@RichR said:
Follow up...the "make good guarantee" offer I'm now being floated is based on recent (2019) auctions/sales and not on the number on the currently published higher in-house guide value for that year/grade...to be paid out as a credit towards free services going forward. Meanwhile, the actual replacement value if I tried to buy the same coin today is $100 higher!
AND THIS ALL HAPPENED BECAUSE I SIMPLY WANTED A REHOLDER TO MATCH ALL MY OTHER PL MORGANS!!!
Yeah, this isn't right to the customers at all. If a coin is sent into just be reholdered then the grading company shouldn't even pass judgement on the coin and just put the coin in a new holder as that is all that was requested to be done.
They should not go by anything, especially past auction prices as this poor guy is going to be out a hell of a lot of money, just todays book prices are about an $800 dollar difference with the CAC, he is probably out even more than that depending on when he bought it.
I'm just surprised that this hasn't gotten more attention previously...as I'm receiving private messages from other board members that they've had something similar happen to them by both major TPG services...
...still a 64...but not a 64PL...and the coin is white and heavily mirrored front and back.
I wish I had photographed it (stupidly), but I never expected this. I always thought it was possible that I could get a counterfeit older slab one day...that didn’t have verification images available online...but that’s not what happened here. Nobody is challenging authenticity...or even claiming labeling error.
This is on the PCGS website:
"REHOLDER: Re-encapsulation of PCGS-graded coin. Coin will not be regraded. Coins valued over $2,500 require Gold Shield."
It's frustrating that they use their higher Price Guide prices when calculating crossgrading and insuring (for shipping) fees, but then when it comes to honoring their guarantees, suddenly the Price Guide isn't good anymore and they want to use wholesale prices...
This seems like a mistake to me like they processed your order as a regrade instead of a reholder. They recently crossed a 65PL coin as 65 without PL when I specified to only cross at current grade and I got it fixed as a mechanical error.
If it's not a mistake I think it's awful. I've sent dozens of coins in for reholder and never had the slightest thought that one could be downgraded in the process.
Nope...no mistake...absolutely clear that this was a reholder...in fact, it was part of a larger order of other reholders...no other services at all. And the other coins are coming back fine, including higher priced coins. But for some reason, this one hit the wall. And it wasn’t a cross either. Totally apples to apples straight reholder.
And I’ve had at least 50 reholders done myself...this is a first.
Serious question...let’s just say I had made a regrade request ( which this wasn’t)...does that ever end in a downgrade either (when dealing with one of your own slabs)?
@RichR said:
...still a 64...but not a 64PL...and the coin is white and heavily mirrored front and back.
I wish I had photographed it (stupidly), but I never expected this. I always thought it was possible that I could get a counterfeit older slab one day...that didn’t have verification images available online...but that’s not what happened here. Nobody is challenging authenticity...or even claiming labeling error.
You seem to be ignoring the point I made about older holders and PL/DMPL. The standards were hot garbage and a LOT of those that remain in those holders are nowhere near PL/DMPL by present standards. CAC is useless on PL/DMPL as well, as John Albanese's standards are not as stringent as the TPG's standards. I am sure most knowledgeable PL/DMPL collectors/dealers will agree with me.
Should PCGS put them in the new holders anyway and compromise the integrity of the grades on the newer holders, pushing hardcore PL/DMPL collectors away from being able to buy newer PCGS PL/DMPL's without seeing them in hand, and being able to trust that they are all there?
There is no easy solution, but the best solution is for them to remove the designation when they can and pay out appropriately. Not according to wholesale or anything, but according to the real-world costs of acquiring a replacement.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
A few people have also privately IM’d me asking if the slab was environmentally damaged (water, smoke, etc) or cracked...the answers are all no...it just had those fine hairlines from sliding it across too many bourse tables...so it was a bit hazy...which I found annoying.
@RichR said:
A few people have also privately IM’d me asking if the slab was environmentally damaged (water, smoke, etc) or cracked...the answers are all no...it just had those fine hairlines from sliding it across too many bourse tables...so it was a bit hazy...which I found annoying.
@RichR said:
Serious question...let’s just say I had made a regrade request ( which this wasn’t)...does that ever end in a downgrade either (when dealing with one of your own slabs)?
@RichR said:
...still a 64...but not a 64PL...and the coin is white and heavily mirrored front and back.
