<< <i>PCGS restoration is the route to go on this. It will cost around 4% of the current guide valuation to do this, around $44, plus $27 or so grading, I'm not sure if there is an invoice fee. The guanantee is a possibility but last time I asked counsel of customer service they said the former option is the right one, plus guarantees take longer. The squeaky wheel may get the oil, but it is also liable to get replaced.
It is good to let people we buy coins from know if there was truly professional scrutiny done where there may be a grey area of uncertainty; any recourse on problem coins would hinge on implicit /explicit business practice. Imagine going before an impartial judge in this type of situation, where case law would govern the consequences. Judges use standard commercial criteria and handing down their decisions, highly dependent on evidence, usually they will "split the baby in half" to use the story of Solomon and the two courtesans. >>
I don't think that paying for restoration and regrading makes any sense since PCGS will fix their mistake for free under their excellent guarantee.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I don't think that paying for restoration and regrading makes any sense since PCGS will fix their mistake for free under their excellent guarantee.
He was already offered 100% of the PCGS price guide back from the seller. That is all PCGS would offer. The problem is, he overpaid by 15% and wants that back too.
I can not believe that so many here feel that the buyer is somehow in the wrong. The seller sold him a puttied coin. Too bad the seller (and some of you) feel that somehow it is the buyers fault.
Advanced collector of BREWERIANA. Early beer advertising (beer cans, tap knobs, foam scrapers, trays, tin signs, lithos, paper, etc)....My first love...U.S. COINS!
<< <i>Again, What would happen if the coin in question is sent to PCGS and they say its good? >>
Technically, at least three graders at PCGS have already said it's good... >>
Yes, but that was when the coin was freshly puttied and looking a lot better/different than it is today.
If I'm the seller I'd feel like an idiot for selling a puttied/AT'd/frosted/altered coin for a premium. There's no doubt I'd have to take it back with a 100% refund and pay the buyer for postage both ways. That's how I've handled stuff like this in the past. My mistake....my loss..........not the customer's loss. I don't care if they've been a dealer before or are known as a hot shot collector. The fact that I sold it is all that matters. There's not even a debate about this issue on a puttied coin imo. >>
I have to agree with this >>
Hmmm. So you're positive you've never sold a coin in a non-PCGS holder that subsequently didn't cross to PCGS because they deemed it AT or altered surfaces? Assuming that scenario has happened to someone (if not you), should they "feel like an idiot" for selling the coin (even though they never submitted it to PCGS when they owned it)? What exactly is the difference between this scenario and the one that started this thread? >>
I'm sure I've sold a "bad" raw coin along the way. But, I'm also sure that in >95% of the cases where I bought a bad coin, I was the guy taking the hit for it. If the buyer or dealer doesn't come back to me and inform me of the problem, I can't make good on it. It's up to them whether they want to do that. Since most of the raw coins I've bought over the past 25 yrs valued at >$500 needed to be slabbed, I usually got the bad news from the TPG of a coin being AT/altered/etc. and not the previous seller. And if those coins couldn't be put in holders, I sold them raw with full disclosure to whatever dealer ended up buying them from me. The crossing thing is funny. I've NEVER crossed ANY choice or gem seated coin in 15 years of trying. So I don't consider an NGC coin not being able to cross to mean a whole lot about it's quality. I've cracked out both PCGS and NGC choice unc seated coins that I thought would upgrade and got them back as AT. I took those hits, not the next guy. I cannot think of a single instance where I sold a coin later to be deemed "bad" by a "higher authority" and failed to make it right. If they had, I'd have taken it back, regardless of the time frame involved. I also know that I won't get this same treatment in return, nor do I expect it. This is the coin business after all, not professional golf.
Bottom line is still unchanged though. If I sell a bogus, altered, or screwed with coin to anyone without full disclosure, whether I know it or not, to dealer or collector, I will take the coin back and eat the loss. Stated that for 30 yrs, why change now? More often than not if I have a funky looking coin that hasn't failed at the TPG yet, I'll usually make it clear that I have some concerns (ie sale will be as-is). As others have mentioned, buyers like to know the seller stands behind what they sell. I've bought bad (and good) coins where the dealers wouldn't take them back under any circumstances, at any price. They either assumed I was a dealer, a semi-dealer, a hot shot collector, or just someone who should know better. That's their choice. But it was also my choice to never deal with them again. Some of them are even forum members. Who needs the hassle when there are other sellers out there who will stand behind their product? The OP's situation was aggravated in that a very much premium price was paid for putty (PPPFP). Maybe I'd see it different if the coin had transacted around normal wholesale levels, which is what usually happens between two "dealers."
<< <i>Again, What would happen if the coin in question is sent to PCGS and they say its good? >>
Technically, at least three graders at PCGS have already said it's good... >>
Yes, but that was when the coin was freshly puttied and looking a lot better/different than it is today.
If I'm the seller I'd feel like an idiot for selling a puttied/AT'd/frosted/altered coin for a premium. There's no doubt I'd have to take it back with a 100% refund and pay the buyer for postage both ways. That's how I've handled stuff like this in the past. My mistake....my loss..........not the customer's loss. I don't care if they've been a dealer before or are known as a hot shot collector. The fact that I sold it is all that matters. There's not even a debate about this issue on a puttied coin imo. >>
I have to agree with this >>
Hmmm. So you're positive you've never sold a coin in a non-PCGS holder that subsequently didn't cross to PCGS because they deemed it AT or altered surfaces? Assuming that scenario has happened to someone (if not you), should they "feel like an idiot" for selling the coin (even though they never submitted it to PCGS when they owned it)? What exactly is the difference between this scenario and the one that started this thread? >>
I'm sure I've sold a "bad" raw coin along the way, but I'm sure that in >95% of the cases I was the guy taking the hit for it. If the buyer or dealer doesn't come back to me and inform me of the problem, I can't make good on it. Since most of the raw coins I've bought over the past 25 yrs valued at >$500 needed to be slabbed, I usually got the bad news from the TPG of a coin being AT/altered/etc. and not the previous seller. And if those coins couldn't be put in holders, I sold them with full disclosure to whatever dealer ended up buying them from me. The crossing thing is funny. I've NEVER crossed ANY choice or gem seated coin in 15 years of trying. So I don't consider an NGC not being able to cross to mean a whole lot. I've cracked out both PCGS and NGC choice unc seated coins that I thought would upgrade and got them back as AT. I took those hits, not the next guy. I've also cracked out a PCGS MS64 $10 Lib that was wonderful imo figuring on a MS65 grade. It came back altered surfaces from both NGC and PCGS. I tried to sell that coin with full disclosure to a number of major gold dealers with no luck. They all wanted to buy it as a MS63 even though none of them could actually state what was wrong with the coin. Guess I don't blame them. It was then shipped to a major auction house to be sold raw hoping some dealer would see it in what I saw the first time. The auction house graders loved the coin and sent it back to NGC w/o my knowledge. They even charged me for that....lol. Good thing too because the coin came back MS66 and worth over 2X what I paid for it.
Bottom line is still unchanged though. If I sell a bogus, altered, or screwed with coin to anyone without full disclosure, whether I know or not, dealer or collector, I will take the coin back and eat the loss. Done that for 30 yrs, why change now? As others have mentioned, buyers like to know the seller stands behind what they sell. I've bought bad coins where the dealers wouldn't take them back under any circumstances. They either assumed I was a dealer, a semi-dealer, a hot shot collector, or just someone who should know better. That's their choice. But it was also my choice to never deal with them again. Some of them are even forum members. Who needs the hassle when there are other sellers out there who will stand behind their product. The Colonel and I will just have to disagree in this one. At the super tip-top wholesale level that the Colonel has operated at for 30 yrs or more it probably should be somewhat different as those guys live and breathe coins essentially 24 hrs per day. It's pro vs. pro....spy vs. spy....the Rock vs. Cena....dog eat dog. Their skills are evenly matched. But, the rest of us have always had another job with coins as a sideline. >>
Roadrunner, you are one of the most esteemed members of the forum and your ethics are beyond reproach from everything I've read. My point is this: what exactly is a "bad coin"? If I sell you a toner in an NGC holder that you try to cross and PCGS says "no, questionable toning", is the coin "bad" necessarily? Do you have recourse to ask me for a refund? For all we know, you could submit it again next week, and it would cross. We are dealing with opinions here. Highly respected opinions, but opinions nonetheless.
Ankur should have at least waited until PCGS rendered a decision before posting this thread. He bought a PCGS coin, not a PCGS/CAC coin. At the current moment, CAC's opinion may be interesting, but it has no bearing on the ethics of this deal. PERIOD.
.....My point is this: what exactly is a "bad coin"? If I sell you a toner in an NGC holder that you try to cross and PCGS says "no, questionable toning", is the coin "bad" necessarily? Do you have recourse to ask me for a refund? For all we know, you could submit it again next week, and it would cross. We are dealing with opinions here. Highly respected opinions, but opinions nonetheless.
Ankur should have at least waited until PCGS rendered a decision before posting this thread. He bought a PCGS coin, not a PCGS/CAC coin. At the current moment, CAC's opinion may be interesting, but it has no bearing on the ethics of this deal. PERIOD.
I've already mentioned above that the crossing thing is irrelevant since too many good NGC coins won't cross. My personal cross rate is 0%. Therefore, I cannot consider a coin failing to cross an indictment against its quality. This orig post was not about crossing, it was about putty...and obvious putty from what others have said. If someone wants a sale to be based on it crossing then state that up front. Everyone on this forum knows that NGC coins are dicey with respect to crossing. And because of that fact, the PCGS registry, and different standards, NGC coins fetch 5-30% less than PCGS as a rule. So now a buyer wants the NGC coin he is about to buy to be guarantee to cross plus get it at a 30% discount??? CAC's opinion on this deal is important because 2 non-experts in puttied gold didn't catch it. Now if another "expert" source chimes in that the coin is not puttied, they we're back to square one. I agree this should have stayed between PCGS and the 2 "dealers." Not been brought here. I've had coins get body-bagged at one service and not the other. Then next time through they swap places. It does at least indicate there are some concerns about the coin in question.
