Options
The forum members want to hear from David
lava
Posts: 3,286 ✭✭✭
The coin posse has exposed MOC this week of toning coins which appear to have never left their PCGS first generation holders. MOC has since admitted he bought white holdered coins, toned them within a very short period of time, and sold the coins still in the slabs. This has a lot of us upset. Your thoughts?
I brake for ear bars.
0
Comments
I see the same thing in the software world - "perfect" software is pretty much an illusion, but you are still compelled to try.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>This thread should go to the Q & A Forum. >>
For the record, I did post this on the Q & A forum. It has been ignored there too.
It may be a lot for PCGS to get a handle on, so maybe it takes more than a day. I will be waiting for PCGS to comment in some respect.
In case you missed the pics of the ATed coins, they were all in first generation holders.
96eagle
Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum
Free Trial
I overheard a coin dealer in my town telling an associate to "get those coins dipped and toned".
It kinda made me do the Spock eyebrow raise thing, but I guess many people do it.
Demand drives supply, eh?
-------------------------
Good trades with: DaveN, Tydye, IStillLikeZARCoins, Fjord, Louie, BRdude
Good buys from: LordMarcovan, Aethelred, Ajaan, PrivateCoinCollector, LindeDad, Peaceman, Spoon, DrJules, jjrrww
Good sale to: Nicholasz219
And.........who is this coin posse?
<< <i>Doesn't matter to me if he responds. There are folks out there who will find a way to take advantage of any situation.
And.........who is this coin posse? >>
no one important, thats for sure
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
<< <i>Is artificial toning illegal if the person plans to sell a coin? >>
Is it illegal to paint my car before I sell it?
"I would assume PCGS lawyers are all over this like a duck on a June bug. Being in the business, I would also assume that the enforcement action will not be publicly discussed on a forum board just to satisfy the curiousity of board members. There is just no way they are going to join in on a discussion of what should be done, or answer questions about what legal recourse they are considering or taking. "
<< <i><< Specific representations are made by the service when a coin is put in a slab. Those representations are compromised when the surface of the coin is altered in the holder>>
But where do you draw the line regarding what is acceptable "altering"? What if a PCGS encapsulated coin is accidentally left in a hot, humid environment and the coin tones? Also, how do you determine intent? >>
If you notice they recently purchased it on ebay and 3-4 weeks later it suddenly changed from blast white to rainbow toned. Seriously it all gets back to full disclosure. We see coins for sell all the time that are described as album toned, bag toned, envelope toning etc. This disclosure should extend to any kind of dipping, cleaning etc., including ms-70. Will it ever happen, no but we can as hobbyists quit defending folks who knowlingly alter a coin without disclosure.
I've had coins tone in the holder before, presumably because they had not been completely neutralized after being dipped out, so the chemical residue began to interact with the coin surface. That certainly was not an "intentional" alteration. My understanding is MANOFCOINS admitted his intent to alter the appearance of the coins.
<< <i>I would assume PCGS lawyers are all over this like a duck on a June bug. Being in the business, I would also assume that the enforcement action will not be publicly discussed on a forum board just to satisfy the curiousity of board members. There is just no way they are going to join in on a discussion of what should be done, or answer questions about what legal recourse they are considering or taking. >>
What recourse would PCGS have? PCGS doesn't own the coin, they don't own the holder. Unless the holder/label is a counterfeit I don't think PCGS has any recourse. If MOC is a dealer they can pull his tag, but that is about it. MOC owns the coin, and I would think he is free to do anything he wants to it. Unethical yes, but something PCGS has to get involved in, I think not.
<< <i>But where do you draw the line regarding what is acceptable "altering"? What if a PCGS encapsulated coin is accidentally left in a hot, humid environment and the coin tones? Also, how do you determine intent? >>
You can't reliably determine intent so you ASSUME it based on your knowledge, experiences and intuition regarding the circumstances of any particular situation where intent may be a factor; THEN you act on those intuitions accordingly.
<< <i>What recourse would PCGS have? PCGS doesn't own the coin, they don't own the holder. Unless the holder/label is a counterfeit I don't think PCGS has any recourse. If MOC is a dealer they can pull his tag, but that is about it. MOC owns the coin, and I would think he is free to do anything he wants to it. Unethical yes, but something PCGS has to get involved in, I think not. >>
Didn't he change the grade from "MS64" to "No Grade Questionable Color?" The label didn't change.
