TPGS liability on misattributed coins

koincollect

What happens when you buy a PCGS or NGC coin sight unseen based on the slab description and number but no picture (older slab) and it turns out to be mis-attributed? There can be another case of a different variety based on the weight of the coin but since in a slab can't be determined. Do PCGS/NGC have any liability if the attribution is incorrect?

Before anyone says call the customer services of these companies, I had a case in which I asked the question but did not get a response at all. I had purchased a coin from Heritage and it was in a slab attributed as a thicker planchet which carries a hefty premium. I suspected it was the thinner planchet comparing weight of the coin in slab I knew was a thinner planchet, but got no reply. I eventually sold it at a loss as a thin planchet. TPGS will go unnamed but I suspect there is no liability here other than the grade. Does anyone have any experience with this?

CIVITAS

As far as I know, the TPG's liability is limited to their grade and authenticity guarantee only. Misattribution falls under "mechanical error" which is not covered under any guarantee. The TPG will frequently correct the error at no charge, but will not compensate you for any overpayment based on the incorrect information on the label.

Any compensation for the item should be sought from the seller through a return of the item. Most reputable auction houses would likely accept a return if you made a claim shortly after receipt of the item and had a good case that the item was marketed incorrectly.

amwldcoin

Been there, Done that. It was actually a misattributed Morgan Dollar DMPL that ended up being worth 1/3. My bad for not checking it when I bought it.

@CIVITAS said:
As far as I know, the TPG's liability is limited to their grade and authenticity guarantee only. Misattribution falls under "mechanical error" which is not covered under any guarantee. The TPG will frequently correct the error at no charge, but will not compensate you for any overpayment based on the incorrect information on the label.

Any compensation for the item should be sought from the seller through a return of the item. Most reputable auction houses would likely accept a return if you made a claim shortly after receipt of the item and had a good case that the item was marketed incorrectly.

7Jaguars

That was the simplistic response: the seller is responsible. OK, I agree but there certainly ought to be some culpability as far as the certification, otherwise why bother (bottom line). I had to send in some threepences THREE times with supportive documentation, letters from specialists, etc. and never did get the correct designation of a documented variety. I would not pass on the incorrect coins but some may not know better, buy from a foreign seller, etc. and not have other recourse.

robp2

Based on previous experience, I suspect the attitude may be one of insular indifference. Businesses always say they are the best, and rarely defer to another person's or business' viewpoint.

I had a run in on a similar topic with a UK saleroom where a 1729 silver proof halfpenny was advertised as a thick flan with a weight of 10.89g, which I disagreed with as I own the Nicholson coin which is 2mm thick and weighs 12.45g. The argument was that because the excess metal around the coin rose up to an extreme thickness of 3mm, it constituted a thick flan type. The fact that the excess was usually filed off by the mint was ignored, presumably because the thick flan type with 2 known prior to the incorrect listing was going to give a bigger hammer price. I believe that coin is now in a slab and may well be attributed as a thick flan. Having said that, it is just one of many incorrectly described coins that you meet every day. Auctioneers frequently get the description wrong, so it is unsurprising that the TPGs do the same - after all, we are all human. The main point to be taken is not to unquestioningly accept what is written, whoever wrote it, and try to cross-check all information where possible.

There are two sides to this though as an incorrect description can also provide a bargain for the purchaser. Be careful what you wish for.

koincollect

Thanks to all for the insights. I will keep this in mind when buying in future to just limit it at grade. I wish the weight and thickness were noted on the slab in case where such varieties exist so the buyers can make the determination themselves.

mkman123

I feel the TPGs should be on the hook. Imagine if your grandparent bought a 1909s VDB, at least thats what the slab says. Upon closer look, its a 1909 VDB. They bought it 20 years ago and don't know who sold it to them.......sounds like they got the screw over!

YQQ

My experience this year was exactly the other way around. A US TPG attributed a coin wrongly.
And because of that I won the Auction very easy and low. Had the coin been properly attributed, the auction would have gone many , many multiples higher.
This suggests clearly that the majority of buyers / collectors, even dealers blindly trust a top TPG's verdict, right or wrong!

Stork

I've had one that PCGS took back and gave enough grading credits to make up the difference (a couple hundred dollars) which was an acceptable response IMO. I showed a dealer one that NGC messed up the date (another several hundred dollar mistake) which was in Japanese, so I suppose in the US market this was not something 'anyone' should know. The dealer told me NGC 'took care of it' and did not act like he was unhappy with the solution. He had paid the higher price when adding the coin to his inventory IIRC.

I've seen misattributed ones selling where people are falling for a label, or taking advantage of a label. When it comes to dates/denominations/mints etc. I expect a buyer to know what they are getting if they can see the actual evidence (and yes, I love a good buy when the variety or whatever is not listed or not correct on the slab label).

Things like weights are only good if correct. I had one with the weight listed and cracked it to cross...it was the wrong weight. No recourse considering I cracked it, but oh well. I suppose anything that can't be verified by looking at the coin through the plastic should probably carry a more significant guarantee--but then how do you prove it without cracking it and then how do you prove that was all the same coin? It's tough.

WCC

As stated in a prior post, "mechanical error". I would expect a respected auciton house to take the coin back, if discovered and returned within the period provided for in the auction terms.

I have had proof coins incorrectly labeled as circulation strikes in one series I used to buy. There are several very rare coins in this series which I currently suspect are labeled incorrectly now. The reason I believe it is that, though these are recorded in published catalogs, to my knowledge none have ever been confirmed or publicly sold since being struck in the 1930's. The mintages are 381 and 28 (I believe). The first is confirmed to exist but not as an MS. The second, I am dubious any circulation strikes were made, regardless of what is recorded in the catalog.

In this series, someone once also posted as "MS-68" on another forum which I suspected was a PR-68. It's no longer listed either.