Should a TPG cancel a cert# not in there possession

[jpcienkus]

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

 

 

Agree with your position on this completely. All companies make mistakes. How the mistake is handled is the most important aspect. In this case, I believe PCGS has handled this poorly.

[MarkFeld]

I might be persuaded to change my mind later, but here is my current view on the situation:

 

Upon learning of the problem, PCGS should have quickly informed the submitter - in this case, an authorized dealer - that they were canceling the grading certification. I don't know if or when they did that. For all I know, they handled it extremely well or poorly.

 

PCGS owes the submitter/dealer the insured value of $15.

 

If the coin's owner requested or authorized the $15 insured amount on the submission invoice, he is owed $15 by the submitting dealer.

 

If the coin's owner requested a higher insured amount, at a minimum, he is owed fair market value by the submitting dealer.

 

I don't think this is a tough call, but I'm certainly willing to listen to those who disagree.

 

 

[Conder101]

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

If it is damaged or lost in shipping the shipping insurance is responsible not PCGS.

 

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.

On the forum where this all started he has apparently heard from Don Willis about this (he took Willis's question about why he is going to all this effort over a $15 coin to be a threat.) And he has also mentioned a settlement from the submitting dealer but has not mentioned what the settlement was.

 

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

Possibly because tens of thousands were submitted during the late 80's before the market crash when even 62 and 63 1881-S dollars were worth $400 - $500 each. (65's were close to $1K each then)

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I might be persuaded to change my mind later, but here is my current view on the situation:

 

Upon learning of the problem, PCGS should have quickly informed the submitter - in this case, an authorized dealer - that they were canceling the grading certification. I don't know if or when they did that. For all I know, they handled it extremely well or poorly.

 

PCGS owes the submitter/dealer the insured value of $15.

 

If the coin's owner requested or authorized the $15 insured amount on the submission invoice, he is owed $15 by the submitting dealer.

 

If the coin's owner requested a higher insured amount, at a minimum, he is owed fair market value by the submitting dealer.

 

I don't think this is a tough call, but I'm certainly willing to listen to those who disagree.

 

 

Good Morning, Mr. Feld.

 

I am here to persuade you.

This is my duty to you, and my reason for waking up everyday.

 

It is acknowledged that PCGS either handled it extremely well or poorly.

This statement alone stands as a negation to any finite "contract" responsibility that limits the TPG exposure to $15.00. Poor performance negates the liability limitation being proffered.

 

If the owner requested or authorized the $15.00 insured amount, thru the authorized dealer, a fact acknowledged, the authorized dealer, by virtue of his/her authorization, is acting on behalf of PCGS. At a minimum, the authorized dealer had and has a duty to inform the owner of the , ahem, "contract" limitations and risks of this supposed finite liability limitation clause. Did he/she? Did he/she evaluate the coin and offer an opinion (which is exactly what the TPG does for the grading fee)? Does he/she have the obligation to do so?

 

Lets discuss the purpose of a declared insurance amount.

 

The USPS/FEDEX/UPS/ETC. (the Carrier) does not work for PCGS or the authorized dealer, or the coin owner. The Carrier is at risk for any stated amount of insurance and accepts the liability and responsibility for same, while the coin is in their possession, until it is delivered to the designated location (and in some cases after, if the package has obvious damage and the Carrier is notified).

 

The bridge created by the TPG, via the insurance clause, that supposedly connects the TPG and the Carrier limitations of liability, is a bridge built without foundation. It is a contract liability limitation mirage, and does not serve to protect the TPG from its own poor performance, after the Carrier has fulfilled its obligations of delivering the coin to the intended recipient(the TPG).

 

I don't disagree that the TPG owes, at a minimum, $15.00. It is the maximum that is not clear.

 

These brief reasons (there are many more, but I know I am starting to be boring) that I offer for your consideration would hopefully allow you to consider that this is the opposite of what you have stated, i.e., that it is not a tough call.

 

Respectfully,

John

[MarkFeld]

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

If it is damaged or lost in shipping the shipping insurance is responsible not PCGS.

 

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.

On the forum where this all started he has apparently heard from Don Willis about this (he took Willis's question about why he is going to all this effort over a $15 coin to be a threat.) And he has also mentioned a settlement from the submitting dealer but has not mentioned what the settlement was.

 

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

Possibly because tens of thousands were submitted during the late 80's before the market crash when even 62 and 63 1881-S dollars were worth $400 - $500 each. (65's were close to $1K each then)

 

My recollection is that at the peak, MS65's reached about $800, MS64's, roughly $400 and 63's and lower, quite a bit less than $400. I might very well be mistaken, however.

 

I suspect that many of the low grade submissions resulted from higher values back then, but that a great many others are the result of submitters who thought their coins would grade higher than they ended up grading. Let's face it, in most series, including those whose values were not necessarily much higher in the past than they are now, there are countless examples of coins whose grades/value did not merit certification.

[MarkFeld]

I might be persuaded to change my mind later, but here is my current view on the situation:

 

Upon learning of the problem, PCGS should have quickly informed the submitter - in this case, an authorized dealer - that they were canceling the grading certification. I don't know if or when they did that. For all I know, they handled it extremely well or poorly.

 

PCGS owes the submitter/dealer the insured value of $15.

 

If the coin's owner requested or authorized the $15 insured amount on the submission invoice, he is owed $15 by the submitting dealer.

 

If the coin's owner requested a higher insured amount, at a minimum, he is owed fair market value by the submitting dealer.

 

I don't think this is a tough call, but I'm certainly willing to listen to those who disagree.

 

 

Good Morning, Mr. Feld.

 

I am here to persuade you.

This is my duty to you, and my reason for waking up everyday.

 

It is acknowledged that PCGS either handled it extremely well or poorly.

This statement alone stands as a negation to any finite "contract" responsibility that limits the TPG exposure to $15.00. Poor performance negates the liability limitation being proffered.

 

If the owner requested or authorized the $15.00 insured amount, thru the authorized dealer, a fact acknowledged, the authorized dealer, by virtue of his/her authorization, is acting on behalf of PCGS. At a minimum, the authorized dealer had and has a duty to inform the owner of the , ahem, "contract" limitations and risks of this supposed finite liability limitation clause. Did he/she? Did he/she evaluate the coin and offer an opinion (which is exactly what the TPG does for the grading fee)? Does he/she have the obligation to do so?

 

Lets discuss the purpose of a declared insurance amount.

 

The USPS/FEDEX/UPS/ETC. (the Carrier) does not work for PCGS or the authorized dealer, or the coin owner. The Carrier is at risk for any stated amount of insurance and accepts the liability and responsibility for same, while the coin is in their possession, until it is delivered to the designated location (and in some cases after, if the package has obvious damage and the Carrier is notified).

 

The bridge created by the TPG, via the insurance clause, that supposedly connects the TPG and the Carrier limitations of liability, is a bridge built without foundation. It is a contract liability limitation mirage, and does not serve to protect the TPG from its own poor performance, after the Carrier has fulfilled its obligations of delivering the coin to the intended recipient(the TPG).