<< <i>
<< <i>What recourse would PCGS have? PCGS doesn't own the coin, they don't own the holder. Unless the holder/label is a counterfeit I don't think PCGS has any recourse. If MOC is a dealer they can pull his tag, but that is about it. MOC owns the coin, and I would think he is free to do anything he wants to it. Unethical yes, but something PCGS has to get involved in, I think not. >>
Didn't he change the grade from "MS64" to "No Grade Questionable Color?" The label didn't change. >>
I'm not saying it's not wrong... But what LEGAL grounds does PCGS have?
PCGS is guaranteeing the grade. If someone could somehow affect the grade in the slab--say lower the grade, as from MS64 to "questionable toning"--then wouldn't the PCGS grade guarantee come into play? In this case, PCGS is suffering financial harm from another person's actions and so might not PCGS have a legal case?
Mark
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What recourse would PCGS have? PCGS doesn't own the coin, they don't own the holder. Unless the holder/label is a counterfeit I don't think PCGS has any recourse. If MOC is a dealer they can pull his tag, but that is about it. MOC owns the coin, and I would think he is free to do anything he wants to it. Unethical yes, but something PCGS has to get involved in, I think not. >>
Didn't he change the grade from "MS64" to "No Grade Questionable Color?" The label didn't change. >>
I'm not saying it's not wrong... But what LEGAL grounds does PCGS have? >>
To me, and I may be wrong, it's the same as cracking the slab, changing the coin and in doing so changing the grade. I think I read that PCGS prosecuted someone for that.
Edit....spelling
<< <i>The coins I saw would grade the same with the toning. You can put a coin in the window seal and expose it to humidy to get it to tone in or out of a holder. >>
In my opinion, they wouldn't grade at all.
<< <i>MadMarty:
PCGS is guaranteeing the grade. If someone could somehow affect the grade in the slab--say lower the grade, as from MS64 to "questionable toning"--then wouldn't the PCGS grade guarantee come into play? In this case, PCGS is suffering financial harm from another person's actions and so might not PCGS have a legal case?
Mark >>
The grade would be the same a MS64 is a MS64. So that would mean that every coin that has toned in the holder should be trashed?
If they have show me.
If the coin is resubmitted and they pay the owner a downgrade guarantee, then yes they have suffered.
Let's look at the reality. We are talking about a $50 coin. OK it's AT'd. So what's it worth now. Let's play devils advocate. $15. Let me do some quick math. PCGS would be out $35. They would also get a minimum of $16 for regrading the coin, so they would be out $19.
Last I looked at attorney's fees, just reading page 1 of the original post, would cost PCGS more than they would be out.
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
<< <i>PCGS has suffered no finiancal harm in this case.
If they have show me.
If the coin is resubmitted and they pay the owner a downgrade guarantee, then yes they have suffered.
Let's look at the reality. We are talking about a $50 coin. OK it's AT'd. So what's it worth now. Let's play devils advocate. $15. Let me do some quick math. PCGS would be out $35. They would also get a minimum of $16 for regrading the coin, so they would be out $19.
Last I looked at attorney's fees, just reading page 1 of the original post, would cost PCGS more than they would be out. >>
Intangibles like goodwill and consumer trust in a product, while hard to quantify, are a very real potential financial hit to future business. In other words, don't just count dollars going out -- count the dollars that might have otherwise come *in* for the future which may not now.
<< <i>It's probably better for him/PCGS to learn from what transpired. >>
I have no doubt this isn't the first time it's happened, and also no doubt that they were already aware of the potential problem. That said, the simple reality is that there isn't anything they can do about it.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>I would assume PCGS lawyers are all over this like a duck on a June bug.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>The coins I saw would grade the same with the toning. You can put a coin in the window seal and expose it to humidy to get it to tone in or out of a holder. >>
Exactly!!!!
I am no lawyer, but... I believe in America a person can do whatever he wants to his own coins, including putting them in a stinkbomb to tone them.
I am quite sure you are very agitated over all this , as well you should be.
But, I don't think this is actionable. Of course, being America, anyone can sue anyone for any reason. But as Segoja said, it would not make financial sense for PCGS to lawyer up.
On the other hand, if you value your good looks, you might want to lay low. Vigilantes sometimes get carried away. I hope no one here would resort to violence, but you can't be too careful these days.
Now, having tried to ease your pain here... please reply to my question:
How many coins (approximation will do) did you do?
