So how good is NGC's Gaurantee?

amwldcoinamwldcoin Posts: 4,127 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited November 21, 2017 1:46AM in World & Ancient Coins Forum

I decided to consign my Siberian coin to Stacks. I posted the coin in this thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/989319/post-a-coin-which-is-r7-or-rarer#latest They informed me that from the pictures they sent to Russian specialist's in Russia it was not genuine...or is a novodel? I purchased this coin for big money based on NGC's determination around 10 years ago. What do you guys think?

Comments

  • AbueloAbuelo Posts: 106 ✭✭✭

    Should be good. As likely you know they have great customer service. Let us know what happens at the end. Good luck!

  • BroadstruckBroadstruck Posts: 26,964 ✭✭✭✭

    Sucks to be you! ;)

    Seriously you should be okay.

    To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
  • amwldcoinamwldcoin Posts: 4,127 ✭✭✭✭✭

    They actually responded quickly to an email inquiry. Sent me a free submission form and I am just going to give it to them at FUN to take and review. The only problem I for see is going to be hashing out what a fair value will be if they determine it is counterfeit. They want a receipt from when I purchased the coin and I don't have one. :( I acquired this coin at a show and traded several coins and cash for it. I can't even remember what the coins were but the value of the deal was well on the way to 5 figures over 10 years ago.

    Anyone here ever crossed that bridge before/

  • StorkStork Posts: 4,211 ✭✭✭✭

    If it comes to that (and something I wonder about for things like potential insurance claims with the USPS for things not purchased or something)...perhaps you both get a couple estimates from reputable third parties and have a meeting of the minds.

  • desslokdesslok Posts: 272 ✭✭✭

    I invoked the NGC guarantee once, 15 years ago. I purchased a coin graded AU, which experts in the field later called VF. There was no question of authenticity, in my case. NGC ended up reimbursing me for my actual cost, which I had documentation for.

    At the time I didn't consider it fair, because the wording of their guarantee is that their compensation should have been based on fair market value of an accurately graded piece of the same type. Nowhere in their guarantee was there any reference to my actual cost (which could have been zero, had I inherited it, for example). However, at the end of the day I preferred the "bird in hand" approach and accepted their offer of compensation.

    That was so long ago that I don't know if it in any way applies today. I posted the whole store at the time on internet newsgroup rec.collecting.coins, forerunner of the internet forums that became popular years later, Google still has that discussion archived. Many other participant in that group did not agree with me, stating I was dishonest in expecting compensation above what I actually paid. Then the thread deteriorated as posters of that unmoderated group started bickering among themselves. Here's the link:

    https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.collecting.coins/278boHCqQPU/ff7cGofIZGYJ

    One other point to consider is that since then I've seen a few NGC and PCGS world coins in my fields of collecting which were completely misattributed, and I'm not referring to a subjective disagreement on grading. I mean completely wrong types, dates or varieties listed on the slab insert. I personally don't consider the 3rd party grading services to be as proficient in world coins and they are in U.S. coins.

  • KkathylKkathyl Posts: 684 ✭✭✭

    I think your fine and how does as so called expert make an opinion based on a picture when in fact experts had the coin in hand and determined it to be good. Either way I would think NGC would cover this if it is not real.

  • amwldcoinamwldcoin Posts: 4,127 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The easiest and best solution for me is NGC still agrees it is genuine and would perhaps provide documentation for the auction house so this saga will end! Personally I believe the coin is legit!

    @Kkathyl said:
    I think your fine and how does as so called expert make an opinion based on a picture when in fact experts had the coin in hand and determined it to be good. Either way I would think NGC would cover this if it is not real.

  • amwldcoinamwldcoin Posts: 4,127 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 1, 2017 4:59PM

    I believe this would be a very difficult piece to evaluate. I haven't done much research on the value lately but the only somewhat comparable piece I found was a Denga sold by Heritage several years ago. It was a cleany looking VF that sold for over 10K! Pretty sure the rarity is the same.

    @Stork said:
    If it comes to that (and something I wonder about for things like potential insurance claims with the USPS for things not purchased or something)...perhaps you both get a couple estimates from reputable third parties and have a meeting of the minds.

  • amwldcoinamwldcoin Posts: 4,127 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The TPG's favorite word for a coin which is misattributed is "Typo" which is not covered by their gaurantee. I had this used against me on a misattributed coin that was worth a tenth of what it was certified to be.

