Gobrecht Dollar: Is this the same coin?

[Hoot]

Your voice will be in opposition of many powers, not the least of which will be the grading services who have considered the piece and the prospective buyers who simply like it. Thus, the tale will have no end...

 

The practice of profitting by deception is no more acceptable in numismatics than in any other business. That should be the beginning, middle, and end of the tale. To say that Coinguy's voice "will be in opposition of many powers" means that powerful people in numismatics condone -- and likely profit by -- deceptive practices. That's a major indictment, Hoot, and one that calls for something more than a shrug of the shoulders.

 

That's not an indictment, it's an observation. We are all part of this, in one way or another, IGWT, because of the "accepted" conditions we live in (and participate in), in a materialistic culture. Deceptive practices in business are not new and they require oppositional voices - Mark and myself and others will be among the voices, although we are not required to agree on every issue.

 

I hardly think you knew I was shrugging my shoulders and misread what I said.

 

Hoot

[Hoot]

One of my major concerns is that the many problems in our hobby are so widespread that, as Lou put it:

I guess we've already become desensitized, and it's hard to hear the voice calling in the wilderness.

I'm not ready to stop calling, though, even though it often entails simultaneously beating my head against the wall.

 

It's a good cause and we will all participate in the ways that we can. The central health of the hobby requires all points of view providing their input.

 

Mark

[Zoins]

One day, another company will step in to take care of this problem. Mark my words.

CGS is already open for business in the UK and a small sample of their grades seems more conservative than PCGS. Although they use a 100 point scale, some of their EFs were graded MS by a couple of Americans including a PCGS rep. The edge view available in their holder is also better than other ones on the market IMO. It will be interesting to see how they handle problem coins as European coins go back much farther than US ones. Who knows....

[WoodenJefferson]

 

Interesting observation, while this forum is still engaged in the rights and wrongs of this collaboration, it has already sunk to page three ATS. I would think the title has a bit to do with it more than anything...I still respect Andy ATS and the rest of the gang here, Mike, etal, for bringing this topic to our/my attention.

 

Note: I inject a bit of humor now and then, but I'm sure the person who paid additional monies for a PR certified coin does not find it so funny.

[Chippewa]

"Why should Heritage disclose who purchased the coin in the NCS slab?"

 

"I think it is highly likely the person who purchased it from Heritage in the NCS slab and the submitter to PCGS and the consignor to Heritage in the PCGS slab are likely the same person."

 

The real issue from Heritage's standpoint is that they marketed the same problem coin twice in two years and in the second sale their cataloger did not put the public on notice of the issue. On a $500 coin I would not expect them to, but on a $50,000 coin this makes them look really bad IMHO. Right or wrong, there are thousands of bidders out there who do not see the coins they are bidding on until they show up in the Fedex package and rely on Heritage to give accurate descriptions. I know this is considered foolish and amateurish by the pros in the hobby but not everyone has time to go to auctions and not everyone wants to deal with a proxy bidder for yet one more markup on the coins.

 

If Heritage are the savvy business people they appear to be, they will offer the buyer in the second auction a refund and take it up with PCGS and the coin doctor.

 

It would be even worse if it came to light that Heritage bought the coin for their own account in the NCS slab, although I have no reason to believe that happened. On a related note, I do have a big problem with the fact that Heritage can bid in its own auctions.

[Tradedollarnut]

and not everyone wants to deal with a proxy bidder for yet one more markup on the coins.

 

A fool and his money are soon parted...

[IGWT]

That's not an indictment, it's an observation. We are all part of this, in one way or another, IGWT, because of the "accepted" conditions we live in (and participate in), in a materialistic culture. Deceptive practices in business are not new and they require oppositional voices - Mark and myself and others will be among the voices, although we are not required to agree on every issue.

 

I hardly think you knew I was shrugging my shoulders and misread what I said.

 

Mark -- I'm sorry for misunderstanding your point.

