Did ICG get this one wrong? 1916 really a 1917?

More likely, it was tampered with . I would send it back into ICG . I'm not sure how they will handle this .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don't think any grading company would cover an altered slab. So if its altered the buyer lost. I think its a shame, but glad I was able to spot it. I was going to buy it and that shield stood out like a sore thumb. I rarely ever second guess the top four graders. Perhaps I should spend alot more time lookin em over. Many thanks everyone for your input and hope you have a wonderful new year

 

Well ICG would be the one to know if the holder was tampered with, or they made the error . If they made the error, than their guarantee should hold up.

 

Do they keep scans of the original coin (from the time of grading)? It would seem like an easy way to spot slab tampering without even needing to get ahold of the coin again.

 

I can't say whether they do or don't . Do you see any indications that the holder has been tampered with ? If not, I would consider sending it back to them with a letter stating why you returning the coin and let them re-confirm the coin as noted or provide you with a buy back guarantee. If the holder has definite indications of tampering, your wasting your time sending it back if you believe your diagnostics are correct. For your sake, I hope that it was their error .

 

In my opinion ICG will not do anything if you were to send it to them the will say it was a mechanical error. I had a much larger problem with a coin the wrongly misattributed & that error on their part was a value difference of nearly $16,000 . The coin was sent to them & after a month the returned it to me and said they would not do anything about it because it falls under a mechanical error . Here is a copy of ICG's guarentee http://www.icgcoin.com/Default.aspx?tabid=508 . Here is a picture of the coin they misattributed.

It is a very easy variety to attribute I was shocked that they got something as "valuable" as this wrong.

The grey sheet value of the small 8 variety in AU50 is $600 & for the Large 8 the grey sheet bid is $17,000.

I recently cracked the coin out listed it on Ebay with the same info & sold it for $280 for a HUGE loss .I did not personally buy the coin but did handle the dealings in trying to fix the problem sell it for the person who did.

So I am not surprised that * I CANT GRADE* got that one wrong too.

 

Wow ! mechanical error, that's a new one on me. Than their guarantee is worthless ! I don't believe that clerical error clause will hold up in court. If they mis-attributed a coin or incorrectly graded a coin that is their fault and as such should be held liable . If it's any other way, than the guarantee is a worthless piece of crap.

 

Okay, this got my goat, so I contacted ICG and spoke with Libby, who is familiar with this coin and the situation surrounding it. She had told me, that they are attempting to work with the current owner to re-submit the coin for their review. While they do have a " Mechanical Error " clause , more likely than not if the coin in question proves out to be a 1917 dateless SLQ ....and the owner can supply the documentation of purchase required , the holder has not been tampered with, they will do whatever is the responsible thing to do to compensate the buyer for any financial loss , as purchaser of this coin. . So, whomever is the legal owner of this coin, contact Libby immediately @ ICG and make arrangements to re-submit this coin, unless you have reason to not comply with a reasonable effort by ICG to remedy this situation.

 

Libby is who I delt with as well & over the phone I was told basically the same thing for my piece. The fact remains though that on the coin I delt with them on they did not do anything about their gross negligence.

 

I Believe We Could Post Many Additional Specimens

I suspect I could match/exceed the quantity of "errors" which you can post from the subject TPG with another, that I, and documented others, consider more notorious for incorrect grading.

Any reasonable individual who has observed actions/efforts of the "top tier" TPG, and expects reasonable adherence to a guarantee without the possibility of allowed neutral arbitration, I believe is unrealistic/optimistic.

This following attachment is an example of a blatant error, believed to be undergraded/misattributed by a firm for which you might generate an acronym: Pricey Crap Generating Source

 

I'm fairly certain there would be some members interested in your situation . I think it would be helpful if you would lay it out in it's entirety in a separate thread so not to detract from the subject mater of this one. From what I can gather so far it's quite a horror story.

 

Didnt mean to hijack this one -

 

It just gets very confusing when multiple issues by more than the original poster get hairy. I wish the owner of that SLQ would come into CT and explain their issue with ICG. I just think ICG is getting a bad rap here based on the fact that Libby told me the complaining and current owner of the coin won't and has not resubmitted the coin. That leaves very little to reason why. Any reputable TPG would take every step to insure they did everything possible within reason to make a situation such as this , right with the customer .

 

The problem is that attribution is not part of authenticity or part of grading. The ICG guarantee does not cover attribution. In fact until just a few years ago neither PCGS or NGC would guarantee attributions either. They just added them in about four years ago when we finally got then to add authenticity to their written guarantee. Up until then their guarantees specifically covered grading but said not one word about authenticity. About the only TPG that has always guaranteed attribution was SEGS.