 

I don't disagree that the TPG owes, at a minimum, $15.00. It is the maximum that is not clear.

 

These brief reasons (there are many more, but I know I am starting to be boring) that I offer for your consideration would hopefully allow you to consider that this is the opposite of what you have stated, i.e., that it is not a tough call.

 

Respectfully,

John

 

Good morning, Mr. Curlis.

 

As I was typing my previous reply, I thought to myself - this is a BAD idea, because John is going to try to make things difficult for me

 

I am not convinced that "Poor performance negates the liability limitation being proffered.". I do, however, believe that poor performance should be taken into account by the offending party, when making an offer to the submitter.

 

Upon what basius do you say:

 

"The bridge created by the TPG, via the insurance clause, that supposedly connects the TPG and the Carrier limitations of liability, is a bridge built without foundation. It is a contract liability limitation mirage, and does not serve to protect the TPG from its own poor performance, after the Carrier has fulfilled its obligations of delivering the coin to the intended recipient(the TPG)."

 

Thanks.

[CaptHenway]

I might be persuaded to change my mind later, but here is my current view on the situation:

 

Upon learning of the problem, PCGS should have quickly informed the submitter - in this case, an authorized dealer - that they were canceling the grading certification. I don't know if or when they did that. For all I know, they handled it extremely well or poorly.

 

PCGS owes the submitter/dealer the insured value of $15.

 

If the coin's owner requested or authorized the $15 insured amount on the submission invoice, he is owed $15 by the submitting dealer.

 

If the coin's owner requested a higher insured amount, at a minimum, he is owed fair market value by the submitting dealer.

 

I don't think this is a tough call, but I'm certainly willing to listen to those who disagree.

 

 

We are in agreement.

 

When I worked in a coin shop and a customer gave us coins to be submitted to a TPG, I gave him a receipt for the coin. On the receipt I wrote "Customer's Declared Value," which he had to supply, and gave him a copy.

 

The TPG submission form was filled out by us later. On it we declared a value. The customer never saw this form, so he could never "sign off" on the value declared on it.

 

Perhaps this dealer did it differently and filled out the TPG submission form in fron of the customer. I don't know. Was it stated this way somewhere in the thread?

 

All I know is that if the customer declared a value of $150 or whatever to the dealer, and the dealer later put $15 on the submission form, the dealer is at fault and he owes the customer the difference in value.

 

TD

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I might be persuaded to change my mind later, but here is my current view on the situation:

 

Upon learning of the problem, PCGS should have quickly informed the submitter - in this case, an authorized dealer - that they were canceling the grading certification. I don't know if or when they did that. For all I know, they handled it extremely well or poorly.

 

PCGS owes the submitter/dealer the insured value of $15.

 

If the coin's owner requested or authorized the $15 insured amount on the submission invoice, he is owed $15 by the submitting dealer.

 

If the coin's owner requested a higher insured amount, at a minimum, he is owed fair market value by the submitting dealer.

 

I don't think this is a tough call, but I'm certainly willing to listen to those who disagree.

 

 

Good Morning, Mr. Feld.

 

I am here to persuade you.

This is my duty to you, and my reason for waking up everyday.

 

It is acknowledged that PCGS either handled it extremely well or poorly.

This statement alone stands as a negation to any finite "contract" responsibility that limits the TPG exposure to $15.00. Poor performance negates the liability limitation being proffered.

 

If the owner requested or authorized the $15.00 insured amount, thru the authorized dealer, a fact acknowledged, the authorized dealer, by virtue of his/her authorization, is acting on behalf of PCGS. At a minimum, the authorized dealer had and has a duty to inform the owner of the , ahem, "contract" limitations and risks of this supposed finite liability limitation clause. Did he/she? Did he/she evaluate the coin and offer an opinion (which is exactly what the TPG does for the grading fee)? Does he/she have the obligation to do so?

 

Lets discuss the purpose of a declared insurance amount.

 

The USPS/FEDEX/UPS/ETC. (the Carrier) does not work for PCGS or the authorized dealer, or the coin owner. The Carrier is at risk for any stated amount of insurance and accepts the liability and responsibility for same, while the coin is in their possession, until it is delivered to the designated location (and in some cases after, if the package has obvious damage and the Carrier is notified).

 

The bridge created by the TPG, via the insurance clause, that supposedly connects the TPG and the Carrier limitations of liability, is a bridge built without foundation. It is a contract liability limitation mirage, and does not serve to protect the TPG from its own poor performance, after the Carrier has fulfilled its obligations of delivering the coin to the intended recipient(the TPG).

 

I don't disagree that the TPG owes, at a minimum, $15.00. It is the maximum that is not clear.

 

These brief reasons (there are many more, but I know I am starting to be boring) that I offer for your consideration would hopefully allow you to consider that this is the opposite of what you have stated, i.e., that it is not a tough call.

 

Respectfully,

John

 

Good morning, Mr. Curlis.

 

As I was typing my previous reply, I thought to myself - this is a BAD idea, because John is going to try to make things difficult for me

 

I am not convinced that "Poor performance negates the liability limitation being proffered.". I do, however, believe that poor performance should be taken into account by the offending party, when making an offer to the submitter.

 

Upon what basius do you say:

 

"The bridge created by the TPG, via the insurance clause, that supposedly connects the TPG and the Carrier limitations of liability, is a bridge built without foundation. It is a contract liability limitation mirage, and does not serve to protect the TPG from its own poor performance, after the Carrier has fulfilled its obligations of delivering the coin to the intended recipient(the TPG)."

 

Thanks.

 

As usual, thank you for the nice reply, and not immediately labeling me wacky.

 

Addressing the first part of your reply, and without resorting to Blacks or 9th Circuit decisions/opinions, the liability limitation stated by the TPG hinges on one and only one value; the value "declared" for the sole purpose of care and custody liability of the Carrier. The TPG is not the Carrier. The duty of the Carrier was fulfilled.

 

As an example, if the declared value was $5,000.00, and the coin is determined by the TPG to be a worthless counterfeit, and then is damaged by the TPG before sending it back, what is it worth? What is the liability? After all, the decision that the coin is counterfeit is only an opinion. TPG would argue it is worth 0. The owner would argue it is worth $5,000.00.

 

A "rule" (which we all are equating as a Contract clause in this discussion) that is established by the TPG as a protection mechanism to limit liability, and is based on the value of a declared amount to another Party, (the Carrier) must be understood by all parties, (the TPG and the coin owner) as to its purpose. When the rule is not clear, and allows a failure of performance (care and custody) by the TPG without any penalty greater than the performance level expected (the return of the coin to the owner in the original condition received by the TPG), it is negated. The expected performance is the return of the coin in the same condition received, with the added bonus (or penalty) of an opinion of Grade. This opinion may, or may not, establish the market value; it certainly allows a reasonable fair and equitable amount that could be expected, though.

 

I note that you do leave room for persuasion, in that you state "...when making an offer to the submitter...". This establishes that you don't believe the TPG only owes $15.00, as previously mentioned.

