CAC, Heritage, and a mystery.

Hey Rich? When was that litigation?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I believe this link will supply a general synopsis of the lawsuit, and established precedents for future actions, involving paramount players in the Numismatic industry:
http://www.coinweek.com/coin-clubs/...ly-2-million-under-federal-racketeering-laws/

If you investigate states legislation, and legal actions initiated/resolved by joint efforts between the states and Federal courts, I believe you'll find adequate successful case history to allow curtailment of some current practices in the Numismatic "industry".

Some whine that "nothing is being done", but the general public doesn't understand the efforts required for a major prosecution in the Federal courts. I suggest "watch what you wish for".

JMHO

 

Thanks Rich.........@treashunt........... http://www.coinweek.com/coin-clubs/...ly-2-million-under-federal-racketeering-laws/ guess the new guys picked up the old company for a song?

 

@Treashunt

 

It all depends on the nature of the scratch; they are so varied in size, length, depth, etc., that graders would have to see it to consider the problem too serious to straight grade. If CAC will straight grade coins with scratches, that tells you how subjective the problem is.

 

I believe an average informed individual can detect a "scratch", and separate from abrasions/nicks/gouges, etc.. A "scratch" is clearly defined in dictionaries (e.g. a thin shallow cut or mark).

I think the average jurist would consider it strange that a TPG would grade a coin with a repulsive oxidative covering which doesn't meet "the grade" definition. It appears to be a common practice to grade and define surface exceptions as PL, DMPL, etc., in a title, but ignore or fail to note that a coin may have irreversible damage from oxidation, sulphur, etc..

lt would appear illogical in applying a grade to a coin having surface damage that doesn't meet the letter of A.N.A. published standards, but disallow a grade to a coin meeting those standards, which may have been cleaned by an unauthorized source, or has a "scratch".

It would seem logical to just note TPG bias exceptions in addition to the objective grade as some TPG have done, (e.g. MS64 - Reverse Scratch), and allow the purchasing public to determine value. My recent example of the relatively severely damaged 1889cc Double Eagle, being offered by a premier auction house, being sold at a significant premium, seemingly belies some subjective worthless practices and claims.

JMHO

 

I and all the grading services disagree with your blanket statement that would reject a whole sector of coins with minor issues that they recognize with their excellent vision and all their devices and then knock them down a little in grade but do not put in their details holders, which is the kiss of death for the marketplace. It goes toward market acceptable vs. real damage. They know what they are doing. You and others are free to avoid coins with these issues and others but will have to probably pay a premium for those coins that meet all your stringent criteria of problem free, eye appeal, high end for grade, etc..

There are so many potential problems on coins; the grading services would lose a lot of business if they details holdered every little problem.

 

I believe an objective analyst reading our posts would conclude that we are stating similar attitudes, that aren't reflective of prominent TPG practices.

Regardless, it's believed that only a class action adjudication will correct the current grading conditions which can be shown by current and past studies that TPG aren't in agreement as to different organizational grading standards, much less theirs. An action similar to that of the PCI, without "outside experts" would be a fair method of determining reliability and potential damages.

A cross section of valuable coins (e.g. minimum 4 figure publicly stated value), having been securely removed from the Defendant firms holders, being submitted to the stated Senior Numismatists Et Al for their recorded grades. This process would determine credibility/reliability of those in control of decisions. The time allotted for grading would be comparable to that normally provided to the professional graders. The process would be repeated by the professional graders. The grades would be compared to those assigned before coin removal from their respective slabs.

The aforementioned process would determine corporate capability by leaders who profess accuracy, and employees who implement corporate policy. The specimens should be evaluated by a group of independently renown "experts" involved in additional grading efforts, to assess grades relative to published A.N.A. professed implemented objective grade standards.

It's suspected that this process would reflect results realized by past and current independent grading analysis efforts.

JMHO

 

Or you could try the current guarantee submissions at NGC, PCGS, ICG and ANACS and send in letters from experts in the field who attest that certain coins are over-graded/improperly graded. But be prepared for a long wait and arbitrariness on the part of the grading service(s) because they don't want to open up the gates to costly guarantee submissions unless they were forced to.

If I recall correctly some of the grading standards issues when they reached the highest court were not seen to be truly objective. Also ebay won the right to control what it considered proper grading for coins of a certain value listed there: http://coinsblog.ws/2014/03/case-di...-policy-does-not-violate-anti-trust-laws.html

 

yes?

 

Read post 103

 

My big question is - will they ever collect anything?

 

got it, and==

nope, I don't know him, or his son

 

I think it's more than a coincidence that both coins failed CAC, then passed when you sent them. I'm guessing Heritage messed up somewhere.