    @desslok said:
    I invoked the NGC guarantee once, 15 years ago. I purchased a coin graded AU, which experts in the field later called VF. There was no question of authenticity, in my case. NGC ended up reimbursing me for my actual cost, which I had documentation for.

    At the time I didn't consider it fair, because the wording of their guarantee is that their compensation should have been based on fair market value of an accurately graded piece of the same type. Nowhere in their guarantee was there any reference to my actual cost (which could have been zero, had I inherited it, for example). However, at the end of the day I preferred the "bird in hand" approach and accepted their offer of compensation.

    That was so long ago that I don't know if it in any way applies today. I posted the whole store at the time on internet newsgroup rec.collecting.coins, forerunner of the internet forums that became popular years later, Google still has that discussion archived. Many other participant in that group did not agree with me, stating I was dishonest in expecting compensation above what I actually paid. Then the thread deteriorated as posters of that unmoderated group started bickering among themselves. Here's the link:

    https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.collecting.coins/278boHCqQPU/ff7cGofIZGYJ

    One other point to consider is that since then I've seen a few NGC and PCGS world coins in my fields of collecting which were completely misattributed, and I'm not referring to a subjective disagreement on grading. I mean completely wrong types, dates or varieties listed on the slab insert. I personally don't consider the 3rd party grading services to be as proficient in world coins and they are in U.S. coins.

  • StorkStork Posts: 4,211 ✭✭✭✭

    Thankfully 'typo' is a lot different than 'not genuine', but I do agree the so-called mechanical error or typo can hide a multitude of issues. Proof vs. MS, year, attribution etc. Modified guarantees for things developing in the slab too. No getting around 'not genuine' though.

    I saw a low 5 figure one not too long ago go that got past Heritage (raw though) and they stepped up and made it right. I have no reason to expect NGC or PCGS would be different.

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 3,695 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @desslok said:
    I invoked the NGC guarantee once, 15 years ago. I purchased a coin graded AU, which experts in the field later called VF. There was no question of authenticity, in my case. NGC ended up reimbursing me for my actual cost, which I had documentation for.

    At the time I didn't consider it fair, because the wording of their guarantee is that their compensation should have been based on fair market value of an accurately graded piece of the same type. Nowhere in their guarantee was there any reference to my actual cost (which could have been zero, had I inherited it, for example). However, at the end of the day I preferred the "bird in hand" approach and accepted their offer of compensation.

    That was so long ago that I don't know if it in any way applies today. I posted the whole store at the time on internet newsgroup rec.collecting.coins, forerunner of the internet forums that became popular years later, Google still has that discussion archived. Many other participant in that group did not agree with me, stating I was dishonest in expecting compensation above what I actually paid. Then the thread deteriorated as posters of that unmoderated group started bickering among themselves. Here's the link:

    https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.collecting.coins/278boHCqQPU/ff7cGofIZGYJ

    One other point to consider is that since then I've seen a few NGC and PCGS world coins in my fields of collecting which were completely misattributed, and I'm not referring to a subjective disagreement on grading. I mean completely wrong types, dates or varieties listed on the slab insert. I personally don't consider the 3rd party grading services to be as proficient in world coins and they are in U.S. coins.

    I'm not picking out this poster or his experience. I am using this post to give you all something to think about.

    When the first authentication service, the ANA's Certification Service was established submitters were GUARANTEED NOTHING for their money! AFAIK, that service made a few authentication errors. The 1959 1C mule is the most well known; however, there was a very valuable Irish gold coin counterfeit that was called genuine. Also, a few 1857 $3 before they were detected. AFAIK, NO PENALTIES were assessed. Back then, folks considered the service to be a big help to both dealers and collectors. In another case I've read about, a CC $20 was declared to be a counterfeit. I was told the major dealer called the authenticators and "asked" them to take another look. They did and the coin was authentic.

    What I'm getting at is this. Until the 1980's, mistakes were made and corrected with no repercussions. IMO, that is the way it should have remained! The TPGS is giving an opinion. There are places to go to get another opinion. IMO, whomever started this guarantee thing was NUTS! That's because the TPGS's would have still prospered and grown without any guarantee EXCEPT that you would get the same coin you sent in back! Then as now, when a TPGS made a mistake, they would learn from it. As it is now, I'll bet that all together a million dollars or more has been paid out for that stupid decision to guarantee what is in actuality JUST an "informed opinion." LOL!

