SEGS NOT HONORING GUARANTEE

My sentiments exactly here. Offer the refund of purchase price, and then sell coin for whatever the market bears at the lower grade. Probably the best resolution for all parties.

Whatever Larry does choose to do, this will most certainly set a precedent for his guarantee. And this is a potentially large amount to settle.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

LOL I believe that those properly informed know that the same coin resubmitted to the same or another top tier TPG may not "cross" (i.e. receive same grade as originally received).

JMHO

 

Exactly. Given the sale was not long ago the purchase price seems to be the best gauge of value and can't complain about a guarantee that makes you whole again.

If this is all true the damage to the guarantee will cost more than paying it out will especially considering their place in the TPG hierarchy already.

 

I never liked SEGS. This just reminded me.

 

I'd be a bit upset too if this had happened to me. That being said, this is one reason why all are advised to buy the coin and not the holder.

 

To be completely fair, if you won what you belive to be a 19k coin at auction for 4k you might think that you already realized a windfall? I'd be a bit annoyed to now find it's worth 3k

 

That's true. Very true. But I, personally, would feel like I was completely ruining someone's life if I got to keep that coin and take 16k from the person that slabbed it 10 years ago too. But that's just me.

 

This is an excellent idea. You may get a 65, 65+, or who knows... a 66! Darn thing might bring $25k in a Heritage auction.

 

Take this as you will, but you have nothing to apologize for. It's rather disgusting, even downright pitiful, that some find the need to question you for asking perfectly reasonable and valid questions.

The real problem here is this....

This isn't to defend Mr. Briggs' decision, but this coin, as it was purchased residing in SEGS plastic, was not worth $19,000, yet the OP suggests he just ripped her for thirteen grand. You know this, I know this, and most of us here know this, yet it is conveniently ignored by far too many. Now, does he need to stand by his word instead of making after-the-fact excuses? Absolutely... buy her out, throw her some cash, whatever, but he sure as hell doesn't owe her anywhere near what the OP seems to think.

What's next? Are we going to start, in the name of "tolerance", allowing those who buy lesser slabs or basement holders to think the coins costing a fraction of top TPG value are worth the same because, well, reality might hurt their feelings? Has truth, facts, and common sense really become of so little importance that they should be thrown aside in favor of coddling those who could benefit the most from them?

Yes, and has posted under two different names if I recall correctly.

 

Much more like the C-B-D I have read before. This is a thorny problem and I don't have a better answer than this. I don't think it would "ruin" SEGS, but it wouldn't be fun. They need to reach a settlement. BTW, it is a real nice coin.

 

BooksB4Coins you are mistaken I only post under 1 name. Not sure where you are coming up with 2(faulty memory on your part to say the least). In any case I would expect the grade to be close and if you post a guarantee stating your company backs your grading than I would expect that you stand by your guarantee.

 

I don't think anyone thinks the questions were unfair, it was more the manner in which they were asked. It's C-B-D's call, not yours.

 

Did Larry make an offer to fix this? Was an offer from him turned down?

 

Um, so your husband is a CPA. I am a CPA, CMA, MBA, and a PhD student. Oh, and a large corporate CFO. Doesn't change my point that none of us know the ownership structure under the corp and LLC, but legally the LLC may not have any liability of the corporate debts.

The Chrysler example I posted was very appropriate. Please ask your husband if an LLC who buys the assets of a defunct corporation has any liability to pay the defunct corporations debts.

 

Mr. Briggs did not issue the original guarantee. SEGS, the corporation that is now out of business did. Mr. Briggs is legally now not refusing to honor the guarantee -- SEGS, the LLC, is refusing to honor the guarantee from the previous corporation.

I had the SAME thing happen to me recently on a tire maintenance agreement. All very legal and I was stuck.

 

I'm not mistaken, ma'am; you are. The other gentleman asked if Mr. Briggs is a member here, and to this question I responded that yes, he is/was and has, if I recall correctly, posted under two different usernames. If you go back and reread the post I'm sure you'll realize your confusion.

 

I don't find it hard to believe that this is perfectly legal, however, Mr. Briggs should obviously post a disclaimer on the SEGS website stating the cutoff for the guarantee along with pictures of how to identify slabs that do not carry the guarantee. Also, common sense dictates that he should inform any customers when the coin they sent in is no longer guaranteed before he cracks the coin out. Better yet, he could require a signed acknowledgement form to this effect as part of the submission.

Taking a customer's coin sent in for regrade that doesn't have the guarantee and cracking it out seems like a really bad idea, if for no other reason than the potential to severely anger (and likely lose) a customer, and the resulting bad PR. What did he think, that the customer just wanted to pay him to downgrade the coin? While I consider what the OP did to be a bit shady, I also feel like this situation would have been easily avoided if a little common sense had been applied.

 

You're absolutely right, how dare one speak in a blunt manner to someone making outrageous public accusations. How foolish of me not to see this before. On the other hand, if someone was ridiculously accusing you, on an open forum and by name, of ripping them for $13K even though they seem to have little understanding of realities at hand, perhaps you'd feel differently.

You're also right about it being CBD's decision, but if you can voice your disapproval, am I not likewise entitled to voice my approval? No matter how cushy the OP was worded, the fact remains that it was based upon an uninformed assumption and unacceptable accusations were made. Four pages into this thread and she does not yet seem to understand her mistake, or that he doesn't owe her anywhere near the claimed amount; I'm sorry, and I say this with all due respect, but I view that as bigger a problem than someone's tone.

 

If Larry bought SEGS from someone else ( I don't know the history of the company) then he doesn't necessarily inherit their contingent liabilities. He would inherit certain warranties - but that's not the same as a guarantee. In fact, I'd argue, if I were Larrys attorney, that these types of guarantees are "mere puffery" which is considered a term of art. Nobody really expects a windfall to be paid in these situations. And, let's be honest, there have been several very credible and plausible scenarios raised on this thread as to how one might calculate damages anyway. This would require a judge or jury (depending on the jurisdiction) to make a finding of fact.

If Larry changed from a C Corp to an LLC then even though he's personally shielded from liability the corporation can be sued. But lawsuits are expensive and its in neither parties interest in this case to go to court (what?? A lawyer saying don't sue? Did hell just freeze over?? Did the cubs just win the World Series??). Larry should settle because he graded th original coin. Olly should accept a reasonable settlement because we all know coin grading is highly subjective and its just bad karma to hold people to what is, essentially, an ephemeral, standard.

You may commence with the lawyer jokes

 

I respect your opinion and usually do. However you are not the most tactful person in the world. I'm sure your stand on that is "like it or lump it". If Larry Briggs chose to answer, I would not disagree with him, since it was he that stands accused. I'm still not sure that the uninformed assumption is quite so uninformed. We'll let this play out and see how it lands.