Options
when should the TPGs have to eat their "Mechanical errors"
Doogy
Posts: 4,508 ✭
we've all read about "mechanical errors", in which the major TPGs will mis-attribute, mis-label an MS coin as PF, or other mistakes. When should the TPGs have to eat these mistakes? If one of the main reasons for the TPGs coming to the forefront was to facilitate a way for coins to be traded sight-unseen seemingly as a commodity, shouldn't accuracy be needed almost 100% of the time to allow this take place?
It seems interesting that an employee can fudge a keystroke, say for example having the label print as MS67 instead of MS66, and they would be liable in their guarantee for overgrading, but simply doing the same thing for 'PF' instead of 'MS' gets you nothing but hassle and having to send back coins, often paying for postage at least one way.
I know in an earlier thread posed here, a member wanted to see examples of 'error slabs' where the TPGs where negligent in slabbing coins with inaccurate info. I often see these floating around, and will buy them for small sums when found. In fact, I have an entire oddball 'box of 20', of slab errors that i pick up at coin shows. Nothing valuable, although the award for the worst quality control among these is my 1955 PCGS proof set. All five coins have the wrong denomination on the labels, and were graded in the same submission, and the kicker is that the proof Franklin half dollar is listed as "PCGS MS66 $1".
So the question is this.....to be able to facilitate sight-unseen trading and the other goals of third party grading, when should the TPGs be held liable for their "mechanical errors"?
It seems interesting that an employee can fudge a keystroke, say for example having the label print as MS67 instead of MS66, and they would be liable in their guarantee for overgrading, but simply doing the same thing for 'PF' instead of 'MS' gets you nothing but hassle and having to send back coins, often paying for postage at least one way.
I know in an earlier thread posed here, a member wanted to see examples of 'error slabs' where the TPGs where negligent in slabbing coins with inaccurate info. I often see these floating around, and will buy them for small sums when found. In fact, I have an entire oddball 'box of 20', of slab errors that i pick up at coin shows. Nothing valuable, although the award for the worst quality control among these is my 1955 PCGS proof set. All five coins have the wrong denomination on the labels, and were graded in the same submission, and the kicker is that the proof Franklin half dollar is listed as "PCGS MS66 $1".
So the question is this.....to be able to facilitate sight-unseen trading and the other goals of third party grading, when should the TPGs be held liable for their "mechanical errors"?
0
Comments
I agree that the TPGs should be 100% error-free in their labeling. Especially today, with relational databases responsibly integrated, a tag should be automatic and a red flag presented upon an obvious disconnect between fields.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
It's a mechanical error.
Should they have to eat it? No.
Would I like it fixed? Yes. But, not worth me paying the shipping and any other fees to get it done.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>I have a 1968 MS66FB dime that is not labeled "FB" but it is, and the cert shows it is.
It's a mechanical error.
Should they have to eat it? No.
Would I like it fixed? Yes. But, not worth me paying the shipping and any other fees to get it done. >>
but "eating" it in this case, is only the nominal cost of shipping and handling both ways. I'm pretty sure they can swing this financially; question is, will they?
<< <i>The TPGs should not have to eat them. They already have to pay employees for making them. Who can afford to pay them again ? >>
IMO, the TPG should ALWAYS eat a mechanical error - and then go after the original submittor for the difference. After all, that person agreed in writing to review all coins received back and bring any errors to the TPG's attention - and most likely benefitted financially from the error as well.
<< <i>The TPGs should not have to eat them. They already have to pay employees for making them. Who can afford to pay them again ? >>
what kind of logic is that for a service industry like this?
If your hamfisted accountant makes a bunch of stupid mistakes on your tax return, are you going to pay him all over again when you sit back down in front of him to have him/her amend them?
<< <i>How dare you question my illogic
Paying out any monetary amount over and above this is still open to debate.
I learned in 1971 that if we didn't have time to do it right the first time, we could never find time to do it again. This is the epitome of quality assurance and excellence when it comes to performance and performance is what pays the bills. Lackluster performance cuts into the bottom dollar.
