Break it out or not ?

[Nutmeg Coin]

It is impossible to tell what should be done as none of us are mind readers and it is impossible to tell whether the coin should be resubmitted or not, and the person who started this thread was irresponsible not to provide pics. or even a certification number which would bring up an image. Lots of undergraded coins and those that were not given numerical grades get broken out of the holders and resubmitted. Every major leader in this hobby, has done resubmissions when they question the verdict as well they should when there are reasonable differences of opinion.

[Kurtdog]

Lots of undergraded coins and those that were not given numerical grades get broken out of the holders and resubmitted. Every major leader in this hobby, has done resubmissions when they question the verdict as well they should when there are reasonable differences of opinion.

Let me suggest to you that when they crack out detailed coins and sell them raw without disclosing they were detailed coins that's when they slip in the eyes of the public from major leader to major scumbag.

[RWB]

"...when they crack out detailed coins and sell them raw without disclosing they were detailed coins..."

 

The difficulty is in identifying such sellers before a transaction.

[okbustchaser]

Lots of undergraded coins and those that were not given numerical grades get broken out of the holders and resubmitted. Every major leader in this hobby, has done resubmissions when they question the verdict as well they should when there are reasonable differences of opinion.

Let me suggest to you that when they crack out detailed coins and sell them raw without disclosing they were detailed coins that's when they slip in the eyes of the public from major leader to major scumbag.

 

They are no longer "detailed coins" at that point. They are raw coins. The TPG's opinion no longer exists.

[AHFreak]

I know that my opinion only exists in a "perfect world" type of place, but all these thoughts/beliefs/opinions put everything back onto the seller.... It doesn't make sense that we do it this way. At what point do we acknowledge the buyer's responsibility in all this? Provided the coin is truly in fact, "improperly cleaned", Why aren't we having the conversation about buyers educating themselves and being able to share some accountability in making that determination all on their own???...

 

As a coin-buyer, who as little as just a couple years ago freakin was terrified of "accidentally, or unknowingly" buying an improperly cleaned, or otherwise problem coin, I take tremendous pride in the development of my "eye", and my ability to have all I need to have right in my own mind without needing to take anybodys word for anything... I could not even imagine paying for coins based totally on having to trust whoever it is that is selling it to me about what said coin is or isnt, versus using my own ability to asses said coin. I mean, if we put the focus on helping "lifting up" prospective buyers, and collectors, versus this constant drain about all the shady, and less than perfectly honest coin-dealers out there.... wouldn't that be solving the problem in a much more effective way? By empowering collectors/buyers, you are essentially helping the bad guys weed themselves out. I don't know, maybe I am totally naïve to this world, and the possibilities. it is just the feeling I have had when this subject comes up....

[mikew148]

Lots of undergraded coins and those that were not given numerical grades get broken out of the holders and resubmitted. Every major leader in this hobby, has done resubmissions when they question the verdict as well they should when there are reasonable differences of opinion.

Let me suggest to you that when they crack out detailed coins and sell them raw without disclosing they were detailed coins that's when they slip in the eyes of the public from major leader to major scumbag.

 

They are no longer "detailed coins" at that point. They are raw coins. The TPG's opinion no longer exists.

 

Even though the coin is no longer in the "details" holder - it still has a history.

 

If I was selling a cracked out details graded coin, I would feel morally obligated to inform the buyer.

[Nutmeg Coin]

Problem coins always sell at a discount whether noted on a holder or not. I note "cleaned" and other issues when selling, the problem holder though does no good when selling just check auction figures. They always sell for a lot less. So the dealer who unloaded a bunch of problem material through his shop or shows, and every basic dealer at shows has problem material in and out of numerical graded holders, unless they are the super high end types. Returns address the problem coin situation, as far as I know by law businesses must accept returns not just in auctions but under the commercial code in most situations of problem transactions.

 

Warren Mills confronted PCGS' David Hall about what he regarded as "looseness" of straight grading what he regarded as "cleaned" coins, he claims to be stricter than CAC, Mills verges on fanaticism. I had a buyer of an NGC and CAC certified coin send me an email in ebay that he was going to send what he regarded as a "problem" coin to an ANA governor before it came back to me to supposedly alert the ANA to laxity in the grading standards. Q David Bowers has written about fanaticism in details grading, coins he has looked at which have no problems based on his comprehensive experience but which ended up in details holders.

 

Once again the problem comes to original posters that provoke and then run away with no evidence of what they are talking about. No evidence even the OP was being honest in his experience. Without a picture or a certification number it is impossible to make a clear judgment.

[RWB]

It looks like the difficulty is not the coin as much as the seller who has been made aware of an adverse opinion, but does not share that with a potential buyer.