On the orig question about an NGC toner getting a QT when submitted to PCGS for cross. I guess that would open up the possibility of being able to return that coin to the seller if there was no prior discussion about the toning being less than 100% NT. At that point, it should be sent back to NGC for review. And if I were on the wrong end of that transaction I'd probably have it looked at by as many sources as possible. In any case, if I sold it, and PCGS wasn't sure about the toning, yeah....I'd take it back. Who needs an unhappy buyer bad-mouthing me or my coins? These days I think most people realize that toning is something the services won't always agree on....esp NGC vs. PCGS. But putty, they should agree on 80-100% of the time. Anyone buying NGC coins realizes they aren't PCGS coins. The rules and standards are different as are the prices. But I don't want to buy an NGC toner and then have multiple graders at PCGS have some doubts. I'd rather buy a coin where both NGC and PCGS graders think the toning is ok. If a buyer comes back doubting a toned coin I sold them (PCGS or NGC) then I'll probably just take it back assuming they weren't just shopping it around for resale in the interim. This is also one of the major reasons that 98% of the coins I have sold over the years have been to dealers. They usually know exactly what they are buying and the risks involved. If an NGC toner is potentially questionable, those guys probably already know it and are including that risk in the price they'll pay. Even so, if they chose to come back to me with doubts later on, I'd accomodate them. It's never happened though as far as I can recall. If the toning is questionable on a holdered coin, more than likely, that point gets discussed during the transaction (ie buyer using it as a negotiating point to lower the price..... or the seller stating they're not 100% sure about the toning (ie they don't want the coin back)).
<< <i>I can not believe that so many here feel that the buyer is somehow in the wrong. The seller sold him a puttied coin. Too bad the seller (and some of you) feel that somehow it is the buyers fault. >>
It has not been established that the coin is puttied; it is only suspected to have been puttied.
<< <i>I can not believe that so many here feel that the buyer is somehow in the wrong. The seller sold him a puttied coin. Too bad the seller (and some of you) feel that somehow it is the buyers fault. >>
I'm not really sure that anyone is saying that this is the buyers fault, but because the buyer acts as a dealer, and he is now claiming the unknowing collector/victim, I think many feel that he should accept some of the resposibility. I know the seller, and know for a fact that he was not aware of any alterations to this coin. I also know that had the OP asked for a refund upon seeing the coin in hand he would likely have gotten the full refund. But after seeing it and liking it, then sending it off to CAC (for whatever reason) then basically threatening to put this up on the internet, he has gotten called out for it. I recently posted a PCGS Bust half on a guess the grade thread that I purchased raw and submitted. It came back XF details. It never even crossed my mind to go back to the dealer I bought it from and ask for any kind of compensation/return. I will likely lose a bit of money on the coin, or it will end up in the museum wing of my inventory, but I examined it, felt it was MA or problem free, took the money out of my pocket and agreed to buy it. The OP defiintely has some responsibility here.
The coin in question would never have been a candidate for puttying. The coin clearly has rub, grades nice AU. But putty doesn't restore mint luster. Many gold issues advance 5% or 10% from AU55 to MS60 to MS61 to MS62...and then double or triple going to MS63. Sometimes the big jump is from 63 to 64. In any case, the coin doctor tries to obtain an MS62 coin (or the grade just under the big price jump) that has a full strike, blast luster, but just a few too many hits to bring the higher grade and price. These are the coins where it is extemely profitable to hide or reduce the severity of bagmarks with putty or epoxy to fool the grading services into giving the higher grade.
So back to the 1907 No Motto $10 Indian..It's not a coin that would be puttied to deceive. The coin doctors want to double or triple their money...Trying to fill in some hits on a common coin that could never be Mint State, and only advances $50 from AU50 to AU58...has zero profit potential. So I think the coin MAY have some substance on it ... grease, PVC residue, skin oils, that is may have not been visible when it was encapsulated, but I don't think it's anything PCGS would fix under grade guarantee, nor do I think there is really anything wrong with it based on the 58 grade...
Bottom line, coin was purchased sight-seen in a dealer-to-dealer transaction. Buyer liked the coin...until it failed to get a sticker because JA thought "it might be" puttied based on looking through the plastic, while 3 PCGS graders who examined it before it was slabbed saw nothing.,
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>.....My point is this: what exactly is a "bad coin"? If I sell you a toner in an NGC holder that you try to cross and PCGS says "no, questionable toning", is the coin "bad" necessarily? Do you have recourse to ask me for a refund? For all we know, you could submit it again next week, and it would cross. We are dealing with opinions here. Highly respected opinions, but opinions nonetheless.
Ankur should have at least waited until PCGS rendered a decision before posting this thread. He bought a PCGS coin, not a PCGS/CAC coin. At the current moment, CAC's opinion may be interesting, but it has no bearing on the ethics of this deal. PERIOD.
I've already mentioned above that the crossing thing is irrelevant since too many good NGC coins won't cross. My personal cross rate is 0%. Therefore, I cannot consider a coin failing to cross an indictment against its quality. This orig post was not about crossing, it was about putty...and obvious putty from what others have chimed in. If someone wants a sale to be based on it crossing then state that upfront. Everyone on this forum knows that NGC coins are very dicey with respect to crossing. And because of that fact and the PCGS registry, NGC coins fetch 5-30% less than PCGS as a rule. So now a buyer wants the NGC coin he is about to buy to be guarantee to cross and get it at a 30% discount? CAC's opinion on this deal is important because 2 non-experts in puttied gold didn't catch it. Now if another "expert" source chimes in that the coin is not puttied, they we're back to square one. I agree this should have stayed between PCGS and the 2 "dealers." Not been brought here. I've had coins get body-bagged at one service and not the other. Then next time through the swap places. It does indicate there are some real concerns about that coin in question. In other posts I've mentioned a PCGS MS64 $10 Lib I bought at auction was cracked out and then went: altered surfaces PCGS, alt surfaces NGC, then NGC MS66. So what was it? It would probably do that same sequence again if submitted another 4 times. Opinions on grades and surfaces can vary. That's why most people shouldn't crack coins out except under a pro's supervision.
On the orig question about an NGC toner getting a QT when submitted to PCGS for cross. I guess that would open up the possibility of being able to return that coin to the seller if there was no prior discussion about the toning being less than 100% NT. At that point, it should be sent back to NGC for review. And if I were on the wrong end of that transaction I'd probably have it looked at by as many sources as possible. In any case, if I sold it, and PCGS wasn't sure about the toning, yeah....I'd take it back. Who needs an unhappy buyer bad-mouthing me or my coins? These days I think most people realize that toning is something the services won't always agree on....esp NGC vs. PCGS. But putty, they should agree on 80-100% of the time. Anyone buying NGC coins realizes they aren't PCGS coins. The rules and standards are different. But I don't want to buy an NGC toner and then have multiple graders at PCGS have some doubts. I'd rather buy a coin where both NGC and PCGS graders think the toning is ok. >>
The "crossing thing" is absolutely not irrelevant. There is a direct analogy between submitting a coin for a cross and sending it to CAC. You are attempting to add value by getting the blessing of a "higher authority". In one case you get a new holder, in the other a sticker.
Interesting that you are willing to take back NGC coins that don't cross for QT. How about for the dozen other reasons that they might not cross other than grade opinion? I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. If I sell an NGC coin, then PCGS's opinion is completely irrelevant to that transaction. If the buyer subsequently can't cross it, and they choose to try and bad mouth me publicly, then I will take the chance that reasonable people will see that as more of a reflection on them than myself. I also would not be all that interested in keeping such a person happy, as they are not a customer I would want going forward. This all changes if (and only if) the buyer states their intention to cross/sticker at the time of the sale and conditionals are negotiated at that time.
Not too long ago, I bought a raw coin from a knowledgeable collector. I thought the coin would grade a solid MS-64. On subsequent grading, the coin graded 91 for Questionable Color, then MS-62, then MS-64........then CAC'd as a 64.
I think it's important to understand that just because a coin either grades or doesn't grade on a specific day doesn't necessarily mean that the decision given was the end-all decision.........just an opinion on a particular day. Grading is not an exact science.
FWIW, I think the coin in question will clean up quite nice and that the gunk would come off easily. Nobody messed with the surfaces to get it in a 58 holder. They were probably aiming for a 62/63 and it didn't work.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- Aristotle
For a large selection of U.S. Coins & Currency, visit The Reeded Edge's online webstore at the link below.
<< <i>The coin in question would never have been a candidate for puttying. The coin clearly has rub, grades nice AU. But putty doesn't restore mint luster. Many gold issues advance 5% or 10% from AU55 to MS60 to MS61 to MS62...and then double or triple going to MS63. Sometimes the big jump is from 63 to 64. In any case, the coin doctor tries to obtain an MS62 coin (or the grade just under the big price jump) that has a full strike, blast luster, but just a few too many hits to bring the higher grade and price. These are the coins where it is extemely profitable to hide or reduce the severity of bagmarks with putty or epoxy to fool the grading services into giving the higher grade.
So back to the 1907 No Motto $10 Indian..It's not a coin that would be puttied to deceive. The coin doctors want to double or triple their money...Trying to fill in some hits on a common coin that could never be Mint State, and only advances $50 from AU50 to AU58...has zero profit potential. So I think the coin MAY have some substance on it ... grease, PVC residue, skin oils, that is may have not been visible when it was encapsulated, but I don't think it's anything PCGS would fix under grade guarantee, nor do I think there is really anything wrong with it based on the 58 grade...
Bottom line, coin was purchased sight-seen in a dealer-to-dealer transaction. Buyer liked the coin...until it failed to get a sticker because JA thought "it might be" puttied based on looking through the plastic, while 3 PCGS graders who examined it before it was slabbed saw nothing., >>
We do not know how long ago the 3 graders rendered judgement, but if it has been several years the putty job might just be starting to become apparent.
<< <i>The coin in question would never have been a candidate for puttying. The coin clearly has rub, grades nice AU. But putty doesn't restore mint luster. Many gold issues advance 5% or 10% from AU55 to MS60 to MS61 to MS62...and then double or triple going to MS63. Sometimes the big jump is from 63 to 64. In any case, the coin doctor tries to obtain an MS62 coin (or the grade just under the big price jump) that has a full strike, blast luster, but just a few too many hits to bring the higher grade and price. These are the coins where it is extemely profitable to hide or reduce the severity of bagmarks with putty or epoxy to fool the grading services into giving the higher grade.
