Poor service

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Nu

 

Typically the TPG's will not come right out and say a coin is a fake unless it is blatantly obvious. Instead they typically say something like questionable authenticity or authenticity questionable. (In this case authenticity unverifiable.) It is still a fake in their opinion, they just don't put it in those words. They also have a possible response of No Opinion, which is not used very often, but when they do use it they also refund the fees. You paid for an opinion as to the authenticity, and you got one that said they could not verify it as being authentic. You got what you paid for.

This ↑

 

No opinion was offered. A non-opinion is not an opinion.

 

I feel your opinions are better suited for the PCGS Con Forum, sorry, Coin Forum. I'm really surprised that Mark Feld is siding with you. I guess he needs to go back to PCGS also.

 

I'll just state that for me I find you an overbearing Slug. I would appreciate it if you never post to my topics in this forum.

 

Enjoy your negative life and karma's a person_without_enough_empathy.

 

Lee

 

 

 

 

Mr. Lee,

 

I count 6 opinions, in addition to the OP, that are not in agreement with you.

 

So, should all 6 abandon this Board, or is it just a personal attack against me and Mr. Feld?

[World Colonial]

Here is what NGC outlines for the terms used:

 

NOT GENUINE, QUESTIONABLE AUTHENTICITY, and AUTHENTICITY UNVERIFIABLE

 

To me an ambiguous AUTHENTICITY UNVERIFIABLE citation on a label is worthless and if a TPG cannot say GENUINE or NOT GENUINE then the fees should be returned less a processing charge.

 

The OP submitted the coins relying on the experience and knowledge of the TPG to say yea or nay.

 

As to value received (which is another issue here), I myself experienced what I felt (and still feel) to have received insufficient return on my monies spent with my 1913 TY I Obverse Struck Thru 5C Mint Error

 

I had numerous similar examples to make all presumption that my coin would have received a numeric grade. In addition, I'm still dumbfounded that they can grade a 90% OC coin but not this?

 

I have received one each of "questionable authenticity" and "not genuine". The "not genuine" was obvious in retrospect because the coin was underweight and undersized. I just missed it because I was focused on the design. The "questionable authenticity" I interpreted as also a fake, though I can see how others would be unhappy about a non-opinion opinion. In this instance, I can see how they might have a hard time making a determination, as they haven't graded that many of them, and even fewer in 2006 when I submitted it.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Here is what NGC outlines for the terms used:

 

NOT GENUINE, QUESTIONABLE AUTHENTICITY, and AUTHENTICITY UNVERIFIABLE

 

To me an ambiguous AUTHENTICITY UNVERIFIABLE citation on a label is worthless and if a TPG cannot say GENUINE or NOT GENUINE then the fees should be returned less a processing charge.

 

The OP submitted the coins relying on the experience and knowledge of the TPG to say yea or nay.

 

As to value received (which is another issue here), I myself experienced what I felt (and still feel) to have received insufficient return on my monies spent with my 1913 TY I Obverse Struck Thru 5C Mint Error

 

I had numerous similar examples to make all presumption that my coin would have received a numeric grade. In addition, I'm still dumbfounded that they can grade a 90% OC coin but not this?

 

I have received one each of "questionable authenticity" and "not genuine". The "not genuine" was obvious in retrospect because the coin was underweight and undersized. I just missed it because I was focused on the design. The "questionable authenticity" I interpreted as also a fake, though I can see how others would be unhappy about a non-opinion opinion. In this instance, I can see how they might have a hard time making a determination, as they haven't graded that many of them, and even fewer in 2006 when I submitted it.

 

But....that is quite different from "unverifiable", and still paying the full amount for a non-opinion opinion.

[carnyman2]

If I knew how, I would post a couple of pics.

[coinman_23885]

Upload them to Photobucket or another file sharing website, copy the URL, and paste in the code below:

 

 

Where URL obviously is the URL/web address of the images.

[Hard Times]

oops I see someone above already copied NGC policies, nevermind..

 

Best, HT

[carnyman2]

I don't know the newer programs, but I registered on Photobucket and loaded 2 pics. How do I get the url?

[jom]

FWIW:

 

From the NGC website:

 

'If, after conducting the authenticity review, we believe we will not be able to ascertain authenticity even if further research is conducted, we will cease further work, label the coin QUESTIONABLE AUTHENTICITY and refund the fee, less a $5.00 processing charge.'