 

When coupled with the second part of your reply, and in answer to the reason for the basis of my questioning the false bridge, (which is explained) the added reasoning that is the basis of my position may in part be established by the declared value of the coin when it is returned by the TPG to the owner.

 

Respects,

John

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I might be persuaded to change my mind later, but here is my current view on the situation:

 

Upon learning of the problem, PCGS should have quickly informed the submitter - in this case, an authorized dealer - that they were canceling the grading certification. I don't know if or when they did that. For all I know, they handled it extremely well or poorly.

 

PCGS owes the submitter/dealer the insured value of $15.

 

If the coin's owner requested or authorized the $15 insured amount on the submission invoice, he is owed $15 by the submitting dealer.

 

If the coin's owner requested a higher insured amount, at a minimum, he is owed fair market value by the submitting dealer.

 

I don't think this is a tough call, but I'm certainly willing to listen to those who disagree.

 

 

We are in agreement.

 

When I worked in a coin shop and a customer gave us coins to be submitted to a TPG, I gave him a receipt for the coin. On the receipt I wrote "Customer's Declared Value," which he had to supply, and gave him a copy.

 

The TPG submission form was filled out by us later. On it we declared a value. The customer never saw this form, so he could never "sign off" on the value declared on it.

 

Perhaps this dealer did it differently and filled out the TPG submission form in fron of the customer. I don't know. Was it stated this way somewhere in the thread?

 

All I know is that if the customer declared a value of $150 or whatever to the dealer, and the dealer later put $15 on the submission form, the dealer is at fault and he owes the customer the difference in value.

 

TD

 

I think you argue for the side that the coin is not limited to a value of $15.00, by your example. You wrote a declared value on a form that the customer never saw, that was a form used by the TPG and you as the TPG agent.

[MarkFeld]

I might be persuaded to change my mind later, but here is my current view on the situation:

 

Upon learning of the problem, PCGS should have quickly informed the submitter - in this case, an authorized dealer - that they were canceling the grading certification. I don't know if or when they did that. For all I know, they handled it extremely well or poorly.

 

PCGS owes the submitter/dealer the insured value of $15.

 

If the coin's owner requested or authorized the $15 insured amount on the submission invoice, he is owed $15 by the submitting dealer.

 

If the coin's owner requested a higher insured amount, at a minimum, he is owed fair market value by the submitting dealer.

 

I don't think this is a tough call, but I'm certainly willing to listen to those who disagree.

 

 

Good Morning, Mr. Feld.

 

I am here to persuade you.

This is my duty to you, and my reason for waking up everyday.

 

It is acknowledged that PCGS either handled it extremely well or poorly.

This statement alone stands as a negation to any finite "contract" responsibility that limits the TPG exposure to $15.00. Poor performance negates the liability limitation being proffered.

 

If the owner requested or authorized the $15.00 insured amount, thru the authorized dealer, a fact acknowledged, the authorized dealer, by virtue of his/her authorization, is acting on behalf of PCGS. At a minimum, the authorized dealer had and has a duty to inform the owner of the , ahem, "contract" limitations and risks of this supposed finite liability limitation clause. Did he/she? Did he/she evaluate the coin and offer an opinion (which is exactly what the TPG does for the grading fee)? Does he/she have the obligation to do so?

 

Lets discuss the purpose of a declared insurance amount.

 

The USPS/FEDEX/UPS/ETC. (the Carrier) does not work for PCGS or the authorized dealer, or the coin owner. The Carrier is at risk for any stated amount of insurance and accepts the liability and responsibility for same, while the coin is in their possession, until it is delivered to the designated location (and in some cases after, if the package has obvious damage and the Carrier is notified).

 

The bridge created by the TPG, via the insurance clause, that supposedly connects the TPG and the Carrier limitations of liability, is a bridge built without foundation. It is a contract liability limitation mirage, and does not serve to protect the TPG from its own poor performance, after the Carrier has fulfilled its obligations of delivering the coin to the intended recipient(the TPG).

 

I don't disagree that the TPG owes, at a minimum, $15.00. It is the maximum that is not clear.

 

These brief reasons (there are many more, but I know I am starting to be boring) that I offer for your consideration would hopefully allow you to consider that this is the opposite of what you have stated, i.e., that it is not a tough call.

 

Respectfully,

John

 

Good morning, Mr. Curlis.

 

As I was typing my previous reply, I thought to myself - this is a BAD idea, because John is going to try to make things difficult for me

 

I am not convinced that "Poor performance negates the liability limitation being proffered.". I do, however, believe that poor performance should be taken into account by the offending party, when making an offer to the submitter.

 

Upon what basius do you say:

 

"The bridge created by the TPG, via the insurance clause, that supposedly connects the TPG and the Carrier limitations of liability, is a bridge built without foundation. It is a contract liability limitation mirage, and does not serve to protect the TPG from its own poor performance, after the Carrier has fulfilled its obligations of delivering the coin to the intended recipient(the TPG)."

 

Thanks.

 

As usual, thank you for the nice reply, and not immediately labeling me wacky.

 

Addressing the first part of your reply, and without resorting to Blacks or 9th Circuit decisions/opinions, the liability limitation stated by the TPG hinges on one and only one value; the value "declared" for the sole purpose of care and custody liability of the Carrier. The TPG is not the Carrier. The duty of the Carrier was fulfilled.

 

As an example, if the declared value was $5,000.00, and the coin is determined by the TPG to be a worthless counterfeit, and then is damaged by the TPG before sending it back, what is it worth? What is the liability? After all, the decision that the coin is counterfeit is only an opinion. TPG would argue it is worth 0. The owner would argue it is worth $5,000.00.

 

A "rule" (which we all are equating as a Contract clause in this discussion) that is established by the TPG as a protection mechanism to limit liability, and is based on the value of a declared amount to another Party, (the Carrier) must be understood by all parties, (the TPG and the coin owner) as to its purpose. When the rule is not clear, and allows a failure of performance (care and custody) by the TPG without any penalty greater than the performance level expected (the return of the coin to the owner in the original condition received by the TPG), it is negated. The expected performance is the return of the coin in the same condition received, with the added bonus (or penalty) of an opinion of Grade. This opinion may, or may not, establish the market value; it certainly allows a reasonable fair and equitable amount that could be expected, though.

 

I note that you do leave room for persuasion, in that you state "...when making an offer to the submitter...". This establishes that you don't believe the TPG only owes $15.00, as previously mentioned.

 

When coupled with the second part of your reply, and in answer to the reason for the basis of my questioning the false bridge, (which is explained) the added reasoning that is the basis of my position may in part be established by the declared value of the coin when it is returned by the TPG to the owner.

 

Respects,

John

 

John, due to current time limitations, I will address only the first part of your reply, for now.

 

I disagree with what you wrote below, unless there is something contained in the submission form and/or dealer agreement langauage. And that's because I am under the impression that the value declared isn't "for the sole purpose of care and custody liability of the Carrier". Rather, I believe it is also meant to protect the grading company from theft, loss or damage, while the property is under their control, as well. And that they pay their insurance carrier, based on declared estimated values of coins in their possession.

