HELP

RonaldDay

I've spent about a month trying to get two issues resolved.

I have two coins with "mechanical errors" (I'll discuss my feelings on this in a second post) and the only answer I can get is to resubmit the coins (at my expense) to correct the issue.

The coins in question are a 1955 Brass 10 centavo coin from Mexico incorrectly labeled as the much larger Bronze coin, and a 1966 25 Centavos Open Beak coin from Mexico labeled as a Closed Beak.

To make matters even worse, both of these coins are included in the pictures they use for their POP reports:

Correct:

Mine:

as seen in the last image of the POP report pictures.

I know they've been grading about half a million coins a month recently, and that mistakes like this are inevitable, what I don't understand is why they don't seem to be concerned about the reputational risk of having images like this in their POP report, or why I should be expected to pay to correct their mistake.

Mechanical errors are explicitly not covered by their guarantee, which seems fair in so much as they could face large settlements due to clerical errors (like the addition of a D on a 1916 dime) - but to expect us to bear the cost of simply correcting the error seems a bit much.

RonaldDay

On the topic of Mechanical errors. I would think that there would be an internal record of the coin being properly attributed proving that the coin was mislabeled and not misgraded or the result of a failure to follow protocols. Lacking this, it seems a more accurate description would be human error.

Among the many hats I've worn in my career, I've been in charge of the Prepress department of a label manufacturer. I know first hand how really dumb errors can get through a myriad of QC checks. Unlike a mistake on a coin, a mistake on a label can result in hundreds of thousands of incorrectly printed labels, costing the company a lot of money as well as potential liability for secondary costs associated with distribution schedules.

In the printing business the customers sign off on proofs and if the proofs match the print the the printer is theoretically in the clear - it seldom actually works that way in real life, but that is the protection written into the contract.

I've looked and would appreciate any help in finding the PCGS official policy on how they deal with coins that they encapsulate and have incorrect information on the label. The only thing I can find is their disclaimer that they won't honor their guarantee when a "Mechanical Error" was made.

Here is the list of Mechanical Errors:

A date listed on the holder that does not match the date of the coin. For example, if you had a 1928 $20 St. Gaudens, but the PCGS holder showed the date as 1929 (a much more valuable coin), this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as the date on the coin itself is obviously 1928.

A designation that is obviously incorrect. For example, if you had a 1945 Philadelphia Mercury dime and the bands on the reverse were as flat as a pancake and obviously not fully struck, but the PCGS holder showed the designation as "FB" for fully struck crossbands, this coin would not be covered the PCGS Guarantee as the crossbands are obviously not fully struck.

Proofs shown as regular strikes and regular strikes shown as proofs. For example, if you had an obvious regular strike 1907 $2.5 gold piece, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a proof, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as the difference between a regular strike and proof 1907 $2.5 is obvious.

An obviously misidentified coin. For example, if you have a Hudson silver commemorative, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a Hawaiian silver commemorative, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as a Hudson is obviously not a Hawaiian.

A variety attribution that is obviously incorrect. For example, if you had a normal date 1942 Mercury dime, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a much rarer 1942/1 overdate, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as the date is obviously normal. Another example would be if you had a 1945 Mercury dime with an obviously normal size mint mark, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a "Micro S." This coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee since the mint mark is obviously normal size.

A blatantly obvious clerical input mistake with respect to the actual grade of the coin. For example, if you had an 1893-O Morgan dollar and the PCGS holder showed the coin as MS65 (a Gem quality coin), but the coin was so beat up and marked up that it would grade MS60 at best, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as this would be an obvious input error. The rule of thumb here would be a difference of more than two points on the grading scale.

Any one of these should be easy to corroborate with internal records showing that the coin was properly attributed at some point in the grading process. That said, I know from personal experience that at least a few of them won't be since dumb things happen when you are dealing with people and millions of coins a year.

What do I want?

