Is PCGS intentionally trying to drive themselves into the ground?

[Tradedollarnut]

1) Do I really know that pigs can't fly? After all, one could have wings - or maybe one could twirl its tail fast enough. Sure, Greg, 100 things could go wrong in this instance, but the bottom line is that there are unplated coins in the catalog. I've been to Bowers sales - I know for a fact that what they call AU in name sales is often graded unc after the sale. Since there are unplated coins in the sale, the service MUST receive the benefit of the doubt.

 

2) What value is associated with a pedigree? Simply put, except in rare instances, not damn much. If a coin turns out to be erroneously pedigreed, the services just aren't going to pay.

 

3) A liner coin is not an overgraded coin - by definition.

 

You are looking at this as just another instance of PCGS messing up - your view of the facts is tainted by your experience as a whole. I am looking at the verifiable facts of the case. Nobody can prove that coin is not a Norweb coin and in my opinion for anybody to demand that PCGS "pay off" it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the coin is not Norweb and that the numismatic community as a whole attaches some consistent premium to the Norweb provenance.

[dakra]

Absent a clear error, why should PCGS participate in Jadecoin's mess? Because they are big? Because they are bad? I hate "guilty until proven innocent" and that's what this is. I'll stand up for NGC and PCGS equally in any such situation.

 

If the coin truly is not a Norweb, then what made it a Norweb when PCGS originally graded it? Where they doing a favor for someone? Obviously someone has to take blame for it being mis-attributed and if PCGS was so careless to verify the attribution in the first place, they are responsible to correct both the mis-attribution and the price difference.

 

Jade could have gone back to the dealer to try and work something out but what does it really matter. If I was the dealer who sold him the coin and Jade returned it to me, I would probably be making a few angry calls to PCGS for

1. incorrectly attributing the coin.

2. possibly hurt a dealer/client relationship.

 

Why can't PCGS track the coin back to the original person who submitted it and find out why it was attributed as a Norweb. Perhaps in their research, they can find out the various grades it was given. I guess it's not very cost effecient to find out the truth of the matter. Change PCGS to NGC and I'd still have the same opinion as well. Jade was jaded

 

...of course, we haven't heard from Jade, we haven't heard PCGS's side on this, if there is more to the story, I certainly would love to hear it.

 

-Dave

[Chippewa]

I think that the responsibility should lie with the first grading service that placed the pedigree on the holder. In a perfect world that is the way it should work. If PCGS cannot prove somebody else did it first, they are responsible. On a crossover Pedigree from a major collection, like Eliasberg, I cannot expect the grading service is going to go back to the original catalog on each one. If we expect that, regrades will cost $100 each. Of course, for people playing the crackout game, $100 sounds about right.

[Tradedollarnut]

If the coin truly is not a Norweb, then what made it a Norweb when PCGS originally graded it? Where they doing a favor for someone?

 

Amazing. Simply amazing.

 

I'm out of here.

[BushMan]

Here is what PCGS feels about the pedigree, as provided by Greg Hansen in his post across the street.

For those who question whether PCGS recognizes pedigree (thats what they call it...so I'll stick to that term) as being an important aspect of a coins market value. I give you this from the PCGS Registry website, under their heading titled "Benefits of PCGS Set Registration"

 

A valuable pedigree. In the rare coin market a pedigree is a contributing factor in the pride of ownership and value of the coin. Coins from famous collections such as Eliasberg, Norweb, Garrett, etc., usually command a premium in the marketplace. If you participate in the PCGS Online Set Registry program and your set ranks in the top five, your set may qualify for the free pedigree service.

 

Please notice they specifically mention Norweb.

 

1) The coin is pedigreed to the Norweb collection. Absent proof to the contrary, I accept this provenance because I know at some point some sort of proof of provenance was given in order to get it on the insert. The fact that it is not plated is NOT proof to the contrary.