I wish I had photographed it (stupidly), but I never expected this. I always thought it was possible that I could get a counterfeit older slab one day...that didn’t have verification images available online...but that’s not what happened here. Nobody is challenging authenticity...or even claiming labeling error.
You seem to be ignoring the point I made about older holders and PL/DMPL. The standards were hot garbage and a LOT of those that remain in those holders are nowhere near PL/DMPL by present standards. CAC is useless on PL/DMPL as well, as John Albanese's standards are not as stringent as the TPG's standards. I am sure most knowledgeable PL/DMPL collectors/dealers will agree with me.
Should PCGS put them in the new holders anyway and compromise the integrity of the grades on the newer holders, pushing hardcore PL/DMPL collectors away from being able to buy newer PCGS PL/DMPL's without seeing them in hand, and being able to trust that they are all there?
There is no easy solution, but the best solution is for them to remove the designation when they can and pay out appropriately. Not according to wholesale or anything, but according to the real-world costs of acquiring a replacement.
If that's the case a phone call should be made prior to cracking and give the submitter the option of keeping the existing slab or reholdering and dealing with the downgrade.
@RichR said:
...still a 64...but not a 64PL...and the coin is white and heavily mirrored front and back.
I wish I had photographed it (stupidly), but I never expected this. I always thought it was possible that I could get a counterfeit older slab one day...that didn’t have verification images available online...but that’s not what happened here. Nobody is challenging authenticity...or even claiming labeling error.
You seem to be ignoring the point I made about older holders and PL/DMPL. The standards were hot garbage and a LOT of those that remain in those holders are nowhere near PL/DMPL by present standards. CAC is useless on PL/DMPL as well, as John Albanese's standards are not as stringent as the TPG's standards. I am sure most knowledgeable PL/DMPL collectors/dealers will agree with me.
Should PCGS put them in the new holders anyway and compromise the integrity of the grades on the newer holders, pushing hardcore PL/DMPL collectors away from being able to buy newer PCGS PL/DMPL's without seeing them in hand, and being able to trust that they are all there?
There is no easy solution, but the best solution is for them to remove the designation when they can and pay out appropriately. Not according to wholesale or anything, but according to the real-world costs of acquiring a replacement.
If that's the case a phone call should be made prior to cracking and give the submitter the option of keeping the existing slab or reholdering and dealing with the downgrade.
I disagree, the coin should be corrected, and then replaced with one that meets the modern definitions of the appropriate designation, or sent back along with a refund and appropriate compensation.
PCGS needs to protect the brand and the above is the best way to do that. Letting overgraded/misgraded coins go back out to market only hurts the brand more.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
@RichR said:
...still a 64...but not a 64PL...and the coin is white and heavily mirrored front and back.
I wish I had photographed it (stupidly), but I never expected this. I always thought it was possible that I could get a counterfeit older slab one day...that didn’t have verification images available online...but that’s not what happened here. Nobody is challenging authenticity...or even claiming labeling error.
You seem to be ignoring the point I made about older holders and PL/DMPL. The standards were hot garbage and a LOT of those that remain in those holders are nowhere near PL/DMPL by present standards. CAC is useless on PL/DMPL as well, as John Albanese's standards are not as stringent as the TPG's standards. I am sure most knowledgeable PL/DMPL collectors/dealers will agree with me.
Should PCGS put them in the new holders anyway and compromise the integrity of the grades on the newer holders, pushing hardcore PL/DMPL collectors away from being able to buy newer PCGS PL/DMPL's without seeing them in hand, and being able to trust that they are all there?
There is no easy solution, but the best solution is for them to remove the designation when they can and pay out appropriately. Not according to wholesale or anything, but according to the real-world costs of acquiring a replacement.
If that's the case a phone call should be made prior to cracking and give the submitter the option of keeping the existing slab or reholdering and dealing with the downgrade.
I don't know. I can see both sides of this. Many people have been complaining for years and years about gradeflation and "dreck" flooding the market. When PCGS attempts to do something about it, there's a huge outcry. OTOH, I understand the OP's frustration as he did not believe the coin was going to be reviewed in the process of doing a Reholder.
@RichR said:
...still a 64...but not a 64PL...and the coin is white and heavily mirrored front and back.
I wish I had photographed it (stupidly), but I never expected this. I always thought it was possible that I could get a counterfeit older slab one day...that didn’t have verification images available online...but that’s not what happened here. Nobody is challenging authenticity...or even claiming labeling error.