[MAULEMALL]

"Why should Heritage disclose who purchased the coin in the NCS slab?"

 

"I think it is highly likely the person who purchased it from Heritage in the NCS slab and the submitter to PCGS and the consignor to Heritage in the PCGS slab are likely the same person."

 

The real issue from Heritage's standpoint is that they marketed the same problem coin twice in two years and in the second sale their cataloger did not put the public on notice of the issue. On a $500 coin I would not expect them to, but on a $50,000 coin this makes them look really bad IMHO. Right or wrong, there are thousands of bidders out there who do not see the coins they are bidding on until they show up in the Fedex package and rely on Heritage to give accurate descriptions. I know this is considered foolish and amateurish by the pros in the hobby but not everyone has time to go to auctions and not everyone wants to deal with a proxy bidder for yet one more markup on the coins.

 

If Heritage are the savvy business people they appear to be, they will offer the buyer in the second auction a refund and take it up with PCGS and the coin doctor.

 

It would be even worse if it came to light that Heritage bought the coin for their own account in the NCS slab, although I have no reason to believe that happened. On a related note, I do have a big problem with the fact that Heritage can bid in its own auctions.

Heritage has auctioned a Million coins...How can or could anyone expect them to remember this one coin in particular?? Oh yea,,,In 2 different slabs at that...

 

It would be even worse if it came to light that Heritage bought the coin for their own account in the NCS slab, although I have no reason to believe that happened.

 

Then why even bring it up??

[gmarguli]

There is no way to know who purchased the coin in the NCS slab. There is no way to know who or how many owned it in between its two appearances at auction. The only thing that PCGS will know is who submitted it. Have you not submitted coins for customers? Would you like to be outed as the submitter if you had nothing to do with the AT job?

Greg, there might or might not be a way to make such determinations, depending upon the particular circumstances. There is no way to know, however, unless efforts are made.

 

Are you ever going to be 100% sure without that person cooperating?

 

Consider this situation:

 

Dealer Joe Smith purchased the coin in an NCS slab from Heritage.

 

Joe Smith submitted the coin raw to PCGS.

 

Joe Smith consigned the PCGS graded coin to Heritage.

 

You find this out and confront Joe Smith. He tells you to go *spoon* yourself and won't discuss the coin at all.

 

Are you going to out Joe Smith now? More importantly, are you willing to risk your home and lifestyle to out Joe Smith and hope you're not wrong even knowing the above facts?

 

 

If I had submitted that Gobrecht dollar to PCGS and received a call from them letting me know they'd learned the coin's appearance had changed dramatically, you can bet I'd cooperate. First, I would give whomever I had submitted the coin for an opportunity to talk directly to PCGS. But, if they wouldn't, I would.

 

I guess I value the privacy of my clients more than you.

 

 

Eventually, the truth would come out, at least some of the time. Additionally, if I wouldn't cooperate with PCGS I'd deserve to be outed, and if I did cooperate, they'd have no reason to out me.

 

You mean if you violated the trust that your clients placed in you, the TPG would have no reason to out you. However, if you did not reveal private client information you'd deserve to be outed? Sound like you're trying to rationalize breaking that bond of trust between you and your client.

 

 

And if you find the doctor, then what? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Andy, that needs to change. At the very least, I believe that the "doctor" (and any accomplices) are in violation of their PCGS dealer/membership agreement. PCGS would be within their rights to take action.

 

Maybe PCGS can stick the Coin Posse™ on the doctor. The best PCGS could do if stop taking submissions from that dealer. So PCGS loses revenue and the dealer submits his coins thru other dealers making it harder to track. PCGS loses. Better to accept submissions from that dealer and flag his account.

[MarkFeld]

Post deleted by MarkFeld

[MarkFeld]

Comments deleted and combined in a subsequent post.

[MarkFeld]

There is no way to know who purchased the coin in the NCS slab. There is no way to know who or how many owned it in between its two appearances at auction. The only thing that PCGS will know is who submitted it. Have you not submitted coins for customers? Would you like to be outed as the submitter if you had nothing to do with the AT job?