[Nutmeg Coin]

It looks like the difficulty is not the coin as much as the seller who has been made aware of an adverse opinion, but does not share that with a potential buyer.

 

Should sellers of numerically graded PCGS and NGC coins list all the problems he/she sees in coins they are selling also? What price levels are you talking about, every single coin no matter how cheap or expensive? If we note a problem on a certified numerically graded coin or someone else sees it should we have a moral responsibility to send the coin back to the grading service for their guarantee consideration no matter the magnitude of business financial loss or lost time with resources? If a coin does not get approved by CAC and they tell you why do you have a moral responsibility to let the potential buyer what the reason was CAC would not sticker?

 

There should be concerns about certified problem coins like this major seller: http://www.ebay.com/usr/centsles Problem material that gets shilled to make it appear that there is a lot of interest in an auction magnifies the problem.

[RWB]

If a seller is aware of an adverse opinion by a recognized professional, then they should divulge it to a potential buyer. Same for selling house, car, puppy, or previously-tasted peanut butter.

 

[mikew148]

If a seller is aware of an adverse opinion by a recognized professional, then they should divulge it to a potential buyer. Same for selling house, car, puppy, or previously-tasted peanut butter.

 

Although I'm not quite sure about peanut butter - I agree with with this.

 

The seller is entitled to his/her opinion and can always add a comment in opposition of the professional opinion. ( However, a seller that makes a habit of doing so will ultimately make me look elsewhere)

 

 

[Nutmeg Coin]

If a seller is aware of an adverse opinion by a recognized professional, then they should divulge it to a potential buyer. Same for selling house, car, puppy, or previously-tasted peanut butter.

 

No matter the coin, whether a $50 coin, $100, $150, etc.? You send a coin into CAC they say no sticker, sometimes they do not share why. But if they do you are morally bound to report it to the buyer, whether it is a major dealer or a novice? Does that work both ways? Why don't dealers hardly ever tell the previous history of a coins people buy whether certified or uncertified? And how is it that NGC and PCGS have fierce confidentiality clauses for all its employees to not divulge internal communication on matters that are sensitive to their financial position as grading companies? Why don't former graders write controversial books on all that happened that may have been tinged by insider activity? How is it that the grading services are so silent on sensitive matters?

[Brol]

I sent in a high grade Morgan to NGC, it came back improperly cleaned, UNC details. If I wanted to sell it should I crack it out and sell it raw or sell it in the slab?

 

Crack it, clean it, put in oven for nice color, use taco bell napkins, brush it again with tooth brush, later with wire one. Do whatever you want. It's your coin and you have a right to make most money you can on this coin. Let the buyer decide whether he likes and how buyer grades the coin.

If I see I can get most of my money back in details slab I will sell it in one (authenticity important too on some details graded coins), if not - crack.

[Curry]

I would say keep it in slab so the coin is known that it is cleaned. I dont think people will be happy if they found out they just bought a improperly cleaned coin.

[coinman_23885]

If this is the same coin from the other thread, then I think NGC is correct, and I would leave it in its slab. Someone might appreciate the plastic case. Under no circumstances do I think that the coin would do better raw nor do I think it is worth resubmitting.

[okbustchaser]

Lots of undergraded coins and those that were not given numerical grades get broken out of the holders and resubmitted. Every major leader in this hobby, has done resubmissions when they question the verdict as well they should when there are reasonable differences of opinion.

Let me suggest to you that when they crack out detailed coins and sell them raw without disclosing they were detailed coins that's when they slip in the eyes of the public from major leader to major scumbag.

 

They are no longer "detailed coins" at that point. They are raw coins. The TPG's opinion no longer exists.

 

Even though the coin is no longer in the "details" holder - it still has a history.

 

If I was selling a cracked out details graded coin, I would feel morally obligated to inform the buyer.

 

You buy a raw coin. Both the seller and you feel that it is a strong AU and you pay accordingly. You send it to NGC and it comes back as MS 62. Are you still morally obligated to inform prospective buyers that it is actually (in your opinion) lightly circulated?

 

Not so hypothetical (since I own the coin) situation. You buy a coin in a PCGS MS 63 slab. It so happens that you buy it from a dealer who does feel that he shouldn't sell AU coins as MS--even if that is what it says on the label-- and pay accordingly. You promptly crack it out of the (in your opinion) improperly graded slab and put it in your collection of raw coins where it is listed as AU. Now, 17 years later you consider selling it. Are you morally obligated to tell prospective buyers that PCGS thinks it is a 63 and therefore price it as such? It's part of the coin's "history", isn't it? Or should you simply sell it as the AU that you feel the coin truly is?

 

Once again, it has to work both ways. Either the opinion outlives the slab, or it doesn't.

 

Edit to spell.