 

And:

 

'If, after conducting the authenticity review, we cannot definitely ascertain authenticity but feel that further research is warranted, then we will conduct additional research, which may involve consultation with third parties. This will result in one of three outcomes:

 

If the further research indicates that the coin is genuine, we will grade and encapsulate it in accordance with NGC procedures, and our regular grading fee will apply.

If the further research indicates that the coin is counterfeit, it will be labeled NOT GENUINE, and our regular grading fee will apply.

If, after conducting the further research, we still cannot definitely ascertain authenticity, we will label the coin AUTHENTICITY UNVERIFIABLE, and our regular fee will apply.'

 

Best, HT

 

I'm still wondering how this is "poor service".

 

jom

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I don't know the newer programs, but I registered on Photobucket and loaded 2 pics. How do I get the url?

 

Are you on a tablet or a pc?

 

On a pc when I click on my picture in phitobucket it loads a page with html looking links to the right. I think this website needs the one labeled DIRECT LINK or something like that.

 

On my Android I have to hit the menu button when viewing a pic.

 

Far as their opinion goes I guess having reservations is fair but man I'd like to have an answer if they were mine. Seems like "something seems wrong" was their answer and maybe they with hold the reason so as not to tip off the counterfitters?

 

Just grasping straws.

[carnyman2]

I think I figured it out. I shared with my facebook then picket up the url there. Here it is. http://s284.photobucket.com/user/jimsdesign/library/?sort=3&src=pb&fb_ref=Default&page=1

 

Why can't we just load directly? That was easy, so they had to make it harder???

[Hard Times]

 

Click on the IMG code in photobucket and paste it here. Not hard at all.

 

Best, HT

 

[carnyman2]

Here is a URL to get to a photobucket library with pics of 2 of them.

[robec1347]

First, click on your photo. When the page opens a dialog box will appear to the right of your photo.

 

The bottom line of this box is your link. To the right of the IMG is where you want to click (where the little hand is). This will automatically add the line of code to your clip board.

 

Then go to the NGC message board and paste your clipboard contents in the same area that you use to compose your messages.

 

[World Colonial]

 

But....that is quite different from "unverifiable", and still paying the full amount for a non-opinion opinion.

 

The "questionable authenticity" I received sounds exactly the same to me as the OP received. The "not genuine", no.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

 

But....that is quite different from "unverifiable", and still paying the full amount for a non-opinion opinion.

 

The "questionable authenticity" I received sounds exactly the same to me as the OP received. The "not genuine", no.

 

I understand...but "authenticity unverifiable" is certainly not the same, and it certainly is not treated the same as to cost to the submitter, for a non-opinion.

 

If one thinks about the use of 'authenticity unverifiable", it doesn't take a lot to conclude it is sort of silly for a TPG to use, and still charge a fee with a straight face.

 

I will make my point in another manner:

 

The cross over language of "authenticity unverifiable" in the simplest form of translation is "We don't know".

 

If a TPG has a business model that is based on opinion, and includes "We don't know" as an option....at your expense....., would you invest in the business model?

[leeg]

Nu

 

Typically the TPG's will not come right out and say a coin is a fake unless it is blatantly obvious. Instead they typically say something like questionable authenticity or authenticity questionable. (In this case authenticity unverifiable.) It is still a fake in their opinion, they just don't put it in those words. They also have a possible response of No Opinion, which is not used very often, but when they do use it they also refund the fees. You paid for an opinion as to the authenticity, and you got one that said they could not verify it as being authentic. You got what you paid for.

This ↑

 

No opinion was offered. A non-opinion is not an opinion.

 

I feel your opinions are better suited for the PCGS Con Forum, sorry, Coin Forum. I'm really surprised that Mark Feld is siding with you. I guess he needs to go back to PCGS also.

 

I'll just state that for me I find you an overbearing Slug. I would appreciate it if you never post to my topics in this forum.

 

Enjoy your negative life and karma's a person_without_enough_empathy.

 

Lee

 

 

 

 

Mr. Lee,

 

I count 6 opinions, in addition to the OP, that are not in agreement with you.

 

So, should all 6 abandon this Board, or is it just a personal attack against me and Mr. Feld?

