What did PCGS accomplish in their complaint vs. the "coin doctors" last year?

Now let's keep this respectable. I'm a longstanding lurker and occasional poster on those forums and I know enough to know what you don't want to ask over there. The last I heard it they got dismissed out of federal court for failure to have served the complaint on any of the named defendants within the three months and a three-month extension of time allotted for that. In other words, they just filed, made their headlines, then disappeared. Without more, I'm starting to think that was just a publicity stunt. Had they served any of the named defendants they'd have opened the door to defamation counterclaims, and, I'd have to think, their lawyers were aware of at least that much. By failing to pull the trigger, so to speak, they made it the more expensive for the named defendants to get justice and clear their names for the defamatory allegations in the complaint. In the last thread I read over there on the subject, I believe somebody suggested they "settled out of court" with these named defendants, and I have a little trouble accepting that as anything better than wishful thinking.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Your right that subject did go very quite and I think that is what happens when money and lawyers get in the game.

 

My understanding is that some of the defendants named in the PCGS claims have filed counterclaims for defamation. Found a reference, three of the named dealers (Silvano DiGenova, Greg Krill and Richard Wesselink ) filed suit against PCGS in March of this year. http://www.numismaticnews.net/article/Defendants_turn_tables_in_new_suit
Refernce that contains Coin World article on the topic http://groups.google.com/group/rec.collecting.coins/browse_thread/thread/c0df135ddca311b5

I have no information on the staus of the dealers suit and we will probably hear much less about it than when PCGS was the Plaintiff.

 

Well according to that one article - On Dec. 13, 2010, the court dismissed with prejudice Collectors Universe’s claim. So that allowed the 3 dealers to bring a counter suit. That is if I read it correctly. I also wonder if that means you use verdicare(or something like that) and submit a coin - you are submitting a doctored coin. Not sure what all it covers.

 

They had every right to do what they did. The unfortunate thing is that they did not get all their ducks in a row before doing the suit. I do not buy the argument that the grading services are fully responsible for what they charge to put in their holders--just because I can fool you into grading my doctored coins does not mean that you and you alone are responsible for the consequences.

In this business, we have several huge problems with all the money at stake. Problem coins that will never grade with a number because they are just too impaired, and yet have dealers stand behind them as of a certain grade. Secondly, doctors who have been able to get the coins to cert. through their devious black arts and dealers complicit with them. Thirdly, those who overcharge for coins and therefore provide more of an incentive for collectors and investors to get less expensive though problem coins.

 

They're not counterclaims, Conder101, because these named defendants were never served. That's the whole reason the complaint had to be dismissed out on the court's own motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

I think it might be productive at this point were we to turn our attention to the fact of how easy it is to make allegations. PCGS made these allegations in a federal complaint. Then, they neglected to serve the complaint. Then, the court had enough of them, and dismissed the complaint out on it's own motion. In the meantime, PCGS got yards of headlines, without even so much as having attempted to prove one, single allegation. One might draw from that that this whole fiasco was more for the PCGS forum members and the big dealers over there who continue to feed off them than it was to litigate any meritorious allegations.

I'll tell you one thing. I have dealers, as well as a member, here, through whom I've submitted coins I wanted to market to PCGS. After this display of how they conduct themselves, I'm finished with that. That's just my choice. Your position may vary, and that's OK by me.

EDIT: As an aside, does anybody know how Mark Feld is doing? I'm wondering why I don't see him around here, anymore. I hope he's doing OK.

 

As far as I know, Mark is doing well. In Charmy's report on the Pittsburgh ANA Show, she posted a photo of Mark. Mark also serves as a moderator discussing US coins on another forum, The Collectors Guide Book, and he is still active on the NGC forums. There had been a discussion there of a rumor that he might be reinstated on the PCGS forums, but I don't know what his plans are regarding that.

Chris

 

I read with interest Mr. Armen Vartian's discription of the lawsuit and precisely what the charges were. What I find mind-boggling is that PCGS launched a lawsuit without getting proper legal counsel at every stage, especially the beginning stages. Presumably they had the money to do the suit right; Collectors Universe has been in a bull market for quite a while.

One confession: I once sent a rare date gold coin to a dealer for his opinion on whether the crack out could be gotten into a mint state holder that it had been in. He sent it out to have something "done"; it came back to me with a black blotch on the surface in an MS61 holder.

 

OK probably the wrong term, but they probably still had grounds because the PCGS filing and all the headlines that resulted from it did do potential damage to them.

That was my impression of what was going on. "Look at us, see how proactive we are in fighting the coin doctors." Then they don't follow through so the suit gets thrown out and they don't have to have the expense of pursuing it and they already got the good PR from it. The suit from the dealers is probably an attempt to restore their reputation, but they may do the same thing and let it be thrown out because PCGS may just be able to prove their allegations.

 

They can't prove the allegations, Conder101, that's why they never tried to prove them. They rather wanted to win this one in "the court of public opinion," and, that's precisely what they succeeded in doing. This is a familiar tactic, BTW. It's very difficult for a court to impose Rule 11 sanctions on attorneys for the filing of a frivolous complaint on the court's own motion, given the strong bias in favor of allowing every plaintiff his, her or its "day in court." These named defendants, on the other hand, are facing a very expensive, uphill battle, now. This would have been a "cakewalk" for them, had they been served. That's, again, from a tactical standpoint, the whole reason they weren't served.