Don Kagin in the news again?

roadrunner

We all knew about the Manley case. But this other one reported in CW this week is one I wasn't aware of. Concerns a $20 territorial owned by another dealer who paid nearly $700K for it out of auction.
Kagin got involved by stating they could get a Specimen labeled attached to it thereby adding lots of resale value. In any case the 2 parties are fighting over the spoils (ie T&C's) and Kagin would not send the coin back until compensated. A few pages further down in Coin World is a Kagin "for ANA governor" ad about how communications is so important to our hobby.........

roadrunner

ebaytrader

You'd have to admit that he fits right in there.

Zoins

And to think I was worried that things would become dull after the case of the gold bar caper was concluded.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

I don't see anything wrong with what he has done. He's merely playing the grade game.

roadrunner

Yeah, but it's not his coin, and he's not giving it back until he gets what he wants. The article said that a judge ruled against him and to return it. It remains to be seen what the orig agreement was for but I have my hunch.

roadrunner

GoldenEyeNumismatics

If you made someone a few hundred thousand bucks wouldn't you want them to throw you a bone?

Zoins

<< <i>If you made someone a few hundred thousand bucks wouldn't you want them to throw you a bone? >>

Usually the person throws you a bone after you send the coin back to them and they are grateful, not after you hold their property hostage for ransom. Would a more appropriate question be:

<< <i>If an ANA governor made someone a few hundred thousand bucks should he hold their property hostage for ransom? >>

I bet many people who would have been willing to throw a juicy bone before, would now be dead set against payment of any kind given the hostage situation. You'd almost have to if you had any self-respect.

oreville

Something is missing in this story. I can't put my finger on it.

Coinosaurus

The question is, did Kagin have a written agreement with the owner of the coin that he would be compensated if he could get the thing into a specimen holder? If not, things get very murky.....

Zoins

<< <i>The question is, did Kagin have a written agreement with the owner of the coin that he would be compensated if he could get the thing into a specimen holder? If not, things get very murky..... >>

Because the judge ruled against him, I'd guess either there's no written agreement or it was one that didn't hold up.

DieClash

<< <i>Something is missing in this story. I can't put my finger on it. >>

roadrunner

"If you made someone a few hundred thousand bucks wouldn't you want them to throw you a bone?"

That doesn't give someone the right to keep possession of another person's property in attempt to extract money from them. Wanting fair or contractual compensation $$ is one thing, but finders keepers seems a different story.

It still remains to be seen what the coin is worth. And sometimes sticking extra labels on coins produces no extra value. Until the coin sells who knows. For all we know the person who estimated the new value at over a million could have multiple reasons for providing that number.

roadrunner

MrEureka

Something is missing in this story. I can't put my finger on it.

Anyone that knows the coin business and who has carefully read the CW article should have a pretty good idea what happened. However, if you're relying on this forum to get the facts, you're not likely to come to an intelligent conclusion. Not that that has ever stopped anyone from spouting off before.

tmot99

The place I get my car fixed doesn't return my car to me until I pay the bill. I'm not sure I see how this is any different.

When I have Marty send in a coin for me, he makes me pay him before he gives my coin back to me. I'm not sure I see how this is any different.

MrEureka

Tom - Did you read the article? Carefully?

tmot99

Yes, I did. Kagin offered a service and should get paid.

What isn't clear is how much of the other communications were written. It doesn't sound like there was anything written about the $395,000, interest, or terms should the evaluation extend beyond 30 days. Also what caught my attention is that Kagin's claim to the 30 days was for research while the Gervasoni claim was for consignment.

lloydmincy

I disagree. Kagin,and I'll say it nicely, should have returned the coin a long time ago. The dealer that owns the coin could have just as easily got it in the holder it is in/or the authentication it received. Kagin is just trying to get a buck that is not his.

The judge says return it, and he still will not do it. In the mean time the dealer has had to pay charges for the money to have gotten the coin in the first place, and cant resell it, until he gets it back.

I would have been more than furious by now.

MrEureka

The judge says return it, and he still will not do it.

Lloyd, Lloyd, Lloyd...

You should get your facts straight before ranting.

First, Kagin returned the coin as soon as the judge ruled that he had to do it.

Second, Kagin only held onto the piece because that was his only leverage - short of a lawsuit - to get paid according to the contract that he believed to exist. (There is solid legal precedent to support Kagin's position that he was entitled to hold the piece as security, but the judge ruled against him on that point.)

