lost in shipping or damaged during shipping but in this case the damage obviously happened while in PCGS's care, why would you not make that right?

 

Nick

[e1cnr]

Dies anyone know if there are import duties or taxes in Australia on coins?

 

If you had a $5K package coming to you from Newport Beach,CA, would that be another cost or longer delay on customs issue? Looking at the coins around the submission (assuming they are his because also tru-viewed) shows a very nice group of coins.

[FishyOne]

Huh? No. What im saying is it's a reasonable thought that an average collector who cannot grade would undervalue or even overvalue a coin. That's the main reason most people send in coins, to establish a grade and value. I think PCGS should enforce the declared value rule to the extreme if something out of there control happens like lost in shipping or damaged during shipping but in this case the damage obviously happened while in PCGS's care, why would you not make that right?

 

Nick

 

 

The average collector who cannot grade should not be submitting coins to PCGS (and doesn't). That has nothing to do with this situation where a dealer submitted the coin and assigned the value at $15. The collector knew it was a $500 coin and went ahead and signed the submission forms so he could save $10 in fees/shipping/insurance.

 

The collector has made no effort to pursue this with the submitting dealer because they are complicit with the dealer to save money and place all blame on PCGS. Numerous times I informed this collector to either pursue the submitting dealer or contact Don Willis or David Hall at PCGS. They did neither and continued to disparage PCGS on several coin forums. At that point it became clear what had happened.

 

This person got stung trying to save $10 and it cost them $490. Life's lessons are sometimes not cheap. I hope he learned this one for $490.

[brg5658]

The average collector who cannot grade should not be submitting coins to PCGS (and doesn't).

 

I would beg to differ with this assessment...

 

If this is true, why are there more than 70,000 1881-S Morgan dollars in PCGS MS62-63 holders?

 

Just one of oodles of examples of ridiculous numbers of completely pedestrian coins in PCGS (and NGC) holders.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Hello, Mr. FishyOne.

I don't think you mean the opening sentence.

 

"The average collector who cannot grade should not be submitting to PCGS (and doesn't)."

 

I Can't think of a better way for a person to experience real world market grading.

 

And... I think the average collector does submit, whether he/she can or cannot grade to whatever standard you deem appropriate. If they didn't, I am certain the TPGs would be concerned with the sudden cash flow reduction.

[FishyOne]

Not too many people submit coins to PCGS and have zero clue as to the coin's grade. Many submit for the entertainment value. To suggest that people only submit coins to make money is false. I guess I should correct the sentence to this: If a submitter has no idea as to a coin's grade, then they shouldn't be submitting.

 

As for all the MS62 and 63 common date Morgans? I imagine most of them were bulk submitted in quantities of 100+. This isn't ANACS or NGC where every ANA member can submit or no membership at all is required. This was a collector who submitted a coin and knew it was likely a $500 coin and so did the dealer.

 

I've read dozens of his posts and he clearly got bit and is trying to collect on his violation of PCGS's policy. He knows what he's doing and doesn't want to own up to it. I might be more forgiving had he not opened each post and thread by slamming PCGS' for "doing him wrong" while claiming no responsibility himself or assigning financial responsibility where it belongs, with his dealer.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Not too many people submit coins to PCGS and have zero clue as to the coin's grade. Many submit for the entertainment value. To suggest that people only submit coins to make money is false. I guess I should correct the sentence to this: If a submitter has no idea as to a coin's grade, then they shouldn't be submitting.

 

As for all the MS62 and 63 common date Morgans? I imagine most of them were bulk submitted in quantities of 100+. This isn't ANACS or NGC where every ANA member can submit or no membership at all is required. This was a collector who submitted a coin and knew it was likely a $500 coin and so did the dealer.

 

I've read dozens of his posts and he clearly got bit and is trying to collect on his violation of PCGS's policy. He knows what he's doing and doesn't want to own up to it. I might be more forgiving had he not opened each post and thread by slamming PCGS' for "doing him wrong" while claiming no responsibility himself or assigning financial responsibility where it belongs, with his dealer.