 

TDN,

Please tell me how we know this was not a mechanical error?? Where is the proof this was not a mechanical error? Perhaps the group of coins holdered just prior to this coin were of Norweb pedigree. Perhaps the employee taking care of the holdering duties forgot that Norweb pedigree inserts were in the machine. A few coins went by before he/she discovered their error. We all know of mechanical errors that were the result of nothing more than an incorrect insert being placed in the holder. Right??

 

In the past, PCGS has never had any problem investigating and tracing the path of a mechanical error. Have they?? Yet, suddenly they seem to have a problem determining the history of this particular coin. Hmmmmm.......

 

I have always found Greg capable of providing truly objective criticism of both services. When mistakes are made at either service, he has always shown his anger for the mistake, regardless of service. I've not found his criticism to be biased against PCGS. Sometimes the comments have a bit more poison when addressing PCGS, yet they often deserve the additional comments.

[SilverEagleCoins]

I would like to add to this thread... as a rejuvenated collector after a 25 year absence the main reason that PCGS should have done something to make the dealer whole is to avoid negative publicity and tarnish their reputation for new collectors like me. All of you other people on this board have already shown biases for and against them but to a newbie (hence neutral) like me the appearance of poor service will affect my buying habits for years to come. As a former marketing manager for two of the world's largest consumer companies I know how important it is to protect your reputation. Good service by word of mouth will gain you only 1-2 new customers per satisfied customer. Bad service will cost you 25 potential customers per dissatisfied customer.

[Leothelion]

I would like to add to this thread... as a rejuvenated collector after a 25 year absence the main reason that PCGS should have done something to make the dealer whole is to avoid negative publicity and tarnish their reputation for new collectors like me. All of you other people on this board have already shown biases for and against them but to a newbie (hence neutral) like me the appearance of poor service will affect my buying habits for years to come. As a former marketing manager for two of the world's largest consumer companies I know how important it is to protect your reputation. Good service by word of mouth will gain you only 1-2 new customers per satisfied customer. Bad service will cost you 25 potential customers per dissatisfied customer.

 

Well said! And welcome to the boards.

 

Leo

[SilverEagleCoins]

Thanks Leo.

 

I truely believe David Hall, President of PCGS blew a great opportunity to get some good publicity. Sounds like there has been a long standing pattern of errors and mishaps over at PCGS. Imagine how different this 5 page thread would have gone if the original poster had said, "David Hall personally wrote me a letter of apology and enclosed a check (either in full or the premium difference) for taking responsibility and recognizing the mistake made by PCGS."

 

As it stands today, I will always remember this incident in the back of my mind everytime I look and a PCGS coin and have some doubts about the accuracy or the data.

[Leothelion]

Thanks Leo.

 

I truely believe David Hall, President of PCGS blew a great opportunity to get some good publicity. Sounds like there has been a long standing pattern of errors and mishaps over at PCGS. Imagine how different this 5 page thread would have gone if the original poster had said, "David Hall personally wrote me a letter of apology and enclosed a check (either in full or the premium difference) for taking responsibility and recognizing the mistake made by PCGS."

 

As it stands today, I will always remember this incident in the back of my mind everytime I look and a PCGS coin and have some doubts about the accuracy or the data.

 

But...but.....he did respond! It may have been a few days late and not from any kind of peer pressure, however late it may have been, but.........he did respond. All Jadecoin had to do was call. Everyone gets in such a tissy over this stuff, it's just unbelieveable!

 

I'm outa here!

 

Leo

[EZ_E]

Sure, Mr. Hall responded but was there any resolution? What is "The rest of the story?" Judge for yourself. Here's his statement:

 

 

 

homerunhall

Veteran

 

Posts: 830

Joined: Apr 2001

Tuesday September 02, 2003 9:41 PM

 

 

 

I find it amazing that most people seem to assume that everything posted on the message board is true. Then, without having an inkling of the whole story, they self-righteously pontificate about what's right and wrong and what PCGS should or shouldn't do.

 

I remember the time a person posted a scan of a rare early S-mint Lincoln that PCGS had body-bagged saying, "How could PCGS no-grade this lovely original coin, blah, blah, blah. They've lost a customer with this shoddy treatment, etc." Many members jumped on the bandwagon and condemmed this "poor grading" of the coin by PCGS. So I contacted the person and had him send the coin in. It turned out to be a laughable, blatantly whizzed POS.