What I want is a clear statement from PCGS that they will fix these mistakes when they happen, and we wont be expected to pay for having our coins put in a holder with the correct information on them.

Seems simple enough, and certainly fair.

pruebas

PCGS has been having many problems with attribution since hiring a bunch of new people since COVID. And you are right, they seem very resistant to listening (ask me how I know).

All I can suggest is submit them using a paper form as mechanical errors at no charge. To save postage, send them with another order or submit at a show.

Should they pay shipping? Yes, but why raise your blood pressure trying? Is it frustrating? Yes, but this is the world with private equity ownership.

RonaldDay

@pruebas said:
PCGS has been having many problems with attribution since hiring a bunch of new people since COVID. And you are right, they seem very resistant to listening (ask me how I know).

All I can suggest is submit them using a paper form as mechanical errors at no charge. To save postage, send them with another order or submit at a show.

Should they pay shipping? Yes, but why raise your blood pressure trying? Is it frustrating? Yes, but this is the world with private equity ownership.

I'm sure at least half the time their reticence is justified, and the customer is mistaken - that said, when the customer is correct there should be an official policy we can look to for guidance and compensation for our trouble in getting it fixed.

MrEureka

My understanding is that they'll correct "mechanical errors" (which includes attribution errors) at no charge. And the postage costs would be irrelevant if they allowed grouping invoices for return shipments, like NGC does.

Rexford

@RonaldDay said:

On the topic of Mechanical errors. I would think that there would be an internal record of the coin being properly attributed proving that the coin was mislabeled and not misgraded or the result of a failure to follow protocols. Lacking this, it seems a more accurate description would be human error.

Among the many hats I've worn in my career, I've been in charge of the Prepress department of a label manufacturer. I know first hand how really dumb errors can get through a myriad of QC checks. Unlike a mistake on a coin, a mistake on a label can result in hundreds of thousands of incorrectly printed labels, costing the company a lot of money as well as potential liability for secondary costs associated with distribution schedules.

In the printing business the customers sign off on proofs and if the proofs match the print the the printer is theoretically in the clear - it seldom actually works that way in real life, but that is the protection written into the contract.

I've looked and would appreciate any help in finding the PCGS official policy on how they deal with coins that they encapsulate and have incorrect information on the label. The only thing I can find is their disclaimer that they won't honor their guarantee when a "Mechanical Error" was made.

Here is the list of Mechanical Errors:

A date listed on the holder that does not match the date of the coin. For example, if you had a 1928 $20 St. Gaudens, but the PCGS holder showed the date as 1929 (a much more valuable coin), this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as the date on the coin itself is obviously 1928.

A designation that is obviously incorrect. For example, if you had a 1945 Philadelphia Mercury dime and the bands on the reverse were as flat as a pancake and obviously not fully struck, but the PCGS holder showed the designation as "FB" for fully struck crossbands, this coin would not be covered the PCGS Guarantee as the crossbands are obviously not fully struck.

Proofs shown as regular strikes and regular strikes shown as proofs. For example, if you had an obvious regular strike 1907 $2.5 gold piece, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a proof, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as the difference between a regular strike and proof 1907 $2.5 is obvious.

An obviously misidentified coin. For example, if you have a Hudson silver commemorative, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a Hawaiian silver commemorative, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as a Hudson is obviously not a Hawaiian.

A variety attribution that is obviously incorrect. For example, if you had a normal date 1942 Mercury dime, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a much rarer 1942/1 overdate, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as the date is obviously normal. Another example would be if you had a 1945 Mercury dime with an obviously normal size mint mark, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a "Micro S." This coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee since the mint mark is obviously normal size.

A blatantly obvious clerical input mistake with respect to the actual grade of the coin. For example, if you had an 1893-O Morgan dollar and the PCGS holder showed the coin as MS65 (a Gem quality coin), but the coin was so beat up and marked up that it would grade MS60 at best, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as this would be an obvious input error. The rule of thumb here would be a difference of more than two points on the grading scale.