[Mark T]

If this is the same coin from the other thread, then I think NGC is correct, and I would leave it in its slab. Someone might appreciate the plastic case. Under no circumstances do I think that the coin would do better raw nor do I think it is worth resubmitting.

 

+ 1

[Nutmeg Coin]

Lots of undergraded coins and those that were not given numerical grades get broken out of the holders and resubmitted. Every major leader in this hobby, has done resubmissions when they question the verdict as well they should when there are reasonable differences of opinion.

Let me suggest to you that when they crack out detailed coins and sell them raw without disclosing they were detailed coins that's when they slip in the eyes of the public from major leader to major scumbag.

 

They are no longer "detailed coins" at that point. They are raw coins. The TPG's opinion no longer exists.

 

Even though the coin is no longer in the "details" holder - it still has a history.

 

If I was selling a cracked out details graded coin, I would feel morally obligated to inform the buyer.

 

You buy a raw coin. Both the seller and you feel that it is a strong AU and you pay accordingly. You send it to NGC and it comes back as MS 62. Are you still morally obligated to inform prospective buyers that it is actually (in your opinion) lightly circulated?

 

Not so hypothetical (since I own the coin) situation. You buy a coin in a PCGS MS 63 slab. It so happens that you buy it from a dealer who does feel that he shouldn't sell AU coins as MS--even if that is what it says on the label-- and pay accordingly. You promptly crack it out of the (in your opinion) improperly graded slab and put it in your collection of raw coins where it is listed as AU. Now, 17 years later you consider selling it. Are you morally obligated to tell prospective buyers that PCGS thinks it is a 63 and therefore price it as such? It's part of the coin's "history", isn't it? Or should you simply sell it as the AU that you feel the coin truly is?

 

Once again, it has to work both ways. Either the opinion outlives the slab, or it doesn't.

 

Edit to spell.

 

A few situations to illustrate the grading game and "morals".

 

A major dealer connected to a major auction house offers a rare "S" mint $10 Indian, he shows the old PCGS AU58 holder it had been in, now raw, and says it is a "lock" MS60/61. NGC calls it an "AU55" at the same show, should the buyer have any recourse?

 

A dealer who had bright, bold, self-aggrandizing ads every week, claiming to pay the most, makes offers for no problem coins certified by PCGS and NGC, but when they arrive he offers prices based on lower grades, is he acting immorally?

 

Major auction houses sold raw coins for years as of a certain grade and quality, should they be liable if the coin comes back from grading in a details or genuine holder?

 

There is a huge quantum difference between the lower price levels for generic coins and legitimately rare coins, so judgments need to be made totally on a case by case basis; frankly the "experts" who claim to be accurate in grading coins and currency bear a great deal more responsibility than lower level sellers of material where the downside is limited. The moral absolutists want to place intolerable burdens on the backs of those buying and selling without regard to proportionality or consequences. Certainly if someone pays too much for numismatics they should have rights to return. And the better dealers and auction houses will permit generous options to unhappy customers.

 

[Afterword]

"Are you morally obligated to tell prospective buyers that PCGS thinks it is a 63 and therefore price it as such?"

 

 

 

 

Yes, I would think it is something that the buyer should know before making an informed decision to purchase the coin - no matter the asking price. Can you think of any reason why the buyer would not want this knowledge disclosed?

 

However, you would have been better off leaving the coin in the PCGS holder. I think for that act alone, you would lose credibility with the buyer.

 

[mikew148]

Lots of undergraded coins and those that were not given numerical grades get broken out of the holders and resubmitted. Every major leader in this hobby, has done resubmissions when they question the verdict as well they should when there are reasonable differences of opinion.

Let me suggest to you that when they crack out detailed coins and sell them raw without disclosing they were detailed coins that's when they slip in the eyes of the public from major leader to major scumbag.

 

They are no longer "detailed coins" at that point. They are raw coins. The TPG's opinion no longer exists.

 

Even though the coin is no longer in the "details" holder - it still has a history.

 

If I was selling a cracked out details graded coin, I would feel morally obligated to inform the buyer.

 

You buy a raw coin. Both the seller and you feel that it is a strong AU and you pay accordingly. You send it to NGC and it comes back as MS 62. Are you still morally obligated to inform prospective buyers that it is actually (in your opinion) lightly circulated?

 

Not so hypothetical (since I own the coin) situation. You buy a coin in a PCGS MS 63 slab. It so happens that you buy it from a dealer who does feel that he shouldn't sell AU coins as MS--even if that is what it says on the label-- and pay accordingly. You promptly crack it out of the (in your opinion) improperly graded slab and put it in your collection of raw coins where it is listed as AU. Now, 17 years later you consider selling it. Are you morally obligated to tell prospective buyers that PCGS thinks it is a 63 and therefore price it as such? It's part of the coin's "history", isn't it? Or should you simply sell it as the AU that you feel the coin truly is?

