To Those of You Who Feel Jadecoin was Wronged by PCGS....

[gmarguli]

I really don't think it's fair to claim that TDN has a pro-PCGS bias any more than it's fair to say that Greg has an anti-PCGS bias.

 

I don't think he has a pro-PCGS bias either. That's why I put the at the end of it.

 

I'm just making light of him saying I have an anti-PCGS bias.

[sanmary]

Great point, and I also apologize for going off-topic. That makes sense. We were not there, but I'd have to think that if it were me my intentions would be obvious and DH would know exactly what I expected.

[braddick]

TDN- You've given me more to think about. Admittingly, I had the blinders on while reading Jadecoin's assertions. You've proven once again there is a "page two" to every story.

 

[dragon]

DonHeath,

 

I think that DH/PCGS would want to correct a possible mis-attribution on one of their grading tags regardless of whether or not any guaranty is involved, that would make sense to me anyway.

 

dragon

[Tradedollarnut]

but a coin of this magnitude not being properly scrutinized from day one

 

Say what? These coins sold for a pittance in 1988. The cheaper AU's were under $100 and the nicer MS64s were in the $500 or so range. The pedigree more than likely has been with that coin since the sale.

 

 

[sanmary]

Obviously my reference is to a different coin than the coin initially mentioned in this post. I applaud your ability to take responsibility for your actions and in a similar situation I feel that I would do the same. However, a coin certified by a 3rd party grading service that offers a guarantee is obligated to live up to it. The guarantee is for market value, and market value can be different for pedigreed coins.

[Tradedollarnut]

a coin certified by a 3rd party grading service that offers a guarantee is obligated to live up to it.

 

What guarantee is that exactly? What does it say? Have you looked it up or are you just assuming things? No disrespect intended, but most of us are too lazy to actually go and read things for ourselves, we just follow the herd and assume the things said here are god's honest truth - when they rarely are!

 

And on whom does the burden of proof lie? As mentioned in the other thread, my two large value trade dollars are pedigreed by NGC to the Eliasberg collection, yet they do not match the plates exactly. Are they really Eliasberg? Should NGC have to prove to me that they are - would they still have the records of why they pedigreed them after all these years? Or isn't it more logical that I would have to prove that they are not in order to seek compensation from NGC?

[crito]

The grading service is the authority, the buyer is not. There's no expectation the buyer should know anything about the pedigree, or even about grading, for that matter. The grading service is expected to know what they put on the label. And I bet NGC could tell you who the original submitter was and when the coin was graded.

 

[Tradedollarnut]

And I bet NGC could tell you who the original submitter was and when the coin was graded.

 

So? Does that prove the coins are of Eliasberg provenance? They don't look like the plates at all [thru artistic license of the B&M photographers]. Are they truly Eliasberg? I suppose they could get experts to testify that they recognize the coins as Eliasberg, but Oreville has already stated that he thinks he recognizes the Hibernia as Norweb and nobody's paying any attention to him....

 

So, how about it, NGC - care to pay me 10-15% of what those two coins are worth if you can't PROVE the provenance? No? Perhaps NGC is thinking what I'm thinking ... that's a really silly way to look at things!

[crito]

If it was submitted by the auction company handling the sale, around the time of the sale, then yes, that might be sufficient "proof" of the pedigree. Would certainly be "more proof" than PCGS provided.

 

[SilverEagleCoins]

Well if the pics don't match and the only word is from someone who recognized it, they still should not have autenticated it if they weren't sure. I don't know how they go about proving that sort of thing, but if there were any doubt they should have refuse to label it as such. I don't think the service should be for best guess or highly probable but 100% for positive.

[Tradedollarnut]

If it was submitted by the auction company handling the sale, around the time of the sale, then yes, that might be sufficient "proof" of the pedigree.

 

They were both sold raw in the sale. So there goes your theory. I ask again - should NGC have to prove provenance to me, or is the burden of proof of nonprovenance mine? It's a fairly simple question - why won't you answer it?