Third, the case remains in litigation. The courts will ultimately decide if there was a contract, and exactly what that contract required of both parties. It is way premature for any of us to predict the outcome. To try to predict the outcome without even having the facts is, with all due respect, just plain stupid.

IGWT

Forming an opinion based on the parties' pleadings (even if accurately reported) is a lot like buying a coin sight-unseen.

roadrunner

It seems more than coincidence that Kagin keeps ending up these types of affairs.

roadrunner

MrEureka

It seems more than coincidence that Kagin keeps ending up these types of affairs.

What are all of these affairs to which you refer?

MrEureka

I'm glad to report that the court ruled in Kagin's favor.

tradedollarnut

I hope that's the end of it.

Coxe

<< <i>I hope that's the end of it. >>



Yeah, then he can get to publishing superb numismatic research articles of value that one might expect from someone touting their singular PhD in numismatics.

MrEureka

I hope that's the end of it.

Not a chance. But thanks for your concern!

Lakesammman

Andy:

Any public transcripts?? Is it being appealed??

MrEureka

Any public transcripts?? Is it being appealed??

The transcripts probably are public, although I wouldn't know where to find them.

As for the appeal, it remains to be seen.

Longacre

I would like to hire Dr. Kagin's external counsel. Who is he? Dr. Kagin walked on the Manley matter, and now I see he prevailed on this issue. I am sure he had a solid case, but I am curious who his lawyer is.

marz

<< <i>Yeah, but it's not his coin, and he's not giving it back until he gets what he wants. The article said that a judge ruled against him and to return it. It remains to be seen what the orig agreement was for but I have my hunch.

roadrunner >>



Coin prison~ for foul dealers!
Arnold will make millions for the state of California~

Cam Keifer for wardon***

howards

<< <i>Forming an opinion based on the parties' pleadings (even if accurately reported) is a lot like buying a coin sight-unseen. >>



I'm rushing to incorporate my new Pleadings Grading Service! Cases decided without the need to consult that unreliable judge!

COINB0Y

oreville

Never, Never make a judgement based on a news report from a Coin Mag.

roadrunner

Well, it won't be the last time that PhD Kagin will be in the news. Any chance this territorial will end up in a garage sale?

roadrunenr

Elcontador

After the "gold bar incident," I'm surprised anyone would entrust anything of value to this guy. I would expect any sizeable deal in which he was involved to wind up in litigation. My only 'dealing' with Kagin was being ignored at his table at Long Beach, where the people behind the counter preferred to talk amongst themselves than to show me a five figure coin that I wanted to view. I will never have anything to do with him again.

My feelings for the guy can be best described in Brasilian Portuguese, Italian or Spanish, but I don't want to risk being banned.

RYK

<< <i>I'm glad to report that the court ruled in Kagin's favor. >>



How glad?

roadrunner

Go back and review the family into the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's ...the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. Auction sales rather than garage sales back then.

roadrunner

MrEureka

Roadrunner - Considering that DK was completely exonerated in the Manley and Gervasoni disputes, you seem awfully committed to condemning him. What's up with that?

roadrunner

Exoneration these days is hardly proof of being fully above board. I wish it was. Often-times it's just whose lawyer is cheaper than the next guys, etc. Yeah, ACG and Hager were exonerated as well in their court cases against ANA, Heriage, et al. CEO's, bankers, govt officials are exonerated all the time by our topsy-turvy legal system.
But an exoneration by an ANA board of governers? Pulleeez!

Anyways, my concerns go back decades before these 2 incidents. As a former employee of DK I can understand your loyalty.

roadrunner

IGWT

Where was the lawsuit filed?

MrEureka

As a former employee of DK I can understand your loyalty.

Although I do consider myself loyal, and biased, I should at least mention that I was never employed by DK or Kagin's.

As for your issues with the man, it's hard to take you seriously unless you're willing to be more specific.

IGWT

As a former employee of DK I can understand your loyalty.

Although I do consider myself loyal, and biased, I should at least mention that I was never employed by DK or Kagin's.

Why the denial? Roadrunner wrote that he worked for Kagin's. Or is that one of those damned dangling participles?

roadrunner

My mistake then Mr. Eureka, I could have sworn you had a stint with Kagin's sometimes in the 1990's or early 2000's...or was it some other mid-west firm that I'm confusing them with?? Or is DK different from Kagin's? (ie semantics). For me, I've never worked for Kagin's either though I have stayed overnight at a Holiday Inn Express.