 

Once again, it has to work both ways. Either the opinion outlives the slab, or it doesn't.

 

Edit to spell.

 

There are too many variables of market grading to answer your question without seeing the coins.

 

Is it possible that the first coin had cabinet friction and appeared to be AU58 but the TPG thought it would do well in the 62 market?

 

Coins need to dealt with on a case by case basis.

 

I guess the best answer I have is yes, all known information of the coins history should be revealed. However, you as a seller have the right to express your own opinion of the grade assigned.

 

Remember, no matter what price you set, the Market will ultimately determine the price.

[Nutmeg Coin]

Doug Winter recently wrote about a bunch of $5 Indians he bought and upgraded to MS64 and MS65:

 

"I bought a nice, fresh deal of Indian Head half eagles about six weeks ago. All were in very old holders and I broke them out and sent them off to grading. My results were excellent and nearly every coin graded MS64 or MS65. As I got ready to cash in on my windfall, I did some price research and was shocked. Unless they stickered at CAC (more on this in a few moments) the levels I was going to have to sell them left me breathless…and not in a good way." http://www.coinweek.com/featured-news/coin-collecting-strategies-time-buy-indian-head-half-eagles/

 

You can be sure he will be telling none of the buyers what they were graded previously.

[mikew148]

Doug Winter recently wrote about a bunch of $5 Indians he bought and upgraded to MS64 and MS65:

 

"I bought a nice, fresh deal of Indian Head half eagles about six weeks ago. All were in very old holders and I broke them out and sent them off to grading. My results were excellent and nearly every coin graded MS64 or MS65. As I got ready to cash in on my windfall, I did some price research and was shocked. Unless they stickered at CAC (more on this in a few moments) the levels I was going to have to sell them left me breathless…and not in a good way." http://www.coinweek.com/featured-news/coin-collecting-strategies-time-buy-indian-head-half-eagles/

 

You can be sure he will be telling none of the buyers what they were graded previously.

 

Why not?

 

Coins in older holders upgrade all the time.

 

Again, this is a different topic than whether or not one should reveal a coin was in a details holder.

[RWB]

The absence of a sticker implies nothing. The discussion is about a professional opinion that a defect is present. If the seller is aware of this adverse opinion they have a moral and ethical obligation to disclose it to a potential buyer.

 

The seller might argue contrary to the professional opinion. The buyer can reasonably expect to make a decision on the most complete information available.

[Nutmeg Coin]

The question remains regarding the level of the problem with the coin. Notably HA adds remarks on various coins, only positive ones though, but is silent with many others. A company of their size is going to have A/T, cleaned and other coins with issues certified in numerically graded holders in auction in their internet as well as "Signature" auctions, the latter auctions offer no return privilege. Their images are some of the best in the business which should work to prevent problems.

 

I have had coins that NGC rejected as "unc. details improperly cleaned" which graded at PCGS as MS64 and CAC stickered, and CAC offered me strong money, there was no ethical breach by me in doing nothing to a coin but resubmission. In fact the grading services rely on multiple resubmissions especially on their express and walkthrough invoices where they make money each time on the same coin. No dealer in high end rarities will share how many times they cracked out and resubmitted to get the grade they were hoping for. I only do one resubmission to the other grading service if I believe the grade was inaccurate.

 

Without specific examples on a coin by coin basis these arguments are just quibbles over words and ideas. "Market acceptable" vs. technical grading remains the challenge. With over 30 graders at NGC with average salaries in excess of $100K a year and the same at PCGS, you can expect that the training and quality control are endless. With over 30 million coins certified and over a billion dollars made it should be incumbent on this grading service to have literally hundreds of free videos and other tools available to collectors and dealers.

[RWB]

Excuses, excuses, excuses.....

[Kurtdog]

From D.O.A. (1950)...

 

* Angelo. Angelo! Oh, Angelo. Do you remember taking this picture of George Reynolds?

 

** I take so many pictures I can’t remember them all.

 

* This gentleman is a friend of his who would like his address. We have no card on him.

 

** I don’t think we ought to do that.

 

* He’s willing to pay $20 for it.

 

** That’s the paper we used last year...

 

* Of course you understand we usually don’t give out the information about our clients.

 

*** I know. You’re a couple of high-class fellas.

 

* Thank you. Revealing anything confidential is against the ethics of our establishment.

 

*** That’s right. Honesty is the best policy.

 

* Of course. But in your case inasmuch as you’re a personal friend of Mr. Reynolds...

 

*** Thanks. I knew you’d come through.

 

** Got it!