Greg, there might or might not be a way to make such determinations, depending upon the particular circumstances. There is no way to know, however, unless efforts are made.

 

Are you ever going to be 100% sure without that person cooperating?

 

Consider this situation:

 

Dealer Joe Smith purchased the coin in an NCS slab from Heritage.

 

Joe Smith submitted the coin raw to PCGS.

 

Joe Smith consigned the PCGS graded coin to Heritage.

 

You find this out and confront Joe Smith. He tells you to go *spoon* yourself and won't discuss the coin at all.

 

Are you going to out Joe Smith now? More importantly, are you willing to risk your home and lifestyle to out Joe Smith and hope you're not wrong even knowing the above facts?

 

 

If I had submitted that Gobrecht dollar to PCGS and received a call from them letting me know they'd learned the coin's appearance had changed dramatically, you can bet I'd cooperate. First, I would give whomever I had submitted the coin for an opportunity to talk directly to PCGS. But, if they wouldn't, I would.

 

I guess I value the privacy of my clients more than you.

 

 

Eventually, the truth would come out, at least some of the time. Additionally, if I wouldn't cooperate with PCGS I'd deserve to be outed, and if I did cooperate, they'd have no reason to out me.

 

You mean if you violated the trust that your clients placed in you, the TPG would have no reason to out you. However, if you did not reveal private client information you'd deserve to be outed? Sound like you're trying to rationalize breaking that bond of trust between you and your client.

 

 

And if you find the doctor, then what? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Andy, that needs to change. At the very least, I believe that the "doctor" (and any accomplices) are in violation of their PCGS dealer/membership agreement. PCGS would be within their rights to take action.

 

Maybe PCGS can stick the Coin Posse™ on the doctor. The best PCGS could do if stop taking submissions from that dealer. So PCGS loses revenue and the dealer submits his coins thru other dealers making it harder to track. PCGS loses. Better to accept submissions from that dealer and flag his account.

 

I'd like to think I wouldn't have such a client, but if I found out otherwise, I would not value them or their privacy on a relative basis, at least. Again, as I mentioned previously, I'd give them the opportunity to address the issue first.

 

If Joe Smith refused to cooperate, at the very least I, as an owner of a grading company, would not allow him to submit coins for grading. Beyond that, it would depend upon what else, if anything I knew about him and his activities. By the way, I don't believe it would be risking a home and lifestyle for a grading company to reveal the FACT that a given person had submitted a particular coin or group of coins and letting others make of that what they wished.

 

The flagging of the account is one course of action that could/should be taken. Speaking of losing revenue - if some of these problems are not addressed far more aggressively and successfully, I believe that considerable revenue, along with trust and confidence, will be lost anyway.

[Tradedollarnut]

Why protect a submittor who may cost you tens of thousands of dollars per coin when the toning turns black???

[gmarguli]

Comments deleted and combined in a subsequent post.

 

When you hit that Edit button, there is also a "Delete This Post" option.

[MarkFeld]

Comments deleted and combined in a subsequent post.

 

When you hit that Edit button, there is also a "Delete This Post" option.

Thanks Greg - can I do that for your posts too?

[gmarguli]

I'd like to think I wouldn't have such a client, but if I found out otherwise, I would not value them or their privacy on a relative basis, at least. Again, as I mentioned previously, I'd give them the opportunity to address the issue first.

 

Sounds like you're picking and choosing when your ethics comes into play. You'd protect the privacy of some clients, but one you found out may be doing something you don't agree with you'd no longer protect their privacy?

 

 

 

If Joe Smith refused to cooperate, at the very least I, as an owner of a grading company, would not allow him to submit coins for grading. Beyond that, it would depend upon what else, if anything I knew about him and his activities. By the way, I don't believe it would be risking a home and lifestyle for a grading company to reveal the FACT that a given person had submitted a particular coin or group of coins and letting others make of that what they wished.

