Advice When Auction Item Doesn't Match Description Found Years Later

daltex

I'd really like to leave this as vague as possible unless specifics become necessary.

Five years ago I purchased a coin through a well-respected auction house. It was listed as an R-7+, and stated that it was the only one graded by PCGS. As I've mentioned here a few times, I'm in the process of trading all but two of my coins for something which will be more key to my collection. Indeed, the highlight. Anyway, I sent this coin to another well-regarded auction house who is facilitating my trade. I was told that this coin is not the variety listed on the label (and attested to by the first AH) but instead a similar variety that is an R-7-. So the second AH sent the coin back to PCGS and presumably to CAC as now it has the same grade and sticker but a different attribution. The problem is that another of the corrected variety sold a few months later in the same grade, albeit in an NGC holder with no sticker, for 1/7 the price.

Since it was an auction, do I have any recourse, or should I? I'm expecting a huge loss on this coin, and I feel as though it is at no fault of my own. I'm not sure I should have been expected to know it was the more common variety when neither the well-respected AH nor PCGS did.

Thoughts?

jmlanzaf

5 years later you have no recourse.

The error was PCGS's. I assume PCGS offers no variety guarantee?

The first AH would have accommodated you in a reasonable amount of time but after 5 years, I think that is unreasonable.

jmlanzaf

By the way, shouldn't the question have been asked before the coin was reslabbed? Wouldn't any possibility of guarantee disappear with the crack out?

rec78

"Caveat emptor" is the way it is. (Let the buyer beware) The auction house just sells things-the buyer is supposed to to know what they are buying. IF the situation were reversed and you got a 7X more valuable coin would you sent the auction house more money?

ifthevamzarockin

There is one very honorable seller here on the forum that will guarantee a coin for as long as you own it but good luck getting an auction company to do it after 5 years.

davewesen

When did the new attribution take place? PCGS guarantees it (if it was a variety they listed on the slab) and you should be reimbursed the difference (if value change was in variety and not just paying too much for equivalents). Talk to your current auction house and see what you got for the down-value change in attribution.

cameonut2011

1. Almost all auction houses have language in the bidding agreement (part of the contract) shielding themselves from this sort of thing. Moreover the auction house was relying on PCGS. A simple mistake on an esoteric variety isn’t breaching any legal duty the auction house owes you.
2. Even if you could come up with a viable cause of action (unlikely), you would likely be barred by the statute of limitations and/or doctrine of laches.
3. PCGS’s guarantee may offer a remedy if you had them correct it. I agree with Joe if you cracked it on your own accord, you’re also out of luck here.

DeutscherGeist

It does not sound like the auction house is at fault since they were relying on PCGS themselves. However, PCGS would be liable and I thought that they guarantee their identification and grade without any time limit. What is the point of getting coins graded if you cannot rely on their label? However, with the coin being cracked out and slabbed by another company, it would appear that any guarantee, and recourse, has vanished. One would have to prove that the now NGC slabbed coin was the same that PCGS slabbed at one point. Considering this is a rare coin (?) perhaps the photos that are archived by PCGS can be used to determine the identity of the coin that is now in a NGC slab. It's a tough case, to say the least, but I do understand the POV of the OP.

As far as statute of limitations go, it may not apply to fraud or misrepresentation. This incident can be argued to be negligent misrepresentation. I am not sure how the laws would apply. Also, the jurisdiction is not clear: state or fed? There may be different laws in each case.

This incident raises an important question regarding labeling guarantee by PCGS.

lilolme

@DeutscherGeist said:
However, with the coin being cracked out and slabbed by another company, it would appear that any guarantee, and recourse, has vanished.

.
From the OP:
"So the second AH sent the coin back to PCGS and presumably to CAC as now it has the same grade and sticker but a different attribution."

And the NGC from the OP:
"The problem is that another of the corrected variety sold a few months later in the same grade, albeit in an NGC holder with no sticker, for 1/7 the price."

PerryHall

Maybe it's just another "mechanical error".

DisneyFan

@daltex said:

Five years ago I purchased a coin through a well-respected auction house. It was listed as an R-7+, and stated that it was the only one graded by PCGS... I was told that this coin is not the variety listed on the label (and attested to by the first AH) but instead a similar variety that is an R-7-.

>

I've had similar situations both ways with rare stamps.

I don't want to be mean spirited; but, I would have been very excited to do as much research as possible on a rare variety to confirm it was what it was thought to be before bidding on it and after receiving it.