So back to the 1907 No Motto $10 Indian..It's not a coin that would be puttied to deceive. The coin doctors want to double or triple their money...Trying to fill in some hits on a common coin that could never be Mint State, and only advances $50 from AU50 to AU58...has zero profit potential. So I think the coin MAY have some substance on it ... grease, PVC residue, skin oils, that is may have not been visible when it was encapsulated, but I don't think it's anything PCGS would fix under grade guarantee, nor do I think there is really anything wrong with it based on the 58 grade...
Bottom line, coin was purchased sight-seen in a dealer-to-dealer transaction. Buyer liked the coin...until it failed to get a sticker because JA thought "it might be" puttied based on looking through the plastic, while 3 PCGS graders who examined it before it was slabbed saw nothing., >>
I understand your reasoning, but in general, 1907 $10 Indians are a very common candidate for those who do this. I see more thana few 1907 $10 Indians that have been messed with on show floors. Typically, 1907 $10s come with fairly smooth, mark free surfaces. They are not typically very marky. So, sometimes the only difference in an AU-58 and an MS-63 or even a MS-64 1907 $10 Indian is just the slightest high point friction on the front of the cheekline on an otherwise nearly mark-free coin. Greed then comes to play with efforts to hide that slight rub.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- Aristotle
For a large selection of U.S. Coins & Currency, visit The Reeded Edge's online webstore at the link below.
<< <i>Not too long ago, I bought a raw coin from a knowledgeable collector. I thought the coin would grade a solid MS-64. On subsequent grading, the coin graded 91 for Questionable Color, then MS-62, then MS-64........then CAC'd as a 64.
I think it's important to understand that just because a coin either grades or doesn't grade on a specific day doesn't necessarily mean that the decision given was the end-all decision.........just an opinion on a particular day. Grading is not an exact science. >>
Thank you for providing a real-world example of exactly the point I've been trying to make.
<< <i>To be fair Ankur has a nasty habit of trying to renegotiate long done deals after sending his coins to CAC. He puts such absolute faith in JA opinion which is wise since he isn't a very good grader but he doesn't mind trying to buy on the cheap without stickers trying to realize the up tick in price if it makes the cut. IMO he cant have it both ways, he is either a dealer who needs to take his wins/lumps based off of his own eye like a professional or play the hapless collector bit and only buy coins that already have the bells and whistles applied that are maxed out prices wise accordingly.
This hits the nail on the head. For those wanting to cut to the chase this post is it. >>
I'm guess that he is a bit surprised at the course that this thread has taken. >>
Very Interesting.
WTB... errors, New Orleans gold, and circulated 20th key date coins!
<< <i>The coin in question would never have been a candidate for puttying. The coin clearly has rub, grades nice AU. But putty doesn't restore mint luster. Many gold issues advance 5% or 10% from AU55 to MS60 to MS61 to MS62...and then double or triple going to MS63. Sometimes the big jump is from 63 to 64. In any case, the coin doctor tries to obtain an MS62 coin (or the grade just under the big price jump) that has a full strike, blast luster, but just a few too many hits to bring the higher grade and price. These are the coins where it is extemely profitable to hide or reduce the severity of bagmarks with putty or epoxy to fool the grading services into giving the higher grade.
So back to the 1907 No Motto $10 Indian..It's not a coin that would be puttied to deceive. The coin doctors want to double or triple their money...Trying to fill in some hits on a common coin that could never be Mint State, and only advances $50 from AU50 to AU58...has zero profit potential. So I think the coin MAY have some substance on it ... grease, PVC residue, skin oils, that is may have not been visible when it was encapsulated, but I don't think it's anything PCGS would fix under grade guarantee, nor do I think there is really anything wrong with it based on the 58 grade...
Bottom line, coin was purchased sight-seen in a dealer-to-dealer transaction. Buyer liked the coin...until it failed to get a sticker because JA thought "it might be" puttied based on looking through the plastic, while 3 PCGS graders who examined it before it was slabbed saw nothing., >>
This makes sense. The coin is AU58 with obvious friction on the high points. It is circulated. It really has nowhere to go up the scale. If it was the world's best AU58 it is still not worth the $1300+ that the buyer paid for it. You can get at least an MS60 for that.
<< <i>This makes sense. The coin is AU58 with obvious friction on the high points. It is circulated. It really has nowhere to go up the scale. If it was the world's best AU58 it is still not worth the $1300+ that the buyer paid for it. You can get at least an MS60 for that. >>
In many instances, an AU58 coin is considered "nicer" than an MS60 and will command a higher price.
Maybe it's the gin & tonic that I'm drinking, but those posting cracks against Illini or Ankur seem off base to me. Neither seems in the wrong to me in this case. Those forever X-ing Ankur for 'drama' I think are throwing out the baby with the bathwater (so to speak, er....write). I know that I've sold to him a few times and had zero problems. Tomorrow when I'm drinking water again perhaps I'll feel differently.
<< <i>Maybe it's the gin & tonic that I'm drinking, but those posting cracks against Illini or Ankur seem off base to me. Neither seems in the wrong to me in this case. Those forever X-ing Ankur for 'drama' I think are throwing out the baby with the bathwater (so to speak, er....write). I know that I've sold to him a few times and had zero problems. Tomorrow when I'm drinking water again perhaps I'll feel differently. >>
This will be my last post, I promise!
I do not think either Ankur or Illini is a bad person, had ill intentions, or deserves to be flogged. Despite my often being at odds with Ankur, it is really not personal--just business, as they say. I would guess that if we were having a beer or a cup of coffee together, we would get along just fine, trade stories, maybe even trade coins ,...
I do not believe that the coin is the pariah that it has been made out to be.
I do not believe a seller should be on the hook indefinitely for a coin that was sold in good faith UNLESS the coin is counterfeit or stolen property. Coins change over time, opinions can change minute-to-minute, and if the seller were liable indefinitely for opinions and circumstances beyond his control, no coin would ever get sold.
I do object to airing private grievances on the forum, especially when it appears that objective is not to educate but to use the forum as a tool to bend the other party to act in a certain way. I do not know if this was the objective here because I am an not inside the mind of the OP.
In general, I strive for my coin transactions to be win-win. When buying, I want my seller to be pleased with how much he receives and hopefully make some money, and I want to be happy with the coin. When selling, I want to be happy with the amount of money I received for a coin, and I want the buyer to be pleased with the coin and the value. On the other hand, I believe that there are folks who view these transactions as zero sum games--there is a winner and a loser--and if you do not know which one you are, you are in fact the loser. Next time you buy or sell a coin, think about this, and also think about this in the context of this transaction.
See you guys later in the summer! If anyone is coming to summer St. Louis Scotsman auction and coin show and wants to meet up, let me know.
The "crossing thing" is absolutely not irrelevant. There is a direct analogy between submitting a coin for a cross and sending it to CAC. You are attempting to add value by getting the blessing of a "higher authority". In one case you get a new holder, in the other a sticker.
There's a huge difference between getting a blessing from higher authority on altered surfaces, fake toning, or putty vs. whether it is nice for the grade. I don't consider the normal nuances of grading (luster, strike, eye appeal, marks) to be an issue here. This post is about altered coins, not grading differences between TPG's. If CAC wouldn't sticker this coin because of potentially altered surfaces, that's 100% different than it just not being nice for the grade. That's the issue regardless of why the coin was sent to CAC in the first place.
Interesting that you are willing to take back NGC coins that don't cross for QT. How about for the dozen other reasons that they might not cross other than grade opinion? I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. If I sell an NGC coin, then PCGS's opinion is completely irrelevant to that transaction. If the buyer subsequently can't cross it, and they choose to try and bad mouth me publicly, then I will take the chance that reasonable people will see that as more of a reflection on them than myself. I also would not be all that interested in keeping such a person happy, as they are not a customer I would want going forward. This all changes if (and only if) the buyer states their intention to cross/sticker at the time of the sale and conditionals are negotiated at that time.
If PCGS wouldn't cross an NGC coin I just sold for AT, altered surfaces, tooling, cleaning, or any dozen reasons it would be the same thing. I'd take it back and refund the money. The same thing if it were a PCGS coin returned for regrade and it came back body bagged for something they missed on a previous grading submission. I'd take it back or at least make the buyer whole for anything that PCGS didn't cover. You make mistakes, you pay the consequences. That's what dealer's should do. As far as PCGS not crossing an NGC coin because it's just not good enough or it doesn't fall into the 20-30% category of coins that are crossed? I wouldn't refund for that since it's already common knowledge that the discount for NGC coins is there to cover that very thing. Now, if I sell an NGC coin for all the money at a PCGS price, and it fails to cross, I would take the coin back. After all, I just told the seller by charging all the money that it's a comparable coin. As a rule though, I sell NGC coins for discounts to PCGS, and primarily to dealers. They know the score. Certainly if a buyer keeps buying NGC coins from me and returning them when they don't cross, I will either start quoting that person insanely high prices on my coins or just refuse to sell them anything. After all, if I can't cross a single NGC coin over 15 years of trying (3 dozen choice or gem seated coins), then why should I expect anyone else to have success, never mind guaranteeing it? Since I've never had a single coin returned because of any of the above reasons, it's not exactly a big deal to do once, twice, or a couple times, should it ever happen. On the flip side, I've seen dozens of coins that I've sold come back in higher grades over the years. Not one of those buyers offered to cut me in on the profits....and that's probably why an AT or puttied miss here or there was never brought to my attention.
<< <i>Maybe it's the gin & tonic that I'm drinking, but those posting cracks against Illini or Ankur seem off base to me. Neither seems in the wrong to me in this case. Those forever X-ing Ankur for 'drama' I think are throwing out the baby with the bathwater (so to speak, er....write). I know that I've sold to him a few times and had zero problems. Tomorrow when I'm drinking water again perhaps I'll feel differently. >>
This will be my last post, I promise!
I do not think either Ankur or Illini is a bad person, had ill intentions, or deserves to be flogged. Despite my often being at odds with Ankur, it is really not personal--just business, as they say. I would guess that if we were having a beer or a cup of coffee together, we would get along just fine, trade stories, maybe even trade coins ,...