 

I think it is very nice of you to give a little on your opening statement.

It is now a little less offending and maybe a little more reasonable position.

[nk1nk]

Huh? No. What im saying is it's a reasonable thought that an average collector who cannot grade would undervalue or even overvalue a coin. That's the main reason most people send in coins, to establish a grade and value. I think PCGS should enforce the declared value rule to the extreme if something out of there control happens like lost in shipping or damaged during shipping but in this case the damage obviously happened while in PCGS's care, why would you not make that right?

 

Nick

 

 

The average collector who cannot grade should not be submitting coins to PCGS (and doesn't). That has nothing to do with this situation where a dealer submitted the coin and assigned the value at $15. The collector knew it was a $500 coin and went ahead and signed the submission forms so he could save $10 in fees/shipping/insurance.

 

The collector has made no effort to pursue this with the submitting dealer because they are complicit with the dealer to save money and place all blame on PCGS. Numerous times I informed this collector to either pursue the submitting dealer or contact Don Willis or David Hall at PCGS. They did neither and continued to disparage PCGS on several coin forums. At that point it became clear what had happened.

 

This person got stung trying to save $10 and it cost them $490. Life's lessons are sometimes not cheap. I hope he learned this one for $490.

 

You make a lot of assumptions about the submitter and your first sentence is utter nonsense. I don't really care if the submitter was trying to save a buck or not. PCGS took a photo, smacked the coin on the cement and then shipped it back in an ms64 slab, I guess if they do this in a daily basis I can see why they don't want to pay fair market value. Reason stands it doesn't happen often and this speaks volumes if what kind of company they are, I definitely view them differently.

 

Let's say he declared $1,000, PCGS would have paid him a fraction of fair narket value, maybe $250 if he was lucky. The whole guideline is one sided and if you think only people who under value are the ones that cross their fingers and hope for the best you are mistaken. Anybody who submits toned coins are at a huge risk. If you have a monster toned 1881 S morgan that you value at $1,200 and PCGS true views it then skips it across the floor to get slabbed as an ms65, you will end up with $110 for your troubles.

 

Nick

[FishyOne]

Huh? No. What im saying is it's a reasonable thought that an average collector who cannot grade would undervalue or even overvalue a coin. That's the main reason most people send in coins, to establish a grade and value. I think PCGS should enforce the declared value rule to the extreme if something out of there control happens like lost in shipping or damaged during shipping but in this case the damage obviously happened while in PCGS's care, why would you not make that right?

 

Nick

 

 

The average collector who cannot grade should not be submitting coins to PCGS (and doesn't). That has nothing to do with this situation where a dealer submitted the coin and assigned the value at $15. The collector knew it was a $500 coin and went ahead and signed the submission forms so he could save $10 in fees/shipping/insurance.

 

The collector has made no effort to pursue this with the submitting dealer because they are complicit with the dealer to save money and place all blame on PCGS. Numerous times I informed this collector to either pursue the submitting dealer or contact Don Willis or David Hall at PCGS. They did neither and continued to disparage PCGS on several coin forums. At that point it became clear what had happened.

 

This person got stung trying to save $10 and it cost them $490. Life's lessons are sometimes not cheap. I hope he learned this one for $490.

 

You make a lot of assumptions about the submitter and your first sentence is utter nonsense. I don't really care if the submitter was trying to save a buck or not. PCGS took a photo, smacked the coin on the cement and then shipped it back in an ms64 slab, I guess if they do this in a daily basis I can see why they don't want to pay fair market value. Reason stands it doesn't happen often and this speaks volumes if what kind of company they are, I definitely view them differently.

 

Let's say he declared $1,000, PCGS would have paid him a fraction of fair narket value, maybe $250 if he was lucky. The whole guideline is one sided and if you think only people who under value are the ones that cross their fingers and hope for the best you are mistaken. Anybody who submits toned coins are at a huge risk. If you have a monster toned 1881 S morgan that you value at $1,200 and PCGS true views it then skips it across the floor to get slabbed as an ms65, you will end up with $110 for your troubles.