 

You can't just state facts knowing that people will infer one thing and not open yourself up to major liability - especially if you turn out to be wrong. I can state a bunch of facts that infer something that may not be true. How about this:

 

FACT: Both Susan and Jill went to St. Martin's School.

FACT: Father Matthew works at St. Martin's School and tutored both girls in private.

FACT: Both Susan and Jill were molested.

FACT: Father Matthew has been fired from the school.

 

An average person would infer that I am saying that Father Matthew molested the girls, when I didn't actually say that - I just stated facts.

 

FACT: Joe Smith submitted several coins to PCGS

FACT: This group of coins turned out to be doctored.

FACT: Joe Smith is no longer allowed to submit coins to PCGS.

 

That's inferring that Joe Smith doctored the coins and if that isn't the provable truth, they're opening themselves up for a lot of liability.

[MarkFeld]

I'd like to think I wouldn't have such a client, but if I found out otherwise, I would not value them or their privacy on a relative basis, at least. Again, as I mentioned previously, I'd give them the opportunity to address the issue first.

 

Sounds like you're picking and choosing when your ethics comes into play. You'd protect the privacy of some clients, but one you found out may be doing something you don't agree with you'd no longer protect their privacy?

 

 

 

If Joe Smith refused to cooperate, at the very least I, as an owner of a grading company, would not allow him to submit coins for grading. Beyond that, it would depend upon what else, if anything I knew about him and his activities. By the way, I don't believe it would be risking a home and lifestyle for a grading company to reveal the FACT that a given person had submitted a particular coin or group of coins and letting others make of that what they wished.

 

You can't just state facts knowing that people will infer one thing and not open yourself up to major liability - especially if you turn out to be wrong. I can state a bunch of facts that infer something that may not be true. How about this:

 

FACT: Both Susan and Jill went to St. Martin's School.

FACT: Father Matthew works at St. Martin's School and tutored both girls in private.

FACT: Both Susan and Jill were molested.

FACT: Father Matthew has been fired from the school.

 

An average person would infer that I am saying that Father Matthew molested the girls, when I didn't actually say that - I just stated facts.

 

FACT: Joe Smith submitted several coins to PCGS

FACT: This group of coins turned out to be doctored.

FACT: Joe Smith is no longer allowed to submit coins to PCGS.

 

That's inferring that Joe Smith doctored the coins and if that isn't the provable truth, they're opening themselves up for a lot of liability.

Yes, I would pick and choose whose privacy I would protect - we're not talking about attorney-client privilege here. If it turned out that someone had submitted such a coin through me and the grading company wanted to talk to him, I would not have a problem suggesting that they discuss it or have their name revealed. Likewise, if I had submitted such a coin I would not be bothered by having the same suggested/told to me.

 

It looks as if we will have to disagree about the realistic potential liability of stating FACTS about the submission of a coin (including the fact that the submitter had refused to discuss the matter).

 

There is clearly more than one inference that could fairly be made and the submitter would be free to present his own facts and explanation if he cared to. Furthermore, the grading company has far deeper pockets and greater power than a submitter, especially with regard to this set of circumstances.

[realone]

My two sense,

true the NCS coin we know sold 2 years ago fo $19K+, but did you know that it also sold in 2003 again via Heritage in NCS holder for $12K+. Anybody looking to pay $46K+ for a Gobrecht is going to a search of all but would never look at these cleaned white NCS coins for a comparison by any stretch of the imagination, case in point is no one (I believe) brought this prior sale up, right?

[michael]

[James_OldeTowne]

It is the same coin, and I had a sneaking suspicion that it had started out blast-white and had clothing added later on. To me, it is unattractive AT.

 

On the other hand, there's hardly any Gobrecht dollar that deserves to be rejected by a grading service. It's not like they're all that common.

 

On the other hand, there's hardly any Gobrecht dollar that really requires certification in a major auction. It's not like they're all that common.