 

"Addressing the first part of your reply, and without resorting to Blacks or 9th Circuit decisions/opinions, the liability limitation stated by the TPG hinges on one and only one value; the value "declared" for the sole purpose of care and custody liability of the Carrier. The TPG is not the Carrier. The duty of the Carrier was fulfilled."

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Time constraint is short speak for "you are boring, John".

OK, me to, a little busy, so, read #4 conditions on the submittal form, when you have time.

 

Respects,

John

[nk1nk]

Johncurlis is spot on in his replies. It amazes me how naive people are when it comes to contracts. Contractual law is very confusing and most businesses write contracts as lawsuit deterrents, especially when dealing with the public. A business simply says hey you signed this contract, tuff mess. And most chaulk it up to a "lesson learned". If this was a 100,000 dollar coin and PCGS was sued they would settle rather quickly, if they didn't I would expect they would be disappointed in the end.

 

Nick

[CaptHenway]

At one time I had one of the world's best collections of Honduran die varieties, most of them unpublished, some of which I did pay over $1,000 for.

 

Let's say I keep sending the common ones in, one at a time, declared at $15 each until finally they lose one. Can I then say "Well, this was a unique 1910/1897 2/UN/10 Centavoes that was worth $2,000!"? (Note: such a variety is not impossible with Honduran coins.) What is the limit of their liability if not what I declared when I sent the coin in?

 

If the declared value is meaningless then some people will abuse the system. I am not saying that that is what happened here, but that the TPG has to have some protection from false claims.

 

And FWIW, when I was at ANACS we received an 1823 half dollar with a declared value of $500,000. The poor, deluded soul that sent it in thought she could see an "O" mint mark above the date. There was almost $500 in postage on the outside of the package, she had paid a $500 authentication fee, and she had included almost $500 in return postage.

 

I spent a month trying to convince her that the coin was a common coin (including sending her pictures of the variety from Overton) so that she could revalue the coin in writing and we could refund her virtually all of the $1,000 we were holding. She kept refusing to do so. So, when we finally returned it as a genuine 1823 Overton-whatever, we spent her return postage and declared a value of $500,000 to the Post Office, knowing full well that they would never pay off that much.

 

When she got the coin and the certificate she called and asked if the certificate meant that the coin was worth $500,000. I said no, the certificate only means that the coin is genuine. She then asked me what it was worth. I said about $80, the same as I told you in my letter that you received. She then accused us of cheating her.

[Coinbuf]

Apples and oranges, this situation is not about a lost coin or possible obscure die marriges. This case involves damage, damage that the TPG's own photos prove happend while at the TPG.

[stldanceartist]

Apples and oranges, this situation is not about a lost coin or possible obscure die marriges. This case involves damage, damage that the TPG's own photos prove happend while at the TPG.

 

+1

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Good Evening, CaptHenway.

 

The declared value is not meaningless.

 

It is meaningless when used as the actual value of the coin (and not only in the situation under discussion) and as a limit of the TPG liability.

 

I am sure you have read the TPG clauses.

 

I only ask that you read condition #4 again, and without a preconceived notion.

 

Read the clause as a whole.

 

You have actually, again, agreed what the declared value means, by way of your description of what you had previously experienced, and the knowledge that the PO would not pay that much anyway.

 

Again, it is a false bridge that attempts to link the declared insured value (the use of this phrasing,btw, is directly linked to the old USPO as its birth place) with the actual value and/or liability of the TPG, when the TPG damages the coin.

 

Please, again, read condition #4.

 

With Respect,

John Curlis

 

[MarkFeld]

Time constraint is short speak for "you are boring, John".

OK, me to, a little busy, so, read #4 conditions on the submittal form, when you have time.

 

Respects,

John

 

"4. PCGS will exercise reasonable care in handling coins submitted for grading, regrading or reholdering. However, if PCGS determines that the Customer's coin was lost or damaged while in PCGS possession, Customer will be compensated based upon the fair market value of the coin as determined by PCGS standard procedures which may include filing a claim with our insurance carrier. The declared value you stated on the front of this form is for estimating the insurance coverage only, and the fair market value of the coin may be less than your declared value. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE TOTAL LIABILITY EXCEED THE DECLARED VALUE OF THE COIN."

 

As I understand the above, the "declared value" by the submitter applies to both an insurance value for shipping, as well as a maximum liability value for PCGS.

 

On one hand, I can understand why it is written that way. And I feel that in the vast majority of cases, the result will be fair. On the other, I can see where it would/could lead to problems. For example, if a submitter unintentionally lists a declared value, which turns out to be way too low and the coin is subsequently damaged, lost, etc.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Time constraint is short speak for "you are boring, John".

OK, me to, a little busy, so, read #4 conditions on the submittal form, when you have time.

 

Respects,

John

 

"4. PCGS will exercise reasonable care in handling coins submitted for grading, regrading or reholdering. However, if PCGS determines that the Customer's coin was lost or damaged while in PCGS possession, Customer will be compensated based upon the fair market value of the coin as determined by PCGS standard procedures which may include filing a claim with our insurance carrier. The declared value you stated on the front of this form is for estimating the insurance coverage only, and the fair market value of the coin may be less than your declared value. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE TOTAL LIABILITY EXCEED THE DECLARED VALUE OF THE COIN."

 

As I understand the above, the "declared value" by the submitter applies to both an insurance value for shipping, as well as a maximum liability value for PCGS.

 

On one hand, I can understand why it is written that way. And I feel that in the vast majority of cases, the result will be fair. On the other, I can see where it would/could lead to problems. For example, if a submitter unintentionally lists a declared value, which turns out to be way too low and the coin is subsequently damaged, lost, etc.

 

 

Caps War.....

 

THE DECLARED VALUE YOU STATED ON THE FRONT OF THIS FORM IS FOR ESTIMATING INSURANCE COVERAGE ONLY (I LOVE WORDS LIKE "ESTIMATING")

 

CUSTOMER WILL BE COMPENSATED BASED UPON THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE COIN AS DETERMINED BY PCGS STANDARD PROCEDURES

 

WHICH MAY INCLUDE FILING A CLAIM WITH OUR INSURANCE CARRIER

 

THE DECLARED VALUE .... AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (2 separate values)

 

So:

 

Contract read as a whole....

 

I can't remember that darn term....gee what is it..contra pref something or is it contra prof something. ....

 

Whose insurance coverage for the original mailing and how does it link to the value of the coin and how does the TPG insurance carrier claim link to the mailing claim, and how does this link to a finite value of liability?

 

With nothing but love in my heart for you, Mr. F...

 

Respectfully,

John

[$ilverHawk]

I might be persuaded to change my mind later, but here is my current view on the situation:

 

Upon learning of the problem, PCGS should have quickly informed the submitter - in this case, an authorized dealer - that they were canceling the grading certification. I don't know if or when they did that. For all I know, they handled it extremely well or poorly.

 

PCGS owes the submitter/dealer the insured value of $15.

 

If the coin's owner requested or authorized the $15 insured amount on the submission invoice, he is owed $15 by the submitting dealer.