 

Nick

 

Sorry Nick. This guy has posted trash about PCGS all over the Internet this month and never took the reasonable advice many provided on how to handle the situation time and again.

 

If you don't like PCGS and their polices that's fine with me. There's a reason why the policies exist and the submitter needs to address this with his dealer who is ultimately responsible.

 

This submitter never took this above the Customer Service level (per his own admission) and never addressed his dealer (per his own admission) about the declared value. PCGS owns him $15. Period.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Huh? No. What im saying is it's a reasonable thought that an average collector who cannot grade would undervalue or even overvalue a coin. That's the main reason most people send in coins, to establish a grade and value. I think PCGS should enforce the declared value rule to the extreme if something out of there control happens like lost in shipping or damaged during shipping but in this case the damage obviously happened while in PCGS's care, why would you not make that right?

 

Nick

 

 

The average collector who cannot grade should not be submitting coins to PCGS (and doesn't). That has nothing to do with this situation where a dealer submitted the coin and assigned the value at $15. The collector knew it was a $500 coin and went ahead and signed the submission forms so he could save $10 in fees/shipping/insurance.

 

The collector has made no effort to pursue this with the submitting dealer because they are complicit with the dealer to save money and place all blame on PCGS. Numerous times I informed this collector to either pursue the submitting dealer or contact Don Willis or David Hall at PCGS. They did neither and continued to disparage PCGS on several coin forums. At that point it became clear what had happened.

 

This person got stung trying to save $10 and it cost them $490. Life's lessons are sometimes not cheap. I hope he learned this one for $490.

 

You make a lot of assumptions about the submitter and your first sentence is utter nonsense. I don't really care if the submitter was trying to save a buck or not. PCGS took a photo, smacked the coin on the cement and then shipped it back in an ms64 slab, I guess if they do this in a daily basis I can see why they don't want to pay fair market value. Reason stands it doesn't happen often and this speaks volumes if what kind of company they are, I definitely view them differently.

 

Let's say he declared $1,000, PCGS would have paid him a fraction of fair narket value, maybe $250 if he was lucky. The whole guideline is one sided and if you think only people who under value are the ones that cross their fingers and hope for the best you are mistaken. Anybody who submits toned coins are at a huge risk. If you have a monster toned 1881 S morgan that you value at $1,200 and PCGS true views it then skips it across the floor to get slabbed as an ms65, you will end up with $110 for your troubles.

 

Nick

 

Sorry Nick. This guy has posted trash about PCGS all over the Internet this month and never took the reasonable advice many provided on how to handle the situation time and again.

 

If you don't like PCGS and their polices that's fine with me. There's a reason why the policies exist and the submitter needs to address this with his dealer who is ultimately responsible.

 

This submitter never took this above the Customer Service level (per his own admission) and never addressed his dealer (per his own admission) about the declared value. PCGS owns him $15. Period.

 

All your positions are somewhat reasonable, except when we get to the last 2 sentences. (PS: I know you meant to say" ...owes him...", but strangely enough using the word "owns" is unfortunately the true attitude in this case).

 

Could you maybe, in fairness and equity, give these last 2 sentences a little more thought?

 

Maybe consider the situation from a standpoint of what is good for the entire numismatic community, as opposed to what 1 individual may not deserve because of being a squeaky wheel, and what the TPG stands to gain or lose in the eyes of the numismatic community, in this situation.

[Coinbuf]

What it really boils down to is that there is a legal obligation, and a moral/ethical obligation. I would say that both parties appear to be failing on their moral/ethical obligation. Yes by the letter of the law PCGS is only required to pay $15, but the question remains does PCGS have a moral obligation to pay the fair market value as the coin was damaged while in their shop. On the other hand the submitter/dealer appears to have been less than honest/ethical when filling out the paperwork, thus releiving PCGS from any obligations.

 

I cannot help but think that in a court of law it would be much harder to prove that the submitter/dealer knowingly misrepresented the value, and very easy to prove that PCGS damaged the coin. As to the black eye that many think PCGS is getting, the fact that the other side does not appear to have clean hands will minimize any backlash. I suspect that this tiny blip will in no way have any significant ramifications to PCGS.