 

My apologies. I am way out of line in my post.

 

I'll ensure I never do this again.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Nu

 

Typically the TPG's will not come right out and say a coin is a fake unless it is blatantly obvious. Instead they typically say something like questionable authenticity or authenticity questionable. (In this case authenticity unverifiable.) It is still a fake in their opinion, they just don't put it in those words. They also have a possible response of No Opinion, which is not used very often, but when they do use it they also refund the fees. You paid for an opinion as to the authenticity, and you got one that said they could not verify it as being authentic. You got what you paid for.

This ↑

 

No opinion was offered. A non-opinion is not an opinion.

 

I feel your opinions are better suited for the PCGS Con Forum, sorry, Coin Forum. I'm really surprised that Mark Feld is siding with you. I guess he needs to go back to PCGS also.

 

I'll just state that for me I find you an overbearing Slug. I would appreciate it if you never post to my topics in this forum.

 

Enjoy your negative life and karma's a person_without_enough_empathy.

 

Lee

 

 

 

 

Mr. Lee,

 

I count 6 opinions, in addition to the OP, that are not in agreement with you.

 

So, should all 6 abandon this Board, or is it just a personal attack against me and Mr. Feld?

 

My apologies. I am way out of line in my post.

 

I'll ensure I never do this again.

 

 

The apology is honorable, and I appreciate the gesture. Goodness knows I owe a lot of apologies to a lot of people for words I have used from time to time.

 

It is of greater concern, to me personally, that I would cause this reaction from you. I realize I am probably insufferable on occasion, and exasperating, and certainly not a popular person. It is just that your ire was very targeted. So, I invite you to pm me at anytime you like, and discuss with me. I am open to any suggestions that amend your position, that are within my ability to do so. That is also an open invitation to anyone with a like mindset or preconceived opinion about me.

 

I really don't live under a bridge and eat people, as it is believed in certain circles.

[No+4Me]

Looking at the photobucket images I don't see anything wrong with the 77-S. The 77-cc at first made me suspicious but on further thought and research I can't really say either way. Sharper larger photos would of course be helpful as would any sharp photo of the edge reeding. Sorry I can't be more helpful at this time.

[World Colonial]

 

But....that is quite different from "unverifiable", and still paying the full amount for a non-opinion opinion.

 

The "questionable authenticity" I received sounds exactly the same to me as the OP received. The "not genuine", no.

 

I understand...but "authenticity unverifiable" is certainly not the same, and it certainly is not treated the same as to cost to the submitter, for a non-opinion.

 

If one thinks about the use of 'authenticity unverifiable", it doesn't take a lot to conclude it is sort of silly for a TPG to use, and still charge a fee with a straight face.

 

I will make my point in another manner:

 

The cross over language of "authenticity unverifiable" in the simplest form of translation is "We don't know".

 

If a TPG has a business model that is based on opinion, and includes "We don't know" as an option....at your expense....., would you invest in the business model?

 

I don't see any practical difference between the two but yes, I understand your point.

 

When I submitted my coin and received the results back, I didn't consider it inappropriate that they charged me the fee, but then, I can see how someone else might.

 

They did look at it and maybe unlike some others, I don't think it is reasonable to expect they are always going to be able to tell whether every coin is or not authentic. I understand the argument where they shouldn't charge the fee but I just don't see it that way. The important thing to me is to know this in advance and from what I know, NGC makes it clear.

 

I also believe it depends upon the coin and I consider it reasonable to apply a different standard. The coin I submitted was (purportedly) a 1736 Mexico four reales. The census counts at the time for the whole series were really low and still are now. For this date in particular, don't recall without looking but not more than a handful.

 

The point I am making is that verifying this coin is or certainly could be a lot harder than a Trade dollar. NGC (or PGCS) have seen thousands of them and should be in a much better position to express an opinion on this type.

 

So yes, I can see that when the OP submitted their coins, they could have had a different expectation if they were not familiar with the NGC terms and conditions.

 

Expectations I believe is ultimately the root cause of their frustration.

[leeg]

Nu

 

Typically the TPG's will not come right out and say a coin is a fake unless it is blatantly obvious. Instead they typically say something like questionable authenticity or authenticity questionable. (In this case authenticity unverifiable.) It is still a fake in their opinion, they just don't put it in those words. They also have a possible response of No Opinion, which is not used very often, but when they do use it they also refund the fees. You paid for an opinion as to the authenticity, and you got one that said they could not verify it as being authentic. You got what you paid for.

