How could NGC do this ? Do I have any recourse for this ?

oh, I will guess: nope.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think, and just an opinion, the coin was toned and it was heading dark, otherwise it wasn't gunked up. I would think they thought the coin would benefit from stripping off the toning with a dip, and the only real reason conservation would have been requested. if it was gunk they would have done acetone or xylene which wouldn't' of affected the toning.

the issue at hand though is the coin was cleaned at some point earlier, acetone, or even a coin dip, when done correctly will not details a coin for cleaning, only doing it wrong, by a damaging method would do that.

I think the coin was damaged from an improper cleaning, and toned to hide the cleaning damage, which is unfortunate, but I guess it would be likely worse to have not conserved it, and been told it was cleaned still.

is this a clash possibly on the reverse? F-121 Reverse T maybe?

 

Check out post #83. The OP mentioned he checked the "Modern Coins" box, so they only did what was requested.

 

how does that imply that it should be cleaned?

 

actually it was post #65 he said he checked off for "NCS Modern".

 

[strikeout]I still don't see how that caused them to clean the coin. That is just an indication of the service he brought: ie Modern Coin grading. How does that automatically mean they get to conserve the coins as well?[/strikeout]

Ah - I see - NCS - not NCG...

got it.

 

I just started reading this thread and reported this comment:

PassthePuck, posted: "Odds are, they kept you Dime because it had color, and sent you one that had already been cleaned in their stock. They probably are going to sell it to another collector that uses their service a lot."


This is one of the most IGNORANT comments I've NOT HAD THE PLEASURE of reading on CT! Such defamation without any knowledge of the facts does not belong here.

"I have 100's of flawless pennies, dating from 1940 to 2021... I'm sure you do . NOT!

Now I'll continue reading

 

Trust me, they notice. Now, rather than spend good money on pursuing an ignorant nobody, a minor offense as this is probably considered to be free advertising when it turns out they did nothing improper.

 

#125

 

My only objection is that you didn't tag the imbecile that made the uninformed statements so that he would be aware of your comment.

 

Agree. Best he does not post anymore on the subject. Hopefully, that part of his post will be edited out.

 

People deserve their freedom of speech, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE WRONG. That goes for both the person taking an unfair whack at NCG and YOU for demanding that such speech should be denied. I hate book burners. As long as the comment is within the forum rules, it should not be edited on account that you don't like it, even though you think it should be justified to be removed. Freedom is not something you GET. It is something you GIVE.

 

Welp, Clarence Darrow you’re not. You just don’t call any comment freedom of speech. Speech isn’t free when it violates the law. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater then say free speech. Likewise you can’t just post libelous defamatory comments and claim free speech…it has to be true first but that’s a defense. Good grief, our constitution has been mangled beyond recognition.

 

Aside from being wrong about the facts of law,[1] this forum isn't covered by the US Constitution since it is a privately owned website. It is so boring to read misconceptions about freedom of speech in the law, or the general principle. In the public, one can say whatever "defamatory" or "libelous" comment that one wants. In a private forum, speech is as free as the ownership chooses it to be. Free Speech, as a principle, is blanket.

Calling for someone else's speech to be edited, limited, of suppressed is distasteful and i find it completely unnecessary. The same freedom that allowed him to make this statement also protects one to criticize it, which was rightfully done in this case. It is one step too far to ask for the post to be edited.

IF NCG feels it is defame, they have lawyers.... let them sue the poster. The website has safe harbor, FWIW, under the DMCA among other points of law.

NCG won't win that case, BTW. They have ZERO chance.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/defamation

Unanimously, the Court reversed the lower court’s judgment for the plaintiff. To the contention that the First Amendment did not protect libelous publications, the Court replied that constitutional scrutiny could not be foreclosed by the “label” attached to something. “Like . . . the various other formulae for the repression of expression that have been challenged in this Court, libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment.”376 U.S. at 269. Justices Black, Douglas, and Goldberg, concurring, would have held libel laws per se unconstitutional. Id. at 293, 297. ">1259 “The general proposition,” the Court continued, “that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions . . . . [W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”376 U.S. at 269, 270. ">1260 Because the advertisement was “an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, [it] would seem clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection . . . [unless] it forfeits that protection by the falsity of some of its factual statements and by its alleged defamation of respondent.”376 U.S. at 271. ">1261

 

Welp, you can keyword search google all you want but citing irrelevant cases is just silly. I can guess you’re not in the million dollar club and likely haven’t studied Con Law for 25 years but feel free to talk, it is free.
However, your statements clearly show you have no idea what you’re talking about. Seems to be a common theme these days, just make up stuff, and people believe it. I’m going to go outside now to look at the UFO that just landed on my roof.

 

don't troll. If you can't respond with facts, there is no reason to resort to personal attacks.

 

Unless you work in the c suite at Pcgs Or ngc Then I don’t know that I’m going to trust you although in all fairness I don’t know how much I would trust you if you said you did on a public bulletin board. But not to miss details but in order to win a libel case you have to be able to prove damages show the company would have to show A clear and a Material connection
Between what the poster said and how their business was damaged. Did NGC lose a contract with a huge client who cited that this was the reason? Did his post go viral and reverberate off the Internet so that everybody heard it? Can you show that the reputation was actually damaged and financial impact was real? Were there less submissions after his post And can you directly tie the loss of submissions to the post?

 

...the lawyers are coming out of the wainscotting...