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

I have heard....IDEALLY...the coin is input (sometimes by non-numismatists) error chance Then it goes to at least two graders and a finalizer. error chance. Then it is assembled and slabbed by non-numismatists and goes back to a TPG for quality control. error chance. Finally to shipping where coin count is checked. It is hard to see how any mechanical errors occur but even experts can be inattentive. I heard from TPG that in 2001, NGC was pumping out 3-4 thousand coins a day through the slab room in NJ!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

So it seems the priority is to get them out right or wrong.

 

I agree 100%.

 

I don't question the wisdom of excluding some things from the guarantee, but I do not believe this can or should be done retroactively. I think TPG guarantees are contracts that attach to the coin as the moment of slabbing, and that one party cannot unilaterally amend a contract retroactively and substantially alter the bargain/consideration after the fact. I do think that if the right coin comes along (high 5 figures or 6 figures), PCGS will either roll over or there will be an adjudication especially on the color guarantee.

What if someone bought an expensive RB coin in a RD holder, lost the receipt, and kept the coin in a bank box since the 1980s? Under current policy, the owner is out of luck.

 

Yep...

They should have thought of what could happen in the future and not had such tight guarantees. Here is one for you that comes from very reliable sources (plural); and it makes economic sense: Perhaps TPG's in 1986 are told not to worry about minor "problems" on coins to grade MS-70. The coin's not really worth anything! Who cares? Decades later we all care because the things sell for $$$$. Now the grade guarantee kicks in, Whoops!

 

.

 

Dear Coinchemistry. The post above qualifies as a best answer...LOL Remember I am new here so I don't know what a blank post means...

 

That's not even funny. No one likes errors. I rip out my hair when I don't word a reply exactly correct and easy to understand. TPGS's are in business to make money. If they help the hobby/you/me in the meantime that's a good thing.

 

It means I misread your post and what I said is moot or a misguided response based on a faulty interpretation.

 

Hey members (many of you). I hate the TPGS too. I do my own grading.

 

So...If I start to make a reply. Type it out; and then erase it - it must only show as a blank if I push reply?

I've printed some cutting remarks in the past but I decided not to send them. Doug and I have fun (I think) telling each other we each know less than a YN

 

The remarks weren't cutting or disparaging - just an inaccurate response in this context. You cannot delete posts once made, but you can edit them, hence, the period.

 

Speaking of the PCGS guarantee, I would like to know when I agreed to the following bit:

I have never submitted a coin to PCGS. I am not and have never been a customer of PCGS. But, under this clause, they want to force me to sue them in Orange County, CA, if I choose to pursue a guarantee claim. Has anybody challenged this clause yet? If so, how did it hold up?

 

Got there bases covered as any good company should!

 

Courts do tend to enforce choice of venue clauses in contracts. I am surprised they haven't tossed in an arbitration clause. I'm sure that will be added if not already.

 

Yes, in contracts that people have actually agreed to. I'm not sure this is a contract as there's been no meeting of the minds. I never even saw this text until just recently.

If a web page with some legalese (and not even a click-wrap "I Agree" button) counts as a contract, I think I'm going to go write some "contracts."

 

Disputes in the court of jurisdiction of the warranting party is universal. You can't sue a California company in Ohio. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment governs.

And why would that language have any bearing on you if you're not submitting coins? It's a warranty.

 

There are also contracts implied in fact. By submitting you implicitly accept the terms of the guarantee. Subsequent buyers are third party beneficiaries to the contract, but also bound by the terms assented to by the predecessor. I'm sure there is probably a way around it if we are going to be creative, but I don't think the mutual assent argument is going to cut it. How can a successor or third party beneficiary receive more than the predecessor bargained for? Think about the real world implications. When you receive money from a life insurance policy, your right to recovery is dictated by the agreement between the insured and the insurance company, no?

 

Coinchem-

BIG differences between the two parties to the original grading contract and what can be assigned to a subsqeuent owner of the coin.

The old common law doctrine of first sale: basically after its sold the original seller has no rights over what the buyer does with it. If you buy a dozen eggs from the supermarket they can't tell you can't use them to egg somebody's property. That's a civil matter ( or maybe criminal mischief) between the egger and the egge. That's why under common law, the TPG can't force you to return their "rare error" (typo).

Rights and obligations under the contract can only be assigned if the contract permits it. "you or a subsequent owner may return the coin for review ..." or similar language allows an assignment of your contract rights. If all it says is "You may..." then the guarantee would be void when you sold the coin.

Similarly if the contract says that "you agree to return the coin at your expense for correction of a mechanical error in the slab label", and you refused to do so they could in fact sue you for specific performance. Even to some extent, the contract may transfer to some future owner, because the original contract limits your ability to deliver a clean title without transfering the obligations ("you and future owners agree to...").

You can put pretty much anything into a contract unless it's a violation of law or against public policy and maybe get a court to uphold it. Sometimes the only barrier is whether you're willing to pay lawyers to take it to court. There have been a lot of cases recently where the terms of sale (which nobody reads) prohibit posting negative reviews. Whether those are really legal would come down to free speech, disparagement law and contracts law and how they all come together... but meanwhile for you to find out you're spending thousands of dollars in legal fees and they're destroying your credit. Which is why Congress is looking at a law to make these clauses illegal.

TPG-x made a glaring error in slabbing my coin is probably ok - it's factual.
TPG-x is nothing more than a bottom dwelling catfish because they made a glaring error in slabbing my coin - is that protected hyperbole or disparagement?
All TPGs are bottom dwelling catfish because X made a glaring error in slabbing my coin - is THAT protected hyperbole or disparagement (and against whom?)?