 

 

[Tradedollarnut]

Well if the pics don't match and the only word is from someone who recognized it, they still should not have autenticated it if they weren't sure. I don't know how they go about proving that sort of thing, but if there were any doubt they should have refuse to label it as such. I don't think the service should be for best guess or highly probable but 100% for positive.

 

I agree - but how do we know what proof of pedigree PCGS did or did not have when the coin was submitted? I know that they do have a policy in place that requires some evidence of provenance before they will pedigree a coin. For all we know, the coin may have been still in the sealed auction slip and submitted directly out of the sale. Don't forget - there are 78 Hibernias in the sale that are NOT pictured!

 

How do we know that NGC required the same proof on my coins? How do we know that those are Eliasberg coins? They don't match the plate and dammit, someone's got to pay!

 

[crito]

All legalese aside, what it sounds like you're saying TDN, is that if someone makes a claim, it should be assumed to be true unless it can be DISPROVED. That’s not the way it works. It’s only true if you can PROVE it. Otherwsie, you'd have to accept every crackpot theory out there. Aliens are living on Pluto. Can you DISPROVE that statement? Or should I have to PROVE it? I recognize, though, that "proof' has a different meaning to a lawyer, which I am not.

 

 

 

[Tradedollarnut]

All legalese aside, what it sounds like you're saying TDN, is that if someone makes a claim, it should be assumed to be true unless it can be DISPROVED. That’s not the way it works. It’s only true if you can PROVE it. Otherwsie, you'd have to accept every crackpot theory out there. Aliens are living on Pluto. Can you DISPROVE that statement? Or should I have to PROVE it? I recognize, though, that "proof' has a different meaning to a lawyer, which I am not.

 

No, Crito - just the opposite. What I'm really saying beneath my facetious example is that there is a general policy in place that requires some proof that a coin is of a certain provenance before it is pedigreed. I say that the burden of proof is on the claimant [oh, man - now I'm really worried - did I spell that right and use it in the right context? Oh, well, if I didn't I'm certain some jerk will be along to let me know]. I'm saying that there is no way I should be able to go to NGC and make them prove 10 years after the fact that my coins are Eliasberg - that I should have to prove they aren't because 10 years ago they had a policy in place that some proof of provenance was required for the coins to receive the pedigree.

 

It’s only true if you can PROVE it

 

Exactly. So why doesn't Jadecoin have to prove that the Hibernia is not Norweb in order to make a claim against PCGS's so called guaranty [oh, man - now I'm really worried - did I spell that right and use it in the right context? Oh, well, if I didn't I'm certain some jerk will be along to let me know]?

 

[crito]

I hear you saying jadecoin should be forced to disprove the pedigree. That's about as impossible as you disproving alien life on Pluto. It's PCGS that made the claim and they should be forced to prove it. I bet if they had just given some explaination, even if it didn't meet the lofty standard of "proof", the entire issue would be moot. Instead, they removed the pedigree then said they made a mistake in removing it. Isn't that like saying you made a mistake when you said you made a mistake? And I should believe they don't make mistakes? Unless jadecoin can prove otherwise? I don't think so.

 

[TomB]

I don't read the PCGS boards, however, I read this thread when it was first "imported" by Truth and I found it disappointing. My knee-jerk reaction was to be disappointed with PCGS, but, as time has gone on and this debate has raged, I find myself disappointed in both parties. I have come to this conclusion because I do not believe that either party has been completely honest and upfront with what happened in this instance and do not believe either party communicated effectively with the other during the interaction.

 

In my opinion, it was a bad deal all around but I do not know whom I think worse of since I highly doubt I will ever know anything resembling an objective sequence of events. It's too bad.