    While I feel sorry for your problem, and for the "$$$$$$$ trap" the TPGS's set for themselves, its lucky many of you guys :'( :'( :'( were not around when folks had to buy coins without a TPGS crutch! >:)

  • amwldcoinamwldcoin Posts: 4,127 ✭✭✭✭✭

    And you don't think this cost to them is not forwarded to the submitter in the cost of submitting? Case and point when you get to grading the more expensive coins a percentage of the value of the coin is charged by PCGS!

    @Insider2 said:

    @desslok said:
    I invoked the NGC guarantee once, 15 years ago. I purchased a coin graded AU, which experts in the field later called VF. There was no question of authenticity, in my case. NGC ended up reimbursing me for my actual cost, which I had documentation for.

    At the time I didn't consider it fair, because the wording of their guarantee is that their compensation should have been based on fair market value of an accurately graded piece of the same type. Nowhere in their guarantee was there any reference to my actual cost (which could have been zero, had I inherited it, for example). However, at the end of the day I preferred the "bird in hand" approach and accepted their offer of compensation.

    That was so long ago that I don't know if it in any way applies today. I posted the whole store at the time on internet newsgroup rec.collecting.coins, forerunner of the internet forums that became popular years later, Google still has that discussion archived. Many other participant in that group did not agree with me, stating I was dishonest in expecting compensation above what I actually paid. Then the thread deteriorated as posters of that unmoderated group started bickering among themselves. Here's the link:

    https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.collecting.coins/278boHCqQPU/ff7cGofIZGYJ

    One other point to consider is that since then I've seen a few NGC and PCGS world coins in my fields of collecting which were completely misattributed, and I'm not referring to a subjective disagreement on grading. I mean completely wrong types, dates or varieties listed on the slab insert. I personally don't consider the 3rd party grading services to be as proficient in world coins and they are in U.S. coins.

    I'm not picking out this poster or his experience. I am using this post to give you all something to think about.

    When the first authentication service, the ANA's Certification Service was established submitters were GUARANTEED NOTHING for their money! AFAIK, that service made a few authentication errors. The 1959 1C mule is the most well known; however, there was a very valuable Irish gold coin counterfeit that was called genuine. Also, a few 1857 $3 before they were detected. AFAIK, NO PENALTIES were assessed. Back then, folks considered the service to be a big help to both dealers and collectors. In another case I've read about, a CC $20 was declared to be a counterfeit. I was told the major dealer called the authenticators and "asked" them to take another look. They did and the coin was authentic.

    What I'm getting at is this. Until the 1980's, mistakes were made and corrected with no repercussions. IMO, that is the way it should have remained! The TPGS is giving an opinion. There are places to go to get another opinion. IMO, whomever started this guarantee thing was NUTS! That's because the TPGS's would have still prospered and grown without any guarantee EXCEPT that you would get the same coin you sent in back! Then as now, when a TPGS made a mistake, they would learn from it. As it is now, I'll bet that all together a million dollars or more has been paid out for that stupid decision to guarantee what is in actuality JUST an "informed opinion." LOL!

    While I feel sorry for your problem, and for the "$$$$$$$ trap" the TPGS's set for themselves, its lucky many of you guys :'( :'( :'( were not around when folks had to buy coins without a TPGS crutch! >:)

  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 6,930 ✭✭✭✭

    One of 3 outcomes: NGC says it's not genuine and will pay out, NGC says it's as described confirming their original assessment that You could include in the auction description, or they claim the label is a mechanical error missing the word Restrike, at which point they will correct the label and, hopefully, pays out the difference between a restrike market value and what you paid originally (if you're able to find records).

    Good luck - let us know how it plays out.

    8 Reales Madness



    Looking for Mexico 8 Reales 1772-1821 in AU+ condition. PM me!
  • amwldcoinamwldcoin Posts: 4,127 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would be surprised if they call it a restrike. I've handled many novodels and there were actually a few in the submission with this coin that were labeled as such!

    @TwoKopeiki said:
    One of 3 outcomes: NGC says it's not genuine and will pay out, NGC says it's as described confirming their original assessment that You could include in the auction description, or they claim the label is a mechanical error missing the word Restrike, at which point they will correct the label and, hopefully, pays out the difference between a restrike market value and what you paid originally (if you're able to find records).