 

As for the recent post you're asking about, this person is definitely not using the right approach to problem solving. If he has a problem he should contact me and if something is truly wrong, I'll make sure it gets fixed. But going on the message board and asking members for "help" just isn't logical, since none of you can fix his problem...if he indeed does have a problem. PCGS does not want to screw any of its customers and we always take care of business. If we make a mistake, we make it right...period, end of story. And anybody that tells you different is probably lying to you about other things as well.

 

Like the Beatles said..."Anytime at all...all you gotta do is call."

 

 

[Tradedollarnut]

Please tell me how we know this was not a mechanical error?? Where is the proof this was not a mechanical error? Perhaps the group of coins holdered just prior to this coin were of Norweb pedigree. Perhaps the employee taking care of the holdering duties forgot that Norweb pedigree inserts were in the machine. A few coins went by before he/she discovered their error. We all know of mechanical errors that were the result of nothing more than an incorrect insert being placed in the holder. Right??

 

We don't know. It could be any number of things - including that it is a Norweb coin. But some seem to think it is the grading services responsibility to pay if unknown, rather than to not pay unless known.

 

I remember someone posting a picture of a beautiful looking red proof Lincoln cent and wondering how PCGS could grade it so low because it was better than any other coin he'd seen. All the usual suspects chimed in about how crappy PCGS was grading and how terribly this guy had been screwed. Turns out that Hall remembered the coin and that it was severely hairlined - the lines just didn't show in the picture. I mention this story cuz you've got to remember that the services are bombarded day in and day out with requests. Why isn't this coin a PF70? Why is this coin BB'd? Why didn't this coin cross? 99% of this bombardment is total and pure [!@#%^&^]. Yes, there is 1% that is real and true and needs to be addressed, but anyone - at any time - can start a thread and make it seem like their 99% problem is part of the 1%. So let's give the services a break and assume for once that something is part of the 99% until proven differently!

 

[IrishMike]

TDN, I agree with your sentiments. Only two things have bothered me about this story, the fact that they whisked away the provenance with no explanation of why and the fact the HRH made that post in the Q&A forum. I seriously question the wisdom of him answereing questions there even though what he said is true. It doesn't look good for a President of a company to call a coin a POS. David is definitely not a politician. He comes off sounding like (excuse my reference) like a used car salesman, not a President of a publicly traded company.

 

Call it nitpicking if you will, but I just wish he would not alienate collectors by his gruff replies.

[BushMan]

He comes off sounding like (excuse my reference) like a used car salesman, not a President of a publicly traded company.

 

Call it nitpicking if you will, but I just wish he would not alienate collectors by his gruff replies.

 

I completely agree with that. Not only are his replies gruff, they are truly low class with a hint of trailer trash. He should be quite thankful that he has been able to control the make up of that Board of Directors. Independent directors would never tolerate his methods, in or out of the building.

 

Had he seized upon this opportunity, without any need for a reminder from JadeCoin, to provide superior customer service. Had he acted in a proactive manner and delivered a handwritten note of explanation and apology, along with a check for the difference in fair market value, these threads would be filled with superlatives and complements. Instead, people like me that gave up on them a few years ago are thanking our lucky stars!!

[goose3]

Yet another interesting thread.

[EVillageProwler]

Ouch!

[Tradedollarnut]

Yup. In this matter, PCGS is really messing up.

[MAULEMALL]

Wow......

[DonHeath]

I don't think anyone can argue that not meeting grading commitments and then chastising the submitters is good policy. Hey, if you can't be trusted to do the right thing when the stakes are low.........

 

I see this as a self-correcting problem. It'll just take a little time to permeate the market. Bad business decisions are always self-correcting.

[crito]

"Nobody can prove that coin is not a Norweb coin and in my opinion for anybody to demand that PCGS "pay off" it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the coin is not Norweb and that the numismatic community as a whole attaches some consistent premium to the Norweb provenance."

