SEGS NOT HONORING GUARANTEE

Forget SEGS, or even PCGS or NGC. Here's my favorite third party grader:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks for that update!

FWIW, I sold my last remaining SEGS (Sovereign Entities) coin, a 1915S Pan Pac half dollar, a few years ago for a nice profit.

Chris

 

There is a catch all tier for "special" submissions, and I am still trying to find the page, but I was told to submit under S-7 as a catch all tier. On the submission form beside the coin entry, I wrote across the tier section "GUARANTEE." There is no doubt that it was a submission to invoke the guarantee and not a normal grading submission. If he removed it from the holder, he did so under false pretenses knowing that he was not going to honor the guarantee.

 

See my other post. It was not submitted as a regrade. It was submitted under a catch all "special" tier with the word "GUARANTEE" written in big capital letters along the service line. If there is no guarantee, Larry knew this prior to cracking the coin that it was a submission under the guarantee. If there is no guarantee, then Larry knew or should have known this prior to cracking my coin and did so under false pretenses.

 

PCGS has modified its guarantee to address the volatility of copper color designations (by no longer guaranteeing the color), but that does not make it right or lawful. If you purchase a warranty (which is essentially what a grading guarantee is) for your vehicle, home, or some other expensive piece of merchandise, do you think the warranty company can unilaterally and retroactively amend its warranty into oblivion and substantially undermine what the warranty purchaser paid for?

I make a big deal any time the PCGS issue comes up because Larry seems to use this as precedent for not honoring a guarantee. He argued that PCGS would not even guarantee a copper coin for grade or for authenticity, which is also not true, but it is irrelevant to the coin that I submitted to him (which was not a copper color dispute).

 

When you send letters to the submitter outlining that the submitter is correct and admitting that you are not honoring the guarantee, there is really nothing more damning that can be said on an online forum. The question of whether the guarantee was honored or not is evident as it is was expressly admitted that the coin was originally overgraded. I have a signed letter admitting as much, but will not publish until after the conclusion of my dispute.

The sole questions that remain as to liability are to the change in corporate structure. Is the new SEGS merely an alter ego of the previous corporation created for the purpose of evading liability and creditors? Alternatively, are there legitimate reasons for the creation of the new entity as suggested here? That information can be obtained by subpoena if anyone pushes it that far, so I think clamming up does nothing but further anger submitters.

 

@World Colonial asked me to answer some question regarding my post#287:

1. How do you conclude that a sample of two confirms or refutes anything? All I can conclude is this: One member who appeared to be disappointed with grades he received and appeared to claim that TPGS grading is a crapshoot got two coins crossed at the same grade, thus his point is pointless.

There are no absolutes in grading and from a financial standpoint, it is perception of accuracy and especially consistency, not how "accurate" any grading service is or is not. I cannot find ANY post on this thread that claims that, so...?

At this point in time, SEGS is not viewed at parity with NGC and PCGS, period. True. However, the poster I replied to did not try to cross SEGS coins ...so? That is a fact whether any specific coins cross or not and whether any supporters of SEGS (or any other grading service) like it or not.

What this means in practice is a self re-enforcing spiral where any coins that most buyers believe will cross at grade (and sometimes one or more below it) will be cracked out. This will leave the "over graded" and "problem" coins in SEGS or other TPG holders further re-enforcing the perception of inferiority. Good point. I don't think this has anything to do with my posts either; but thanks for making it.
Nevertheless, I have seen many correctly graded coins in SEGS holders. The member I replied to has also.

What the examples you used really demonstrate is that there frequently isn't a dime's worth of substantive difference between coins one or even multiple points apart on the Sheldon scale. You think? That's NUTS! Of course, collectors don't want to admit it today because that would bring into question the merits of the existing pricing structure and God forbid, with it the value of the more expensive and higher grade coins as "investments".

There are two ways to approach it. Either learn how to apply the existing market grading standards Are those the one's you wrote don't have "a dime's worth of difference" effectively.

Finally is this the point you are using my comments to a DIFFERENT POSTER THAN THE OP in Post#287 to write about?
This is something the OP obviously did not do. I AGREE. Perhaps you should be educating her not me. You Or, buy coins where this criteria doesn't matter or is a lot less important.

 

Where you say I was trying to educate you, that was not directed to you but the OP. I was pointing out the mistake they made, that is all.

And as for my claim about there not being a dime's worth of difference between many grades, not it isn't nuts. My sentiments aren't shared by US collectors but then that is because my standard of significance is so much higher. I am aware the differences between an AU-58 and MS-64 are literally noticeable and could have used different terminology. US collectors consider it a big deal, depending upon the price of the coin. Frequently, I consider it numismatic minutia because I have seen many coins where the MS-64 is only marginally better. Anyway, I didn't intend to get thread off topic, so my sidebar is over.

 

Well why did you quote my post? Didn't make any sense to me! Thanks for the clarification.

Good, let US collectors with much lower standards of significance "hang" on the gallows of minutia.

 

any resolve on this yet?

 

Come back in a year

 

Wow. I haven't been following this thread. 16 pages deep now! Looks like I'll have some nice reads when nature calls tomorrow morning

Hey @Rick Stachowski, can I get a toilet bomb emoji

 

Good Lord, they make those? Don't answer that...........

 

To me, this is the OP fault and I wouldn't honor it either .
OP, all you had to do is check the Min. grade and you should of put at least what it was graded .

Here's the link to Segs Submission Forum:
http://www.segsgrading.com/Products/SubmissionForm2.aspx

 

It should have been returned w/o ever being touched since the guarantee doesn't apply. By cracking it out and regarding it they would appear to have honored the request and should be liable for the loss in value from what the coin was purchased for.

 

I've been reserving my opinion hoping to hear the other side of this story from Larry Briggs or a SEGS company official. I can't say I condone the actions of the OP, however. I have always regarded a TPG label as just an opinion and would never expect compensation for my mistake if I over-paid for an over-graded coin. But that's just me. The fact that SEGS re-graded the coin 2 points lower is the curve ball in this series of events and leads me to believe we have not been privy to all the facts, maybe....

 

I find this sort of dishonorable .... Typical of many .... I would use the www and social media to broadcast your case to the public.... As well as lawyer up.... Seems like a clear case of a fraudulent guarantee!

 

Print up the site take it to a lawyer

Sent from my C6740N using Tapatalk

 

Here's a Segs ( Not Really ) I'm going to send in for a re-grade . It's already graded MS-65 and you can bet, I will put a Min. Grade ( MS-65 ) on the submission forum . Why ? Because that's what it's already graded and why would I want them to down grade it ....

I'm sure Segs story will be a little different, but on those lines, that's for sure ....