 

Interesting in any event and to get back to the op's question, no I do not think it was right of PCGS to cancel the cert # until this situation was resolved.

 

[Raisethis2]

This is an easy one.

 

Damage to submitted coins is a very rare thing. The potential liability to PCGS is minimal. The coin was harmed while in their possession. There's no dispute of that fact.

 

Any normal business person would assume responsibility for the customers goods, losses are insurable. Why wouldn't a TPG? Creating a stop loss in your fine print shouldn't absolve you from replacing a loss with fair market value. In this case it's even more logical since people are sending the item to you to ascertain it's grade and vicariously through the grade, it's value.

 

PCGS, NGC or any of the TPG's should know (as we little people in business do) that this is the cost of business.

 

It's all about integrity in my opinion.

 

 

[mailman1959]

NGC GUARANTEE, notwithstanding anything else contained in this NGC coin grading guarantee, in the event of loss or damage of your coin by NGC, NGC will only be responsible for the LESSER of the actual fair market value or the submitter declared value. Found this under NGC Coin Grading Guarantee. Don't know if PCGS has any statement like this......MAILMAN

[copper toning]

Hypothetical situation.

 

30 years from now this coin is still in a PCGS holder at the MS 64 money. It turns out to be a popular coin and is now worth $40,000.

 

A very wealthy individual buys the coin not checking the cert and then attempts to later sell the coin through a major auction house who catches the problem. He has money to burn and decides to push the issue with all parties.

 

Long shot, but it could happen.

[copper toning]

I am sure I have seen NGC take action on iffy coins that have been posted here on the forum.

 

NGC reps have stepped in and offered to take another or look ect.

 

PCGS seems to want to shut down all the neg hype.

 

This does speak volumes.

[Keigwin]

What are the chances a TPG damages a coin submitted for grading? Maybe 1 in 10,000? 1 in a million?

 

PCGS grades more than 7,000 each day. Is one damaged each day? Or maybe just a few a year.

 

Regardless, it happens. So the TPG needs a clear policy. And they need to abide by it, or what good is it?

 

I have no doubt that some situations are negotiable...that some dealers or collectors are treated specially. That happens in business, like it or not. But for the rest of us, we will be read the contract and asked "what part of it don't you understand?"

 

I run a business and nothing is more irritating than a customer who jumps on a deal that has specific restrictions and then, when his situation changes, wants to modify the terms.

 

I feel sorry for the coin's owner but I don't blame the TPG. Every one of us has made collecting mistakes, leaned from them and moved on. A few hundred dollar loss is probably lower tuition than many of us have paid.

Lance.

[$ilverHawk]

Huh? No. What im saying is it's a reasonable thought that an average collector who cannot grade would undervalue or even overvalue a coin. That's the main reason most people send in coins, to establish a grade and value. I think PCGS should enforce the declared value rule to the extreme if something out of there control happens like lost in shipping or damaged during shipping but in this case the damage obviously happened while in PCGS's care, why would you not make that right?

 

Nick

 

 

The average collector who cannot grade should not be submitting coins to PCGS (and doesn't). That has nothing to do with this situation where a dealer submitted the coin and assigned the value at $15. The collector knew it was a $500 coin and went ahead and signed the submission forms so he could save $10 in fees/shipping/insurance.

 

The collector has made no effort to pursue this with the submitting dealer because they are complicit with the dealer to save money and place all blame on PCGS. Numerous times I informed this collector to either pursue the submitting dealer or contact Don Willis or David Hall at PCGS. They did neither and continued to disparage PCGS on several coin forums. At that point it became clear what had happened.

 

This person got stung trying to save $10 and it cost them $490. Life's lessons are sometimes not cheap. I hope he learned this one for $490.

 

You make a lot of assumptions about the submitter and your first sentence is utter nonsense. I don't really care if the submitter was trying to save a buck or not. PCGS took a photo, smacked the coin on the cement and then shipped it back in an ms64 slab, I guess if they do this in a daily basis I can see why they don't want to pay fair market value. Reason stands it doesn't happen often and this speaks volumes if what kind of company they are, I definitely view them differently.