I do not believe that the coin is the pariah that it has been made out to be.
I do not believe a seller should be on the hook indefinitely for a coin that was sold in good faith UNLESS the coin is counterfeit or stolen property. Coins change over time, opinions can change minute-to-minute, and if the seller were liable indefinitely for opinions and circumstances beyond his control, no coin would ever get sold.
I do object to airing private grievances on the forum, especially when it appears that objective is not to educate but to use the forum as a tool to bend the other party to act in a certain way. I do not know if this was the objective here because I am an not inside the mind of the OP.
In general, I strive for my coin transactions to be win-win. When buying, I want my seller to be pleased with how much he receives and hopefully make some money, and I want to be happy with the coin. When selling, I want to be happy with the amount of money I received for a coin, and I want the buyer to be pleased with the coin and the value. On the other hand, I believe that there are folks who view these transactions as zero sum games--there is a winner and a loser--and if you do not know which one you are, you are in fact the loser. Next time you buy or sell a coin, think about this, and also think about this in the context of this transaction.
See you guys later in the summer! If anyone is coming to summer St. Louis Scotsman auction and coin show and wants to meet up, let me know. >>
Very well thought out and said!
I do not begrudge anyone making a profit on a coin that I buy from them or sell to them. I value win-win transactions. Great post.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- Aristotle
For a large selection of U.S. Coins & Currency, visit The Reeded Edge's online webstore at the link below.
<< <i>Maybe it's the gin & tonic that I'm drinking, but those posting cracks against Illini or Ankur seem off base to me. Neither seems in the wrong to me in this case. Those forever X-ing Ankur for 'drama' I think are throwing out the baby with the bathwater (so to speak, er....write). I know that I've sold to him a few times and had zero problems. Tomorrow when I'm drinking water again perhaps I'll feel differently. >>
This will be my last post, I promise!
I do not think either Ankur or Illini is a bad person, had ill intentions, or deserves to be flogged. Despite my often being at odds with Ankur, it is really not personal--just business, as they say. I would guess that if we were having a beer or a cup of coffee together, we would get along just fine, trade stories, maybe even trade coins ,...
I do not believe that the coin is the pariah that it has been made out to be.
I do not believe a seller should be on the hook indefinitely for a coin that was sold in good faith UNLESS the coin is counterfeit or stolen property. Coins change over time, opinions can change minute-to-minute, and if the seller were liable indefinitely for opinions and circumstances beyond his control, no coin would ever get sold.
I do object to airing private grievances on the forum, especially when it appears that objective is not to educate but to use the forum as a tool to bend the other party to act in a certain way. I do not know if this was the objective here because I am an not inside the mind of the OP.
In general, I strive for my coin transactions to be win-win. When buying, I want my seller to be pleased with how much he receives and hopefully make some money, and I want to be happy with the coin. When selling, I want to be happy with the amount of money I received for a coin, and I want the buyer to be pleased with the coin and the value. On the other hand, I believe that there are folks who view these transactions as zero sum games--there is a winner and a loser--and if you do not know which one you are, you are in fact the loser. Next time you buy or sell a coin, think about this, and also think about this in the context of this transaction.
See you guys later in the summer! If anyone is coming to summer St. Louis Scotsman auction and coin show and wants to meet up, let me know. >>
It's another subjective opinion, where do you draw the line? Should the dealer buy back the coin if it is counterfeit, altered, or not at all?
PCGS graded it, so PCGS should correct it. The problem is, who has to pay the fees?
The problem and benefit with profiting is getting screwed down on the way up , or screwed up on the way down. But in the end someone is going to be screwed over when a coin's been screwed with. In fairness to the OP, it is about "RETURNS" on a coin that turned out to be altered. In fairness to the seller, I've dealt with him without flaws on larger deals. I haven't had the coins that the OP ever wanted even at a "fair price". <scratches head and wonders why>
... So who is on trial isn't so much my concern, because a fair offer was made to buy it back. Personally for me, I would buy it back at 100% and try to ensure thiis never happened again because it's an embarrassment to us all.... And besides that , what is " ON THE HOOK " here ? Discernment comes from knowing what one will do every time, not just one time. But this is the U.S. Coin Forum at PCGC through CU.
If not satisfied with the coin , return it. But let's face the real problem and that's what we ought to address. The ALTERED COIN, not "return of slabbed coin". This is where the "issue lies". It's the coin which causes the problem, not the buyer/seller. It's the COIN that causes the issues, NOT the TPG which had fraud perpetrated upon it; which may or may have not been detectable at the time the COIN was altered.
This is such a simple thing. It grows other legs, though.
What will ankur do when pcgs takes a 2nd look and says its not puttied? That would mean JA is wrong and people may want to not put their entire faith in cac.....
Successful Buying and Selling transactions with:
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
What will ankur do when pcgs takes a 2nd look and says its not puttied? That would mean JA is wrong and people may want to not put their entire faith in cac.....
I wonder if in that case he would embarrass CAC like he embarrassed PCGS. Some things you just don't air in public. I wonder why this thread wasn't locked and deleted yet and the author banned...again
<< <i>What will ankur do when pcgs takes a 2nd look and says its not puttied? That would mean JA is wrong and people may want to not put their entire faith in cac..... >>
I thought about that also. It is possible but unlikely. PCGS will probably crack it, rinse it, and re-holdered it as a 55 or 58. There won't be much, if any, compensation to the owner. It could easily earn a green bean after the above.
The original submitter of this coin needs to be called on the carpet. My guess is a little putty and they hoped for a 64 or 63 minimum. They didn't get it and now this BS results. It sucks for all involved. I don't like cyber-bullying any more than the rest of you.
Every grading company from every aspect of collecting makes mistakes including CAC, PCGS, NGC, ANACS etc. No one ever said that these companies are infallible, and I am not one of them. Mkman: If you do not believe CAC, why do you keep their stickers on your slabs?
PCGS has openly admitted they have made mistakes, thus their guarantee program. A company openly admitting and correcting those mistakes is what made them what they are today. I see nothing wrong about what I posted or ANY negativity towards PCGS at all. They are an asset to the hobby and we are all indebted to them.
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
PCGS graded it, so PCGS should correct it. The problem is, who has to pay the fees?
Whoever asks to have the putty removed will have to pay the conservation fee. And if PCGS then decides that the coin has to be graded lower, they make good on the grade guaranty.
The cool thing about this arrangement is that if PCGS doesn't downgrade many of the coins, they end up making a good profit while cleaning up their own mess.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Ankur, not all my coins have a cac sticker. However if I'm correct your entire collection pretty much has a green bean or a gold bean. >>
Actually a good percentage of my large cents did not pass. Also I have one that was simply overgraded in both mine and CAC's opinion, but is otherwise a PQ coin. They are all in my collection and in my registry set.
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>What will ankur do when pcgs takes a 2nd look and says its not puttied? That would mean JA is wrong and people may want to not put their entire faith in cac..... >>
No. It means JA and PCGS disagrees. I would have to see the coin to determine who is wrong.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>What will ankur do when pcgs takes a 2nd look and says its not puttied? That would mean JA is wrong and people may want to not put their entire faith in cac..... >>
No. It means JA and PCGS disagrees. I would have to see the coin to determine who is wrong. >>
At least you'd have to see the coin to register your opinion.
<< <i>What will ankur do when pcgs takes a 2nd look and says its not puttied? That would mean JA is wrong and people may want to not put their entire faith in cac..... >>
No. It means JA and PCGS disagrees. I would have to see the coin to determine who is wrong. >>
What if we're wrong about JA and PCGS being wrong? To add another layer, what if you're wrong about PCGS or JA being wrong, and then I'm wrong in saying that your incorrect opinion is right.............?
<< <i>Also I have one that was simply overgraded in both mine and CAC's opinion... >>
What is the process by which CAC identifies coins as overgraded? >>
They simply do not receive a sticker. I speak to John after most submissions, so I know why something did and did not pass. This example was a 1795 Large Cent in a XF40 holder. It was graded as a VF35 but has surfaces so choice that the grade was bumped to XF40.
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
They simply do not receive a sticker. I speak to John after most submissions, so I know why something did and did not pass. This example was a 1795 Large Cent in a XF40 holder. It was graded as a VF35 but has surfaces so choice that the grade was bumped to XF40. >>
? Did the graders at PCGS tell you they gave a coin a grade bump for choice surfaces or is this an assumption?
<< <i>Also I have one that was simply overgraded in both mine and CAC's opinion... >>
What is the process by which CAC identifies coins as overgraded? >>
They simply do not receive a sticker. >>
Really? According to their website...
3. If a coin doesn’t receive a CAC sticker, does this mean CAC believes the coin is over-graded?
Absolutely not.
...
CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins. >>
Selective reasoning and interpretation of what is written. They COULD write it better as "...does this mean CAC believes the only issue is that the coin is over-graded?"
A logical person, not wanting to screw with others would interpret it logically and knowingly as to what I typed above.
If one has NEVER sent coins to CAC (directly or through another party), particularly if not privvy to any reasons/info on the coins sent and the decisions rendered, then that person really shouldn't be jumping in on CAC discussions acting like they know something directly or through selective interpretation from written words on a website. One should also note that the website is somewhat sparse and not every situation is called out. Even in the above example, the whole point from the FAQ was not copied nor is it noted that over-graded coins are not mentioned as receiving their sticker.
So, what Ankur posted is logical and accurate in that a coin seen as over-graded WILL NOT receive a CAC sticker. What else would you expect to have happen??? Of course, over-graded coins, in CAC's opinion, are not the only coins to NOT receive a sticker....this has been talked about more than a few times.
I would also suggest that one who quotes from a website should also include other pertinent info....such as WHICH coins DO sticker from CAC: 6. Why can’t I use the CAC Verification Search to look up a PCGS or NGC graded coin that has no CAC sticker to find out if it has already been reviewed by CAC?
Many coins that CAC has reviewed, but did not sticker, have been accurately graded by PCGS or NGC. However, CAC stickers only coins that are solid for the grade, often referred to as B quality coins, and those that are considered high-end for the grade, which are often called A quality coins. ....
