Alexander III tet..."No Decision".....(NGC)

This is bit of a long story so I will try and keep it short. About 10 years ago I picked up this tet. I attributed myself (wrongly at that) and posted it CT . Another member thought it might be cast and called out the coin. After posting it on Forvm, we all concluded is was ok though the reverse is a bit sloppier than usual (though I've seen several examples from Amphipolis with similar styles). Because of that however, I never felt fully comfortable posting without any expert opinion on it's authenticity to back it up so I decided to get is slabbed.

I went to the local coin shop and sent it of with a group they were sending to NGC. After a long wait I got the coin back as "NO DECISION" (along with another coin of theirs listed the same[ no decision]). Upset with the result, the shop misplaced the coins for quite some time but finally found mine today. They aren't charging me the NGC since it came back as no decision, though ngc is charging them.


So..... what the %#@$ does "no decision" mean? I can look up the cert # on NGC's site

https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/4282761-001/NGCAncients/

[NGC Cert #
4282761-001
NGC Description
Alexander III, 336-323 BC KINGDOM OF MACEDON AR Tetradrachm
NGC Grade]


They didn't condemn it as a fake. A few people told me this happens and to send in back for 6 months and it will probably get slabbed. Is that common?


Alexander III AR Tetradrachm. ‘Amphipolis’ mint. Struck under Kassander, circa 316-314 BC. Head of Herakles right, wearing lion skin headdress / Zeus Aëtophoros seated left; shield in left field, pellet-in-Π below throne.

Price 136; Troxell, Studies, issue L8.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

As one who has never used NGC's services I may not be entitled to an opinion but I have one anyway. When some one sends in a genuine coin or a fake coin, they receive something for the money paid for the service. If NGC keeps the fee charged for a No Decision coin, they owe the submitter something beyond those two words. I could see that being a paragraph detailing why the coin could not be called (perhaps stating the surfaces had been altered to the point that it was impossible to tell what was there or that the two graders could not come to an agreement on the item after extensive discussion between themselves based on a specific argument which would need to be spelled out). If a coin is returned with nothing more than 'No Decision' it should be accompanied by a refund of the fee. It is certain that there are coins for which 'No Decision' is the best possible answer but the fee payer deserves to be let in on the situation as fully as practical.

If I were to make an exception to the above opinion it would be when the graders recognize the coin as having been ruled upon previously and the new submission was something like the following:

 

Unless you see an edge seem, I see no reason to suspect the coin was cast. Look at where Zeus' upper arms meet the field. There is a nice, clean edge.

Perhaps the problem was that the graders suspected that the coin may have been an ancient Eastern imitation?

 

My understanding is every coin is graded by two graders. If they agree, that is the grade. If they disagree, a third grader breaks the tie. In your case it appears the tie could not be broken for some reason. There is another thread where NGC is looking to add a team member, perhaps they lacked a third set of eyes (you might also try asking in that thread since NGC team members are monitoring it). I wouldn’t conclude there is anything wrong with the coin: they did attribute it. My guess, and it only a guess, is they couldn’t agree on grade for some reason.

 

I agree with Doug that it would be nice for the submitter to have more information about the "no decision" decision, even if that just means a reference on the NGC website which spells out in more detail what a "no decision" return tag means. Perhaps that information is on the NGC website but I couldn't find it.

I suspect it simply means either Barry, David, or both were not confident of the coin's authenticity but could not condemn it outright.

Edited: I did finally find a glossary of terms for coins not encapsulated.

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/6436/

NO DECISION is not on the list although NO OPINION is:



NO DECISION seems like a better way of saying it. NO OPINION sounds like they don't know and don't care .

@randygeki, if the shop said NGC charged them more than $5, they may have been mistaken. Or, perhaps they are painting the picture that way to make you less upset with them for losing the coin.

If I'm right about the reason for rejection, I wonder why a NO DECISION tag would be used instead of QUESTIONABLE AUTHENTICITY:



Also, this glossary is from an NGC post dated 2011. I wonder if they have updated their glossary, or maybe there is a separate glossary for the Ancients division. @Barry Murphy, can you help us understand these terms?

 

I remain undecided as to what understand here

Q

 

Have you considered sending it to David Sear? He’ll provide basic or detailed write ups for a fee.

 

For NGC, a slabbed fake is riskier than rejecting a coin of which they aren't ~100% certain. There are dealers who are even more conservative and skeptical of otherwise well-known and accepted types.

While NGC doesn't financially guarantee the coins they slab, they do have a reputation to protect. Dealers will generally have money-back guarantees for life so they too need to be cautious with the coins they handle.

 

randygeki, just out of curiosity, what does the coin weigh?

 

I found a discussion of glossary of terms on the NGC forum.

https://www.ngccoin.com/boards/topic/357865-poor-service/?page=4

Coincidently, someone in that thread suggests they use No Decision instead of Questionable Authenticity for legal reasons. It seems at the time NGC were leaning towards No Opinion, though they had feedback that was too ambiguous as well.

 

There is some damage on the lower right of the reverse

It's 17.1 grams

Definitely not cast, I think that it would have made it easier for NGC to condemn it.



Other examples of 136
http://numismatics.org/pella/id/price.136

They may be mistaken so I'll check next time I go back. I wasn't upset with them.

I think Sear is the only way to go from here.

 

That is certainly another option.

I wonder if you get a refund (minus shipping and handling) if Sear is also unable to state with certainty that the coin is authentic or inauthentic. I didn't see anything on his website which mentions this scenario. His minimum fee is $45 + $17.50 insured return shipping, so the opinion will cost you $62.50 plus the cost of sending the coin to him.

 

That alone makes a valuable opinion

Q

 

The coin is getting more and more expensive lol

Maybe I'll e-mail first. If he out right condemns it, I can skip sending it. If he leans towards ok, then I'll send it in.

 

It raises some interesting questions. Are you going to mention that NGC viewed it as indeterminate (assuming that's what "no decision" means)? Might mentioning this bias his opinion one way or the other? Is it best to refrain from mentioning it, or best to tell him?

Maybe first you should ask NGC exactly what the "no decision" tag means.

Good one, Q

 

Good point.

 

I have the same problem because I think my coin is real but I can not send it to the certificate in the NGC even though it can be repoduction. I would lose valuation money but would know the truth regarding the coin. However, I live in Brazil and there is no collector of the NGC or any other to receive the coin and take it for evaluation. In really, I don't know what I do.

 

Speaking for myself, more opinions wouldn’t change anything. Someone respected has doubts, which means in the back of my mind I would always have doubts no matter how many other experts said otherwise. I would decide if I can live with that doubt. If I could, I’d keep and enjoy the coin. If I couldn’t, I put it on eBay for $1,000,000 (the going rate for ancient coins based on that owl thread), but offer a 10% discount because of the NGC report, which I’d include as a FREE!!!!! BONUS!!!!!

 

Isn't that supposed to be a triskeles in the upper reverse field, rather than Nike? I don't have reference books for the type but the only Syracuse tetradrachm with Arethusa/quadriga with Nike flying above I've seen so far is in a fakes database.

 

Sorry but this is 100% fake