 

Let's say he declared $1,000, PCGS would have paid him a fraction of fair narket value, maybe $250 if he was lucky. The whole guideline is one sided and if you think only people who under value are the ones that cross their fingers and hope for the best you are mistaken. Anybody who submits toned coins are at a huge risk. If you have a monster toned 1881 S morgan that you value at $1,200 and PCGS true views it then skips it across the floor to get slabbed as an ms65, you will end up with $110 for your troubles.

 

Nick

 

Sorry Nick. This guy has posted trash about PCGS all over the Internet this month and never took the reasonable advice many provided on how to handle the situation time and again.

 

If you don't like PCGS and their polices that's fine with me. There's a reason why the policies exist and the submitter needs to address this with his dealer who is ultimately responsible.

 

This submitter never took this above the Customer Service level (per his own admission) and never addressed his dealer (per his own admission) about the declared value. PCGS owns him $15. Period.

 

I am not aware aware of the OP posting trash about PCGS all over the internet. Could you post a few links that show "this guy" posting trash about PCGS?

 

Carl

[coinman_23885]

The average collector who cannot grade should not be submitting coins to PCGS (and doesn't).

 

I would beg to differ with this assessment...

 

If this is true, why are there more than 70,000 1881-S Morgan dollars in PCGS MS62-63 holders?

 

Just one of oodles of examples of ridiculous numbers of completely pedestrian coins in PCGS (and NGC) holders.

 

While I think that toners (whose premium may alter the calculus of whether a submission is warranted) may account for a notable amount of those 70,000 certified examples, I agree with your point and overall there are far too many blast white, lower grade common coins in TPG slabs. The submitters will more than likely take a hit on a good number of those coins when it comes time to sell.

[coinman_23885]

Regardless, it happens. So the TPG needs a clear policy. And they need to abide by it, or what good is it?

 

I have no doubt that some situations are negotiable...that some dealers or collectors are treated specially. That happens in business, like it or not. But for the rest of us, we will be read the contract and asked "what part of it don't you understand?"

 

I run a business and nothing is more irritating than a customer who jumps on a deal that has specific restrictions and then, when his situation changes, wants to modify the terms.

 

I feel sorry for the coin's owner but I don't blame the TPG. Every one of us has made collecting mistakes, leaned from them and moved on. A few hundred dollar loss is probably lower tuition than many of us have paid.

Lance.

 

Overall, I agree with the tenor of your argument and the modification of contracts and agreements after the fact should be discouraged. Despite this, I don't think paying out in this one instance would compromise the integrity of their policy nor do I think it would set a harmful precedent.

 

We still don't know whether the PCGS authorized dealer revealed that he was underinsuring the coin or not; if the collector was unaware of the issue, then my thought is that PCGS would want to remedy the situation so as to prevent compromising the integrity (or creating the appearance of compromised integrity) of their network of authorized dealers. Since many will only submit a few coins, if there is concern about submission through authorized dealers, then it could conceivably hurt PCGS business and result in a lower number of submissions. So while PCGS is not legally obligated to pay more than $15 and legally it has every right to enforce the terms of the submission contract, I am not sure that it is in their best interest financially to do so in this one isolated instance.

 

Regardless of what happens, I do hope that PCGS will consider taking steps to prevent this unfortunate scenario from happening in the future. PCGS should consider requiring that authorized dealers complete a form for each customer and having each customer sign off on the form before the authorized dealer can submit a coin for him or her. This would prevent a potentially shady dealer from harming a future collector and it would ameliorate a lot of the publicity that this has generated in my opinion.

[$ilverHawk]

What are the chances a TPG damages a coin submitted for grading? Maybe 1 in 10,000? 1 in a million?

 

PCGS grades more than 7,000 each day. Is one damaged each day? Or maybe just a few a year.

 

Regardless, it happens. So the TPG needs a clear policy. And they need to abide by it, or what good is it?

 

I have no doubt that some situations are negotiable...that some dealers or collectors are treated specially. That happens in business, like it or not. But for the rest of us, we will be read the contract and asked "what part of it don't you understand?"