    Good luck - let us know how it plays out.

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 3,695 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @amwldcoin asks: "And you don't think this cost to them is not forwarded to the submitter in the cost of submitting? Case and point when you get to grading the more expensive coins a percentage of the value of the coin is charged by PCGS!"

    LOL! Friend, I want you to consider some things:

    On second thought, I'm not going to spend my time. B) I'll just leave you with #1 on a list of costs (out of the "fifty-nine so far) that I prepared to write for my answer to you:

    1. How many coin submissions do you think it takes to pay the yearly air-conditioning bill at NGC in FL?

    2. ...... :*

  • ShadyDaveShadyDave Posts: 1,000 ✭✭✭

    Please keep us posted. I own a counterfeit world coin that is a key date. It was slabbed in an NGC holder that I had graded myself and it was assigned a numericall grade...so I'm interested in the outcome too.

  • Timbuk3Timbuk3 Posts: 4,354 ✭✭✭

    Please let us know the results. Good luck !!! :)

    Timbuk3
  • This is unfortunate and I wish you a satisfactory outcome. I think a few of us cringed when you posted the pictures of this coin a few weeks ago because I believe it's unknown an original, and it doesn't look like the old collectible restrikes. My guess is that it was made not long before you bought it, because I first noticed one that looked like yours about 9 years ago, and another showed up in a 2009 German auction. I hope NGC makes you whole. Good luck.

  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 4,405 ✭✭✭✭

    @Insider2 said:

    1. How many coin submissions do you think it takes to pay the yearly air-conditioning bill at NGC in FL?

    2. ...... :*

    If you were truly an insider you'd know

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 3,695 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 3, 2017 2:32PM

    @bronco2078 replied to my question about the cost of air conditioning at NGC: "If you were truly an insider you'd know.

    Darn, he's right! We can only guess at the building maintenance costs at NGC as it's not my department. :( Perhaps, I should have used some of the other examples on my list of fifty-nine...#18 (?) would have been a good one. B)

    The point I'm making is $30 a coin may not be as good a deal as $12 a coin but **thirty dollars a coin is still a great deal for what you get at the top TPGS's. :)

  • KkathylKkathyl Posts: 684 ✭✭✭

    Based on building size you could estimate 2,000 per month *12 let’s call it 24,000.00 per year. Avg grading cost based on volume (overhead absorption) 25.00. That would be about 960 coins graded.

  • U1chicagoU1chicago Posts: 394 ✭✭✭

    @Kkathyl said:
    Based on building size you could estimate 2,000 per month *12 let’s call it 24,000.00 per year. Avg grading cost based on volume (overhead absorption) 25.00. That would be about 960 coins graded.

    And all of that is likely covered on the first business day in January as all the monster boxes of Eagles come in for grading. :D

  • amwldcoinamwldcoin Posts: 4,127 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I must say the coin in the German auction looks nothing like mine and certainly looks fake to me. In fact the alignment of the devices on mine are exactly like the coin photographed in the Hermitage Collection in 1916. The coin in the German auction is perfectly centered. This coin was purchased from an antique shop in the NE. It was purchased with a small group of coins that were contemporary to this coin. Most of them were Japanese and were genuine. This was what I was told by the person I acquired it from and saw the other coins in the group. I have no reason to doubt his story and it makes sense it could be with some early Japanese stuff. I am hoping NGC stands behind their initial determination!

    I wonder who has decided no originals exist. Every Book on Russian coins I own(quite a few) list them with less than 10 known.

    @Washingtoniana said:
    This is unfortunate and I wish you a satisfactory outcome. I think a few of us cringed when you posted the pictures of this coin a few weeks ago because I believe it's unknown an original, and it doesn't look like the old collectible restrikes. My guess is that it was made not long before you bought it, because I first noticed one that looked like yours about 9 years ago, and another showed up in a 2009 German auction. I hope NGC makes you whole. Good luck.

  • @amwldcoin said:
    I must say the coin in the German auction looks nothing like mine and certainly looks fake to me. In fact the alignment of the devices on mine are exactly like the coin photographed in the Hermitage Collection in 1916. The coin in the German auction is perfectly centered. This coin was purchased from an antique shop in the NE. It was purchased with a small group of coins that were contemporary to this coin. Most of them were Japanese and were genuine. This was what I was told by the person I acquired it from and saw the other coins in the group. I have no reason to doubt his story and it makes sense it could be with some early Japanese stuff. I am hoping NGC stands behind their initial determination!