You seem to be ignoring the point I made about older holders and PL/DMPL. The standards were hot garbage and a LOT of those that remain in those holders are nowhere near PL/DMPL by present standards. CAC is useless on PL/DMPL as well, as John Albanese's standards are not as stringent as the TPG's standards. I am sure most knowledgeable PL/DMPL collectors/dealers will agree with me.
Should PCGS put them in the new holders anyway and compromise the integrity of the grades on the newer holders, pushing hardcore PL/DMPL collectors away from being able to buy newer PCGS PL/DMPL's without seeing them in hand, and being able to trust that they are all there?
There is no easy solution, but the best solution is for them to remove the designation when they can and pay out appropriately. Not according to wholesale or anything, but according to the real-world costs of acquiring a replacement.
If that's the case a phone call should be made prior to cracking and give the submitter the option of keeping the existing slab or reholdering and dealing with the downgrade.
I disagree, the coin should be corrected, and then replaced with one that meets the modern definitions of the appropriate designation, or sent back along with a refund and appropriate compensation.
PCGS needs to protect the brand and the above is the best way to do that. Letting overgraded/misgraded coins go back out to market only hurts the brand more.
Then they need to clearly state that a reholder carries this possibility. When they say "For this submission type, the coins will not be graded." and "The coins will be received and then inspected by a member of the grading team to determine that the coin and PCGS holder are authentic. Once it is determined that the holder and coin are genuine, the coin will be removed and placed into a new PCGS holder." I expect exactly that to happen and not to have a regraded coin.
@RichR said:
...still a 64...but not a 64PL...and the coin is white and heavily mirrored front and back.
I wish I had photographed it (stupidly), but I never expected this. I always thought it was possible that I could get a counterfeit older slab one day...that didn’t have verification images available online...but that’s not what happened here. Nobody is challenging authenticity...or even claiming labeling error.
You seem to be ignoring the point I made about older holders and PL/DMPL. The standards were hot garbage and a LOT of those that remain in those holders are nowhere near PL/DMPL by present standards. CAC is useless on PL/DMPL as well, as John Albanese's standards are not as stringent as the TPG's standards. I am sure most knowledgeable PL/DMPL collectors/dealers will agree with me.
Should PCGS put them in the new holders anyway and compromise the integrity of the grades on the newer holders, pushing hardcore PL/DMPL collectors away from being able to buy newer PCGS PL/DMPL's without seeing them in hand, and being able to trust that they are all there?
There is no easy solution, but the best solution is for them to remove the designation when they can and pay out appropriately. Not according to wholesale or anything, but according to the real-world costs of acquiring a replacement.
You seem to be ignoring that PCGS has done something that according to their own statements and definition of the service requested they will not do. What you think should be done or is correct is irrelevant, PCGS has interjected the grading process when they expressly say that will not be done for this type of service. The op didn't ask for a regrade only a simple reholder service.
@RichR said:
...still a 64...but not a 64PL...and the coin is white and heavily mirrored front and back.
I wish I had photographed it (stupidly), but I never expected this. I always thought it was possible that I could get a counterfeit older slab one day...that didn’t have verification images available online...but that’s not what happened here. Nobody is challenging authenticity...or even claiming labeling error.
You seem to be ignoring the point I made about older holders and PL/DMPL. The standards were hot garbage and a LOT of those that remain in those holders are nowhere near PL/DMPL by present standards. CAC is useless on PL/DMPL as well, as John Albanese's standards are not as stringent as the TPG's standards. I am sure most knowledgeable PL/DMPL collectors/dealers will agree with me.
Should PCGS put them in the new holders anyway and compromise the integrity of the grades on the newer holders, pushing hardcore PL/DMPL collectors away from being able to buy newer PCGS PL/DMPL's without seeing them in hand, and being able to trust that they are all there?
There is no easy solution, but the best solution is for them to remove the designation when they can and pay out appropriately. Not according to wholesale or anything, but according to the real-world costs of acquiring a replacement.
You seem to be ignoring that PCGS has done something that according to their own statements and definition of the service requested they will not do. What you think should be done or is correct is irrelevant, PCGS has interjected the grading process when they expressly say that will not be done for this type of service. The op didn't ask for a regrade only a simple reholder service.
PCGS is protecting their brand, as they should, and I salute them for their proactiveness as well as the employee who spotted it and said something. Good for them! The integrity of the grades on the plastic is paramount above any one individuals feelings.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
...so then bottom line...I get back my newly devalued $85 coin...and have to reach into my pocket for $600+ to replace the new hole in my registry set.