Seeing the above, it is pretty easy to see that over-graded coins, in their view, will NOT sticker.
They simply do not receive a sticker. I speak to John after most submissions, so I know why something did and did not pass. This example was a 1795 Large Cent in a XF40 holder. It was graded as a VF35 but has surfaces so choice that the grade was bumped to XF40. >>
? Did the graders at PCGS tell you they gave a coin a grade bump for choice surfaces or is this an assumption? >>
It is an assumption. But when you compare the coin to others graded xf40 or those in photograde, it just misses the grade.
Bochiman: thank you for posting the above information.
All coins kept in bank vaults. PCGS Registries Box of 20 SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
Comments
<< <i>PCGS restoration is the route to go on this. It will cost around 4% of the current guide valuation to do this, around $44, plus $27 or so grading, I'm not sure if there is an invoice fee. The guanantee is a possibility but last time I asked counsel of customer service they said the former option is the right one, plus guarantees take longer. The squeaky wheel may get the oil, but it is also liable to get replaced.
It is good to let people we buy coins from know if there was truly professional scrutiny done where there may be a grey area of uncertainty; any recourse on problem coins would hinge on implicit /explicit business practice. Imagine going before an impartial judge in this type of situation, where case law would govern the consequences. Judges use standard commercial criteria and handing down their decisions, highly dependent on evidence, usually they will "split the baby in half" to use the story of Solomon and the two courtesans. >>
I don't think that paying for restoration and regrading makes any sense since PCGS will fix their mistake for free under their excellent guarantee.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
He was already offered 100% of the PCGS price guide back from the seller. That is all PCGS would offer. The problem is, he overpaid by 15% and wants that back too.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Again, What would happen if the coin in question is sent to PCGS and they say its good? >>
Technically, at least three graders at PCGS have already said it's good... >>
Yes, but that was when the coin was freshly puttied and looking a lot better/different than it is today.
If I'm the seller I'd feel like an idiot for selling a puttied/AT'd/frosted/altered coin for a premium. There's no doubt I'd have to take it back with a 100% refund and pay the buyer
for postage both ways. That's how I've handled stuff like this in the past. My mistake....my loss..........not the customer's loss. I don't care if they've been a dealer before or are
known as a hot shot collector. The fact that I sold it is all that matters. There's not even a debate about this issue on a puttied coin imo. >>
I have to agree with this >>
Hmmm. So you're positive you've never sold a coin in a non-PCGS holder that subsequently didn't cross to PCGS
because they deemed it AT or altered surfaces? Assuming that scenario has happened to someone (if not you),
should they "feel like an idiot" for selling the coin (even though they never submitted it to PCGS when they owned
it)? What exactly is the difference between this scenario and the one that started this thread? >>
I'm sure I've sold a "bad" raw coin along the way. But, I'm also sure that in >95% of the cases where I bought a bad coin, I was the guy taking the hit for it. If the buyer or dealer doesn't come back to me and inform me of the problem, I can't make good on it. It's up to them whether they want to do that. Since most of the raw coins I've bought over the past 25 yrs valued at >$500 needed to be slabbed, I usually got the bad news from the TPG of a coin being AT/altered/etc. and not the previous seller. And if those coins couldn't be put in holders, I sold them raw with full disclosure to whatever dealer ended up buying them from me. The crossing thing is funny. I've NEVER crossed ANY choice or gem seated coin in 15 years of trying. So I don't consider an NGC coin not being able to cross to mean a whole lot about it's quality. I've cracked out both PCGS and NGC choice unc seated coins that I thought would upgrade and got them back as AT. I took those hits, not the next guy. I cannot think of a single instance where I sold a coin later to be deemed "bad" by a "higher authority" and failed to make it right. If they had, I'd have taken it back, regardless of the time frame involved. I also know that I won't get this same treatment in return, nor do I expect it. This is the coin business after all, not professional golf.
Bottom line is still unchanged though. If I sell a bogus, altered, or screwed with coin to anyone without full disclosure, whether I know it or not, to dealer or collector, I will take the coin back and eat the loss. Stated that for 30 yrs, why change now? More often than not if I have a funky looking coin that hasn't failed at the TPG yet, I'll usually make it clear that I have some concerns (ie sale will be as-is). As others have mentioned, buyers like to know the seller stands behind what they sell. I've bought bad (and good) coins where the dealers wouldn't take them back under any circumstances, at any price. They either assumed I was a dealer, a semi-dealer, a hot shot collector, or just someone who should know better. That's their choice. But it was also my choice to never deal with them again. Some of them are even forum members. Who needs the hassle when there are other sellers out there who will stand behind their product? The OP's situation was aggravated in that a very much premium price was paid for putty (PPPFP). Maybe I'd see it different if the coin had transacted around normal wholesale levels, which is what usually happens between two "dealers."
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Again, What would happen if the coin in question is sent to PCGS and they say its good? >>
Technically, at least three graders at PCGS have already said it's good... >>
Yes, but that was when the coin was freshly puttied and looking a lot better/different than it is today.
If I'm the seller I'd feel like an idiot for selling a puttied/AT'd/frosted/altered coin for a premium. There's no doubt I'd have to take it back with a 100% refund and pay the buyer
for postage both ways. That's how I've handled stuff like this in the past. My mistake....my loss..........not the customer's loss. I don't care if they've been a dealer before or are
known as a hot shot collector. The fact that I sold it is all that matters. There's not even a debate about this issue on a puttied coin imo. >>
I have to agree with this >>
Hmmm. So you're positive you've never sold a coin in a non-PCGS holder that subsequently didn't cross to PCGS
because they deemed it AT or altered surfaces? Assuming that scenario has happened to someone (if not you),
should they "feel like an idiot" for selling the coin (even though they never submitted it to PCGS when they owned
it)? What exactly is the difference between this scenario and the one that started this thread? >>
I'm sure I've sold a "bad" raw coin along the way, but I'm sure that in >95% of the cases I was the guy taking the hit for it. If the buyer or dealer doesn't come back to me and inform me of the problem, I can't make good on it. Since most of the raw coins I've bought over the past 25 yrs valued at >$500 needed to be slabbed, I usually got the bad news from the TPG of a coin being AT/altered/etc. and not the previous seller. And if those coins couldn't be put in holders, I sold them with full disclosure to whatever dealer ended up buying them from me. The crossing thing is funny. I've NEVER crossed ANY choice or gem seated coin in 15 years of trying. So I don't consider an NGC not being able to cross to mean a whole lot. I've cracked out both PCGS and NGC choice unc seated coins that I thought would upgrade and got them back as AT. I took those hits, not the next guy. I've also cracked out a PCGS MS64 $10 Lib that was wonderful imo figuring on a MS65 grade. It came back altered surfaces from both NGC and PCGS. I tried to sell that coin with full disclosure to a number of major gold dealers with no luck. They all wanted to buy it as a MS63 even though none of them could actually state what was wrong with the coin. Guess I don't blame them. It was then shipped to a major auction house to be sold raw hoping some dealer would see it in what I saw the first time. The auction house graders loved the coin and sent it back to NGC w/o my knowledge. They even charged me for that....lol. Good thing too because the coin came back MS66 and worth over 2X what I paid for it.
Bottom line is still unchanged though. If I sell a bogus, altered, or screwed with coin to anyone without full disclosure, whether I know or not, dealer or collector, I will take the coin back and eat the loss. Done that for 30 yrs, why change now? As others have mentioned, buyers like to know the seller stands behind what they sell. I've bought bad coins where the dealers wouldn't take them back under any circumstances. They either assumed I was a dealer, a semi-dealer, a hot shot collector, or just someone who should know better. That's their choice. But it was also my choice to never deal with them again. Some of them are even forum members. Who needs the hassle when there are other sellers out there who will stand behind their product. The Colonel and I will just have to disagree in this one. At the super tip-top wholesale level that the Colonel has operated at for 30 yrs or more it probably should be somewhat different as those guys live and breathe coins essentially 24 hrs per day. It's pro vs. pro....spy vs. spy....the Rock vs. Cena....dog eat dog. Their skills are evenly matched. But, the rest of us have always had another job with coins as a sideline. >>
Roadrunner, you are one of the most esteemed members of the forum and your ethics are beyond reproach from
everything I've read. My point is this: what exactly is a "bad coin"? If I sell you a toner in an NGC holder
that you try to cross and PCGS says "no, questionable toning", is the coin "bad" necessarily? Do you have recourse
to ask me for a refund? For all we know, you could submit it again next week, and it would cross. We are dealing
with opinions here. Highly respected opinions, but opinions nonetheless.
Ankur should have at least waited until PCGS rendered a decision before posting this thread. He bought a PCGS
coin, not a PCGS/CAC coin. At the current moment, CAC's opinion may be interesting, but it has no bearing on the
ethics of this deal. PERIOD.
that you try to cross and PCGS says "no, questionable toning", is the coin "bad" necessarily? Do you have recourse
to ask me for a refund? For all we know, you could submit it again next week, and it would cross. We are dealing
with opinions here. Highly respected opinions, but opinions nonetheless.
Ankur should have at least waited until PCGS rendered a decision before posting this thread. He bought a PCGS
coin, not a PCGS/CAC coin. At the current moment, CAC's opinion may be interesting, but it has no bearing on the
ethics of this deal. PERIOD.
I've already mentioned above that the crossing thing is irrelevant since too many good NGC coins won't cross. My personal cross rate is 0%. Therefore, I cannot consider a coin failing to cross an indictment against its quality. This orig post was not about crossing, it was about putty...and obvious putty from what others have said. If someone wants a sale to be based on it crossing then state that up front. Everyone on this forum knows that NGC coins are dicey with respect to crossing. And because of that fact, the PCGS registry, and different standards, NGC coins fetch 5-30% less than PCGS as a rule. So now a buyer wants the NGC coin he is about to buy to be guarantee to cross plus get it at a 30% discount??? CAC's opinion on this deal is important because 2 non-experts in puttied gold didn't catch it. Now if another "expert" source chimes in that the coin is not puttied, they we're back to square one. I agree this should have stayed between PCGS and the 2 "dealers." Not been brought here. I've had coins get body-bagged at one service and not the other. Then next time through they swap places. It does at least indicate there are some concerns about the coin in question.
