My coin got killed!

Get what? Copy a post if you are refering to a specific one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That is terrible

 

ummm, is that even the same coin? it looks like it came back with extra bag marks in some places, and missing marks in others.

 

The current pop report at ANACS shows 121 certified 1999 type 2. Although you know it is a WAM and I know it is a WAM, you cannot consider it for your set unless it has been authenticated and certified by a TPG. It's like getting a COA on a proof set. LOL I mean who needs that ? But to some, it's proof and establishes value. IMHO

gary

 

Are there any distinguishing marks or features that undoubtedly identify the coin as the one that you sent in? I'm kinda thinking along the same lines as pennsteve, they may have mixed your coin up with another.

 

Looks like the same coin to me. I don't know if I could feel that the color on that coin is stable in any way.

 

I liked it a LOT better before NCS did anything to it.

 

I'm surprised NCS Did it again. What surprises me even more is it got re-slabbed. More than likely to cover their butts. I wouldn't doubt they were smelling a lawsuit if they cleaned it again and NGC gave it a Genuine slab after the second cleaning. It no longer looks "Right"

Sorry this happened to you Kasia.

 

Oh sure... just shaking in their boots over a lawsuit on an econo level coin. Come on! There is an inherent risk when using NCS services and this is clearly stated in their terms.

All three photos are of the same coin, and this would have been clearer had they been photographed in the same manner.

 

No, this wasn't a matter of the NGC guarantee, it was the NCS guarantee which doesn't exist. NGC never saw the coin as it was originally just after NCS damaged it and then again after they repaired some of the damage. In both cases they called it a 61. If they had seen the original coin it probably would have gone higher.

 

I totally agree. It was not NGC that ruined the coin. It was NCS. They are also supposed to return the conservation/grading fees to me as well as the amount I spent to send the coin back to have the splotchy mess taken off the coin. So I am waiting on an amount that is just over 62.00 to show up in my bank account. I called yesterday morning and spoke to Craig, again to confirm that that process was getting sped up.

NGC doesn't have the 1999 WAM listed in their price guide on line, but PCGS does. The current values they list at a MS63 range from 215.00 to 410.00, depending on the color (not inclusive of their plus designations). I think the coin was most likely a MS63RD, but acknowledge that it could have been assigned a MS62, depending on what the grader saw in hand. A MS63RB is listed at 250.00 which is what I said the value was. Right now, with the coin being what it is now, I think maybe the value should be at about 175.00 - 200.00 but I can't see those values (just guessing), as I am looking at the free version PCGS puts up. If I am lucky enough to have the value at 200.00, and when this is done (getting my money back), I will have nearly the value of the coin as I first put it on the submission. So value wise, this will be about the same.


(BTW, if any of you actually are PCGS members and can find out what the price points from MS60 thru 62 are for the BN, RB, and RD on this coin is ---- please let me know).

The real stinker on this is not just that NCS improperly conserved the coin (looks like they used bad chemicals or dirty ones and employed no pre-screening to see if the coin would likely be helped for the spots that were showing), but that they initially had the temerity when I called, to say that the coin must have turned in the slab, between grading and my getting it back, and that they were confident that they could make the coin essentially the same as it was again. They also first only thought that they could cover this by refunding the NCS submission fees, and then did not want to value the coin at a Fair Market price, but to cover me by paying me the 1 cent I paid for the coin (since I got in in a box that I searched).

Those things should be taken into account if you ever do want to send a copper or zinc/copper coin to NCS to conserve. Be prepared to have the worst results you could ever imagine and then being told that the only thing you were out was the amount you actually paid for the coin.

 

And you are lucky if you get that. READ the NCS "guarantee" again. Nowhere do they promise to make any kind of a refund if the coin is damaged by curating. The NCS curation is a "good luck" deal with no promises. You proceed at your own risk. I would expect the curation fee would be the maximum they would ever be willing to reimburse.

 

Hello

I don't understand this. Among art restoration excerpts, the first thing that we spend money researching is if and how processes does harm to an object. Do no harm is absolutely the first rule of restoration is, "do no harm". If you examine, for example, the efforts to conserve the "Last Supper", endless conversation and debate went on to both discuss not only maintaining the artistic vision and integrity or the composition, but stabilizing the physical remains of the fresco work itself.

View this video to understand what is involved:

[video=youtube;fztH6Lpv_J0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fztH6Lpv_J0[/video]

It would be irresponsible and actionable for any company to not do a preminary risk analysis before attemption any restoration.

Amanda

 

It's a dad blasted cent, for the love o' Mike, not a priceless antiquity..........

 

That is true, but looking back at the original photos makes a real bad taste in my mouth.

 

My reply was more of a tongue in cheek aimed at Amanda.....

 

Hi Amanda, I do not believe it would be "actionable" given the terms of the NCS agreement, but then again one can try virtually anything in a court of law. Respectfully...Mike

 

Hello

There are certain rights and responsibly that can not contract your way out of. A Doctor, for example, can not have you sign an agreement saying that he can kill you with negligence, but it is entirely your risk and you can not sue him. In the same way, they are offering conservation. That practice requires several steps and one has to be risk assessment. if they don't do that, they are negligent regardless of any contracts. That is my non-lawyerly opinion.

Amanda

 

No, but if he is doing an experimental procedure he can have you sign a liability waiver in case it fails and that would hold up. And since you really can't run tests on the coin every conservation attempt is something of an experiment. You can try what has worked in the past, but sometimes things just go wrong.

Also in art restoration they typically have a long time to study the object and they start the restoration in one small area that allows them to judge how it is proceeding. It isn't a case of "Here's the painting it needs to be finished next week, and you have to treat the whole painting at once." And some art restorations go badly as well.