This ↑

 

No opinion was offered. A non-opinion is not an opinion.

 

I feel your opinions are better suited for the PCGS Con Forum, sorry, Coin Forum. I'm really surprised that Mark Feld is siding with you. I guess he needs to go back to PCGS also.

 

I'll just state that for me I find you an overbearing Slug. I would appreciate it if you never post to my topics in this forum.

 

Enjoy your negative life and karma's a person_without_enough_empathy.

 

Lee

 

 

 

 

Mr. Lee,

 

I count 6 opinions, in addition to the OP, that are not in agreement with you.

 

So, should all 6 abandon this Board, or is it just a personal attack against me and Mr. Feld?

 

My apologies. I am way out of line in my post.

 

I'll ensure I never do this again.

 

 

My apologies to Mark Feld also. He's always done right by me. Sorry Mark.

 

 

[carnyman2]

I give up. I paste the URL in, but the pictures will not come into this site. It sucks that we cannot just paste pics directly into this site.

[No+4Me]

 

 

 

 

[Nutmeg Coin]

I went with the free imaging site imgur.

 

You access the image on your computer or via your camera link, upload on to imgur, then you have a url link to your item. I post the url here because the images are usually too large.

 

There is a page for known fakes, don't know off the top of my head where on the internet it is. Coin look off, either not genuine or cleaned, etc..

 

Even if you get a coin to come back genuine, if it will not grade it is hard to sell in the purple holder. Think what collectors are looking for--coins they will not be burned by and have nice eye appeal. What is the link to the submission number? Presumably if we just get an invoice number we can get clarification on exactly what NGC said on each of the submitted coins.

 

Like with this submission I did:

 

back to invoice list

COIN LIST FOR INVOICE 2654065

 

LINE ITEM YEAR MINT MARK VARIETY DENOM. GRADE COMMENTS NCS LINE ITEM

001 1881 $5 MS 64

002 1911 $5 NOT GENUINE

003 1922 $20 MS 63

 

If you enter the submission number with the line item into their image verification, those that graded will come up with images.

[Keigwin]

DW at PCGS told me they use the term "questionable authenticity" for counterfeit coins. Calling a coin "counterfeit" involves confiscation and alerts to the government. It is simpler this way.

 

When PCGS or NGC declares a coin "unverifiable" it is a declaration that they simply aren't sure one way or the other. In my experience grading fees are refunded.

Lance.

 

[ldhair]

You need to paste the URL in the body of the post. There is no reason it should not work.

[Hack]

Below is the step by step to post photos.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3722603#Post3722603

[dimefreak]

Let me help you out here...NGC thinks your coins are fake! I'm sure there is a legal reason they use the terms they do! I do believe NGC uses Artificial Toning whereas the other company says questionable toning. Same thing here. NGC says its definitely fake whereas other guys say they think it is. Why they use these terms is beyond me??? However I can assure you NGC knows your coins are fake, but they chose to use the terms they use!

[Nutmeg Coin]

So is there any history of coins being confiscated by any grading service as fakes or has there been a risk of that?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

DW at PCGS told me they use the term "questionable authenticity" for counterfeit coins. Calling a coin "counterfeit" involves confiscation and alerts to the government. It is simpler this way.

 

When PCGS or NGC declares a coin "unverifiable" it is a declaration that they simply aren't sure one way or the other. In my experience grading fees are refunded.

Lance.

 

 

However, in the present situation, the OP states there was no refund. The NGC also states that there will not be a refund, when it is non-determined determinded that the opinion is an unverifiable non-opinion.

 

It is somewhat interesting that in the picture you have in the Post, there is contradictory wording at the top and bottom of the slab. Someone in marketing needs to fix that.

 

 

 

[Nutmeg Coin]

If the issue were filed with a state attorney general, consumer protection department or a court of law I would think that the law would side with the customer. The same thing would apply if you paid someone to appraise your antiques and authenticate them, though some appraisers would do it for free those who charge would never take your money after calling them fakes. As usual clarity should come as you compare similar situations in other fields, numismatics is not a world unto itself as much as some people would want it to be so.