[MW1]

Post deleted by dena

[James_OldeTowne]

tradedollarnut, it is obvious that our situation over at PCGS has made you nervous - for reasons that you refuse to reveal. Your "Same version with a slightly different spin" is ridiculous when read from our side of it. I will correct each of your mistakes individually:

 

"Jadecoin is looking for Norweb pedigreed coins. He finds this Hibernia which he doesn't like - thinks it's overgraded [yeah, I know - never happens with an NGC coin, does it?] and also he thinks it's too expensive. His customer buys it anyway because he's really into Norweb. A month later, his really big customer decides to return the coin because it's not one of the 13 plated coins out of 91 Norweb coins. Jadecoin freaks because he can't say no to his big customer, but he also knows that he's stuck with a dog and he can't return it to the seller after a month. He goes to HRH at a show and says "this coin is not Norweb, it shouldn't have the pedigree" not saying anything about whether or not he wants to be paid for the difference" This is accurate so far.

 

"... and not saying anything about the fact he thinks it's overgraded". Dennis clearly verbalized David Hall face-to-face that the coin was pink and obviously doctored. But he also stated that the primary issue was with the incorrect pedigree.

 

"The coin is written up for pedigree review, some minion at PCGS looks in the catalog [the plates really suck - I have serious doubts that it could be said one way or another that a coin is or isn't a Norweb plated coin off those plates] and agrees that he can't match a coin to a plate and so he orders the coin returned without the pedigree - after all, that's what the customer wanted." Actually, the customer (us) wanted to be compensated for the excess value placed on the Norweb pedigree.

 

"Jadecoin gets the coin back and calls PCGS saying why did you return the coin with no check? PCGS says a check for what? Hey wait a minute, you didn't say you wanted money for us to take off the pedigree, there are 78 other Norweb coins in that catalog and we're sure it's one of those." If PCGS believed were "sure it's one of those", isn't it absurd to think they would then remove the pedigree? You do not make any sense!

 

"If you want $1500 from us, then you need to prove it's not Norweb because when we pedigreed it we had good reason to do so." This conversation never happened.

 

"We took the pedigree off for you because it doesn't matter much to us whether it's there or not - send the coin back and we'll put it back on." This conversation never happened.

 

"Jadecoin knows they're in for a fight they can't win and then runs it up the flag on the chatroom, thus ensuring they'll never see one red cent." A fight we can't win? Why not? What do you constitute "winning" the fight?

 

"So why doesn't Jadecoin have to prove that the Hibernia is not Norweb in order to make a claim against PCGS's so called guaranty" Because PCGS is the one who initiated the claim that the coin is a Norweb coin. It doesn't make any sense that you think that someone PAID to be responsible for how they describe a coin shouldn't be held accountable for how they describe it!

 

tradedollarnut, you completely miss the point of an AU coin being turned into an MS-64. The coin is is certified as MS-64 RED! There is no way in heck any AU early colonial is mistaken for MS-64 RED.

 

I truly do not understand your unsupportable arguments in favor of PCGS, and assume you have some reason for your obvious bias. The cost of encapsulation is included in the price of any coin sold, and we paid that extra encapsulation cost with the assumption that PCGS performed reasonable research when they decided the coin was a Norweb coin. Why do you think PCGS should be let off the hook for failing to perform that research? If they cannot definitively determine provenance, then no pedigree should be on the slab. It is that simple.

 

"I do not believe that either party has been completely honest and upfront with what happened in this instance" TomB, EVERYTHING that we posted on the PCGS forum has been honest. Everything!

 

For anyone interested, I have posted the first nine pages of the original 303-headed monster thread on our website: EarlyUS.com.

 

James

[Tradedollarnut]

James: In case you missed where I stated it multiple times, I always felt you should have submitted the coin for grade review and that there was the issue you would have gotten relief from PCGS on. But it seemed like that was a completely different direction from which you chose to go.