 

If the coin's owner requested a higher insured amount, at a minimum, he is owed fair market value by the submitting dealer.

 

I don't think this is a tough call, but I'm certainly willing to listen to those who disagree.

 

 

Mark,

 

I note that you did not address the fact that PCGS graders gave the coin in question a grade of MS64. It is clearly established that after grading and before encapsulation the coin was damaged by PCGS. The coin then somehow bypasses final review and is shipped to the submitter in a PCGS MS64 slab. Submitter communicates to PCGS that this is not the condition of the coin that was shipped. PCGS responds by canceling certification.

 

Why are you and several other posters focusing on the $15 insured amount? The issue is that PCGS damaged a coin in their care and then chose to compensate the submitter a value that was clearly not the value of the coin before PCGS damaged the coin.

 

I agree, if the scenario you outlined regarding differences in value by coin owner and coin submitter, the submitter owes the coin owner the difference in market value.

 

However, PCGS is not blameless and while not legally is ethically culpable. They know that they damaged a coin in their care and are trying to avoid responsibility by deferring to the insured value of the coin.

 

If PCGS had graded some of the coins in the Newman Collection, and during the grading process a coin had been damaged you can bet that PCGS would pay market value regardless of the declared value.

 

PCGS made a bad business/PR decision. They damaged a coin in their possession and did not own up to their error.

 

Carl

[MarkFeld]

I might be persuaded to change my mind later, but here is my current view on the situation:

 

Upon learning of the problem, PCGS should have quickly informed the submitter - in this case, an authorized dealer - that they were canceling the grading certification. I don't know if or when they did that. For all I know, they handled it extremely well or poorly.

 

PCGS owes the submitter/dealer the insured value of $15.

 

If the coin's owner requested or authorized the $15 insured amount on the submission invoice, he is owed $15 by the submitting dealer.

 

If the coin's owner requested a higher insured amount, at a minimum, he is owed fair market value by the submitting dealer.

 

I don't think this is a tough call, but I'm certainly willing to listen to those who disagree.

 

 

Mark,

 

I note that you did not address the fact that PCGS graders gave the coin in question a grade of MS64. It is clearly established that after grading and before encapsulation the coin was damaged by PCGS. The coin then somehow bypasses final review and is shipped to the submitter in a PCGS MS64 slab. Submitter communicates to PCGS that this is not the condition of the coin that was shipped. PCGS responds by canceling certification.

 

Why are you and several other posters focusing on the $15 insured amount? The issue is that PCGS damaged a coin in their care and then chose to compensate the submitter a value that was clearly not the value of the coin before PCGS damaged the coin.

 

I agree, if the scenario you outlined regarding differences in value by coin owner and coin submitter, the submitter owes the coin owner the difference in market value.

 

However, PCGS is not blameless and while not legally is ethically culpable. They know that they damaged a coin in their care and are trying to avoid responsibility by deferring to the insured value of the coin.

 

If PCGS had graded some of the coins in the Newman Collection, and during the grading process a coin had been damaged you can bet that PCGS would pay market value regardless of the declared value.

 

PCGS made a bad business/PR decision. They damaged a coin in their possession and did not own up to their error.

 

Carl

 

Carl, I don't know that I have all the actual facts, including the timing of events - that is why I have been speaking hypothetically.

[yonico]

 

Mark,

 

I note that you did not address the fact that PCGS graders gave the coin in question a grade of MS64. It is clearly established that after grading and before encapsulation the coin was damaged by PCGS. The coin then somehow bypasses final review and is shipped to the submitter in a PCGS MS64 slab. Submitter communicates to PCGS that this is not the condition of the coin that was shipped. PCGS responds by canceling certification.

 

That was the first thing I was thinking when I saw this thread on another forum.

 

Was PCGS trying to "get away with it"? Why did they encapsulate the coin and send it back, with the damage? Maybe they thought the owner of the coin wouldn't notice the damage and just keep it?!

Regardless of how much they were going to offer the owner for damaging his coin, be it $15 or $500, I would have expected a big company like PCGS to call him right after the coin was damaged and explain what happen. Not to encapsulate a harshly damaged coin as problem-free and wait for him to call and ask what happened and why his coin now has a big gash on the rim.

 

 

Also, before the owner trashed PCGS all over the coin community forums (he did, I read his posts in 2 or 3 other forums besides this one) and upset them enough to cancel this cert, there was a much easier solution to this issue:

 

1. Sell this coin in the MS64 holder to the submitting dealer or any other dealer for its full value ($400..?).

2. Let the dealer submit the coin back to PCGS for appearance review, and once PCGS see that the coin was overgraded or is a problem coin in a problem-free holder, they would have to buy it back from him at the FMV price. That is part of their guarantee

[$ilverHawk]

Mark,

 

Yes, I understand your position.

 

Off topic, thanks for continuing your support of the NGC forums by your postings on various threads. I appreciate your comments.

 

Carl

[coinman_23885]

THE DECLARED VALUE YOU STATED ON THE FRONT OF THIS FORM IS FOR ESTIMATING INSURANCE COVERAGE ONLY (I LOVE WORDS LIKE "ESTIMATING")

 

CUSTOMER WILL BE COMPENSATED BASED UPON THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE COIN AS DETERMINED BY PCGS STANDARD PROCEDURES

 

WHICH MAY INCLUDE FILING A CLAIM WITH OUR INSURANCE CARRIER

 

THE DECLARED VALUE .... AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (2 separate values)

 

So:

 

Contract read as a whole....

 

I can't remember that darn term....gee what is it..contra pref something or is it contra prof something. ....

 

Whose insurance coverage for the original mailing and how does it link to the value of the coin and how does the TPG insurance carrier claim link to the mailing claim, and how does this link to a finite value of liability?

 

With nothing but love in my heart for you, Mr. F...

 

Respectfully,

John

 

Please help me out... I may be missing part of your argument otherwise I remain unconvinced.

 

Reading the contract as a whole, I agree with Mr. Feld's interpretation. The declared value is not solely for the purpose of limiting liability of the carrier, and I am unsure what you are predicating this assumption on. I too interpreted it as a limitation on TPG liability from theft, damage, etc. that occurs while the coins are in the TPG's possession. As Mr. Feld points out, this declared value is used to determine TPG insurance premiums, and many carriers require you to declare the value ahead of time (rather than after a loss is incurred).

 

In any event, the plain meaning of a contract (assuming it is unenforceable) applies when it is unambiguous, and I see no ambiguity. The paragraph is clearly referring to PCGS's liability:

 

"f PCGS determines that the... coin was lost or damaged while in PCGS possession, Customer will be compensated based upon the fair market value of the coin... [T]he fair market value of the coin may be less than your declared value. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE TOTAL LIABILITY EXCEED THE DECLARED VALUE OF THE COIN."

 

The last two sentences appear in succession, and the proximity of the two sentences supports my interpretation, that is, the fair market value (read as the total payout ) is capped by the declared value of the coin. The language about PCGS filing a claim with its carrier and the purpose of the declared value do not change the meaning of the end of the paragraph which clearly limit TPG liability in my opinion.