If you buy it sight unseen I'm with TDN, pay the difference and go after the original submitter. Although the original submitter might not have caught the error even though it is pretty obvious in most cases.
Heck, I have seen Teletrade auction items based on the holder even thought the coin was something totally different.
I think everyone is right on this issue.
<< <i>
<< <i>The TPGs should not have to eat them. They already have to pay employees for making them. Who can afford to pay them again ? >>
IMO, the TPG should ALWAYS eat a mechanical error - and then go after the original submittor for the difference. After all, that person agreed in writing to review all coins received back and bring any errors to the TPG's attention - and most likely benefitted financially from the error as well. >>
I agree 100%.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The TPGs should not have to eat them. They already have to pay employees for making them. Who can afford to pay them again ? >>
IMO, the TPG should ALWAYS eat a mechanical error - and then go after the original submittor for the difference. After all, that person agreed in writing to review all coins received back and bring any errors to the TPG's attention - and most likely benefitted financially from the error as well. >>
I agree 100%. >>
an example would be a MS68 vs SMS68
or PR68 vs MS68
any of those errors or double dies that you need good eyes for
even the submitter should not be held responsible
any coin worth over $XXX should be checked before it leaves the door
<< <i>when the average collector can not tell the difference
an example would be a MS68 vs SMS68
or PR68 vs MS68
any of those errors or double dies that you need good eyes for
even the submitter should not be held responsible
any coin worth over $XXX should be checked before it leaves the door >>
Every coin should be checked before it leaves the door. It's what you PAID for.
<< <i>Every coin should be checked before it leaves the door. It's what you PAID for. >>
That pretty much sums it up. And once it leaves the door PCGS should guarantee it, no ifs, ands, or buts. IMO, mechanical errors are nonsense™
<< <i>
<< <i>Every coin should be checked before it leaves the door. It's what you PAID for. >>
That pretty much sums it up. And once it leaves the door PCGS should guarantee it, no ifs, ands, or buts. IMO, mechanical errors are nonsense™ >>
Part of the submission contract is that the SUBMITTOR will double check the slab label when he receives it and make sure its correct. I suspect that if the SUBMITTOR were held responsible for any gains the SUBMITTOR made on PCGS's error, that the SUBMITTOR would be a little more motivated to help with the quality control rather than just pocket the difference.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Every coin should be checked before it leaves the door. It's what you PAID for. >>
That pretty much sums it up. And once it leaves the door PCGS should guarantee it, no ifs, ands, or buts. IMO, mechanical errors are nonsense™ >>
Part of the submission contract is that the SUBMITTOR will double check the slab label when he receives it and make sure its correct. I suspect that if the SUBMITTOR were held responsible for any gains the SUBMITTOR made on PCGS's error, that the SUBMITTOR would be a little more motivated to help with the quality control rather than just pocket the difference.
I can understand how a professional dealer may be able to assess whether the slab label is correct. I do not see how PCGS can hold an amateur collector to the same standard. Many a collector would have no clue as to the manufacture of the coin, or the correct grade. Isn't that what they pay PCGS for?
Bruce, you own a company. Just curious, do you depend on your customers to inspect your work or do your people inspect it themselves? I certainly know what the answer to that question is in my company and would be very surprised if you did it differently.
To support LordM's European Trip, click here!
<< <i><< Every coin should be checked before it leaves the door. It's what you PAID for. >> >>
The TPGs were paid to do it right. Expecting the customer to "check" it is ridiculus. The TPGs are the paid "experts" not the customers. Just MHO.
<< <i>
<< <i><< Every coin should be checked before it leaves the door. It's what you PAID for. >> >>
The TPGs were paid to do it right. Expecting the customer to "check" it is ridiculus. The TPGs are the paid "experts" not the customers. Just MHO.
yup. That is where the "Professional" part comes in the PCGS name. Pawning responsibliity off on the submittor is bad business, period.
Did someone say "PCGS Norweb Hibernia"?
We inspect it and then they inspect it. Just like PCGS inspects it and catches 99% of the errors and then the customer inspects it.
<< <i>Just curious, do you depend on your customers to inspect your work or do your people inspect it themselves?
