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

I also prefer the PCGS reverse to the NGC reverse, and if the obverses, luster, etc. are of similar quality, I'd take the PCGS coin over the other in a heartbeat.

Graders make their grade determination in a matter of seconds, and they're subject to human bias. Maybe they handled some truly superb coins at PCGS before getting to yours, and it left them feeling "meh." Maybe it was their last coin before lunch. Maybe a lot of things. The better coin is still the better coin regardless of the plastic around it.

Incidentally, you might think I'm being a little facetious with my answer here, but both of these bias effects have been proven by research in other contexts. For example, judges issue lighter sentences first thing in the morning and right after lunch.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Back after a week's vacation, couple items

• Condor's book can be borrowed (by members) from the ANA library
• The appeals court just threw down a major strike against process patents (post Alice Corp), ruling (see http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/12/operators-impairment-unpatentable.html) that abstract ideas are unpatentable (this has ALWAYS been true) and that claims without specifics will fail the tests post Alice...

"An important take-away from this analysis is that the concept of an abstract-idea is closely tied-in with the novelty of the claims themselves – even at step-one of Alice. Thus, contrary to what many patent attorneys continue to believe, whether a concept is an “abstract idea” will depend upon the invention’s priority dates. However, on that same point, the Court rejected Vehicle Intelligence’s argument that its claim did not embody that broad concept of “testing-operators and taking control” since prior patents held by other companies already disclosed and claimed other methods of achieving those same results. The court rejected that notion since full-preemption is not a requirement of the Alice test." (from patently-o)

I read this as a fascinating decision, since "use an expert system" is too general and disclosing how to program the expert system would lead others to easily find several ways around the patent.

 

It happened at IBM. Their chip was worked around to what we have today.

 

You must have missed the PCGS business strike MS70 Ike that PCGS publicly disowned and refused to cover under its guarantee. IIRC, after seeing images of it, I remember thinking it was only MS64-MS65.

 

I missed that one, too. I'd be interested in a link, if you have one.

 

I'll see if it is still available online. It was a thread on the PCGS forums. Homerunhall (a.k.a. Collectors Universe President David Hall) posted to the thread alerting bidders not to buy the coin at auction. He disavowed the coin, called it a "mechanical error" because it was so over graded and announced, when pressed further, that generally anything over graded by 3 points or more would likely be considered a mechanical error.

Maybe @19Lyds remembers the thread or threads.

 

I found a link: http://forum2.ikegroup.info/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=1466

Someone in that thread claims it "looked MS67 at best." But, I agree with you; by the pictures, I can't see it above 65.

 

I did. But I believe you. Now, If the Ike was an obvious MS-65 or MS-65, in a Slab labeled MS-70, I agree...no compensation, mechanical error that slipped out. Same as coin of one date w/label of another. I learned from one TPG that the first entry on their computer cat. for some coin dates is the ultra rare version like 1802 1/2 cent w/reverse of 1800. If the boys don't catch that input error.... Some ignorant collector thinks he hit the jackpot until he is set straight. Then he wants to sue the TPGS. Phooey!

This is a different story and one that should be corrected: A TPG at a service competing with PCGS told me of a fake 1916-D dime in a MS slab that they also refused to make good. That is unbelievable and the grader said this dispute was well known. PCGS told the owner: "Sue us." I'm going to check on that further for myself.

 

If true, I would have taken them up on their invitation and filed a FTC complaint for false advertising of a guarantee/warranty it wouldn't provide and fraud. The FTC sued PCGS in 1990 for allegations far less troubling to me. If you can corroborate the story without hearsay, I would be very interested in it.

 

Same coin, different thread. I remember the PCGS thread well because it creates a very dangerous precedent and slippery slope IMHO. With them retroactively killing the copper color guarantee, it concerned me about the long term health of the certified coin market and the real value of TPG guarantees. While the guarantees of the top 4 are worded broadly in their favor, historically the companies made good faith efforts to honor it and build collector confidence.

 

Where do we draw the line then in terms of gross over grading being considered mechanical errors? And I think it is one thing to tell the submitter of the coin that the coin is an error and ask for it back and another thing to publicly announce that anyone who relies on their label and professional opinion to their detriment is SOL upon buying it. Not all collectors follow the PCGS message boards and had fair warning. What would have happened if Stacks-Bowers hadn't withdrawn the listing? What about the current owner of the coin (if not the submitter)?

 

I was going to ask around at the fun show because I treat anything I hear as gossip until it is corroborated. TPG said this was all over the place a few years ago and he is very well known and connected! The things he has told me off the record about incidents and personalities in the business are amazing, sad, humorous, and unbelievable. Libel is a place he would not go.

 

PS He inspired me to use "Insider" for my "tag" when I joined. I'm jealous of all that he AND A BUNCH OF YOU all know. I'm an opinionated sponge for GOOD info so keep it coming

 

Wow, I looked at the patient and it is very impressive. I agree that this would be a very valuable "tool" in helping the professional grader. Kinda like the computer eye testers used by eye doctors. It helps them narrow the accuracy down and consistancy of examinations.
The coin grading machine would do the same. The professional grader would fill in the subjective aspect and based upon the weight or value assigned to that aspect, assign the grade scale.
This is just my "two cents".

 

I do not like a loss of guarantee either. What good would they be if the Authenticity Guarantee is lost to BUT Look at their side: Copper coins develop spots after slabbing = lower grade. Silver Eagles develop spots after slabbing = lower grade. Modern Commemoratives develop spots after slabbing = lower grade (I believe this guarantee is still in force yet IMO it should be ended also. You can tell I don't do much slabbing...LOL.

Anyway, TPGS don't know what's on the coin and many time they change (doctored gold w/blue haze in old slabs!).

TPGS are a big business today. When I was young, when ANACS made an authentication error ONLY THE AUTHENTICATION FEE WAS REFUNDED. No one sued anyone over it. ANACS was on a learning curve and they were the best (along with dealer consultants) we had. Come to think about it...that may still be the case with PCGS so they do not need to pay more. Anyone here know? One member wrote somewhere that there is nothing in writing about the PCGS guarantee on authentication!

I do know for 100% (can only speak of one instance - there may be more and I will not say if it was ICG or ANACS) that one of them gave a dealer $$$ credit on future submissions when a coin that should not have "crossed" (MS vs PF) was cracked out in error.

 

It makes me wonder who looks at the coin last, before it is shipped out the door.

 

I don't follow their boards either. Don't agree with their practices; however, I LOVE TO DEBATE as the Devil's advocate! Soooo, Since it sounds like the coin never sold...the owner has a nice example of a "mechanical error" or over graded coin. Sounds like he really is SOL. Now, I think that if the TPGS would have used better customer relations (some people are never pleased) this "problem" could have gone away. Again, this is all news to me.

 

That is a personal matter. I would like to own a label error on an inexpensive coin! I know of a few dealers who have just sent these errors back to be fixed as the coin inside was worth more than the novelty.

My personal line: All should be returned at TPGS expense (postage refund) to be corrected and a thank-you not or free submission should be included for the trouble and for keeping the TPGS product/reputation cleanER.

 

http://www.pcgs.com/guarantee