 

I am also unsure of the basis for your conclusion (written in another post) that "poor performance negates the liability limitation being proffered." The contract clearly addresses the poor performance seen here and sets out a finite cap on damages. How can a party get around and receive more than he bargained for and accepted in the contract? By your logic, it would seem that statements of liquidated damages and other contract clauses limiting liability would be unenforceable, yet they are routinely enforced by state and federal courts (including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court of California). I see no grounds to challenge the enforceability of the contract or the underlying provisions.

 

Also, wouldn't there be an estoppel issue? One who declares a value for a coin (and upon which the TPG relies) would seemingly be estopped from asserting a higher value at a later time (i.e. when contingencies requiring a payout were met). After all, isn't the declared value also used in determining the submission tier? PCGS has already relied on the value in assessing grading fees and in making payouts (in the form of insurance premium) to its liability insurance carriers. It would seemingly be inequitable (legally speaking at least) to require them to rely on a higher value when PCGS would have relied on the lower value to its detriment.

 

In short, I see no legal obligation. The collector is a third party beneficiary to the contract between the submitter and PCGS, and is bound by the clear terms of the submission form/contractual instrument. Any legal liability would lie with the dealer submitter. Ethically, it is not as clear.

 

P.S. Would you please develop your argument concerning authorized dealers and your inference that liability could be imputed to PCGS? I do not see an agency relationship between PCGS and the dealer that would allow for this. Rather PCGS contracts with the dealers to allow them to submit to them and they are independent entities wholly separate form PCGS and PCGS would seemingly be immune from their actions.

 

 

[$ilverHawk]

THE DECLARED VALUE YOU STATED ON THE FRONT OF THIS FORM IS FOR ESTIMATING INSURANCE COVERAGE ONLY (I LOVE WORDS LIKE "ESTIMATING")

 

CUSTOMER WILL BE COMPENSATED BASED UPON THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE COIN AS DETERMINED BY PCGS STANDARD PROCEDURES

 

WHICH MAY INCLUDE FILING A CLAIM WITH OUR INSURANCE CARRIER

 

THE DECLARED VALUE .... AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (2 separate values)

 

So:

 

Contract read as a whole....

 

I can't remember that darn term....gee what is it..contra pref something or is it contra prof something. ....

 

Whose insurance coverage for the original mailing and how does it link to the value of the coin and how does the TPG insurance carrier claim link to the mailing claim, and how does this link to a finite value of liability?

 

With nothing but love in my heart for you, Mr. F...

 

Respectfully,

John

 

Please help me out... I may be missing part of your argument otherwise I remain unconvinced.

 

Reading the contract as a whole, I agree with Mr. Feld's interpretation. The declared value is not solely for the purpose of limiting liability of the carrier, and I am unsure what you are predicating this assumption on. I too interpreted it as a limitation on TPG liability from theft, damage, etc. that occurs while the coins are in the TPG's possession. As Mr. Feld points out, this declared value is used to determine TPG insurance premiums, and many carriers require you to declare the value ahead of time (rather than after a loss is incurred).

 

In any event, the plain meaning of a contract (assuming it is unenforceable) applies when it is unambiguous, and I see no ambiguity. The paragraph is clearly referring to PCGS's liability:

 

"f PCGS determines that the... coin was lost or damaged while in PCGS possession, Customer will be compensated based upon the fair market value of the coin... [T]he fair market value of the coin may be less than your declared value. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE TOTAL LIABILITY EXCEED THE DECLARED VALUE OF THE COIN."

 

The last two sentences appear in succession, and the proximity of the two sentences supports my interpretation, that is, the fair market value (read as the total payout ) is capped by the declared value of the coin. The language about PCGS filing a claim with its carrier and the purpose of the declared value do not change the meaning of the end of the paragraph which clearly limit TPG liability in my opinion.

 

I am also unsure of the basis for your conclusion (written in another post) that "poor performance negates the liability limitation being proffered." The contract clearly addresses the poor performance seen here and sets out a finite cap on damages. How can a party get around and receive more than he bargained for and accepted in the contract? By your logic, it would seem that statements of liquidated damages and other contract clauses limiting liability would be unenforceable, yet they are routinely enforced by state and federal courts (including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court of California). I see no grounds to challenge the enforceability of the contract or the underlying provisions.

 

Also, wouldn't there be an estoppel issue? One who declares a value for a coin (and upon which the TPG relies) would seemingly be estopped from asserting a higher value at a later time (i.e. when contingencies requiring a payout were met). After all, isn't the declared value also used in determining the submission tier? PCGS has already relied on the value in assessing grading fees and in making payouts (in the form of insurance premium) to its liability insurance carriers. It would seemingly be inequitable (legally speaking at least) to require them to rely on a higher value when PCGS would have relied on the lower value to its detriment.

 

In short, I see no legal obligation. The collector is a third party beneficiary to the contract between the submitter and PCGS, and is bound by the clear terms of the submission form/contractual instrument. Any legal liability would lie with the dealer submitter. Ethically, it is not as clear.

 

P.S. Would you please develop your argument concerning authorized dealers and your inference that liability could be imputed to PCGS? I do not see an agency relationship between PCGS and the dealer that would allow for this. Rather PCGS contracts with the dealers to allow them to submit to them and they are independent entities wholly separate form PCGS and PCGS would seemingly be immune from their actions.

 

 

Damn, just as PCGS would have hoped, this thread is descending into legal arguments. I use the term descending in it's most contemptible meaning.

 

PCGS per their coin submission contract has no legal obligation to reimburse the submitter more than the insured amount of the submission. That is clear.

 

I ask again, why do some posters on this thread disregard the fact that PCGS graded the coin as MS64, damaged the coin, encapsulated the coin as MS64 and then canceled the certification?

 

Does any business that evaluates and thereby assigns values to products have the freedom to alter the value of the product due to damage while in their possession? Think about it, what is the definition of a Third Party Grader? Does that not imply no impartiality? If the TPG damages a coin in their possession after assigning a grade how can that TPG ever be trusted when the TPG refuses to acknowledge the original grade?

 

My last post in this thread, I'm talking ethics and morality and it seems most posters are talking legalese.

 

Carl

[e1cnr]

they just want it back so they can reholder it - the prong lifted the flap up - and careful reinsertion will keep this as a MS64

[nk1nk]

THE DECLARED VALUE YOU STATED ON THE FRONT OF THIS FORM IS FOR ESTIMATING INSURANCE COVERAGE ONLY (I LOVE WORDS LIKE "ESTIMATING")

 

CUSTOMER WILL BE COMPENSATED BASED UPON THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE COIN AS DETERMINED BY PCGS STANDARmakes CEDURES

 

WHICH MAY INCLUDE FILING A CLAIM WITH OUR INSURANCE CARRIER

 

THE DECLARED VALUE .... AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (2 separate values)

 

So:

 

Contract read as a whole....

 

I can't remember that darn term....gee what is it..contra pref something or is it contra prof something. ....

 

Whose insurance coverage for the original mailing and how does it link to the value of the coin and how does the TPG insurance carrier claim link to the mailing claim, and how does this link to a finite value of liability?

