Mechanical Errors--Another risk of buying sight unseen

So here comes a story that you just won't believe. I haven't made rookie mistakes like this in years. My judgement was clouded by registry fever to obtain a top pop with a scant population of 8/0, a 1960 Jefferson Nickel NGC MS67. My Jefferson Nickel set is so close to completion that whenever an opportunity comes to upgrade, I jump on it in a hurry. This time, my haste may have cost me dearly. So a guy on the NGC forums posts a journal asking for values for an MS67 Jeff but only posts the obverse photo taken by NGC seen below.



My initial impression was that this was the absolute cleanest 1960 Jefferson Nickel that I had ever seen. I was so impressed that I didn't even care what the reverse looked like. I figured that even if there were a few marks, the obverse would carry the grade. I didn't notice that the rims were too strong. I didn't notice the reflectivity in the peripheries. All I saw was near flawless surfaces on a substandard and typically dark NGC photo. It seemed obvious from the journal posting that this guy wanted the value so he could sell the coin. Not wanting to face a bidding war, I contacte the seller via PM and persuaded him to sell me the coin by giving him a retail price of $350. He accepted the offer, I paid, and he shipped the coin.

In the mail today was the coin. I opened it, saw a proof and thought to myself "what the heck is this guy trying to pull?" I ran to my computer to check and the slab and certification number matched. At that moment, it dawned on me. NGC had made a mechanical error and labeled this $25 proof as a mint state coin. To make matters worse, in my haste I did not discuss a return policy with the seller. And to complicate matters further, I believe that NGC does not compensate for mechanical errors through their grade guarantee program. Which means if the seller does not agree to accept my return of the coin, I am out $325. To make matters even worse, I have nobody to blame but myself. I took photos of the coin anyway just to prove the coin is a proof. It is actually a very nice coin with decent cameo contrast not usually found on 1960 proofs.



Another way to tell that the coin is a proof is that Monticello and the steps are completely hammered and the steps are full yet there is no full step designation. Something I definitely would have noticed if I had bothered to ask to see a photo of the reverse. Comments welcome!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

bummer...

 

There has to be some responsibility about that somewhere. It is blatant negligence by NCG in this case. You even knew enough to catch it. I might not have.

 

BTW - it is a lovely coin. I'll give you $30 bucks for it.

BTW - I can't categorize this thread, which is cool.

Maybe Category: Where can i get the best Pizza at 2AM"

 

Category: Crying on my pillow

 

Sorry to hear about this. I am absolutely shocked it happened to you given your expertise with the series. Goes to show that even the experts can make mistakes. Hope you get a refund but I would doubt it. You may need to just take the loss and move on.

BTW: PCGS never would have made that mistake. :devil: I hope that made you smile at least. :smile. TC

 

thats unfortunate.. i cant believe ngc doesnt pay for mistakes like that...

cody

 

They don't. It's a Mechanical error and they don't pay out for those. Best they will do is offer to reholder it for free (with you still paying shipping and insurance both ways.) PCGS wouldn't either.

 

Bummer - glad to see you are not just ripping the seller, too often people blame sellers for their own mistakes. In this case I think the seller should own up and accept a return. I really hope it works out for you.

 

Well, these things happen.

 

Oh man Paul, that's rough. I feel for you.
Well if it makes you feel any better, we have learned from your experience!

 

Ridiculous i think NGC should pay up for that, its pretty lame everyone should start emailing NGC until they have no choice but to change there mind about this policy. I hope everything works out for you.

 

Wow, I certainly learned something important with this thread.. I do hope the seller will refund the money.

 

There is, indeed, and it rests squarely with the buyer...precisely as he has assigned it.

===========

Lehigh,

I sincerely hope the seller will do what I think most would agree is the reasonable thing, and refund your purchase price.

However, I believe you are to be commended. Not many would be so forthright about their own mistakes. It takes a responsible and mature individual to say "I screwed up, and it's going to cost me." Regardless of how this transaction resolves, such personal responsibility will serve you well in future endeavors, I'm sure.

Well said, sir.

 

Sorry to hear. Same thing happened to me with a variety designation on an NGC coin, same outcome. For what it's worth, had you bought the coin on Heritage they would accept a return for it if they listed it as a MS67 instead of a proof. They stand by their description of what they say and if it's wrong they will correct it.

 

I e-mailed the seller and decided to give him a little incentive to take the coin back. I offered him a $25 restocking fee to cover his shipping costs and the hassle of having to accept the return. He accepted my terms and he said he is going to send the coin back to NGC to have it reverified. I wonder if he will posts the results in a journal. I don't think he fully believes that the coin is a proof and I didn't feel I was in a position to teach him. All I wanted to hear from him was "I will take the coin back." Once you hear what you want to hear, it is time to stop talking. Besides, I would say that a $30 fine is more appropriate for my stupid mistakes than a $330 fine. That is a little excessive.

On the NGC liability topic, they need to either start guaranteeing mechanical errors or improve their quality control because I see this far too often.

Slab photo time:

 

Are you sure? I would think that they might for a mail bid buyer (Even though from their terms of sale they don't have to. From Terms: "coins graded by TPG's are not returnable for any reason.") but I would not expect them to do so from a floor bidder. (From Terms: "coins purchased by floor bidders or those that have viewed the lots are returnable for reasons of authenticity only.") since the assumption is the floor bidder has had the chance to examine the lot in person before bidding.

That would only be a problem when buying 1964 or 76 proofs. Proofs from any other year are all from San Francisco and are proof only except the 76-S and the 76-S proofs are almost all cameos. The 76-S UNC is never a cameo, or at least I've never seen one.

And you can have this same problem with PCGS slabbed coins as well, it isn't just an NGC problem.

 

You have a point, I bid online and did not view the coin in hand. For Heritage the issue was not that the label on the coin was wrong, it's that their auction description was wrong. They listed the coin with the same incorrect variety as the label. When I contacted them they quickly and painlessly accepted the return and the representative stated that because the variety did not match what their lot description stated they would accept a return. They may very well have acted differently had I attended the auction.

 

I just sent three Ike dollars back from my last submission that had mechanical errors on them. One the mint mark was wrong and two others had them as type 1's when they were so obvious type 3's. They paid for shipping both ways and reholdered for free.