That service credit is a wash on paper...but not really.
...so then bottom line...I get back my newly devalued $85 coin...and have to reach into my pocket for $600+ to replace the new hole in my registry set.
That service credit is a wash on paper...but not really.
I agree that is not right, for what it is worth, and I think PCGS should step up and replace the coin with an actual PL example, or pay you for what it would cost to replace it right now.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
@DelawareDoons said:
PCGS is protecting their brand, as they should, and I salute them for their proactiveness as well as the employee who spotted it and said something. Good for them! The integrity of the grades on the plastic is paramount above any one individuals feelings.
I think you're missing the point. That being- they're doing something they explicitly tell their customers they don't do.
Maybe everyone at PCGS is busy with Long Beach, but I find it odd that they haven't commented here or contacted you to make a little better offer. A payout in grading vouchers isn't much of a guarantee and doesn't sound consistent with what they've done in the past. If you've accepted their offer, you're probably stuck with it.
OK...I'm also seeing that the coin in question along with a second PL reholder on the same invoice, have now both been issued totally new cert numbers??? When did reholders start getting issued new numbers...doesn't the old number usually carry over to the new plastic? And this is BOTH coins on the invoice...not just the downgraded coin.
@RichR said:
OK...I'm also seeing that the coin in question along with a second PL reholder on the same invoice, have now both been issued totally new cert numbers??? When did reholders start getting issued new numbers...doesn't the old number usually carry over to the new plastic? And this is BOTH coins on the invoice...not just the downgraded coin.
I think someone goofed, and ran your coins as regrades. Stuff happens. I imagine/hope they'll make it right.
@RichR said:
OK...I'm also seeing that the coin in question along with a second PL reholder on the same invoice, have now both been issued totally new cert numbers??? When did reholders start getting issued new numbers...doesn't the old number usually carry over to the new plastic? And this is BOTH coins on the invoice...not just the downgraded coin.
I had conservation done on a coin which had a TrueView (before and after). They issued a new cert# after conservation. I'm assuming so it wasn't any longer associated with the "before" TrueView.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
OK...I just received back an almost immediate reply,,,and I'll quote directly from the email (so everyone be aware)...
"These were not handled any different than a normal reholder(s), WHICH ARE ALL REEXAMINED FOR GRADE BEFORE CRACKOUT" [my emphasis added]
And then cites an example of not being able to simply re-certify a steel cent if it has corroded...which I don't believe is a fair comparison.
And they also don't know why the cert numbers changed.
I'm getting tired of all this...I really am...I smell a rat here, but where do you go from here?
So everyone please be aware that reholdering has apparently become a CYA opportunity to correct past sins...either real or imagined. I also wish they had called me PRIOR TO CRACKOUT...and explained any of this beforehand.
@RichR said:
...still a 64...but not a 64PL...and the coin is white and heavily mirrored front and back.
I wish I had photographed it (stupidly), but I never expected this. I always thought it was possible that I could get a counterfeit older slab one day...that didn’t have verification images available online...but that’s not what happened here. Nobody is challenging authenticity...or even claiming labeling error.
You seem to be ignoring the point I made about older holders and PL/DMPL. The standards were hot garbage and a LOT of those that remain in those holders are nowhere near PL/DMPL by present standards. CAC is useless on PL/DMPL as well, as John Albanese's standards are not as stringent as the TPG's standards. I am sure most knowledgeable PL/DMPL collectors/dealers will agree with me.
Should PCGS put them in the new holders anyway and compromise the integrity of the grades on the newer holders, pushing hardcore PL/DMPL collectors away from being able to buy newer PCGS PL/DMPL's without seeing them in hand, and being able to trust that they are all there?
There is no easy solution, but the best solution is for them to remove the designation when they can and pay out appropriately. Not according to wholesale or anything, but according to the real-world costs of acquiring a replacement.
You seem to be ignoring that PCGS has done something that according to their own statements and definition of the service requested they will not do. What you think should be done or is correct is irrelevant, PCGS has interjected the grading process when they expressly say that will not be done for this type of service. The op didn't ask for a regrade only a simple reholder service.
PCGS is protecting their brand, as they should, and I salute them for their proactiveness as well as the employee who spotted it and said something. Good for them! The integrity of the grades on the plastic is paramount above any one individuals feelings.
@RichR said:
...still a 64...but not a 64PL...and the coin is white and heavily mirrored front and back.
