<< <i>In my opinion, PCGS should offer Mr. Hardesty a refund on his submission fees, postage, and insurance. He submitted the coin under their mint error service. The coin had a grossly obvious mint error. Their failure to recognize it as such amounts to a failure to deliver the service they promised. If they were unable to identify the nature and origin of the error, then they should have simply admitted this. Perhaps they could have affixed a non-specific label like "die error" or "die defect".
--Mike Diamond >>
You may feel that way Mike but my experience with PCGS is that they don't feel that way.
If you submit a coin under the Mint Error Service which they feel is not a mint error, they keep the $50 and send you a slabbed and graded coin. Someone took the time to look at it, therefore it's a chargeable expense. It's exactly the same for Genuine designations. You pay your $30 and if it doesn't grade, they keep the $30, you get your coin back in a gennie slab. Before the gennie slabs....................... you just got your coin back.
Now, if the Mr. Hardesty wants to get into a pissing match with PCGS over whether or not they'll slab his coin as an error, I'm of the opinion that he'll lose. He's not the first person to try and I'm sure he'll not be the last.
However if he decides to work with them using your report to his advantage, then it might just get into a PCGS slab.
I'm of the opinion that this entire scenario was mishandled from the git go. Too many off target explanations and too many "please look at it again" submissions. The correct procedure should have been: Expert examination first followed by submission along with documentation second.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
I agree that the original submission could have been handled more smartly. But I feel it is poor business practice and poor public relations to charge for shoddy work. Would you go back to car mechanic who looked at your worn brakes, did not replace them, and charged you for a brake job?
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
<< <i>I agree that the original submission could have been handled more smartly. But I feel it is poor business practice and poor public relations to charge for shoddy work. Would you go back to car mechanic who looked at your worn brakes, did not replace them, and charged you for a brake job? >>
Its not the same Mike. Worn Brakes are an absolute whereas error attribution, in this case, was an opinion. It was PCGS's "opinion" based upon their current knowledge that the coin was not an error. After all, it's not really an "in your face" error now is it? It is the kind of error that requires substantial knowledge in order to make sense of it.
He really should work it out with PCGS by having an advocate to champion his coin such as yourself or perhaps Fred Weinberg. Perhaps an email to Mike Faraone is in order?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Its not the same Mike. Worn Brakes are an absolute whereas error attribution, in this case, was an opinion. It was PCGS's "opinion" based upon their current knowledge that the coin was not an error. After all, it's not really an "in your face" error now is it? It is the kind of error that requires substantial knowledge in order to make sense of it.
He really should work it out with PCGS by having an advocate to champion his coin such as yourself or perhaps Fred Weinberg. Perhaps an email to Mike Faraone is in order? >>
It's exactly the same, in my opinion. While the nature of the error isn't obvious, its presence was. Failing to see such an "in your face" error, especially when the submitter told them where to look, is exactly the same as a mechanic looking at badly worn brakes and failing to see that they're worn. Charging for that failure is not sporting at all.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
Comments
<< <i>In my opinion, PCGS should offer Mr. Hardesty a refund on his submission fees, postage, and insurance. He submitted the coin under their mint error service. The coin had a grossly obvious mint error. Their failure to recognize it as such amounts to a failure to deliver the service they promised. If they were unable to identify the nature and origin of the error, then they should have simply admitted this. Perhaps they could have affixed a non-specific label like "die error" or "die defect".
--Mike Diamond >>
You may feel that way Mike but my experience with PCGS is that they don't feel that way.
If you submit a coin under the Mint Error Service which they feel is not a mint error, they keep the $50 and send you a slabbed and graded coin. Someone took the time to look at it, therefore it's a chargeable expense. It's exactly the same for Genuine designations. You pay your $30 and if it doesn't grade, they keep the $30, you get your coin back in a gennie slab. Before the gennie slabs....................... you just got your coin back.
Now, if the Mr. Hardesty wants to get into a pissing match with PCGS over whether or not they'll slab his coin as an error, I'm of the opinion that he'll lose. He's not the first person to try and I'm sure he'll not be the last.
However if he decides to work with them using your report to his advantage, then it might just get into a PCGS slab.
I'm of the opinion that this entire scenario was mishandled from the git go. Too many off target explanations and too many "please look at it again" submissions.
The correct procedure should have been: Expert examination first followed by submission along with documentation second.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I agree that the original submission could have been handled more smartly. But I feel it is poor business practice and poor public relations to charge for shoddy work. Would you go back to car mechanic who looked at your worn brakes, did not replace them, and charged you for a brake job? >>
Its not the same Mike. Worn Brakes are an absolute whereas error attribution, in this case, was an opinion. It was PCGS's "opinion" based upon their current knowledge that the coin was not an error. After all, it's not really an "in your face" error now is it? It is the kind of error that requires substantial knowledge in order to make sense of it.
He really should work it out with PCGS by having an advocate to champion his coin such as yourself or perhaps Fred Weinberg. Perhaps an email to Mike Faraone is in order?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Its not the same Mike. Worn Brakes are an absolute whereas error attribution, in this case, was an opinion. It was PCGS's "opinion" based upon their current knowledge that the coin was not an error. After all, it's not really an "in your face" error now is it? It is the kind of error that requires substantial knowledge in order to make sense of it.
He really should work it out with PCGS by having an advocate to champion his coin such as yourself or perhaps Fred Weinberg. Perhaps an email to Mike Faraone is in order? >>
It's exactly the same, in my opinion. While the nature of the error isn't obvious, its presence was. Failing to see such an "in your face" error, especially when the submitter told them where to look, is exactly the same as a mechanic looking at badly worn brakes and failing to see that they're worn. Charging for that failure is not sporting at all.