Unfortunately, buying at auction is buyer beware. It really helps to do in hand inspections.

Hopefully, your PCGS CAC will do much better than a NGC "not passed" CAC.

ricko

I am surprised the coin was sent for reholder without first consulting the owner. That, IMO, should have been a priority. Cheers, RickO

daltex

All right, I was imprecise when I used the word "variety". The coin is a pattern and was labeled as a pattern of identical design but of different metal composition.

The "new" AH contacted me and said that it was not what the PCGS label said it was, but rather the other, more common, composition. I signed off on getting it corrected, but didn't realize the likely difference in value. It's a good suggestion to see if PCGS gave/offered any credit for the incorrect flip.

I assume PCGS would readily admit that it is the same coin since the serial number is the same. This suggests that the AH didn't crack out the coin.

I understand and agree that I should be responsible for determining that the coin I ordered is the coin I got, but it's not always possible to determine metal composition, especially inside a PCGS holder, and I point to the consignor, AH, and PCGS all assuming that the composition was the rare one.

1tommy

@PerryHall said:
Maybe it's just another "mechanical error".

https://ebay.com/itm/195569255709?hash=item2d88d6051d:g:8h0AAOSwCrpjzvkJ&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAAoDFjTFknyrnIz4FCjSCIMExx3o%2B3zQ9UzyaUPYoRixlO9l2jzKvHN74luo0WIRKz7%2BwAbCEi9cI7xrizXblcKgNyLtP9yNlyP1jkgdwDQiNm%2Fj0lZGqjIt76Nl%2F6G9DGmFGBnZa0YZ4SvjqqFO4zCexhpbvm%2F5GDp4Atq%2F1I8yVoxUE%2B8Zjg9%2FKk6Y7UjObPdfkFmYnqZYKjvP3vf3CE7Q8%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR8z11sHOYQ

MetroD

@daltex said:
[...]

The "new" AH contacted me and said that it was not what the PCGS label said it was, but rather the other, more common, composition. I signed off on getting it corrected, but didn't realize the likely difference in value. It's a good suggestion to see if PCGS gave/offered any credit for the incorrect flip.

[...]

For reference:

The previously referenced clause specific to "mechanical errors":

Source: https://www.pcgs.com/guarantee

cameonut2011

Did you consent to the second auction house sending the coin back to PCGS? Have you contacted PCGS?

TomB

It would appear that PCGS is the sole arbiter as to the value of each piece and they will determine the amount refunded, if any, to you. Good luck!

humanssuck

Given that PCGS explicitly states in their guarantees that they do NOT guarantee the metal content of patterns, the discussion of sending it back to PCGS for the guarantee is a moot point. See below screenshot directly from the PCGS guarantee webpage:

PeakRarities

@humanssuck said:
Given that PCGS explicitly states in their guarantees that they do NOT guarantee the metal content of patterns, the discussion of sending it back to PCGS for the guarantee is a moot point. See below screenshot directly from the PCGS guarantee webpage:

I'm not trying to minimize OP's situation with humor, I would feel like I got a raw deal if this had happened to me.

davewesen

So it is a pattern with identical front and back but just a different Judd number because of metal content?

Maywood

This is starting to look like a lose/lose for the OP who made several mistakes starting out by buying a coin without fully understanding what it was and "trusting" the TPG's attribution. That was compounded by having the coin re-graded which only makes it more difficult to rectify the original error. My suggestion, I think the prudent thing to do now is to have the current auction house return the coin to you while you try to figure out how to be reimbursed.

Also, it might be helpful to solicit the advice of @MFeld who has worked at NGC and currently works for Heritage, likely one of the "AH's" that you're keeping a secret for some reason.

MetroD

@humanssuck said:
Given that PCGS explicitly states in their guarantees that they do NOT guarantee the metal content of patterns, the discussion of sending it back to PCGS for the guarantee is a moot point. See below screenshot directly from the PCGS guarantee webpage:

I missed that. Good catch.

Project Numismatics

I think some compassion is in order all around here. There was no way for the OP to validate metallic composition prior to purchase - it was reasonable to rely on the PCGS label and auction lot description.

I suspect the auction house likely also relied on PCGS.

Per the disclaimer previously posted, it may be very difficult for PCGS to determine metallic content and they specifically warn of this very issue, so it doesn’t appear that they have a contractual obligation to provide recourse.

