Hello all. I am fairly new to this Forum but have replied to a few posts. I am now writing with a question about grading and labels. I recently sent a coin to ANACS for grading and it came back with a grade that was a bit confusing to me. The coin I sent was a 1997 10th-ounce Proof gold piece. When the coin came back the top part of the label read "$5 gold Proof" and the grade read "MS 69." I thought MS was solely for regular strike while Proof coins would always have the label PF thus this should read "PF 69." Is this a mistake by ANACS or is this confusion due to my ignorance? Thanks Chridular
its a mess up on ANACS---if you call them they might fix it for free. This isn't the first time since they have changed around that they have mixed up lables. Speedy
That was my first inclination, but I wanted to make sure it wasn't due to my inexperience with sending coins for grading. Thanks Speedy!
He's right and wrong Yes, it's a mistake by ANACS. I have a similar mistake and am now in the possession of a lovely Bahamas gold proof in striking MS69 condition :goofer: But, ANACS will NOT correct their mistake for free. You would have to resubmit it to ANACS and pay for a re-holdering. That and the fact that they tend to ignore their customer's inquiries are the only things I personally have against ANACS. Otherwise, their grading is fairly consistent with ANA standards. This could, however, have a detrimental effect on, let's say, a 1960 Franklin proof in PR66 grade that is holdered as a 1960 Frankie MS66. Now, there would be a problem, IMHO.
Well depends on the mistake. If you think they have made a mistake in the grading and want it re-submitted for a second opinion, that they will charge for (though if it grades lower than their first grade, they will only charge for the re-holdering and not for the grading. Additionally if it grades lower than their initial grade they will refund the difference between the market value of the higher grade and the lower grade. If it grades higher they will still charge for the grading unless the original grade was an obvious error and not just a matter of different opinion the second time around.). However if it is an obvious labelling error and not an error in the grading (in other words, it's not that they called your proof a PF-68 when you though it was a PF-69 or PF-67; it's that they labelled a proof as MS-69) they should and probably will correct the error for free. Would definitely call them up and ask, though I doubt you'd have a problem getting a label error corrected, such as labelling a proof as MS, or mis-identifying the coin, or obvious errors of that nature. Can't hurt to ask, worst they can do is say no.
I just searched their site for the issue in the FAQ's (ANACS updated their site since I was last there in March), and it says to submit the coin and on the submission form mark "Other" for the submission type and explain the problem (ie: MS attribute on a proof), and they will fix the problem for free with apologies. Much different from four months ago when they told me I had to submit it for reholdering because they weren't responsible for clerical mistakes. Looks like the customer service may be getting an overhaul at ANACS? But, it still worries me, though, that a proof Frankie may very well be sent out with an MS attribute. Some unscrupulous individual may very well sell the thing off for a pretty profit before anyone really realizes what happened. And with "no returns on slabbed coins", is legal binding even if the grading company made a clerical mistake. Could always sell the coin off as a "slabbing error" variety for a premium on eBay though :whistle:
As of March, 2006, that had been their apparent policy, as that is what I was told. But it looks like it has changed since then. So, it looks like ANACS is realizing that catering to your customers is important....even though I never personally submit coins to the TPGs
Pretty much a no-brainer for any company selling any product or service that they should correct their mistakes for free whenever practical to do so, lol... glad they realized this. Can see why they'd want to word it carefully so they don't have people demanding to regrade a coin for free simply because they disagree with the grade it was given, but there's no reason not to do so for an obvious labelling mistake... can see they adjusted the wording of their policies to allow for something like that to be corrected.
