Should a TPG cancel a cert# not in there possession

[CaptHenway]

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.

 

It looks as though it MAY have been a lamination that got dislodged when the coin was pushed into the prongs. Couldn't prove it without a closer look.

[nk1nk]

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

 

Dually noted, I agree and apologize for my silliness.

 

Nick

[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

 

Dually noted, I agree and apologize for my silliness.

 

Nick

 

Good Afternoon Mr. nk1nk.

 

I assure you, I was not and did not intend to offend anyone by my use of silly/silliness, etc., and was not directing my commentary at any single person or belittling their position.

 

I could have used another phrase that would be less irritating, and I apologize for not doing so.

 

I think most people will likely recognize that any TPG is not going to endanger its reputation by being obstinate and/or relying on the stated issue of liability Cap, in this instance. The publicity thus far is punishment enough.

 

I don't believe there was any intent to cover up, or any lack of ethic intent other than heat of the moment positions by either the owner/TPG. I would be very disappointed if there was an intent otherwise.

 

Again, I apologize.

 

In my own way, I was trying, throughout this Thread, to interject talking points that would diffuse any unreasonable accusations against the owner of the coin

or the TPG.

 

I guess I failed in my task.

 

Respectfully,

 

John

[coinman_23885]

 

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....

 

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

 

Carl

 

But it wasn't so clear to at least one of the posters, legally speaking anyway. It just so happens that I value his opinion and he is often correct in these sort of matters despite the fact that I think he is wrong here. Given several of his posts in the past, it also appears that he may have a legal background and diversity of opinion on the legal issue is of interest to me and may potentially be educational (and actually fun to some, myself included). I see nothing contemptible about trying to better understand his position.

 

In any event, the original poster asked whether third party grading services should cancel a certificate/certification number of a coin that is not currently in their possession. The scope of the question was quite broad and entails both legal and ethical ramifications. Notwithstanding the fact that I strongly believe in doing the "right" and "ethical" thing, some may not choose to do so and the legal (as well as ethical ramifications) are very much relevant to the discussion. In fact, you will see that I do address the ethical issue and business issues in other posts, legalese aside.

 

[Conder101]

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.

The liability would be the FMV of the coin not to exceed $5,000. Since the TPG reserves the right to determine what the FMV actually is and they feel the coin is counterfeit they declare the FMV is $0 That amount being less than the upper limit established by the submitters declared value, it becomes their liability figure.

 

 

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.

Not quite. Yes they graded it MS-64. Yes it was apparently damaged between grading and encapsulating. Yes it was not caught duing final review and was shipped in the MS-64 slab. Yes PCGS was notified the the coin as shipped was no lnger a MS-64. PCGS did NOT respond by cancelling the certificate. Te responded by asking for the return of the coin so it could be examined.this was declined. Apparently PCGS made several attempts at having the coin returned. Submitter insisted on want to know what he would be compensated and PCGS replied $15 the limit of their liability, The offer of compensation was declined. Having made the offer that their guarantee required and having had the offer declined the certificate was cancelled.

[19Lyds]

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

 

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

 

I have made a post requesting the holder be shown.

 

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

 

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

 

Sorry I missed that

 

Jim

Well, following the Google Search, site:pcgs.com Travancore 777888, it appears that the cert number is "28316473" which when entered on the PCGS Cert Verification page shows:

 

"That Cert is not available for display"

 

This tells me that particular certification number does in fact exist but that viewing it is restricted. If the cert number had been "cancelled" then it would not be in the database and would then show up as:

 

"That Cert Number was not found in the database."

 

I think, but could be wrong, that the OP on the other site simply does not understand what is happening and since he will not send the coin back to PCGS for validation of their handling error, is simply going to bad mouth PCGS instead of actually following procedures for getting proper value on his coin.

 

Often times folks who do not submit coins on a regular basis get confused over this cert number verification issue and since the coin appears to have obviously been damaged, its only fitting that PCGS restrict access to the cert verification until they can resolve the issue.

 

The original owner of the coin has now adopted a stubborn attitude about not sending the coin back and is just screwing himself while blaming PCGS over something which he simply does not understand.

[19Lyds]

Update: Evidently the OP has worked out a deal with the dealer which submitted the coin.

 

What will happen now is that the dealer will send it to PCGS and will end up getting the OP's settlement.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Thank you Mr. Condor101, for correcting me, again.

 

The FMV part; I have to assume you are more knowledgeable than me, and what the process is for determining FMV, and what its definition is in the Terms and Conditions (and the Dealer Agreement) and how one links such a value to the declared value, and how one links such a value to the insured value, and how one links such a value to the TPG insurance, and how one links the TPG insurance to the Carrier declared value insurance, and what was the declared value when it was mailed back to the owner, and who determined the declared value for purposes of insuring the coin when it was returned, and whether or not that is the FMV, but, again, it does not really matter, because I am sure I am being boring and have stated all this already. It is an interesting exercise, and as usual, I failed, and all my points are useless.

[CaptHenway]

Update: Evidently the OP has worked out a deal with the dealer which submitted the coin.

 

What will happen now is that the dealer will send it to PCGS and will end up getting the OP's settlement.

 

As I had suggested, the dealer appears to have been the one at fault here, and I am glad to hear that he has done the right thing by the collector.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Update: Evidently the OP has worked out a deal with the dealer which submitted the coin.

 

What will happen now is that the dealer will send it to PCGS and will end up getting the OP's settlement.

 

As I had suggested, the dealer appears to have been the one at fault here, and I am glad to hear that he has done the right thing by the collector.

 

A settlement does not mean the dealer was/is at fault, nor does it mean the TPG or coin owner is at fault.

 

The whole issue would not have happened had the accidental "fault" not occurred while in the possession of the TPG in the first place.

 

All it is a settlement.

 

It doesn't in any way translate as the vindication of anyone, or the fault of anyone, or how such a situation will be handled the next time it may happen, or if the wording of the submission form may change (after 31 Dec.2013, of course).

[johnny9434]

in any case i hope ya all have a happy thanksgiving (all the best)

[19Lyds]

Update: Evidently the OP has worked out a deal with the dealer which submitted the coin.

 

What will happen now is that the dealer will send it to PCGS and will end up getting the OP's settlement.

 

As I had suggested, the dealer appears to have been the one at fault here, and I am glad to hear that he has done the right thing by the collector.

 

A settlement does not mean the dealer was/is at fault, nor does it mean the TPG or coin owner is at fault.

 

The whole issue would not have happened had the accidental "fault" not occurred while in the possession of the TPG in the first place.

 

All it is a settlement.

 

It doesn't in any way translate as the vindication of anyone, or the fault of anyone, or how such a situation will be handled the next time it may happen, or if the wording of the submission form may change (after 31 Dec.2013, of course).

Any "fault" which folks appear to be fixated on has noithing to do with the dealer as much as it has to do with what the original submitter of the coin has interpreted as only a $15 settlement.

 

Had he simply sent the coin to PCGS, I have no doubt that he would have been offered a FMV settlement for the coin which is what whomever he spoke with at PCGS should have related to him.

 

Judging from that submitters adamant refusal to do anything other than complain about PCGS, I could only imagine how the conversation went with PCGS.