Any one of these should be easy to corroborate with internal records showing that the coin was properly attributed at some point in the grading process. That said, I know from personal experience that at least a few of them won't be since dumb things happen when you are dealing with people and millions of coins a year.

What do I want?

What I want is a clear statement from PCGS that they will fix these mistakes when they happen, and we wont be expected to pay for having our coins put in a holder with the correct information on them.

Seems simple enough, and certainly fair.

You’re overthinking this. Firstly, a mechanical error is a human error. If the coins had been attributed correctly internally, they would be labeled correctly on the slab. “Mechanical error” just means that the misentered attribution or grade was unintentional. That’s why it covers obviously incorrect issues - when there is a readily obvious error, that is indicative of it having been unintentional. Secondly, in the vast majority of instances the photos in the pop report are automatically (not manually) added to it. If you had your coin TrueViewed and it is in the top three graded coins of the type that have TrueViews, it will show up there. So naturally if you have a coin with the wrong attribution, it will show up under that attribution.

You can contact PCGS and request for a shipping label and a free submission to correct the errors, and they may oblige.

RonaldDay

Follow up.

After sending a photo of the front and back of both coins to PCGS customer service they emailed me a shipping label to return the coins to them. Since I was submitting coins I saved them the money and included the "mechanical errors" with my submission which is now entered into their system as a "regular" submission. I will likely not see my coins again for a couple of months, so I have plenty of time to worry about whether they will change the grade after looking at the coins for a second time.

As for Rex ManSplaining how the error got into the POP report, I was suggesting that it shouldn't take months after PCGS is made aware of an embarrassing mistake on their website for them to take it down. That can't be good for business.

It makes sense to me for their CS team to review ME, and their (apparently) unwritten policy to reprocess them on their dime is fair for the kind of mistakes I found, so count me a content with the outcome.

As an aside to the poster suggesting that NGC has a better policy. That has not been my experience by a country mile, hence the conversion of most of my collection to PCGS.

RonaldDay

Correction happened WAY faster that I expected after they received the coin. Update to POP report, coins are already in incapsulation. While my Open Beak issue was resolved they still have an open beak MS66 in the Closed Beak POP report. The POP pictures must be automated. Its the only reason I can think of that would prevent them from removing "Mechanical Errors" from the POP report.

RonaldDay

Funny story about this coin. It was for sale on eBay and I notified the seller that the coin in the slab was not the coin on the label... He didn't seem to care. So I bought it and sent it back to PCGS to fix, since it was more valuable than the coin on the label.

I recently got the results of a submission and all but 1 coin came in about where I expected, which is normally the case.

The reason I bring this up is that PCGS states that a grade that is off by 2 or more points is considered a Mechanical Error. I was certain this coin would grade MS65-66, it came back as a MS63. That difference (on some coins) can be the difference between thousands of dollars.

Makes me wonder how they determine when a grade should be "obvious" to the consumer

RonaldDay

Since I don't have edit capabilities ....
The above post mentioned "this coin" that is the 1955 5 centavos coin.

Tbe balance of the post is about the 25 centavos Dominican Republic coin and my concern about the "obvious" grading mechanical error policy.

RonaldDay

@RonaldDay said:

Correct:

Mine:

as seen in the last image of the POP report pictures.

I know they've been grading about half a million coins a month recently, and that mistakes like this are inevitable, what I don't understand is why they don't seem to be concerned about the reputational risk of having images like this in their POP report, or why I should be expected to pay to correct their mistake.

Mechanical errors are explicitly not covered by their guarantee, which seems fair in so much as they could face large settlements due to clerical errors (like the addition of a D on a 1916 dime) - but to expect us to bear the cost of simply correcting the error seems a bit much.

I'll be sending my third Mechanical Error back for the EXACT mistake on another coin. I know they will fix it, but this is getting tedious.