I wish I had photographed it (stupidly), but I never expected this. I always thought it was possible that I could get a counterfeit older slab one day...that didn’t have verification images available online...but that’s not what happened here. Nobody is challenging authenticity...or even claiming labeling error.
You seem to be ignoring the point I made about older holders and PL/DMPL. The standards were hot garbage and a LOT of those that remain in those holders are nowhere near PL/DMPL by present standards. CAC is useless on PL/DMPL as well, as John Albanese's standards are not as stringent as the TPG's standards. I am sure most knowledgeable PL/DMPL collectors/dealers will agree with me.
Should PCGS put them in the new holders anyway and compromise the integrity of the grades on the newer holders, pushing hardcore PL/DMPL collectors away from being able to buy newer PCGS PL/DMPL's without seeing them in hand, and being able to trust that they are all there?
There is no easy solution, but the best solution is for them to remove the designation when they can and pay out appropriately. Not according to wholesale or anything, but according to the real-world costs of acquiring a replacement.
You seem to be ignoring that PCGS has done something that according to their own statements and definition of the service requested they will not do. What you think should be done or is correct is irrelevant, PCGS has interjected the grading process when they expressly say that will not be done for this type of service. The op didn't ask for a regrade only a simple reholder service.
PCGS is protecting their brand, as they should, and I salute them for their proactiveness as well as the employee who spotted it and said something. Good for them! The integrity of the grades on the plastic is paramount above any one individuals feelings.
Your missing or perhaps ignoring the real issue, but hey its not your coin or your loss so its all good for you.
The second coin on the invoice was also a 64PL...and worth 3x-4x more...so I guess I should be glad that they didn't go the extra mile on that one too!
Very interesting topic. And I can see a lot of things that PCGS quality control considers on reholders, crossovers, requests for their shield and TV services. I have encountered a large percentage of problem old holder PCGS coins. As a business they want to maximize profits and minimize risk.
So if coins had surface issues, they have wanted the coin to go through their conservation service as billable cost, not their warranty service, but I have patience and asked for coins to get the "Presidential review". And they honored several of the warranty submissions, and on one kicked out a $700 check with the coin coming back in an Unc. details problem holder. I had paid $2800 for the MS63 $20 Lib.. It took a long time but I was ok after the whole thing.
On guarantee submissions NGC conserved a previously DPL coin that downgraded to a PL, and they gave me a credit on my account; the coin had turned in the holder, and I paid a lot less for the problem coin to begin with. In other cases they didn't want to accept CAC's word that coins had pvc that they should have caught off the bat. But on conservation that I had done, Rick Montgomery in one higher value coin said I could declare a lot lower value for conservation charge purposes.
@RichR said:
...still a 64...but not a 64PL...and the coin is white and heavily mirrored front and back.
I wish I had photographed it (stupidly), but I never expected this. I always thought it was possible that I could get a counterfeit older slab one day...that didn’t have verification images available online...but that’s not what happened here. Nobody is challenging authenticity...or even claiming labeling error.
You seem to be ignoring the point I made about older holders and PL/DMPL. The standards were hot garbage and a LOT of those that remain in those holders are nowhere near PL/DMPL by present standards. CAC is useless on PL/DMPL as well, as John Albanese's standards are not as stringent as the TPG's standards. I am sure most knowledgeable PL/DMPL collectors/dealers will agree with me.
Should PCGS put them in the new holders anyway and compromise the integrity of the grades on the newer holders, pushing hardcore PL/DMPL collectors away from being able to buy newer PCGS PL/DMPL's without seeing them in hand, and being able to trust that they are all there?
There is no easy solution, but the best solution is for them to remove the designation when they can and pay out appropriately. Not according to wholesale or anything, but according to the real-world costs of acquiring a replacement.
@RichR said:
...still a 64...but not a 64PL...and the coin is white and heavily mirrored front and back.
I wish I had photographed it (stupidly), but I never expected this. I always thought it was possible that I could get a counterfeit older slab one day...that didn’t have verification images available online...but that’s not what happened here. Nobody is challenging authenticity...or even claiming labeling error.
You seem to be ignoring the point I made about older holders and PL/DMPL. The standards were hot garbage and a LOT of those that remain in those holders are nowhere near PL/DMPL by present standards. CAC is useless on PL/DMPL as well, as John Albanese's standards are not as stringent as the TPG's standards. I am sure most knowledgeable PL/DMPL collectors/dealers will agree with me.