 

I run a business and nothing is more irritating than a customer who jumps on a deal that has specific restrictions and then, when his situation changes, wants to modify the terms.

 

I feel sorry for the coin's owner but I don't blame the TPG. Every one of us has made collecting mistakes, leaned from them and moved on. A few hundred dollar loss is probably lower tuition than many of us have paid.

Lance.

 

Not a collecting mistake, a submission mistake and IMHO a big marketing mistake by PCGS. At the risk of sounding tedious, let us review.

 

A collector submits one or more coins to a PCGS authorized dealer. The dealer undervalues one or more of the coins submitted and the original submitter signs off on the total value of the submission. This is in direct violation of PCGS dealer policies.

 

PCGS grades the coins and in the process of grading, photographs the coin in question. The coin in question was originally shown in photographs to be unmarked with no edge "hits".

 

PCGS knew that when they received the coin there was no damage. PCGS graders gave the coin a grade of MS64. Sometime after grading the coin was damaged and encapsulated.

 

There is no valid argument that the damage to the coin in question did not occur while in the possession of PCGS. PCGS reviews the entire situation and decides the best thing to do is to cancel their grade/certification and offer the original submitter the declared value that their PCGS dealer originally specified.

 

I don't care what the chances are are of a TPG damaging a coin submitted for grading. The fact is that it happened. Don't care how many coins a TPG grades on a daily basis. A company either stands by their product or not. The photographs are very clear. The ethics/morality of the situation are open for debate.

 

I hope that TPG submitters evaluate this situation and understand that TPG s are a for profit business and may not always exhibit ethical behavior.

 

Carl

 

 

[FishyOne]

Huh? No. What im saying is it's a reasonable thought that an average collector who cannot grade would undervalue or even overvalue a coin. That's the main reason most people send in coins, to establish a grade and value. I think PCGS should enforce the declared value rule to the extreme if something out of there control happens like lost in shipping or damaged during shipping but in this case the damage obviously happened while in PCGS's care, why would you not make that right?

 

Nick

 

 

The average collector who cannot grade should not be submitting coins to PCGS (and doesn't). That has nothing to do with this situation where a dealer submitted the coin and assigned the value at $15. The collector knew it was a $500 coin and went ahead and signed the submission forms so he could save $10 in fees/shipping/insurance.

 

The collector has made no effort to pursue this with the submitting dealer because they are complicit with the dealer to save money and place all blame on PCGS. Numerous times I informed this collector to either pursue the submitting dealer or contact Don Willis or David Hall at PCGS. They did neither and continued to disparage PCGS on several coin forums. At that point it became clear what had happened.

 

This person got stung trying to save $10 and it cost them $490. Life's lessons are sometimes not cheap. I hope he learned this one for $490.

 

You make a lot of assumptions about the submitter and your first sentence is utter nonsense. I don't really care if the submitter was trying to save a buck or not. PCGS took a photo, smacked the coin on the cement and then shipped it back in an ms64 slab, I guess if they do this in a daily basis I can see why they don't want to pay fair market value. Reason stands it doesn't happen often and this speaks volumes if what kind of company they are, I definitely view them differently.

 

Let's say he declared $1,000, PCGS would have paid him a fraction of fair narket value, maybe $250 if he was lucky. The whole guideline is one sided and if you think only people who under value are the ones that cross their fingers and hope for the best you are mistaken. Anybody who submits toned coins are at a huge risk. If you have a monster toned 1881 S morgan that you value at $1,200 and PCGS true views it then skips it across the floor to get slabbed as an ms65, you will end up with $110 for your troubles.

 

Nick

 

Sorry Nick. This guy has posted trash about PCGS all over the Internet this month and never took the reasonable advice many provided on how to handle the situation time and again.

 

If you don't like PCGS and their polices that's fine with me. There's a reason why the policies exist and the submitter needs to address this with his dealer who is ultimately responsible.

 

This submitter never took this above the Customer Service level (per his own admission) and never addressed his dealer (per his own admission) about the declared value. PCGS owns him $15. Period.