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i><<Maybe if they were not a secretive orginization they would get some recognition and less cheap shots! JMO>>
You might be right, but that still doesn't excuse the cheap shots. By the way, the few forum members I know of whom have actually contacted N.C.A. have been met with something very different from secrecy.
If so, why the secrecy?? I haven't heard about any of them!!
<< <i>
<< <i>Is artificial toning illegal if the person plans to sell a coin? >>
Is it illegal to paint my car before I sell it? >>
No it is not illegal to paint your car prior to you selling it ...But if you belong to a club or group or an organization that relies on specific original numbers to be valid then the repaint or modification is invaid.......
<< <i>The forum members want to hear from David
He's over here playing with the Lincoln Registry guys.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>As long as we're asking HRH to speak, how about a statement on recourse for a "bad" coin under the so-called PCGS "Guarantee of Grade & Authenticity" and a statement as to when and how the Guarantee will be reworded!!! >>
You don't get headaches do you???
<< <i>how about a statement on recourse for a "bad" coin under the so-called PCGS "Guarantee of Grade & Authenticity" >>
Dumbass.
Russ, NCNE
you see, they aren't watching out for us, they're watching out for themselves.
You might be right, but that still doesn't excuse the cheap shots.
well, some look at my post as "cheap shots" and some look at it as the words that many feel but just don't say for whatever reasons. perhaps those reasons are self-serving, borne from the fear of not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them. from reading posts here, that's much the same as what my gut feeling tells me is the reason for dealers/collectors not "naming names" of individuals they KNOW to be doctoring coins.
if you purport to care about the problems that we all find to be troubling in the hobby while knowing who the dealers/industry bigwigs/collectors are that are the transgressors and you choose to withhold that information, you are part of the problem. if that CoinPosse™ went public with names and had irrefutable proof, the problem would start to go away. they won't bite the hand that feeds them, though, for obvious reasons. oh well. as i say often, this place and this hobby are a Microcosm of what happens in everyday life. no big surprises.
<< <i>[Dumbass.
Russ, NCNE >>
This would be incorrect
Try this on for size ............
A court of law decides it`s criminal to A.T a coin with the intent to sell it for profit .
It is then proven that a given coin was doctored and was for sale.
The coin happens to be in a PCGS holder ; thus making PCGS an accessory to a crime .
Can PCGS just cry uncle and say they are only rendering an opinion ?
<< <i>I would assume PCGS lawyers are all over this like a duck on a June bug. Being in the business, I would also assume that the enforcement action will not be publicly discussed on a forum board just to satisfy the curiousity of board members. There is just no way they are going to join in on a discussion of what should be done, or answer questions about what legal recourse they are considering or taking. >>
As an attorney that sometimes is faced with issuing a press release under difficult circumstances, I can say without a doubt that it is perfectly acceptable for PCGS to at least acknolwedge the incident, indicate they are looking into it further, and that an announcement will be made in the future at a time when PCGS determines it to be appropriate, and that is if they intend to have their lawyers swarn all over it, as you think may be going on. If, on the other hand, PCGS has already discounted the whole thing for one reason or another, there would presumably be nothing holding PCGS back from stating its opinion right here, right now. Given the importance of the issue to those of us that frequent the forums, I would think PCGS would say something for the record.
As for my initial reference to the coin posse, I did not mean to take credit away from Hadleydog. In my mind the coin posse is the group on this forum, Hadleydog, Keets, Legend, and even little old me. I don't equate the posse with any formal organization. Such organizations typically don't produce much in the way of results. The forum seems pretty good and oncovering the shenanigans going on in the hobby, and who can forget the great exposure around here of all Accucrap folks.
I agree with Lava that it would be perfectly appropriate (and probably advisable) for PCGS to acknowledge that it is aware of this situation and is looking into it further.
Lets appreciate each other when it is justified.
True there is much more to do; but a lot of exposure was given to those responsible.
Lets encourage as many as possible to take a stand. My point is there are plenty of people to point at without "outing" those that are trying to help.
What part of the following sentence indicates that there are no results?
1) How is what NCA has done thus far (obtained refunds in excess of a million dollars for rare coin buyers who had been ripped off) "self-serving"?
Seems more like an awful lot of money returned to many happy people so far- not exactly an ineffective organization.
I can guarantee you that no person or organization has accomplished the what NCA has in the short period it has existed.
I think the problem is since NCA is not working on the agenda some posters would like and that's where the problem is. NCA takes all consumer complaints seriously-