On the orig question about an NGC toner getting a QT when submitted to PCGS for cross. I guess that would open up the possibility of being able to return that coin to the seller if there was no prior discussion about the toning being less than 100% NT. At that point, it should be sent back to NGC for review. And if I were on the wrong end of that transaction I'd probably have it looked at by as many sources as possible. In any case, if I sold it, and PCGS wasn't sure about the toning, yeah....I'd take it back. Who needs an unhappy buyer bad-mouthing me or my coins? These days I think most people realize that toning is something the services won't always agree on....esp NGC vs. PCGS. But putty, they should agree on 80-100% of the time. Anyone buying NGC coins realizes they aren't PCGS coins. The rules and standards are different as are the prices. But I don't want to buy an NGC toner and then have multiple graders at PCGS have some doubts. I'd rather buy a coin where both NGC and PCGS graders think the toning is ok. If a buyer comes back doubting a toned coin I sold them (PCGS or NGC) then I'll probably just take it back assuming they weren't just shopping it around for resale in the interim. This is also one of the major reasons that 98% of the coins I have sold over the years have been to dealers. They usually know exactly what they are buying and the risks involved. If an NGC toner is potentially questionable, those guys probably already know it and are including that risk in the price they'll pay. Even so, if they chose to come back to me with doubts later on, I'd accomodate them. It's never happened though as far as I can recall. If the toning is questionable on a holdered coin, more than likely, that point gets discussed during the transaction (ie buyer using it as a negotiating point to lower the price..... or the seller stating they're not 100% sure about the toning (ie they don't want the coin back)).
<< <i>I can not believe that so many here feel that the buyer is somehow in the wrong. The seller sold him a puttied coin. Too bad the seller (and some of you) feel that somehow it is the buyers fault. >>
It has not been established that the coin is puttied; it is only suspected to have been puttied.
<< <i>I can not believe that so many here feel that the buyer is somehow in the wrong. The seller sold him a puttied coin. Too bad the seller (and some of you) feel that somehow it is the buyers fault. >>
I'm not really sure that anyone is saying that this is the buyers fault, but because the buyer acts as a dealer, and he is now claiming the unknowing collector/victim, I think many feel that he should accept some of the resposibility. I know the seller, and know for a fact that he was not aware of any alterations to this coin. I also know that had the OP asked for a refund upon seeing the coin in hand he would likely have gotten the full refund. But after seeing it and liking it, then sending it off to CAC (for whatever reason) then basically threatening to put this up on the internet, he has gotten called out for it.
I recently posted a PCGS Bust half on a guess the grade thread that I purchased raw and submitted. It came back XF details. It never even crossed my mind to go back to the dealer I bought it from and ask for any kind of compensation/return. I will likely lose a bit of money on the coin, or it will end up in the museum wing of my inventory, but I examined it, felt it was MA or problem free, took the money out of my pocket and agreed to buy it. The OP defiintely has some responsibility here.
My Ebay Store
So back to the 1907 No Motto $10 Indian..It's not a coin that would be puttied to deceive. The coin doctors want to double or triple their money...Trying to fill in some hits on a common coin that could never be Mint State, and only advances $50 from AU50 to AU58...has zero profit potential. So I think the coin MAY have some substance on it ... grease, PVC residue, skin oils, that is may have not been visible when it was encapsulated, but I don't think it's anything PCGS would fix under grade guarantee, nor do I think there is really anything wrong with it based on the 58 grade...
Bottom line, coin was purchased sight-seen in a dealer-to-dealer transaction. Buyer liked the coin...until it failed to get a sticker because JA thought "it might be" puttied based
on looking through the plastic, while 3 PCGS graders who examined it before it was slabbed saw nothing.,
<< <i>.....My point is this: what exactly is a "bad coin"? If I sell you a toner in an NGC holder
that you try to cross and PCGS says "no, questionable toning", is the coin "bad" necessarily? Do you have recourse
to ask me for a refund? For all we know, you could submit it again next week, and it would cross. We are dealing
with opinions here. Highly respected opinions, but opinions nonetheless.
Ankur should have at least waited until PCGS rendered a decision before posting this thread. He bought a PCGS
coin, not a PCGS/CAC coin. At the current moment, CAC's opinion may be interesting, but it has no bearing on the
ethics of this deal. PERIOD.
I've already mentioned above that the crossing thing is irrelevant since too many good NGC coins won't cross. My personal cross rate is 0%. Therefore, I cannot consider a coin failing to cross an indictment against its quality. This orig post was not about crossing, it was about putty...and obvious putty from what others have chimed in. If someone wants a sale to be based on it crossing then state that upfront. Everyone on this forum knows that NGC coins are very dicey with respect to crossing. And because of that fact and the PCGS registry, NGC coins fetch 5-30% less than PCGS as a rule. So now a buyer wants the NGC coin he is about to buy to be guarantee to cross and get it at a 30% discount? CAC's opinion on this deal is important because 2 non-experts in puttied gold didn't catch it. Now if another "expert" source chimes in that the coin is not puttied, they we're back to square one. I agree this should have stayed between PCGS and the 2 "dealers." Not been brought here. I've had coins get body-bagged at one service and not the other. Then next time through the swap places. It does indicate there are some real concerns about that coin in question. In other posts I've mentioned a PCGS MS64 $10 Lib I bought at auction was cracked out and then went: altered surfaces PCGS, alt surfaces NGC, then NGC MS66. So what was it? It would probably do that same sequence again if submitted another 4 times. Opinions on grades and surfaces can vary. That's why most people shouldn't crack coins out except under a pro's supervision.
On the orig question about an NGC toner getting a QT when submitted to PCGS for cross. I guess that would open up the possibility of being able to return that coin to the seller if there
was no prior discussion about the toning being less than 100% NT. At that point, it should be sent back to NGC for review. And if I were on the wrong end of that transaction I'd probably have it looked at by as many sources as possible. In any case, if I sold it, and PCGS wasn't sure about the toning, yeah....I'd take it back. Who needs an unhappy buyer
bad-mouthing me or my coins? These days I think most people realize that toning is something the services won't always agree on....esp NGC vs. PCGS. But putty, they should agree
on 80-100% of the time. Anyone buying NGC coins realizes they aren't PCGS coins. The rules and standards are different. But I don't want to buy an NGC toner and then have multiple graders at PCGS have some doubts. I'd rather buy a coin where both NGC and PCGS graders think the toning is ok. >>
The "crossing thing" is absolutely not irrelevant. There is a direct analogy between submitting a coin for a cross
and sending it to CAC. You are attempting to add value by getting the blessing of a "higher authority". In one
case you get a new holder, in the other a sticker.
Interesting that you are willing to take back NGC coins that don't cross for QT. How about for the dozen other
reasons that they might not cross other than grade opinion? I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree
on this one. If I sell an NGC coin, then PCGS's opinion is completely irrelevant to that transaction. If the
buyer subsequently can't cross it, and they choose to try and bad mouth me publicly, then I will take the
chance that reasonable people will see that as more of a reflection on them than myself. I also would not
be all that interested in keeping such a person happy, as they are not a customer I would want going forward.
This all changes if (and only if) the buyer states their intention to cross/sticker at the time of the sale and
conditionals are negotiated at that time.
I think it's important to understand that just because a coin either grades or doesn't grade on a specific day doesn't necessarily mean that the decision given was the end-all decision.........just an opinion on a particular day. Grading is not an exact science.
FWIW, I think the coin in question will clean up quite nice and that the gunk would come off easily. Nobody messed with the surfaces to get it in a 58 holder. They were probably aiming for a 62/63 and it didn't work.
For a large selection of U.S. Coins & Currency, visit The Reeded Edge's online webstore at the link below.
The Reeded Edge
<< <i>The coin in question would never have been a candidate for puttying. The coin clearly has rub, grades nice AU. But putty doesn't restore mint luster. Many gold issues advance 5% or 10% from AU55 to MS60 to MS61 to MS62...and then double or triple going to MS63. Sometimes the big jump is from 63 to 64. In any case, the coin doctor tries to obtain an MS62 coin (or the grade just under the big price jump) that has a full strike, blast luster, but just a few too many hits to bring the higher grade and price. These are the coins where it is extemely profitable to hide or reduce the severity of bagmarks with putty or epoxy to fool the grading services into giving the higher grade.
So back to the 1907 No Motto $10 Indian..It's not a coin that would be puttied to deceive. The coin doctors want to double or triple their money...Trying to fill in some hits on a common coin that could never be Mint State, and only advances $50 from AU50 to AU58...has zero profit potential. So I think the coin MAY have some substance on it ... grease, PVC residue, skin oils, that is may have not been visible when it was encapsulated, but I don't think it's anything PCGS would fix under grade guarantee, nor do I think there is really anything wrong with it based on the 58 grade...
Bottom line, coin was purchased sight-seen in a dealer-to-dealer transaction. Buyer liked the coin...until it failed to get a sticker because JA thought "it might be" puttied based
on looking through the plastic, while 3 PCGS graders who examined it before it was slabbed saw nothing., >>
We do not know how long ago the 3 graders rendered judgement, but if it has been several years the putty job might just be starting to become apparent.
<< <i>The coin in question would never have been a candidate for puttying. The coin clearly has rub, grades nice AU. But putty doesn't restore mint luster. Many gold issues advance 5% or 10% from AU55 to MS60 to MS61 to MS62...and then double or triple going to MS63. Sometimes the big jump is from 63 to 64. In any case, the coin doctor tries to obtain an MS62 coin (or the grade just under the big price jump) that has a full strike, blast luster, but just a few too many hits to bring the higher grade and price. These are the coins where it is extemely profitable to hide or reduce the severity of bagmarks with putty or epoxy to fool the grading services into giving the higher grade.
So back to the 1907 No Motto $10 Indian..It's not a coin that would be puttied to deceive. The coin doctors want to double or triple their money...Trying to fill in some hits on a common coin that could never be Mint State, and only advances $50 from AU50 to AU58...has zero profit potential. So I think the coin MAY have some substance on it ... grease, PVC residue, skin oils, that is may have not been visible when it was encapsulated, but I don't think it's anything PCGS would fix under grade guarantee, nor do I think there is really anything wrong with it based on the 58 grade...