    I wonder who has decided no originals exist. Every Book on Russian coins I own(quite a few) list them with less than 10 known.

    @Washingtoniana said:
    This is unfortunate and I wish you a satisfactory outcome. I think a few of us cringed when you posted the pictures of this coin a few weeks ago because I believe it's unknown an original, and it doesn't look like the old collectible restrikes. My guess is that it was made not long before you bought it, because I first noticed one that looked like yours about 9 years ago, and another showed up in a 2009 German auction. I hope NGC makes you whole. Good luck.

    Brekke wrote that it was "not known as an original" and that "there are a few series of Siberian coins dated 1764, but only the 1/2, 1, 2, 5, and 10 kopek pieces were judged by the old numismatists to be possible originals; the polushka is judged a novodel." Bitkin lists it as an R4 (highest rarity) with no known appearances and refers to Uzdenikov's entry, where it's listed as "!!" (highest rarity or unique) but, again, with no known appearances. If there's one in the Hermitage, nobody has published a photograph of it, and there wasn't one in the Hermitage duplicates auctions 85 years ago. But anything is possible.

    The only reason I'm piping up is to help you. The reason the people Stacks Bowers consulted gave a thumbs down is obvious. If NGC affirms their prior determination, or even calls it a novodel, I think they would be doing you a disservice because it will never garner serious interest. Please take another look at the image from the German auction. The strike is different, but in my opinion, the die is identical to yours. Either nobody bid on that one, or it was withdrawn. I think NGC simply made the wrong call on this - it happens - and they should make you whole.

  • amwldcoinamwldcoin Posts: 4,127 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 14, 2017 3:14AM

    I do appreciate your help. When I have the time I will take a picture of the page in my reprint book of photographs taken in 1916 of the Hermitage collection! There is a pic of the 1764 Siberia Polushka and mine aligns quite well with it! The one in the German auction does not and the surfaces are way different than my coin!(amost enough to say the composition is different!) This is certainly going to be interesting! I have been playing with coins for 50 years now and nothing about my coin says restrike(unless it was done more than a century ago!) or Novodel. My coin is not perfectly round!

    @Washingtoniana said:

    @amwldcoin said:
    I must say the coin in the German auction looks nothing like mine and certainly looks fake to me. In fact the alignment of the devices on mine are exactly like the coin photographed in the Hermitage Collection in 1916. The coin in the German auction is perfectly centered. This coin was purchased from an antique shop in the NE. It was purchased with a small group of coins that were contemporary to this coin. Most of them were Japanese and were genuine. This was what I was told by the person I acquired it from and saw the other coins in the group. I have no reason to doubt his story and it makes sense it could be with some early Japanese stuff. I am hoping NGC stands behind their initial determination!

    I wonder who has decided no originals exist. Every Book on Russian coins I own(quite a few) list them with less than 10 known.

    @Washingtoniana said:
    This is unfortunate and I wish you a satisfactory outcome. I think a few of us cringed when you posted the pictures of this coin a few weeks ago because I believe it's unknown an original, and it doesn't look like the old collectible restrikes. My guess is that it was made not long before you bought it, because I first noticed one that looked like yours about 9 years ago, and another showed up in a 2009 German auction. I hope NGC makes you whole. Good luck.

    Brekke wrote that it was "not known as an original" and that "there are a few series of Siberian coins dated 1764, but only the 1/2, 1, 2, 5, and 10 kopek pieces were judged by the old numismatists to be possible originals; the polushka is judged a novodel." Bitkin lists it as an R4 (highest rarity) with no known appearances and refers to Uzdenikov's entry, where it's listed as "!!" (highest rarity or unique) but, again, with no known appearances. If there's one in the Hermitage, nobody has published a photograph of it, and there wasn't one in the Hermitage duplicates auctions 85 years ago. But anything is possible.

    The only reason I'm piping up is to help you. The reason the people Stacks Bowers consulted gave a thumbs down is obvious. If NGC affirms their prior determination, or even calls it a novodel, I think they would be doing you a disservice because it will never garner serious interest. Please take another look at the image from the German auction. The strike is different, but in my opinion, the die is identical to yours. Either nobody bid on that one, or it was withdrawn. I think NGC simply made the wrong call on this - it happens - and they should make you whole.

Sign In or Register to comment.