 

I am not aware aware of the OP posting trash about PCGS all over the internet. Could you post a few links that show "this guy" posting trash about PCGS?

 

Carl

 

Sure, here's two links. The first one is from CU where he makes no mention of the declared value and the second is CCF where he was repeated advised to either contact the dealer for reimbursement or escalate through PCGS channels.

 

CU Forums

 

CCF Forum

 

These are the two I'm aware of. I'm move on now. The submitter has shown his colors and I have spoken my peace. Happy Collecting!

 

P.S. I have been a PCGS customer for several years and submitted dozens of coins without an issue. Maybe I'm biased because they have been fair and reasonable in all the dealings I have had with them. I also take responsibility for my actions and have learned from my mistakes.

[$ilverHawk]

Huh? No. What im saying is it's a reasonable thought that an average collector who cannot grade would undervalue or even overvalue a coin. That's the main reason most people send in coins, to establish a grade and value. I think PCGS should enforce the declared value rule to the extreme if something out of there control happens like lost in shipping or damaged during shipping but in this case the damage obviously happened while in PCGS's care, why would you not make that right?

 

Nick

 

 

The average collector who cannot grade should not be submitting coins to PCGS (and doesn't). That has nothing to do with this situation where a dealer submitted the coin and assigned the value at $15. The collector knew it was a $500 coin and went ahead and signed the submission forms so he could save $10 in fees/shipping/insurance.

 

The collector has made no effort to pursue this with the submitting dealer because they are complicit with the dealer to save money and place all blame on PCGS. Numerous times I informed this collector to either pursue the submitting dealer or contact Don Willis or David Hall at PCGS. They did neither and continued to disparage PCGS on several coin forums. At that point it became clear what had happened.

 

This person got stung trying to save $10 and it cost them $490. Life's lessons are sometimes not cheap. I hope he learned this one for $490.

 

You make a lot of assumptions about the submitter and your first sentence is utter nonsense. I don't really care if the submitter was trying to save a buck or not. PCGS took a photo, smacked the coin on the cement and then shipped it back in an ms64 slab, I guess if they do this in a daily basis I can see why they don't want to pay fair market value. Reason stands it doesn't happen often and this speaks volumes if what kind of company they are, I definitely view them differently.

 

Let's say he declared $1,000, PCGS would have paid him a fraction of fair narket value, maybe $250 if he was lucky. The whole guideline is one sided and if you think only people who under value are the ones that cross their fingers and hope for the best you are mistaken. Anybody who submits toned coins are at a huge risk. If you have a monster toned 1881 S morgan that you value at $1,200 and PCGS true views it then skips it across the floor to get slabbed as an ms65, you will end up with $110 for your troubles.

 

Nick

 

Sorry Nick. This guy has posted trash about PCGS all over the Internet this month and never took the reasonable advice many provided on how to handle the situation time and again.

 

If you don't like PCGS and their polices that's fine with me. There's a reason why the policies exist and the submitter needs to address this with his dealer who is ultimately responsible.

 

This submitter never took this above the Customer Service level (per his own admission) and never addressed his dealer (per his own admission) about the declared value. PCGS owns him $15. Period.

 

I am not aware aware of the OP posting trash about PCGS all over the internet. Could you post a few links that show "this guy" posting trash about PCGS?

 

Carl

 

Sure, here's two links. The first one is from CU where he makes no mention of the declared value and the second is CCF where he was repeated advised to either contact the dealer for reimbursement or escalate through PCGS channels.

 

CU Forums

 

CCF Forum

 

These are the two I'm aware of. I'm move on now. The submitter has shown his colors and I have spoken my peace. Happy Collecting!

 

P.S. I have been a PCGS customer for several years and submitted dozens of coins without an issue. Maybe I'm biased because they have been fair and reasonable in all the dealings I have had with them. I also take responsibility for my actions and have learned from my mistakes.

 

Thank you. Read both threads and I don't see any evidence of "trashing" PCGS.

 

I agree, move on. Happy Collecting to you.

 

Carl