To bury the hatchet, I'll buy the next garage gold bar that DK offers up. Will that do? But it must be stamped "Garage XXXX-001."

Sorry if I'm not more specific but coin litigation is not one of my favorite past-times.

roadrunner

elwood

I really shouldn't comment because I don't know any of the details.

But....

It's my understanding that D.K. said that he could get the coin certified as a Specimen. But the coin came back with some type of lesser special

designation which doesn't carry as much of a premium as the Specimen designation. After receiving the lesser designation he felt he was

still entitled to his full fee even though the coin didn't come back Specimen.

MrEureka

It's my understanding that D.K. said that he could get the coin certified as a Specimen. But the coin came back with some type of lesser special

designation which doesn't carry as much of a premium as the Specimen designation. After receiving the lesser designation he felt he was

still entitled to his full fee even though the coin didn't come back Specimen.

In fact, Kagin's did get the coin re-certified by NGC as a specimen.

elwood

Thanks Andy!!


See, I said I didn't know the whole story

numisma

seatedcollector

one doesnt have to know much about anything to form an opinion of the way kagin "slid" through the manley incident. a jury of your peers will be less lenient than a jury of your friends. money can (and does) manipulate the judical system. anyone that does not believe it is niave

northcoin

<< <i>

<< <i>I hope that's the end of it. >>



Yeah, then he can get to publishing superb numismatic research articles of value that one might expect from someone touting their singular PhD in numismatics. >>




Does that make Don Kagin the only cert ified "Coin Doctor?" (We actually went to the same school and were at the same reunion in the recent past so I do think it is kind of neat that he has the only PhD in Numismatics from Northwestern or anywhere else for that matter.)

MrEureka

one doesnt have to know much about anything to form an opinion of the way kagin "slid" through the manley incident.

Apparently so.

BTW, for those unfamiliar with "the Manley incident", here's the short version. Somebody stole an SS Central America gold ingot from Dwight Manley's garage and sold it to a local coin shop at near melt value. Through an intermediary, the coin shop offered the ingot to DK at a fair market price, which of course was much higher. (Naturally, they said nothing to indicate that the ingot might be stolen.) DK then attempted to broker the ingot to a prominent dealer, at a 10% markup. That potential buyer suspected that the bar might be stolen, made a couple of phone calls, and all of the parties involved did what was necessary to return the ingot to Dwight. Dwight then filed a complaint with the ANA, accusing DK of knowingly fencing stolen property. The ANA ruled in DK's favor, primarily because there was no reason to believe that DK knew the ingot was stolen.

For what it's worth, I'll also add that if - as Dwight says he believes - DK had known the ingot to be stolen and was greedy enough to try to fence it, he would not have been working on only 10%. He also would have offered the ingot to a different buyer, someone that wasn't likely to pick up the phone and call Dwight.

roadrunner

Here's one example of a claimant's case following the Kagin 1988 Chapter 7 filing

Seems they were selling this guy coins from 1981-1987. All certified by AK himself and re-verified by coin expert Boosel (read into that any way you like). Like all investment funds AK promised to buy them back based on the contract. In 1987 they refused to buy anything back. One item sticking out in the filing is that the grading standards changed in 1986 and this was of some surprise to AK. It's irrelevant imo that PCGS came about and started grading to their own drum beat. It should not have changed the value of the coins sold however.....unless they weren't properly graded in the first place. The judge tossed out this claim against Kagin's......exonerated right? How many others were there?

Anyone can go bankrupt I guess.....but don't blame it on a grading system change. To anyone who bought properly graded and valued coins from 1982-1987, they did very well indeed and PCGS confirmed that. This was typical of coin business done in the 70's and 80's. I think that it was hard for dealer's not to take the easy money when they could. NERCG went down in 1986, Kagin's not far behind, and many others too. Guess the spot-light of accurate grading (ie PCGS) was bringing one era to an end and starting another.

roadrunner

MrEureka

Roadrunner - The case you refer to was against Art Kagin, not Don Kagin. And in fairness to Art Kagin, who is no longer around to defend himself, I should point out that the ruling was in Art's favor. According to the court, Stern was not defrauded.

CaptHenway

Why was this old thread given CPR?