Mechanical Errors--Another risk of buying sight unseen

I had my first mechanical error last year. I bought a 1953 Franklin proof graded PCGS PR65+. I bought it for the grade, not the coin. I was trying to complete my proof set of Franks. When I got it in hand, the slab kind of squeaked when twisted. When I messed around with it enough, I noticed I could completely open the slab and remove the coin. It made me nervous because the coin was a plus grade, but had fingerprints and rusty looking stains on it. It made me think the seller might have switched coins. I took it to my local dealer, and he took it to a coin show PCGS was at. They looked at it and agreed with the grade and resealed it on the spot. They said the near-cameo look gave it a plus grade. I still think it's an ugly coin with all of the spots and stains.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Insurance that doesn't pay isn't really insurance. It's become standard to promise everything and deliver nothing via obfuscation and technical legalese.

Slabbers are just following suit.

 

This cert "verification" page for this 1873 Two Cent Piece links to two auction records that correctly state the coin variety is incorrectly labeled.

http://www.pcgs.com/cert/11522313

There is a $500 difference between the coin on the label and the coin in the holder. Huge potential for a shady dealer.

(Of course, HA should have sent it in for a correction. Especially since it was sold in a July auction and returned for sale in a November auction the same year.)

 

If that's the case...how many times are they typing MS66 for MS65...or MS65 for MS66? I guess we have to keep buying the coin, not the slab.

 

Unless it was really a PR66 labeled as a MS67.

 

How do we know that it should have been PF67? Maybe it was really a PF65 and two mistakes happened. Just saying...

 

PCGS "Verification" claim: after encapsulation, coins go back to the grading room for verification:
Of course this video is so old there's not a computer in site.

NGC QA claim: Multiple graders enter their grades into the system. Encapsulation specialists only print the label. After encapsulation a final grader and qualty control reviewer (same person?) check the slabbed coin.


So, according to both companies, multiple graders have to independently make the same mistake...err...the same "mechanical error" independently occurs multiple times.

 

5 year old thread

 

They are selling trust. Lawyers are selling accountability avoidance. Policy indicates the slabbers are listening to their lawyers. Therefore I DO NOT TRUST SLABBERS and wouldn't waste my time or have ANY confidence in them for ANYTHING. If you do, then it's your own fault.

 

Does NGC's disclaimer of liability due to mechanical errors actually reach 3rd parties who are damaged due to prima facie relying on NGC's professional opinion?

 

YES! It's like liability insurance which never pays off being sold just to allow someone to meet the legal requirements. It becomes a farce. Which is my opinion of slabbers at this point because of their ineptitude and unwillingness to take responsibility for THEIR errors.

That's besides the distasteful disrespect of the entombed coins.

 

I am not a lawyer but at this time am inclined to disagree. I lean towards the 3rd party being successful in obtaining a judgement in their favor against NGC.

 

I suppose the Courts could disregard the disclaimers in the contract like they did when Ralph Nader was causing problems for the Auto Industry. Of course that opens up another can of worms.

I'd prefer education to convince people that absent change, third party graders insure NOTHING and are therefore worth NOTHING. If they back up their opinions, then they would be worth SOMETHING. They should jump at the chance to correct their errors quickly and before any third party relies on their product. They should pay all costs of correcting their errors including reslabbing and postage both ways. They should make those who do rely on their product whole.

It's not that hard to do the right thing. They just choose not to.

 

I was once given some advice from one of the most sage numismatists alive today.

He said........



"......David, if you are not making an occasional mistake, you are not buying enough coins!"

 

if you value education so much why are you flat out lying to people? You either are lying with this nonsense you are posting or just have absolutely no idea what you are talking about

They do......

 

A bit of a blanket statement. They are pretty clear on what/what not is covered. No issues at all with NGC, and generally satisfied with PCGS.

I've had corrections made by both PCGS and NGC...done politely, quickly, and at no cost to me including shipping/insurance. There was not a financial aspect though as I had purchased the coins knowing the dates were messed up (Japanese dates mis-interpreted by the labeler--year number right but wrong Emperor resulting in an incorrect Gregorian calendar date) in a couple cases...and one labeled a PF instead of an MS, which it obviously was as there were no proofs.

Except for the time PCGS disagreed with me as to a variety. They are still wrong, but oh well, they doubled down on being wrong at least and they weren't trying to make me pay. They are just misinformed--and the coin remains in the slab as a common variety when actually it's a rarer one.

Now, I am not happy about two of theirs--one has a contaminant of some sort and the other a teensy bit of PVC. On looking at the True Views what I'm looking at is clearly (if subtly) present...but the coins were not corrected/conserved when sent back under the guarantee. This is when a little communication would be helpful--like what I am taking for PVC is not, or what I think is a contamination is actually the metal. The coins were sent under a bigger dealer name so it's not me...and the coins were in the $400 range, so not a big financial outlay. I suspect they just flat out disagreed either had a problem...but I wish I knew why.

BUT, PCGS has compensated very fairly me for a mis-slabbed coin when I was the third party buyer--granted they paid off in grading vouchers but it was a fair trade for the difference in value and they re-slabbed the coin correctly. It was in the neighborhood of $150 value difference.

I have benefited from their guarantees, though some remain in disagreement.

 

I'm glad to hear someone was treated right. That wasn't my experience or the experience of many others.

They were always nice enough to accept it for submission at MY expense under standard submission costs rather than correcting their error at their expense.

But I'm not a dealer submitting large quantities of material, so perhaps that makes a difference.

 

As it has always been said throughout history buyer beware, well it makes me feel better being new that even experts make mistakes. This form has been a very good learning experience for me. I appreciate you sharing your experience most people that are experience in this field would have been ashamed for making the mistake and not share it with us.

 

Not in the sense of them fixing it or not. Sometimes they want pictures first, but I have never been on the hook for shipping or any charge when getting label mistakes corrected and I certainly wouldn't fall into the large submitter category

 

Perhaps our different experiences have affected our view of the slabbers. you trust them because you were treated right. I do not because I wasn't.