Bottom line, coin was purchased sight-seen in a dealer-to-dealer transaction. Buyer liked the coin...until it failed to get a sticker because JA thought "it might be" puttied based
on looking through the plastic, while 3 PCGS graders who examined it before it was slabbed saw nothing., >>
I understand your reasoning, but in general, 1907 $10 Indians are a very common candidate for those who do this. I see more thana few 1907 $10 Indians that have been messed with on show floors. Typically, 1907 $10s come with fairly smooth, mark free surfaces. They are not typically very marky. So, sometimes the only difference in an AU-58 and an MS-63 or even a MS-64 1907 $10 Indian is just the slightest high point friction on the front of the cheekline on an otherwise nearly mark-free coin. Greed then comes to play with efforts to hide that slight rub.
For a large selection of U.S. Coins & Currency, visit The Reeded Edge's online webstore at the link below.
The Reeded Edge
<< <i>Not too long ago, I bought a raw coin from a knowledgeable collector. I thought the coin would grade a solid MS-64. On subsequent grading, the coin graded 91 for Questionable Color, then MS-62, then MS-64........then CAC'd as a 64.
I think it's important to understand that just because a coin either grades or doesn't grade on a specific day doesn't necessarily mean that the decision given was the end-all decision.........just an opinion on a particular day. Grading is not an exact science. >>
Thank you for providing a real-world example of exactly the point I've been trying to make.
<< <i>
<< <i>To be fair Ankur has a nasty habit of trying to renegotiate long done deals after sending his coins to CAC. He puts such absolute faith in JA opinion which is wise since he isn't a very good grader but he doesn't mind trying to buy on the cheap without stickers trying to realize the up tick in price if it makes the cut. IMO he cant have it both ways, he is either a dealer who needs to take his wins/lumps based off of his own eye like a professional or play the hapless collector bit and only buy coins that already have the bells and whistles applied that are maxed out prices wise accordingly.
This hits the nail on the head. For those wanting to cut to the chase this post is it. >>
I'm guess that he is a bit surprised at the course that this thread has taken. >>
Very Interesting.
<< <i>The coin in question would never have been a candidate for puttying. The coin clearly has rub, grades nice AU. But putty doesn't restore mint luster. Many gold issues advance 5% or 10% from AU55 to MS60 to MS61 to MS62...and then double or triple going to MS63. Sometimes the big jump is from 63 to 64. In any case, the coin doctor tries to obtain an MS62 coin (or the grade just under the big price jump) that has a full strike, blast luster, but just a few too many hits to bring the higher grade and price. These are the coins where it is extemely profitable to hide or reduce the severity of bagmarks with putty or epoxy to fool the grading services into giving the higher grade.
So back to the 1907 No Motto $10 Indian..It's not a coin that would be puttied to deceive. The coin doctors want to double or triple their money...Trying to fill in some hits on a common coin that could never be Mint State, and only advances $50 from AU50 to AU58...has zero profit potential. So I think the coin MAY have some substance on it ... grease, PVC residue, skin oils, that is may have not been visible when it was encapsulated, but I don't think it's anything PCGS would fix under grade guarantee, nor do I think there is really anything wrong with it based on the 58 grade...
Bottom line, coin was purchased sight-seen in a dealer-to-dealer transaction. Buyer liked the coin...until it failed to get a sticker because JA thought "it might be" puttied based
on looking through the plastic, while 3 PCGS graders who examined it before it was slabbed saw nothing., >>
This makes sense. The coin is AU58 with obvious friction on the high points. It is circulated. It really has nowhere to go up the scale. If it was the world's best AU58 it is
still not worth the $1300+ that the buyer paid for it. You can get at least an MS60 for that.
<< <i>This makes sense. The coin is AU58 with obvious friction on the high points. It is circulated. It really has nowhere to go up the scale. If it was the world's best AU58 it is
still not worth the $1300+ that the buyer paid for it. You can get at least an MS60 for that. >>
In many instances, an AU58 coin is considered "nicer" than an MS60 and will command a higher price.
Those forever X-ing Ankur for 'drama' I think are throwing out the baby with the bathwater (so to speak, er....write). I know that I've sold to him a few times and had zero problems.
Tomorrow when I'm drinking water again perhaps I'll feel differently.
<< <i>I believe that this was just an elaborate plot to lure RYK out of hiding. Thanks AnkurJ. >>
Interesting observation.
That probably means you sold him an AU58 that subsequently upgraded to an MS62
<< <i>Maybe it's the gin & tonic that I'm drinking, but those posting cracks against Illini or Ankur seem off base to me. Neither seems in the wrong to me in this case.
Those forever X-ing Ankur for 'drama' I think are throwing out the baby with the bathwater (so to speak, er....write). I know that I've sold to him a few times and had zero problems.
Tomorrow when I'm drinking water again perhaps I'll feel differently.
This will be my last post, I promise!
I do not think either Ankur or Illini is a bad person, had ill intentions, or deserves to be flogged. Despite my often being at odds with Ankur, it is really not personal--just business, as they say. I would guess that if we were having a beer or a cup of coffee together, we would get along just fine, trade stories, maybe even trade coins
I do not believe that the coin is the pariah that it has been made out to be.
I do not believe a seller should be on the hook indefinitely for a coin that was sold in good faith UNLESS the coin is counterfeit or stolen property. Coins change over time, opinions can change minute-to-minute, and if the seller were liable indefinitely for opinions and circumstances beyond his control, no coin would ever get sold.
I do object to airing private grievances on the forum, especially when it appears that objective is not to educate but to use the forum as a tool to bend the other party to act in a certain way. I do not know if this was the objective here because I am an not inside the mind of the OP.
In general, I strive for my coin transactions to be win-win. When buying, I want my seller to be pleased with how much he receives and hopefully make some money, and I want to be happy with the coin. When selling, I want to be happy with the amount of money I received for a coin, and I want the buyer to be pleased with the coin and the value. On the other hand, I believe that there are folks who view these transactions as zero sum games--there is a winner and a loser--and if you do not know which one you are, you are in fact the loser. Next time you buy or sell a coin, think about this, and also think about this in the context of this transaction.
See you guys later in the summer! If anyone is coming to summer St. Louis Scotsman auction and coin show and wants to meet up, let me know.
and sending it to CAC. You are attempting to add value by getting the blessing of a "higher authority". In one
case you get a new holder, in the other a sticker.
There's a huge difference between getting a blessing from higher authority on altered surfaces, fake toning, or putty vs. whether it is nice for the grade.
I don't consider the normal nuances of grading (luster, strike, eye appeal, marks) to be an issue here. This post is about altered coins, not grading differences between TPG's.
If CAC wouldn't sticker this coin because of potentially altered surfaces, that's 100% different than it just not being nice for the grade. That's the issue regardless of why the
coin was sent to CAC in the first place.
Interesting that you are willing to take back NGC coins that don't cross for QT. How about for the dozen other
reasons that they might not cross other than grade opinion? I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree
on this one. If I sell an NGC coin, then PCGS's opinion is completely irrelevant to that transaction. If the
buyer subsequently can't cross it, and they choose to try and bad mouth me publicly, then I will take the
chance that reasonable people will see that as more of a reflection on them than myself. I also would not
be all that interested in keeping such a person happy, as they are not a customer I would want going forward.
This all changes if (and only if) the buyer states their intention to cross/sticker at the time of the sale and
conditionals are negotiated at that time.
If PCGS wouldn't cross an NGC coin I just sold for AT, altered surfaces, tooling, cleaning, or any dozen reasons it would be the same thing. I'd take it back and refund the money. The same thing if it were a PCGS coin returned for regrade and it came back body bagged for something they missed on a previous grading submission. I'd take it back or at least make the buyer whole for anything that PCGS didn't cover. You make mistakes, you pay the consequences. That's what dealer's should do. As far as PCGS not crossing an NGC coin because it's just not good enough or it doesn't fall into the 20-30% category of coins that are crossed? I wouldn't refund for that since it's already common knowledge that the discount for NGC coins is there to cover that very thing. Now, if I sell an NGC coin for all the money at a PCGS price, and it fails to cross, I would take the coin back. After all, I just told the seller by charging all the money that it's a comparable coin. As a rule though, I sell NGC coins for discounts to PCGS, and primarily to dealers. They know the score. Certainly if a buyer keeps buying NGC coins from me and returning them when they don't cross, I will either start quoting that person insanely high prices on my coins or just refuse to sell them anything. After all, if I can't cross a single NGC coin over 15 years of trying (3 dozen choice or gem seated coins), then why should I expect anyone else to have success, never mind guaranteeing it? Since I've never had a single coin returned because of any of the above reasons, it's not exactly a big deal to do once, twice, or a couple times, should it ever happen. On the flip side, I've seen dozens of coins that I've sold come back in higher grades over the years. Not one of those buyers offered to cut me in on the profits....and that's probably why an AT or puttied miss here or there was never brought to my attention.
<< <i>
<< <i>Maybe it's the gin & tonic that I'm drinking, but those posting cracks against Illini or Ankur seem off base to me. Neither seems in the wrong to me in this case.
Those forever X-ing Ankur for 'drama' I think are throwing out the baby with the bathwater (so to speak, er....write). I know that I've sold to him a few times and had zero problems.
Tomorrow when I'm drinking water again perhaps I'll feel differently.
This will be my last post, I promise!
I do not think either Ankur or Illini is a bad person, had ill intentions, or deserves to be flogged. Despite my often being at odds with Ankur, it is really not personal--just business, as they say. I would guess that if we were having a beer or a cup of coffee together, we would get along just fine, trade stories, maybe even trade coins
I do not believe that the coin is the pariah that it has been made out to be.
I do not believe a seller should be on the hook indefinitely for a coin that was sold in good faith UNLESS the coin is counterfeit or stolen property. Coins change over time, opinions can change minute-to-minute, and if the seller were liable indefinitely for opinions and circumstances beyond his control, no coin would ever get sold.
I do object to airing private grievances on the forum, especially when it appears that objective is not to educate but to use the forum as a tool to bend the other party to act in a certain way. I do not know if this was the objective here because I am an not inside the mind of the OP.