 

You've got to be kidding me. Did you know all my coins are Norweb coins? I guess I can put them up on eBay as such, since TDN can't prove that they aren't. What a crock of !@$#.

 

PCGS said it was a Norweb coin. The burden of proof is on them. If they can't prove it's a Norweb coin, they have to pay for their mistake. The premium attached to that pedigree is easily proved.

 

[EVillageProwler]

Chastising the submittor was what surprised me the most. I can understand their desire for a little slack, but Sherman really should've been much more circumspect with his verbiage!

 

EVP

 

[TonerGuy]

Two quotes from TDN ---

 

From here --

"Yup. In this matter, PCGS is really messing up."

 

From across the street ---

"PCGS will do nothing to satisfy Jadecoin because, pure and simple, the only error here is that Jadecoin failed to realize what was most important to his client - PLATED pedigreed coins."

 

Are you a lawyer, cause you can certainly argue both sides of the fence, depending on who your audience, ummm.. I mean client is.

 

Have a cup of coffee would ya.

 

Michael

 

 

[Tradedollarnut]

Get your facts straight, Michael. On the matter most recently posted, submission times, PCGS is messing up. On the matter of Jadecoin, PCGS did nothing wrong.

 

I calls em as I sees em.

[gmarguli]

Two quotes from TDN ---

 

From here --

"Yup. In this matter, PCGS is really messing up."

 

From across the street ---

"PCGS will do nothing to satisfy Jadecoin because, pure and simple, the only error here is that Jadecoin failed to realize what was most important to his client - PLATED pedigreed coins."

 

Are you a lawyer, cause you can certainly argue both sides of the fence, depending on who your audience, ummm.. I mean client is.

 

Have a cup of coffee would ya.

 

Michael

 

 

Damn, I was just going to post a "Bruce, clearly this is your bias showing" message and I saw this first.

 

The sad this about this situation is that Mike Sherman popped up on the forums to help provide some customer service. It appears he went to the David Hall School of Customer Service and he apparently graduated at the head of the class. Why don't they just have a rubber stamp that says You on it and they can stamp all invoices that take over the guaranteed time.

 

Years ago when PCGS only accepted submissions from dealers I was told by someone HIGH up in their company that they didn't want to deal with us little people. I was surprised when they finally started allowing us little people to submit. Maybe they need to change that policy and get rid of the collectors club.

 

I also can't understand how 'redcents' thinks PCGS giving him 5 free submissions instead of the 10 free submissions he is entitled to is a fair result. I wonder if he'd be happy with an insurance company rebuilding half his house after a fire?

 

[EVillageProwler]

Michael,

 

I dunno what the right thing really is wrt the Jade/Norweb issue, but I do think in this case you're wrongfully blasting TDN.

 

There are two separate matters of dispute regarding PCGS. I think it is quite likely that TDN and anyone else has two separate opinions concerning said disputes.

 

EVP

 

[Tradedollarnut]

You've got to be kidding me. Did you know all my coins are Norweb coins? I guess I can put them up on eBay as such, since TDN can't prove that they aren't. What a crock of !@$#.

 

The difference is that your coins don't have the pedigree on the insert and have no reasonable claim to such provenance. You can try to sell them as such - good luck.

 

PCGS said it was a Norweb coin. The burden of proof is on them. If they can't prove it's a Norweb coin, they have to pay for their mistake.

 

I have several NGC Eliasberg pedigreed coins. They don't match the plates in the catalog because of the photographic liberties taken by the auction house. I wonder if NGC would pay me for messing up the pedigree. After all - can they PROVE the coins are Eliasberg? Or, wouldn't it be logical that I would have to prove that they aren't?

 

The premium attached to that pedigree is easily proved.

 

OK - enlighten us with your proof. Put your money where your nasty mouth is....

[EVillageProwler]

Excuse me, folks. Before anyone accuse me of being pro-PCGS, please remember who I am and what my history is.

 

One of the things I like about Greg is that he tries hard to call 'em as he sees 'em, without any glaring bias. (I use the word "glaring" because it's darn near impossible for us as human beings not to be a product of our environment.)