It’s an unfortunate situation and I fe sorry for the OP. Based on the narrative presented, I don’t think anyone did anything wrong though - it appears to be an honest mistake by multiple parties.

daltex

@cameonut2011 said:
Did you consent to the second auction house sending the coin back to PCGS? Have you contacted PCGS?

Yes. No. I have an email in to the second AH.

daltex

@davewesen said:
So it is a pattern with identical front and back but just a different Judd number because of metal content?

Yes. Possibly not edge, but it is difficult to see the edge in the PCGS holders.

MasonG

Terms & Conditions, FWIW...

Heritage:
"NO WARRANTY, WHETHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY
DESCRIPTION CONTAINED IN THIS AUCTION OR ANY SECOND OPINE. Any description of
merchandise or second opine contained in this Auction is for the sole purpose of identifying merchandise for
those Bidders who do not have the opportunity to view merchandise prior to bidding, and no description of
merchandise has been made part of the basis of the bargain or has created any express warranty that
merchandise would conform to any description made by Auctioneer"

Stacks/Bowers:
COINS AND CURRENCY LISTED IN THIS CATALOG AS GRADED AND ENCAPSULATED BY PCGS, NGC, ANACS, ICG, PCGS CURRENCY, PMG, PCGS BANKNOTE GRADING, CMC OR ANY OTHER THIRD PARTY GRADING SERVICE ARE SOLD “AS-IS” EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH HEREIN AND MAY NOT BE RETURNED FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER BY ANY BUYER. ALL THIRD PARTY GRADING SERVICE GUARANTEES, INCLUDING AUTHENTICITY, ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE THIRD PARTY GRADING SERVICE AND NOT WARRANTIES OR GUARANTEES OF THE AUCTIONEER. BUYERS SHOULD CONTACT THESE THIRD PARTY GRADING SERVICES DIRECTLY WITH RESPECT TO ANY CLAIMS OR QUESTIONS THEY MAY HAVE CONCERNING THEIR GUARANTEES AND WARRANTIES. BUYERS ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT AUCTIONEER IS NOT BOUND BY OR LIABLE FOR ANY OPINION OR CERTIFCATION BY ANY THIRD PARTY GRADING SERVICE.

Great Collections:
NO WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, IS MADE IN RESPECT TO ANY ITEM EXCEPT FOR WARRANTY OF TITLE. IN THE CASE OF TITLE, GREATCOLLECTIONS IS SELLING ONLY THAT RIGHT OR TITLE TO THE ITEM THAT THE CONSIGNOR MAY HAVE AS OF THE AUCTION SALE DATE. ALL ITEMS ARE SOLD "AS IS" AND WITH ALL FAULTS. PURCHASER HEREBY ASSUMES ALL RISKS CONCERNING AND RELATED TO THE GRADING, QUALITY, DESCRIPTION, CONDITION, AUTHENTICITY, AND PROVENANCE OF AN ITEM.

Tramp

If it comes down to metal composition and PCGS doesn't guarantee metal composition them why in the world would PCGS contradict themselves on a different metal composition than what the original label said. Very strange.

MetroD

@daltex said:
Yes. Possibly not edge, but it is difficult to see the edge in the PCGS holders.

A new hope.

IF the edges are different, you have a claim against PCGS based on non-compositional type of misattribution.

Edited for clarity.

DeutscherGeist

@lilolme said:

@DeutscherGeist said:
However, with the coin being cracked out and slabbed by another company, it would appear that any guarantee, and recourse, has vanished.

.
From the OP:
"So the second AH sent the coin back to PCGS and presumably to CAC as now it has the same grade and sticker but a different attribution."

And the NGC from the OP:
"The problem is that another of the corrected variety sold a few months later in the same grade, albeit in an NGC holder with no sticker, for 1/7 the price."

OK, I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out. This means the chain of succession regarding handling the coin is not going to be in doubt. PCGS knows it was an error and they corrected it, but this did mislead the current owner. It looks like PCGS does guarantee attributions under the certain conditions and if the differences in the attribution relied on not only metal content, but also rim design, the OP might have a case. The rim of a coin is not easy to see in a holder, so it is not an obvious misattribution that can be caught by looking at the coin in the holder.

jmlanzaf

@Tramp said:
If it comes down to metal composition and PCGS doesn't guarantee metal composition them why in the world would PCGS contradict themselves on a different metal composition than what the original label said. Very strange.

If PCGS now feels the first designation was an error, why wouldn't they fix the problem?