PCGS mess up,what to do.

Well I shouldn't blame it all on PCGS,i guess more due diligence was needed on my end. Anyway,i sent in a batch of coins to get reslabbed,crossover and a had two RAW coins go in for grading. One was a 1878s HOT 50 Double RIB which I put variety attribution for,the next one I didn't put variety attribution (this is where my problem lies) and it was the rare 1970S DD. They straight graded it at AuU58,but they did not note the DD. My question is,should I send it back in in the slab,this time with variety attribution or the guarantee resubmission? Just don't want to do this again and would like the get the matter resolved.
Anyway,the coin in question

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I guess it's sort of bad news and good news, good news is it straight graded when it was bought as a cleaned coin. Maybe time out of the original case darkened it up enough

 

resubmit it.

 

You would think they would call and ask if you wanted to pay the extra fee. Guess not. I'm thinking this is a $1000 coin?

 

Resubmit in slab and just ask for variety designation to be added.

 

Does a potential buyer really need to be told that eye-crosser is a doubled die?

Double that.

 

"Machine doubling. No way PCGS would have missed that. I'll give you $30 because I feel bad for you."

 

That type of buyer would say that even if the variety was on the slab.

 

Nice score on the Lincoln, if it was me I would want to have the DDO on the slab. But, I don't know if I would want to pay the extra fees, after just getting it back.

 

PCGS apparently calls it a $600 coin in AU58, attributed. (Guess they'd have to bump that population up to 7, though.)

I guess it depends on what you want to do with it -- if you're wanting to sell it online, it might be worth spending some extra money to get it redone with the attribution.

It certainly seems like the first step would be calling PCGS customer service.

 

That's funny, because their "facts" differ here, including a 58 that sold at $2125 (where I got my price quote above):

http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/37997

Which is the truth?

 

Just got off the phone with Ashley,she was helpful and is going to run the coin along through them for variety attribution so no biggie. Yes I would like it on the slab,not too often do you see a 1970s DD. Really neat coin for sure and glad to have it attributed correctly.

 

A lot of them, YES. If it isn't on the slab they won't believe it.

 

By golly, how the hell did three graders there miss that?

 

They were grading not identifying/attributing.

 

That's poppycock. Would they do the same thing on a 1955 DDO, neglect to attribute it a DDO? Quit making excuses for them, this one's as plain as the nose on your face. I'll bet most of these graders would be on food stamps they're so untalented if they didn't have this no-brains, cushy job.

 

There is a published list of what they will attribute for free. If it is not on that list they don't put it on the label unless it is paid for. Not having it on the label doesn't mean it was missed

 

I guess the question is, does PCGS recognize this as a major variety with its own number, or is this a variety (such as a Newcomb) that only gets attributed when you ask for it? If the variety is that significantly valuable, I would reach out to them and see if the coin can be reholdered with additional variety attribution (much cheaper than a true regrade).

 

Do you know what I'd do? I'd put it on social media and show everybody how inept they are. I know, I know, you and Conder101 for that matter are absolutely right in that they're wanting to get paid every time they're put to the challenge of having to fire up the neurons in their prefrontal cortexes, but in this case they don't even have to go to that extreme, as this DDO is plain on its face. It just ticks me off, that's all. They crack the whip, we jump like trained seals, they know it, and that's why they always get away with this stuff. Ah, end of rant. Got it off my chest. Retiring to the bottle, I mean, barn.

 

The problem with that is it just wouldn't be accurate. You can certainly argue that attributions should be automatic (though that would create a different set of issues) but not putting it on the label when they charge for that is in no way evidence of being inept.

If enough of the market wanted another one added to the automatic from a strong premium and an active market some more things may be added to the automatic like FBLs and FHs ect.