 

With regards to the pedigree issue, I felt your case was weak and so stated [because of the unplated coins in the sale]. I believe that IF there is a pedigree guaranty, that it would be up to the person raising the issue to prove that the coin is incorrectly pedigreed in order to receive compensation. Had you not withheld some evidence that you deemed crucial to your case, perhaps I'd have felt differently about your issue.

 

Whether my scenario is factual or not was not the point. It was simply a possible opposing viewpoint. The point is that it's up to the person wanting compensation to show they deserve it. And you admitted yourself that you failed to put all your cards on the table. So I guess TomB was correct after all - you weren't completely forthcoming!

[James_OldeTowne]

Hi Tradedollarnut. PLEASE bear in mind that our client really, truly is just a real collector at heart, and the coin's grade was truly secondary to him. He was taken by the history, the privilege of owning something once owned by the Norwebs themselves! And then to discover that what was purported to be a Norweb was not (as later confirmed by PCGS) was a disastrous hit to our reputation.

 

I can't imagine what kind of evidence you think we could have possibly have withheld from Mr. Hall. Is there something particular you're referring to? What cards didn't we put on the table??

 

I'm honestly trying to figure out what you think we did or said or wrote that was misleading.... please explain.

 

James

[Tradedollarnut]

I can't imagine what kind of evidence you think we could have possibly have withheld from Mr. Hall. Is there something particular you're referring to? What cards didn't we put on the table??

 

I didn't say you withheld anything from HRH. Yesterday, in the thread that got pulled, you said you didn't post all your evidence to the thread that the coin was not Norweb. I was referring to that statement when I said that I was unconvinced of your case against the pedigree because you didn't put all your cards on the table.

 

I'm not trying to badger you at all. I'm truly sorry that you lost money. Based on your original assertions, I believe the coin is probably overgraded [which is why I felt you should have gone that route]. But, again saying that it's a given that it's overgraded, I believe that based on the assertions you showed to the forum that the coin could have very well been Norweb. In other words, you can't say it's not Norweb because it's not plated and it can't be one of the unplated lots because those were all lower grade AND oh, by the way, it's overgraded. The second statement cancels out the logic of the first statement. If you have other information that I'm not privy to, how can I be expected to take that info into account when I make up my mind?

 

Bottom line - you brought it to the forum. It was your expectation to receive support from the forum in order to force HRH to take action. Based on what you presented to the forum, I had reservations:

 

1) I'm unconvinced that the Pedigree is guaranteed.

2) I'm unconvinced that the coin was not Norweb

3) I'm unconvinced that if the coin was not Norweb, that PCGS was the company that pedigreed it so.

4) I'm unconvinced what the damages should be IF the pedigree is covered, the coin is not Norweb and PCGS was the company responsible for the pedigree.

 

I don't think I'm an unreasonable man, and I don't think I'm predisposed to poohpooh all the errors that PCGS makes in customer service. But I am predisposed [because I'm a businessman] to believing that someone who wants something from me should have all his ducks in a row before I give it to him. If I'm unconvinced of the above, imagine how unconvinced PCGS is!

 

A few years back, I was po'd at PCGS over some Registry issue and tried to do just what you did - rant and rave until HRH took action. He never did and I learned something from that. He won't take action over something brought to the forum - period. The most he will do is invite you to call him and discuss it and that is what you should have done. I believe the reason you got banned is because your last thread showed that you had no intention of ever calling him and working it out. The statements you made in that thread showed that it was your intention to keep the issue alive and try to get him to take action by calling you, which was not going to happen. I believe that you lost sight of what you really wanted - or what you really wanted changed from getting your $1500 to getting HRH to call you.

 

[zenny-migration]

And then to discover that what was purported to be a Norweb was not (as later confirmed by PCGS) was a disastrous hit to our reputation.

 

 

 

 

I think the lengths you went to to authenticate the coin as Norweb, the fact that You are taking the financial hit and the fact that you are willing to share this saga with the world is much closer to a testament to your integrity than it is a "hit to (y)our reputation."