 

[MAULEMALL]

It is the same coin, and I had a sneaking suspicion that it had started out blast-white and had clothing added later on. To me, it is unattractive AT.

 

On the other hand, there's hardly any Gobrecht dollar that deserves to be rejected by a grading service. It's not like they're all that common.

 

On the other hand, there's hardly any Gobrecht dollar that really requires certification in a major auction. It's not like they're all that common.

 

[Zoins]

It is the same coin, and I had a sneaking suspicion that it had started out blast-white and had clothing added later on. To me, it is unattractive AT.

 

On the other hand, there's hardly any Gobrecht dollar that deserves to be rejected by a grading service. It's not like they're all that common.

 

On the other hand, there's hardly any Gobrecht dollar that really requires certification in a major auction. It's not like they're all that common.

 

On the one hand, if there are so few and TPGs are slabbing net-graded problem coins, you may have to assume all slabbed Gobrechts are problem coins until proven otherwise.

 

On the other hand, what are you doing buying a Gobrecht if you can't examine the coin and discover problems beforehand?

[relicsncoins]

I think this coin is a perfect example of a free market society. Said coin sold at auction and brought a certain amount of money. If the current owner is happy with the coin and the price he/she paid then that's really all that matters. It's his coin and it was his money.

 

JJ

[MarkFeld]

On the other hand, what are you doing buying a Gobrecht if you can't examine the coin and discover problems beforehand?

I think, but am not certain that I viewed the coin in person before the recent sale. If it is the one I'm thinking of, to my eyes the toning looked unusual enough to make me somewhat suspicious. BUT, even with a glass, I did not see the heavy cleaning (which I believe would have been blatantly obvious were it not for whatever "work" was apparently performed on the coin).

 

My point is, that many coins can be and have been messed with in such a way as to cover/hide defects/problems which might otherwise be easily detectable. So, "doing your homework" and sight-seen inspection don't always prevent the problem.

 

Additionally, I don't buy the argument that when a person buys a coin which looks good to him (but unknown to him has been worked on) it should be "buyer beware" and everyone but the buyer should be off the hook. That reasoning neglects the facts that 1) whomever messed with the coin likely violated his membership agreement with the grading company it was submitted through; 2) the coin's masked problems weren't readily detectable, even under responsible scrutiny and 3) the grading company assigned a grade/blessing to a coin when it probably shouldn't have.

 

I believe it is imperative for the survival of our hobby as we know it, that the coin doctors have severe scrutiny, pressure and disincentives applied to them, so as to discourage them from their activities. Currently, they have every reason to keep doing what they can to profit financially, unfortunately, with little or no downside. The major grading companies, along with collectors and dealers who are opposed to the destruction of our hobby, have the power to make a/at least some difference. I hope they also have the willingness.

[Zoins]

I think this coin is a perfect example of a free market society. Said coin sold at auction and brought a certain amount of money. If the current owner is happy with the coin and the price he/she paid then that's really all that matters. It's his coin and it was his money.

This is a good point but we don't know if the owner was aware of the problems with this coin or even how s/he feels about it now. Does anyone know the current owner and how s/he feels? Did the owner know about the cleaning, history and AT. If not, is the owner still happy with the and price given what was paid for it now that it has been exposed ... or does the owner feel completely hosed? Even if the owner did know the history, does s/he feel the same way about the coin now that everyone else does too? When the owner shows the coin to a numismatist friend, will it be "wow, that's an awesome Gobrecht" or "yeah, I learned an expensive lesson." This can go either way.

[MarkFeld]

I think this coin is a perfect example of a free market society. Said coin sold at auction and brought a certain amount of money. If the current owner is happy with the coin and the price he/she paid then that's really all that matters. It's his coin and it was his money.

That's a good point but we don't know if the owner was aware of the problems with this coin or even how s/he feels about it now. Does anyone know the current owner and how s/he feels? Did the owner know about the cleaning, history and AT. If not, is the owner still happy with the and price given what was paid for it now that it has been exposed ... or does the owner feel completely hosed? This can go either way.