We inspect it and then they inspect it. Just like PCGS inspects it and catches 99% of the errors and then the customer inspects it. >>
Assuming that customer is qualified to inspect it. PCGS allows submissions from anyone that can pony up the "membership" costs and can fog a mirror. Some of these folks can rattle off die types as well (or better!) as the names of their own children. others are neophytes getting into coins and think that proof is a condition, and not a method of manufacture. Do you expect the latter to be able to know when the professionals make a mistake and be able to call them on it?
The only way PCGS and NGC can really expect to not be accountable for these "mechanical" errors, to to run all submissions through a dealer network, and have said dealers inspect newly received coins for errors. Cutting out the average Joe collector and not taking accountable steps in the QC department is not a way for a financially struggling company like CU/PCGS to stay in business long-term
<< <i>
<< <i>Just curious, do you depend on your customers to inspect your work or do your people inspect it themselves?
We inspect it and then they inspect it. Just like PCGS inspects it and catches 99% of the errors and then the customer inspects it. >>
Assuming that customer is qualified to inspect it. PCGS allows submissions from anyone that can pony up the "membership" costs and can fog a mirror. Some of these folks can rattle off die types as well (or better!) as the names of their own children. others are neophytes getting into coins and think that proof is a condition, and not a method of manufacture. Do you expect the latter to be able to know when the professionals make a mistake and be able to call them on it? >>
If they profit from the mistake, then settling with PCGS won't cost them a dime, will it. If they don't profit from it, then PCGS should eat it as the cost of allowing direct submissions.
<< <i>Just curious, do you depend on your customers to inspect your work or do your people inspect it themselves?
We inspect it and then they inspect it. Just like PCGS inspects it and catches 99% of the errors and then the customer inspects it. >>
Are your customers required to inspect it? Are they expert enough to know whether your product is correct? If your customer doesn't find an error in your work but the error is discovered at a later time do you not guarantee your original work? Or do you charge your customer to recoup your losses because he didn't notice the error at the time of inspection?
I don't care what the contract says. IMO it is bad business. But for some reason this industry lets the TPGs get away with just about everything.
Sure - go ahead.
<< <i>
<< <i>Just curious, do you depend on your customers to inspect your work or do your people inspect it themselves?
We inspect it and then they inspect it. Just like PCGS inspects it and catches 99% of the errors and then the customer inspects it. >>
Are your customers required to inspect it? Are they expert enough to know whether your product is correct? If your customer doesn't find an error in your work but the error is discovered at a later time do you not guarantee your original work? Or do you charge your customer to recoup your losses because he didn't notice the error at the time of inspection?
I don't care what the contract says. IMO it is bad business. But for some reason this industry lets the TPGs get away with just about everything. >>
My customers don't sell my work for huge gains if I make a mistake. You don't think that a dealer should have to make it right if they get back a 1945 FB Merc in gem with flat as a pancake bands and then turn around and sell it to some novice for a $10k profit???
After about 9 months of coin ownership, and only 5 days of possession (
<< <i>The have eaten it in at least one case, with our 1864 seated dollar. Auction history of three or four appearances before we picked it up in an MS-60 holder (it looked choice AU and paid an amount we were comforatble with). Sent it in for 'mechanical errors' and it came back in a pf-58 holder at about 1/3 to a half of it's value.
After about 9 months of coin ownership, and only 5 days of possession (
>>
MS60 to FP58 isn't a mechanical error, it is incompetence on the part of the graders that day being able to tell the difference between a proof an a business strike. How did you own it for 9 months, but only have it in hand for 5 days?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Every coin should be checked before it leaves the door. It's what you PAID for. >>
That pretty much sums it up. And once it leaves the door PCGS should guarantee it, no ifs, ands, or buts. IMO, mechanical errors are nonsense™ >>
Part of the submission contract is that the SUBMITTOR will double check the slab label when he receives it and make sure its correct. I suspect that if the SUBMITTOR were held responsible for any gains the SUBMITTOR made on PCGS's error, that the SUBMITTOR would be a little more motivated to help with the quality control rather than just pocket the difference.
I agree, but the TPG should pay for round-trip postage and handling in these instances.