 

IMHO this fiasco has probably garnered you better than $1500 worth of good publicity.

 

Just as a follow-up to TDN, however, I'm curious how it is you are certain that the coin was not a Norweb, other than the fact that PCGS has now removed the pedigree from the slab or that it wasn't a plated coin.

 

As one who has recently experienced the financial benefit of submitting an "au" coin to a grading service only to have it returned in an "ms64" holder, I do not feel it unreasonable to believe that the coin was originally graded as au in the catalog.

 

Anyway, it's good to know you guys are going to have a place to post your "press releases" in the future.

 

z

[Oldtrader3]

I think that this whole incident is also an example of weak BOD Governance in a Public Corporation (CU) with a Board of Directors that is not independent from the CEO. David Hall and his staff are 50% of the Board. Judging by his behavior, David must have enough additional votes on the Board to act totally independently, also to act like a jerk with impunity and no danger of being removed.

[James_OldeTowne]

"you said you didn't post all your evidence to the thread that the coin was not Norweb." Ah, now I understand. It is a true statement, but it is also true that PCGS already has that same evidence. In other words, we didn't withhold anything they don't already know. Besides, this evidence includes names and addresses, and obviously, posting such information publicly is a terrible risk.

 

"I believe that based on the assertions you showed to the forum that the coin could have very well been Norweb" No question - it could also be an Eliasberg, or a Garrent coin. The point of the pedigree however is that there is some concrete evidence indicating so. Such is not the case with this coin - and that CAN be proven!

 

"Bottom line - you brought it to the forum" This is what I mean when I don't understand your motives. We did not "bring it to the forum", we brought it directly to David Hall IN PERSON. What we brought to the forum was a presentation of what resolution took place. In other words, the forum incident happened AFTER PCGS' resolution of the matter.

 

"It was your expectation to receive support from the forum in order to force HRH to take action." Utterly untrue - you are making an assumption.

 

"1) I'm unconvinced that the Pedigree is guaranteed.

2) I'm unconvinced that the coin was not Norweb

3) I'm unconvinced that if the coin was not Norweb, that PCGS was the company that pedigreed it so.

4) I'm unconvinced what the damages should be IF the pedigree is covered, the coin is not Norweb and PCGS was the company responsible for the pedigree. " TDN, YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is that PCGS is unconvinced the coin was a Norweb. That is a FACT. You are unconvinced because you don't actually care. YOU are not affected by the financial loss.

 

TDN, you have some bizarre idea that our intent was to get David Hall to take some action. Where in the thread did we ask for that? NOWHERE. In fact, the truth is that I am glad that Mr. Hall took no action, since it proves exactly what we feel to be the value of his guarantee. As I mentioned elsewhere, our intent is to keep the Norweb/non-Norweb coin for its public educational value, which far outweighs the mighty dollars that control PCGS.

 

"I'm curious how it is you are certain that the coin was not a Norweb, other than the fact that PCGS has now removed the pedigree" Great question - the answer is that we now know where the coin came from - JUST BEFORE it was submitted to PCGS. That information is confidential at this time.

 

James

[zenny-migration]

Great question - the answer is that we now know where the coin came from - JUST BEFORE it was submitted to PCGS. That information is confidential at this time.

 

James

 

 

thanks, hopefully it will be declassified at some point. many of us are curious.

 

z

[jeffnpcb-migration]

? Is it time to call the FTC again to investigate? HMMMMMMMMM!

[Tradedollarnut]

"I believe that based on the assertions you showed to the forum that the coin could have very well been Norweb" No question - it could also be an Eliasberg, or a Garrent coin. The point of the pedigree however is that there is some concrete evidence indicating so. Such is not the case with this coin - and that CAN be proven!

 

Like I said, all my discussion has been based on the assertions you have revealed - not the ones you are holding close to the vest.

 

 

"It was your expectation to receive support from the forum in order to force HRH to take action." Utterly untrue - you are making an assumption.