It's true, in theory, "this can go either way". However, what do you think the odds are that the buyer knew the coin's history before buying it? And, if the buyer did not know the history in advance, then learned it after the fact, what do you think the chances are that he would be just as happy with the coin, or even still want it? Chances are better than excellent that the buyer did not buy what he thought he was buying.

[Zoins]

I think this coin is a perfect example of a free market society. Said coin sold at auction and brought a certain amount of money. If the current owner is happy with the coin and the price he/she paid then that's really all that matters. It's his coin and it was his money.

That's a good point but we don't know if the owner was aware of the problems with this coin or even how s/he feels about it now. Does anyone know the current owner and how s/he feels? Did the owner know about the cleaning, history and AT. If not, is the owner still happy with the and price given what was paid for it now that it has been exposed ... or does the owner feel completely hosed? This can go either way.

It's true, in theory, "this can go either way". However, what do you think the odds are that the buyer knew the coin's history before buying it? And, if the buyer did not know the history in advance, then learned it after the fact, what do you think the chances are that he would be just as happy with the coin, or even still want it? Chances are better than excellent that the buyer did not buy what he thought he was buying.

I agree the buyer most likely would not be happy if he did not know the history of the coin at time of purchase. If I just paid $46k for what I thought was a problem free coin in PCGS plastic and then this came up, I'd be very upset. One reason is you might look like a fool when you talk about the coin with your numismatist friends or post photos of it on a forum. It becomes sort of an embarrassment.

[relicsncoins]

I believe it is imperative for the survival of our hobby as we know it, that the coin doctors have severe scrutiny, pressure and disincentives applied to them, so as to discourage them from their activities. Currently, they have every reason to keep doing what they can to profit financially, unfortunately, with little or no downside. The major grading companies, along with collectors and dealers who are opposed to the destruction of our hobby, have the power to make a/at least some difference. I hope they also have the willingness.

 

I still think the overall coin market is vastly made up of casual collectors who may plunk down a thousand bucks over the course of a year and that coin doctors have very little effect on this segment of the market. Collectors who have the means and want to throw around 5 and 6 figure amounts at coins represent a tiny fraction of this hobby. I would be much more concerned about these shop at home channels that are marking coins up 300 to 400% and passing it off as a good deal to some unsuspecting old lady who is buying a birthday gift for her coin collecting grandchild.

 

There are really only two types of coin doctors and both effect a small segment of the hobby.

 

1. The doctor who takes a relatively common date coin and ads color to it to exact a moderate premium from a toned coin collector.

 

2. The doctor that works a rare coin with problems and then submitts it to a TPG and gets it in plastic and sells it as problem free for a substantial proffit.

 

Let's face it, there arn't many doctors out there that are buying cleaned XF Indian Heads for 2 dollars and AT'ng them and selling them for 7 dollars.

 

JJ

[Zoins]

Collectors who have the means and want to throw around 5 and 6 figure amounts at coins represent a tiny fraction of this hobby. I would be much more concerned about these shop at home channels that are marking coins up 300 to 400% and passing it off as a good deal to some unsuspecting old lady who is buying a birthday gift for her coin collecting grandchild.

IMO, they are both equally disconcerting. Think about an average mid-level executive with kids who decides to invest some money in PCGS slabbed coins. This person might mistakenly think he can turn around and sell the coins with a reasonable return when his kids go off to college but lo and behold, he overpaid for the coin by one or more years worth of tuition. This would be a much worse problem than someone who is buying a birthday gift.

 

I find this net-graded, slabbed problem coin (with AT hiding what looks like pretty bad cleaning) highly disturbing, even more so if it is representative of how Gobrechts and other high end coins are generally treated.

[Doogy]

Bump!

 

anything ever happen to this coin by PCGS; (i.e. did they buy it back, or just sweep it under the rug like they do everything else?)