Is it really possible that only PCGS and NGC get it right?

That would be me, and that referred to their guarantee for the first 20 years of the TPG's existance. Today they DO include language relating to authenticity, back then they didn't.

Not sure I understand this, but the current guarantees do exempt themselves from loss of grade due to changes in the coin after it is slabbed. If the coin changes after slabbing resulting in loss of grade level, sorry the grade guarantee does not apply.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Doug,
Yes I was commenting that the process should be changed. Or at least the label should be checked for accuracy prior to shipping.
The low paid people who print the labels must have notes they go by. Something must tell them what to put on the label. The person who writes those instructions should at least make sure they are correct.

 

The problem is 100% on the shoulders of the person creating the labels. Doesn't matter if you don't know coins when you started, after the first month you ought to be able to tell the difference between a Half and a Dollar.

They're hiring useless drones, and working them too hard. Obviously, because they only have one job and they're not doing it right.

 

So how do the drones know what to put on the label?
If they get the wrong info it's still 100% their fault?

 

I figured the graders keys in the information and the labels get printed based on that information.

 

Yes that's what I assume too.
So if the grading finalizer or whomever enters the wrong info I don't see it being the fault of the label maker.

 

I Sent in three sets of 2011 25th anniversary Eagles to ANAC they came back all 15 coins two at 70 and all the rest were 67,68 and a relatively few came back at 69. I was totally upset at the grading. I sent them into PCGS and picked up a grade on almost all of them. The 70s came back as 70's .I think that during a time ANACs was accused of overgrading and started to undergrade so if they were sent in to be cross graded they would appear to be undergraded.Not sure if this is a valid argument but what happened and has anyone else have their coins undergraded by ANACs.like to hear from you...

 

Buy the coin and not the holder is the best advice. You are the one with the checkbook. The 70 grading standard is not as accurate in the higher grades as one would expect. For example, a 66 grade coin could be a 65++ or a 66++. There is a full grade of grey area. This could mean moon money to the buyer or seller. You need to become a professional grader to achieve the best results.

 

Well, they're going to have a copy of the submission invoice with the coins. One would think the submitter would know what they are....

And again, if you can't tell the difference between an Ike and a Kennedy regardless of what the grader wrote, you probably shouldn't be working for PCGS.

 

PCGS has a YouTube video of the process if anybody wants to look it up.

 

Did you see the pictures I posted?

Would you concluse that those were "die polishing lines" or would you conclude that those were "hairlines"?

And if I were going to be critical of exactly which word was quoted, then I'd not use the word "almost".

But whatever. You and every other readers knows exactly what was being said.

 

I did look at them. The lines on the Kennedy halves through the R in TRUST are die polishing lines and not hairlines.

Yeah, I almost left out the word "almost," but then I'd be leaving out those that use the term "hairlines" incorrectly.

 

Very interesting; I like the way you think. With that said, I think the situation is distinguishable. PCGS would only be a third party to the contract between the buyer and the seller of the coin; thus, I am not convinced that the doctrine would have application to PCGS's third party warranty to a subsequent purchaser.

When a contract is assignable by text of the agreement or state law, the assignee is bound to the original contract and has the same rights and obligations as the party being succeeded. An assignee voluntarily accepts the terms and obligates himself or herself to the contract in order to become the successor. Examples would be mortgages that are sold to investors, and the purchasers of those notes, as assignees, are bound by the terms of the original contract. An assignee has mutually assented to the original contract, and specific performance would be available.

With all of this said, I am not convinced that we are dealing with an assignment of rights under the contract in this scenario. Rather, I see subsequent purchasers as third party beneficiaries to the original contract. Like insurance policies, under this argument, the terms of the insured (submitter) and his/her policy with the insurance company (PCGS) are binding on the beneficiaries (subsequent owners). Now the insurance company has no recourse against the beneficiaries to compel performance of anything, but they must abide by the terms of the policy including any contingencies (if any) to receive funds. Continuing the argument, the beneficiaries (subsequent owners) cannot be compelled by specific performance to do anything, but they must comply with the terms and contingencies of the insurance policy (PCGS guarantee) to receive a payout.

After thinking about this more deeply, @Paul M. did make me think about the enforceability of choice of venue clauses in cases like this and I am curious as to your thoughts. Do you think courts would be inclined to find the clause unconscionable given that the accusations, if true, could support claims not only of breach of contract but possibly fraud and detrimental reliance (I.e. Refusal to honor guarantee when a counterfeit coin is in a genuine holder). A party who has breached an agreement in bad faith should not be allowed to rely on the agreement to shield it from liability/prosecution. This assumes that authenticity was covered under the guarantee (it has not always been this way).

 

Talked to a fairly young TPGer at The Summer Seminar a few years ago. His job was grading Silver Eagles, 69 or 70 all day long. He talked of being flown in to a place with a crew of other graders for a month solid grading a warehouse full of Eagles. It was cheaper to fly them in than it was to ship the tons of Eagles to and from the TPGs. It was still expensive to have the crew there so they were working extra long hours to get the job done. He said when he would close his eyes to go to sleep all he could see was a bright silver spot.

 

After about 10K, you probably get pretty good at it. Although you should then go back and regrade the 1st 10K with your learned standards.

And YOUR standards likely won't match MY standards.

 

I would have said you probably get pretty numb to it, assuming you're referring to one ASE after another.

 

A month of 8+ hour days with nothing but 69 or 70 $1 eagles...no chance of losing concentration!

 

Perfect 70s are not hard to figure out. 69s take the most time to really get right.

 

Not really... this is the kind of grading where the 6-10 seconds per coin really comes from.

Pick it up, flip it over, it's either a 70 (left pile) or not. 5s.

2nd look - if it's a DOG - and you won't get those but once a few thousand where the 'bag marks' really suck - it's either no grade [dealer choose minimum grade of 69] or 68 or lower (those take time) - small middle pile. But most non-70s are 69s (right pile).

look at the #s at NGC (for example) - all years of ASEs, non proof

Total
6,870,975

69
5,819,508

70
905,561


2015 (non burnished)

Total
231,279

69
83,089

70
101,850

 

That,s exactly what I mean. 70s are flawless, 69,s are almost flawless, and who on Earth would want anything else? Anyway, with modern Eagles, you,r only buying plastic, grading fees, and postage. The coin is still bullion price.