 

An assumption? - then why did your opening line in your thread state that you needed the forum's help?

 

 

TDN, YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is that PCGS is unconvinced the coin was a Norweb. That is a FACT. You are unconvinced because you don't actually care. YOU are not affected by the financial loss.

 

Exactly. But if you can't convince me, then how can you convince PCGS, who is affected financially? And if my opinion doesn't matter, why did you bring it to my attention in the forum? Or are the only opinions that matter the forum members who agree with you?

 

 

TDN, you have some bizarre idea that our intent was to get David Hall to take some action. Where in the thread did we ask for that? NOWHERE. In fact, the truth is that I am glad that Mr. Hall took no action, since it proves exactly what we feel to be the value of his guarantee. As I mentioned elsewhere, our intent is to keep the Norweb/non-Norweb coin for its public educational value, which far outweighs the mighty dollars that control PCGS.

 

Where did I get my bizarre idea? From your thread yesterday that made direct references to HRH calling you. You even gave your phone number and 'taunted' him to call you.

 

 

"I'm curious how it is you are certain that the coin was not a Norweb, other than the fact that PCGS has now removed the pedigree" Great question - the answer is that we now know where the coin came from - JUST BEFORE it was submitted to PCGS. That information is confidential at this time.

 

A 'great' question? When I ask it, it's a 'biased' question! Hmmmm.

 

 

Mr President, why are we invading Iraq? Because they have weapons of mass destruction. What is your evidence of that? That information is confidential at this time - but trust me, we'll find them afterwards!

 

Now that you have revealed that you have further evidence, assuming it is accurate, you appear to have a stronger case. But getting hard feelings over being called out on what appeared to be a weak case without that evidence seems unproductive and petty. JMO.

 

[cladking]

The only real gauratees are death and taxes. Everything else is mere speculation in life. While some insurances are more stable than others in normal times, it must be remembered that cataclysmic loses occur during unusual times. Are we to reinvent the wheel over so seemingly trivial a thing as a disagreement, misunderstanding (or whatever it is) as who once owned a coin?

 

If Jadecoin was wronged by PCGS it was in being banned not in incurring a loss which may or may not have been recoverable with other means, may or may not have been covered under the gaurantee, and most certainly was not justification for attacking the company, the founder, or having the man obliquely threatened with bodily harm. While Jade coin may not be culpable in any real sense, it was they who were in the limelight.

[James_OldeTowne]

"It was your expectation to receive support from the forum in order to force HRH to take action." Utterly untrue - you are making an assumption.

 

An assumption? - then why did your opening line in your thread state that you needed the forum's help?

 

> Asking for help = forcing HRH to take action??? TDN, I'm stumped, I haven't a clue how you're coming to your conclusions!!!!!

 

- - - - -

 

TDN, YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is that PCGS is unconvinced the coin was a Norweb. That is a FACT. You are unconvinced because you don't actually care. YOU are not affected by the financial loss.

 

Exactly. But if you can't convince me, then how can you convince PCGS, who is affected financially?

 

> What makes you think I'm trying to convince you? I'm just patiently answering your questions, though they seem to have no point.

 

- - - - -

 

TDN, you have some bizarre idea that our intent was to get David Hall to take some action. Where in the thread did we ask for that? NOWHERE. In fact, the truth is that I am glad that Mr. Hall took no action, since it proves exactly what we feel to be the value of his guarantee. As I mentioned elsewhere, our intent is to keep the Norweb/non-Norweb coin for its public educational value, which far outweighs the mighty dollars that control PCGS.

 

Where did I get my bizarre idea? From your thread yesterday that made direct references to HRH calling you. You even gave your phone number and 'taunted' him to call you.

 

> As I recall, Dennis merely listed our phone number. I do not remember ANY taunts being issued.

 

- - - - -

 

I miss any vague point you may have been trying to make with the other two comments.

 

James