 

With nothing but love in my heart for you, Mr. F...

 

Respectfully,

John

 

Please help me out... I may be missing part of your argument otherwise I remain unconvinced.

 

Reading the contract as a whole, I agree with Mr. Feld's interpretation. The declared value is not solely for the purpose of limiting liability of the carrier, and I am unsure what you are predicating this assumption on. I too interpreted it as a limitation on TPG liability from theft, damage, etc. that occurs while the coins are in the TPG's possession. As Mr. Feld points out, this declared value is used to determine TPG insurance premiums, and many carriers require you to declare the value ahead of time (rather than after a loss is incurred).

 

In any event, the plain meaning of a contract (assuming it is unenforceable) applies when it is unambiguous, and I see no ambiguity. The paragraph is clearly referring to PCGS's liability:

 

"f PCGS determines that the... coin was lost or damaged while in PCGS possession, Customer will be compensated based upon the fair market value of the coin... [T]he fair market value of the coin may be less than your declared value. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE TOTAL LIABILITY EXCEED THE DECLARED VALUE OF THE COIN."

 

The last two sentences appear in succession, and the proximity of the two sentences supports my interpretation, that is, the fair market value (read as the total payout ) is capped by the declared value of the coin. The language about PCGS filing a claim with its carrier and the purpose of the declared value do not change the meaning of the end of the paragraph which clearly limit TPG liability in my opinion.

 

I am also unsure of the basis for your conclusion (written in another post) that "poor performance negates the liability limitation being proffered." The contract clearly addresses the poor performance seen here and sets out a finite cap on damages. How can a party get around and receive more than he bargained for and accepted in the contract? By your logic, it would seem that statements of liquidated damages and other contract clauses limiting liability would be unenforceable, yet they are routinely enforced by state and federal courts (including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court of California). I see no grounds to challenge the enforceability of the contract or the underlying provisions.

 

Also, wouldn't there be an estoppel issue? One who declares a value for a coin (and upon which the TPG relies) would seemingly be estopped from asserting a higher value at a later time (i.e. when contingencies requiring a payout were met). After all, isn't the declared value also used in determining the submission tier? PCGS has already relied on the value in assessing grading fees and in making payouts (in the form of insurance premium) to its liability insurance carriers. It would seemingly be inequitable (legally speaking at least) to require them to rely on a higher value when PCGS would have relied on the lower value to its detriment.

 

In short, I see no legal obligation. The collector is a third party beneficiary to the contract between the submitter and PCGS, and is bound by the clear terms of the submission form/contractual instrument. Any legal liability would lie with the dealer submitter. Ethically, it is not as clear.

 

P.S. Would you please develop your argument concerning authorized dealers and your inference that liability could be imputed to PCGS? I do not see an agency relationship between PCGS and the dealer that would allow for this. Rather PCGS contracts with the dealers to allow them to submit to them and they are independent entities wholly separate form PCGS and PCGS would seemingly be immune from their actions.

 

 

Damn, just as PCGS would have hoped, this thread is descending into legal arguments. I use the term descending in it's most contemptible meaning.

 

PCGS per their coin submission contract has no legal obligation to reimburse the submitter more than the insured amount of the submission. That is clear.

 

I ask again, why do some posters on this thread disregard the fact that PCGS graded the coin as MS64, damaged the coin, encapsulated the coin as MS64 and then canceled the certification?

 

Does any business that evaluates and thereby assigns values to products have the freedom to alter the value of the product due to damage while in their possession? Think about it, what is the definition of a Third Party Grader? Does that not imply no impartiality? If the TPG damages a coin in their possession after assigning a grade how can that TPG ever be trusted when the TPG refuses to acknowledge the original grade?

 

My last post in this thread, I'm talking ethics and morality and it seems most posters are talking legalese.

 

Carl

 

I see the legal side, but you are correct this is an epic moral fail. I wonder if the same people defending PCGS would have a problem with the threads about a guy who goes to a ninety year old ladies garage sale and buys her recently deceased husbands $10,000 coin collection for $20. I mean really what's the problem she only asked for $20.

 

CaptH makes a great example of a large portion of PCGS's customer's, uninformed, they don't have a clue. They either think their coin is a million bucks or they simply don't know the value of their coin, thus the whole reason to send it to the experts. PCGS sets the value of the coin with their expert opinion plain and simple. Why not have a set insurance fee that covers the fair market value of your coin, the fee varies per value tier? Because they don't have to enforce over value and they can take advantage of inexperienced customers who under value.

 

I too am done with this thread you either get it or you don't. I am glad to see a few get it and think PCGS made a big moral mistake which is the biggest issue not the legal one.

 

Nick

[MarkFeld]

THE DECLARED VALUE YOU STATED ON THE FRONT OF THIS FORM IS FOR ESTIMATING INSURANCE COVERAGE ONLY (I LOVE WORDS LIKE "ESTIMATING")

 

CUSTOMER WILL BE COMPENSATED BASED UPON THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE COIN AS DETERMINED BY PCGS STANDARmakes CEDURES

 

WHICH MAY INCLUDE FILING A CLAIM WITH OUR INSURANCE CARRIER

 

THE DECLARED VALUE .... AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (2 separate values)

 

So:

 

Contract read as a whole....

 

I can't remember that darn term....gee what is it..contra pref something or is it contra prof something. ....

 

Whose insurance coverage for the original mailing and how does it link to the value of the coin and how does the TPG insurance carrier claim link to the mailing claim, and how does this link to a finite value of liability?

 

With nothing but love in my heart for you, Mr. F...

 

Respectfully,

John

 

Please help me out... I may be missing part of your argument otherwise I remain unconvinced.

 

Reading the contract as a whole, I agree with Mr. Feld's interpretation. The declared value is not solely for the purpose of limiting liability of the carrier, and I am unsure what you are predicating this assumption on. I too interpreted it as a limitation on TPG liability from theft, damage, etc. that occurs while the coins are in the TPG's possession. As Mr. Feld points out, this declared value is used to determine TPG insurance premiums, and many carriers require you to declare the value ahead of time (rather than after a loss is incurred).

 

In any event, the plain meaning of a contract (assuming it is unenforceable) applies when it is unambiguous, and I see no ambiguity. The paragraph is clearly referring to PCGS's liability:

 

"f PCGS determines that the... coin was lost or damaged while in PCGS possession, Customer will be compensated based upon the fair market value of the coin... [T]he fair market value of the coin may be less than your declared value. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE TOTAL LIABILITY EXCEED THE DECLARED VALUE OF THE COIN."

 

The last two sentences appear in succession, and the proximity of the two sentences supports my interpretation, that is, the fair market value (read as the total payout ) is capped by the declared value of the coin. The language about PCGS filing a claim with its carrier and the purpose of the declared value do not change the meaning of the end of the paragraph which clearly limit TPG liability in my opinion.