 

Same with me. I like to call 'em as I honestly see 'em. (I could still be wrong though...)

 

Anyway, I don't understand how one can simply say that so-and-so is wrong, and then make so-and-so prove that he's not wrong? Isn't that against what we're used to?

 

If you asert that PCGS did wrong, don't you have to prove that PCGS did wrong?

 

EVP

 

[SilverEagleCoins]

Not knowing much about pedigrees and such but being familiar with contract law, I would say that there is definitely something fishy here. Does not really matter how much of a premium, ridiculous or not, a pedigree is actually worth because jadecoin's client made a buying decision based on the guarantee by the grading service. The key factors here are:

 

1) Did the client purchase this coin based on information provided by PCGS?

2) Was the information accurate?

 

Sounds to me that the answers are 1 = yes, 2 = no.

 

Personally I believe jadecoin's issue should have been with the prior owner/dealer where he got the coin. The proper trail should have been the reverse of the sales history of that coin. Ultimately there will be a owner/dealer that will be the origianl recipient of the erroneous data who will have to deal PCGS. The erroneous data did not only cause jadecoin money but every owner/dealer along the way who made the purchase based upon the pedigree.

 

I highly doubt such a prestigious firm as PCGS would have committed fraud. However it would seem that their customer service could have been a much better. I really taken to task I could see damages paid out much more than just jadecoin depending on how may times the coin has turned owners.

 

[TonerGuy]

Good question EVP -- unfortunately in some instances the answer is no, I don't have to prove it, the defendant has to prove he is not liable. (TDN -- I've seen your posts where you refer to guilty/innocent, in civil law we use liable, those other monikers are for criminal matters.)

 

There is a long standing legal doctrine called "Res Ipsa Loquitor" translated it means -- (the thing) speaks for itself.

 

Meaning, sometimes the burden rests on the defendant to prove he isn't liable. The act itself imputes liability.

 

This is the fact pattern this doctrine was developed from.

 

Bob is a farmer, he owns a barn. In that barn he stores barrels. Mary is walking by the barn, when all of a sudden, a barrel falls from the top of storage area striking Mary in the head causing her injury. Bob wasn't in the barn when this happened and there were no witnesses. Ususually, barrels don't fall from barn attics without a reason. Mary can't prove or disprove Bob was negligent, it would be impossible. But since it was Bob's barn and barrel, Bob has to prove why he wasn't negligent. It can be assumed that there was negligence of some sort, and since there was an injury, someone has to pay. Since Bob owned the barrel, it's going to be Bob.

 

Hope that helped.

 

Michael

[SilverEagleCoins]

EVP this issue is being dealt as contract law. Consideration was given for the perfomance of a service. jadecoin asserts that PCGS did not perform proper services because the coins did not appear in the catalog(?). That assertion is enough to invalidate the contract as misrepresentation. PCGS now need to bring forth it's data to prove it did perform it's due diligence.

As I stated previously, I don't think jadecoins's beef is legally with PCGS but with the prior owner/dealer from where he got the coin.

In that case jadecoin can use the same assertion, the pedigree is not in the catalog. The other dealer will have to verify it is pedigreed properly. If he cannot he should have to make whole jadecoin, then in turn go after the prior owner/dealer, and so on... all the way back to the original grading.

Since PCGS changed the label, I don't think there is any doubts that PCGS did not perform it's duty properly.

[crito]

I'm sure if NGC pedigreed them they had some reason to do so. Matching a plate pic in a catalogue is one way to prove the pedigree, but by no means the only way. Asking what that reason was is not an accusation, so Jadecoin need not prove anything. PCGS removing the pedigree is pretty close to an admission of guilt, though.

 

My nasty mouth will refrain from enlightening you on the difference between inductive and deductive logic, since you seem to already know everything there is to know. Suffice it to say your brain is working in reverse. It's called "The Fallacy of False Cause" if you want to look it up. Just because the sun comes up when the rooster crows doesn't mean the rooster caused it.

 

Your implication that jadecoin is somehow the cause of this problem is preposterous.