In general, I strive for my coin transactions to be win-win. When buying, I want my seller to be pleased with how much he receives and hopefully make some money, and I want to be happy with the coin. When selling, I want to be happy with the amount of money I received for a coin, and I want the buyer to be pleased with the coin and the value. On the other hand, I believe that there are folks who view these transactions as zero sum games--there is a winner and a loser--and if you do not know which one you are, you are in fact the loser. Next time you buy or sell a coin, think about this, and also think about this in the context of this transaction.
See you guys later in the summer! If anyone is coming to summer St. Louis Scotsman auction and coin show and wants to meet up, let me know. >>
Very well thought out and said!
I do not begrudge anyone making a profit on a coin that I buy from them or sell to them. I value win-win transactions. Great post.
For a large selection of U.S. Coins & Currency, visit The Reeded Edge's online webstore at the link below.
The Reeded Edge
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>
<< <i>Maybe it's the gin & tonic that I'm drinking, but those posting cracks against Illini or Ankur seem off base to me. Neither seems in the wrong to me in this case.
Those forever X-ing Ankur for 'drama' I think are throwing out the baby with the bathwater (so to speak, er....write). I know that I've sold to him a few times and had zero problems.
Tomorrow when I'm drinking water again perhaps I'll feel differently.
This will be my last post, I promise!
I do not think either Ankur or Illini is a bad person, had ill intentions, or deserves to be flogged. Despite my often being at odds with Ankur, it is really not personal--just business, as they say. I would guess that if we were having a beer or a cup of coffee together, we would get along just fine, trade stories, maybe even trade coins
I do not believe that the coin is the pariah that it has been made out to be.
I do not believe a seller should be on the hook indefinitely for a coin that was sold in good faith UNLESS the coin is counterfeit or stolen property. Coins change over time, opinions can change minute-to-minute, and if the seller were liable indefinitely for opinions and circumstances beyond his control, no coin would ever get sold.
I do object to airing private grievances on the forum, especially when it appears that objective is not to educate but to use the forum as a tool to bend the other party to act in a certain way. I do not know if this was the objective here because I am an not inside the mind of the OP.
In general, I strive for my coin transactions to be win-win. When buying, I want my seller to be pleased with how much he receives and hopefully make some money, and I want to be happy with the coin. When selling, I want to be happy with the amount of money I received for a coin, and I want the buyer to be pleased with the coin and the value. On the other hand, I believe that there are folks who view these transactions as zero sum games--there is a winner and a loser--and if you do not know which one you are, you are in fact the loser. Next time you buy or sell a coin, think about this, and also think about this in the context of this transaction.
See you guys later in the summer! If anyone is coming to summer St. Louis Scotsman auction and coin show and wants to meet up, let me know. >>
It's another subjective opinion, where do you draw the line? Should the dealer buy back the coin if it is counterfeit, altered, or not at all?
PCGS graded it, so PCGS should correct it. The problem is, who has to pay the fees?
... So who is on trial isn't so much my concern, because a fair offer was made to buy it back. Personally for me, I would buy it back at 100% and try to ensure thiis never happened again because it's an embarrassment to us all.... And besides that , what is " ON THE HOOK " here ? Discernment comes from knowing what one will do every time, not just one time. But this is the U.S. Coin Forum at PCGC through CU.
If not satisfied with the coin , return it. But let's face the real problem and that's what we ought to address. The ALTERED COIN, not "return of slabbed coin". This is where the "issue lies". It's the coin which causes the problem, not the buyer/seller. It's the COIN that causes the issues, NOT the TPG which had fraud perpetrated upon it; which may or may have not been detectable at the time the COIN was altered.
This is such a simple thing. It grows other legs, though.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
I wonder if in that case he would embarrass CAC like he embarrassed PCGS. Some things you just don't air in public. I wonder why this thread wasn't locked and deleted yet and the author banned...again
<< <i>What will ankur do when pcgs takes a 2nd look and says its not puttied? That would mean JA is wrong and people may want to not put their entire faith in cac..... >>
I thought about that also. It is possible but unlikely. PCGS will probably crack it, rinse it, and re-holdered it as a 55 or 58. There won't be much, if any, compensation to the owner. It could easily earn a green bean after the above.
The original submitter of this coin needs to be called on the carpet. My guess is a little putty and they hoped for a 64 or 63 minimum. They didn't get it and now this BS results. It sucks for all involved. I don't like cyber-bullying any more than the rest of you.
peacockcoins
Mkman: If you do not believe CAC, why do you keep their stickers on your slabs?
PCGS has openly admitted they have made mistakes, thus their guarantee program. A company openly admitting and correcting those mistakes is what made them what they are today. I see nothing wrong about what I posted or ANY negativity towards PCGS at all. They are an asset to the hobby and we are all indebted to them.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
Whoever asks to have the putty removed will have to pay the conservation fee. And if PCGS then decides that the coin has to be graded lower, they make good on the grade guaranty.
The cool thing about this arrangement is that if PCGS doesn't downgrade many of the coins, they end up making a good profit while cleaning up their own mess.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
<< <i>Ankur, not all my coins have a cac sticker. However if I'm correct your entire collection pretty much has a green bean or a gold bean. >>
Most cirtenly at least one of them isn't!
<< <i>Ankur, not all my coins have a cac sticker. However if I'm correct your entire collection pretty much has a green bean or a gold bean. >>
Actually a good percentage of my large cents did not pass. Also I have one that was simply overgraded in both mine and CAC's opinion, but is otherwise a PQ coin. They are all in my collection and in my registry set.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>What will ankur do when pcgs takes a 2nd look and says its not puttied? That would mean JA is wrong and people may want to not put their entire faith in cac..... >>
No. It means JA and PCGS disagrees. I would have to see the coin to determine who is wrong.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>What will ankur do when pcgs takes a 2nd look and says its not puttied? That would mean JA is wrong and people may want to not put their entire faith in cac..... >>
No. It means JA and PCGS disagrees. I would have to see the coin to determine who is wrong. >>
At least you'd have to see the coin to register your opinion.
<< <i>
<< <i>What will ankur do when pcgs takes a 2nd look and says its not puttied? That would mean JA is wrong and people may want to not put their entire faith in cac..... >>
No. It means JA and PCGS disagrees. I would have to see the coin to determine who is wrong. >>
What if we're wrong about JA and PCGS being wrong? To add another layer, what if you're wrong about PCGS or JA being wrong, and then I'm wrong in saying that your incorrect opinion is right.............?
Gotta love subjectivity
<< <i>
<< <i>However if I'm correct your entire collection pretty much has a green bean or a gold bean. >>
Most certainly at least one of them isn't! >>
The need for a sticker... Well that's easily remedied!
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
<< <i>Also I have one that was simply overgraded in both mine and CAC's opinion... >>
What is the process by which CAC identifies coins as overgraded?
<< <i>
<< <i>Also I have one that was simply overgraded in both mine and CAC's opinion... >>
What is the process by which CAC identifies coins as overgraded? >>
They simply do not receive a sticker. I speak to John after most submissions, so I know why something did and did not pass. This example was a 1795 Large Cent in a XF40 holder. It was graded as a VF35 but has surfaces so choice that the grade was bumped to XF40.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Also I have one that was simply overgraded in both mine and CAC's opinion... >>
What is the process by which CAC identifies coins as overgraded? >>
They simply do not receive a sticker. >>
Really? According to their website...
3. If a coin doesn’t receive a CAC sticker, does this mean CAC believes the coin is over-graded?
Absolutely not.
...
CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins.
edited to add... My apologies. I missed the part where you get a personal explanation of CAC's decisions on your submissions.
<< <i>
They simply do not receive a sticker. I speak to John after most submissions, so I know why something did and did not pass. This example was a 1795 Large Cent in a XF40 holder. It was graded as a VF35 but has surfaces so choice that the grade was bumped to XF40. >>
? Did the graders at PCGS tell you they gave a coin a grade bump for choice surfaces or is this an assumption?
My Ebay Store
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Also I have one that was simply overgraded in both mine and CAC's opinion... >>
What is the process by which CAC identifies coins as overgraded? >>
They simply do not receive a sticker. >>
Really? According to their website...
3. If a coin doesn’t receive a CAC sticker, does this mean CAC believes the coin is over-graded?
Absolutely not.
...
CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins. >>
Selective reasoning and interpretation of what is written.
They COULD write it better as "...does this mean CAC believes the only issue is that the coin is over-graded?"
A logical person, not wanting to screw with others would interpret it logically and knowingly as to what I typed above.
If one has NEVER sent coins to CAC (directly or through another party), particularly if not privvy to any reasons/info on the coins sent and the decisions rendered, then that person really shouldn't be jumping in on CAC discussions acting like they know something directly or through selective interpretation from written words on a website. One should also note that the website is somewhat sparse and not every situation is called out. Even in the above example, the whole point from the FAQ was not copied nor is it noted that over-graded coins are not mentioned as receiving their sticker.
So, what Ankur posted is logical and accurate in that a coin seen as over-graded WILL NOT receive a CAC sticker. What else would you expect to have happen??? Of course, over-graded coins, in CAC's opinion, are not the only coins to NOT receive a sticker....this has been talked about more than a few times.
I would also suggest that one who quotes from a website should also include other pertinent info....such as WHICH coins DO sticker from CAC:
6. Why can’t I use the CAC Verification Search to look up a PCGS or NGC graded coin that has no CAC sticker to find out if it has already been reviewed by CAC?
Many coins that CAC has reviewed, but did not sticker, have been accurately graded by PCGS or NGC. However, CAC stickers only coins that are solid for the grade, often referred to as B quality coins, and those that are considered high-end for the grade, which are often called A quality coins.
....
Seeing the above, it is pretty easy to see that over-graded coins, in their view, will NOT sticker.
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>
They simply do not receive a sticker. I speak to John after most submissions, so I know why something did and did not pass. This example was a 1795 Large Cent in a XF40 holder. It was graded as a VF35 but has surfaces so choice that the grade was bumped to XF40. >>
? Did the graders at PCGS tell you they gave a coin a grade bump for choice surfaces or is this an assumption? >>
It is an assumption. But when you compare the coin to others graded xf40 or those in photograde, it just misses the grade.
Bochiman: thank you for posting the above information.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!