 

I am also unsure of the basis for your conclusion (written in another post) that "poor performance negates the liability limitation being proffered." The contract clearly addresses the poor performance seen here and sets out a finite cap on damages. How can a party get around and receive more than he bargained for and accepted in the contract? By your logic, it would seem that statements of liquidated damages and other contract clauses limiting liability would be unenforceable, yet they are routinely enforced by state and federal courts (including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court of California). I see no grounds to challenge the enforceability of the contract or the underlying provisions.

 

Also, wouldn't there be an estoppel issue? One who declares a value for a coin (and upon which the TPG relies) would seemingly be estopped from asserting a higher value at a later time (i.e. when contingencies requiring a payout were met). After all, isn't the declared value also used in determining the submission tier? PCGS has already relied on the value in assessing grading fees and in making payouts (in the form of insurance premium) to its liability insurance carriers. It would seemingly be inequitable (legally speaking at least) to require them to rely on a higher value when PCGS would have relied on the lower value to its detriment.

 

In short, I see no legal obligation. The collector is a third party beneficiary to the contract between the submitter and PCGS, and is bound by the clear terms of the submission form/contractual instrument. Any legal liability would lie with the dealer submitter. Ethically, it is not as clear.

 

P.S. Would you please develop your argument concerning authorized dealers and your inference that liability could be imputed to PCGS? I do not see an agency relationship between PCGS and the dealer that would allow for this. Rather PCGS contracts with the dealers to allow them to submit to them and they are independent entities wholly separate form PCGS and PCGS would seemingly be immune from their actions.

 

 

Damn, just as PCGS would have hoped, this thread is descending into legal arguments. I use the term descending in it's most contemptible meaning.

 

PCGS per their coin submission contract has no legal obligation to reimburse the submitter more than the insured amount of the submission. That is clear.

 

I ask again, why do some posters on this thread disregard the fact that PCGS graded the coin as MS64, damaged the coin, encapsulated the coin as MS64 and then canceled the certification?

 

Does any business that evaluates and thereby assigns values to products have the freedom to alter the value of the product due to damage while in their possession? Think about it, what is the definition of a Third Party Grader? Does that not imply no impartiality? If the TPG damages a coin in their possession after assigning a grade how can that TPG ever be trusted when the TPG refuses to acknowledge the original grade?

 

My last post in this thread, I'm talking ethics and morality and it seems most posters are talking legalese.

 

Carl

 

I see the legal side, but you are correct this is an epic moral fail. I wonder if the same people defending PCGS would have a problem with the threads about a guy who goes to a ninety year old ladies garage sale and buys her recently deceased husbands $10,000 coin collection for $20. I mean really what's the problem she only asked for $20.

 

CaptH makes a great example of a large portion of PCGS's customer's, uninformed, they don't have a clue. They either think their coin is a million bucks or they simply don't know the value of their coin, thus the whole reason to send it to the experts. PCGS sets the value of the coin with their expert opinion plain and simple. Why not have a set insurance fee that covers the fair market value of your coin, the fee varies per value tier? Because they don't have to enforce over value and they can take advantage of inexperienced customers who under value.

 

I too am done with this thread you either get it or you don't. I am glad to see a few get it and think PCGS made a big moral mistake which is the biggest issue not the legal one.

 

Nick

 

The fact that some of us have a different focus or opinion or prefer not to take sides without having all of the facts, does not mean that we don't "get it".

 

Does anyone here know with any certainty, whether PCGS damaged the coin, or if the coin might have had a severe flaw, which worsened and manifested itself, while in their possession? I have heard stories of coins having had structural flaws and pieces peeling/flaking or even breaking off, during the encapsulation process.

[messydesk]

Does anyone here know with any certainty, whether PCGS damaged the coin, or if the coin might have had a severe flaw, which worsened and manifested itself, while in their possession? I have heard stories of coins having had structural flaws and pieces peeling/flaking or even breaking off, during the encapsulation process.

This is what I suspected (4 days ago, already?). I'm thinking the coin should have been returned in a body bag as structurally unstable. A fresh gash would be much shinier than the damage that is pictured.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Good Morning, Mr. Coinman.

 

I would be less than mannerly if I did not acknowledge that you have presented an eloquent response.

 

I will concur with all you have stated, and admit my position is not in keeping with your presentation.

 

Respects,

John Curlis

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I might be persuaded to change my mind later, but here is my current view on the situation:

 

Upon learning of the problem, PCGS should have quickly informed the submitter - in this case, an authorized dealer - that they were canceling the grading certification. I don't know if or when they did that. For all I know, they handled it extremely well or poorly.

 

PCGS owes the submitter/dealer the insured value of $15.

 

If the coin's owner requested or authorized the $15 insured amount on the submission invoice, he is owed $15 by the submitting dealer.

 

If the coin's owner requested a higher insured amount, at a minimum, he is owed fair market value by the submitting dealer.

 

I don't think this is a tough call, but I'm certainly willing to listen to those who disagree.

 

 

Mark,

 

I note that you did not address the fact that PCGS graders gave the coin in question a grade of MS64. It is clearly established that after grading and before encapsulation the coin was damaged by PCGS. The coin then somehow bypasses final review and is shipped to the submitter in a PCGS MS64 slab. Submitter communicates to PCGS that this is not the condition of the coin that was shipped. PCGS responds by canceling certification.

 

Why are you and several other posters focusing on the $15 insured amount? The issue is that PCGS damaged a coin in their care and then chose to compensate the submitter a value that was clearly not the value of the coin before PCGS damaged the coin.

 

I agree, if the scenario you outlined regarding differences in value by coin owner and coin submitter, the submitter owes the coin owner the difference in market value.

 

However, PCGS is not blameless and while not legally is ethically culpable. They know that they damaged a coin in their care and are trying to avoid responsibility by deferring to the insured value of the coin.

 

If PCGS had graded some of the coins in the Newman Collection, and during the grading process a coin had been damaged you can bet that PCGS would pay market value regardless of the declared value.

 

PCGS made a bad business/PR decision. They damaged a coin in their possession and did not own up to their error.

 

Carl

 

Good morning Mr. $ilverHawk.

 

Yes, the $15.00 is meaningless.

 

The insured value is not linked in any manner, save for the confusion (intentional) of language used in condition #4. It does not establish the liability cap.

 

Lets all, for a moment, think about #4. It was (and is) constructed to prevent abuse.

 

The condition, when read as a whole, is a safeguard.

 

If, all other issues being equal, the declared value had been (pick a figure between 1,000 and 1 mil.), the condition would protect the TPG, in that the portion of condition #4 that states the method of fair and equitable compensation would be triggered. I am certain that the drafting of the condition #4 language was not and is not intended to abuse the submitter, when a situation such as the one under discussion arises. It is silly to present any position or argument that the intent of the TPG was and is to do that.

 

The declared value can't be linked to the fair and equitable value in any manner as a finite cap of liability. If it could be, then the entire language construction of condition #4 could be shortened to be only the words described by Mr. Feld in Caps.

 

This is not an issue of morality or ethics.

 

It is an issue of a human being feeling cheated, and an issue of another human being making a silly foolish offer of compensation (if that did in fact happen).

 

The right thing will be done, in the end, and logic and common sense will win the day.

 

Respectfully,

 

John Curlis