Should PCGS put them in the new holders anyway and compromise the integrity of the grades on the newer holders, pushing hardcore PL/DMPL collectors away from being able to buy newer PCGS PL/DMPL's without seeing them in hand, and being able to trust that they are all there?
There is no easy solution, but the best solution is for them to remove the designation when they can and pay out appropriately. Not according to wholesale or anything, but according to the real-world costs of acquiring a replacement.
You seem to be ignoring that PCGS has done something that according to their own statements and definition of the service requested they will not do. What you think should be done or is correct is irrelevant, PCGS has interjected the grading process when they expressly say that will not be done for this type of service. The op didn't ask for a regrade only a simple reholder service.
PCGS is protecting their brand, as they should, and I salute them for their proactiveness as well as the employee who spotted it and said something. Good for them! The integrity of the grades on the plastic is paramount above any one individuals feelings.
WOW! I guess it's because they demoted it. When coins get a + added they keep the same Cert. #.
@RichR said:
OK...I'm also seeing that the coin in question along with a second PL reholder on the same invoice, have now both been issued totally new cert numbers??? When did reholders start getting issued new numbers...doesn't the old number usually carry over to the new plastic? And this is BOTH coins on the invoice...not just the downgraded coin.
@RichR said:
First off...I'll admit that I like my slabs to be neat and clean...so I decided to treat myself and to have my somewhat scruffy 64PL Morgan reholdered. The holder was not cracked or damaged...just older and a bit unsightly. I've had it for a couple of years.
The coin was also CAC greenbeaned.
So...then...imagine my surprise when I got the email today that the coin no longer rates as PL. This was determined during reholdering...I had not requested a grade reevaluation of any other service. Therefore, the TPG guarantee will be honored to reimburse it's cost.
Just surprised that two independent evaluation teams had evidently missed the mark here...not to mention I also bought it because it had nice clean surfaces and mirrors.
I haven’t read all of the replies yet, but why do you assume that “two independent evaluation teams missed the mark”? Wasn’t one of those teams from the same company that downgraded the coin?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Hello @RichR, Thank you for your post, please continue to work with our customer service department on this matter as they will be best able to answer your questions and provide any needed solutions.
Comments
Yeah, this isn't right to the customers at all. If a coin is sent into just be reholdered then the grading company shouldn't even pass judgement on the coin and just put the coin in a new holder as that is all that was requested to be done.
They should not go by anything, especially past auction prices as this poor guy is going to be out a hell of a lot of money, just todays book prices are about an $800 dollar difference with the CAC, he is probably out even more than that depending on when he bought it.
I'm just surprised that this hasn't gotten more attention previously...as I'm receiving private messages from other board members that they've had something similar happen to them by both major TPG services...
RichR,
How did you get notified of the downgrade?
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Notified via an email from the senior grading staff...”We’re sorry to inform you...that the coin does not meet current PL specs...”
Followed by a later email that essentially says “...errors happen...”
...still a 64...but not a 64PL...and the coin is white and heavily mirrored front and back.
I wish I had photographed it (stupidly), but I never expected this. I always thought it was possible that I could get a counterfeit older slab one day...that didn’t have verification images available online...but that’s not what happened here. Nobody is challenging authenticity...or even claiming labeling error.
This is on the PCGS website:
"REHOLDER: Re-encapsulation of PCGS-graded coin. Coin will not be regraded. Coins valued over $2,500 require Gold Shield."
I recommend that you call PCGS
It's frustrating that they use their higher Price Guide prices when calculating crossgrading and insuring (for shipping) fees, but then when it comes to honoring their guarantees, suddenly the Price Guide isn't good anymore and they want to use wholesale prices...
My eBay Store | My Registry Profile
This seems like a mistake to me like they processed your order as a regrade instead of a reholder. They recently crossed a 65PL coin as 65 without PL when I specified to only cross at current grade and I got it fixed as a mechanical error.
If it's not a mistake I think it's awful. I've sent dozens of coins in for reholder and never had the slightest thought that one could be downgraded in the process.
Nope...no mistake...absolutely clear that this was a reholder...in fact, it was part of a larger order of other reholders...no other services at all. And the other coins are coming back fine, including higher priced coins. But for some reason, this one hit the wall. And it wasn’t a cross either. Totally apples to apples straight reholder.
And I’ve had at least 50 reholders done myself...this is a first.
Serious question...let’s just say I had made a regrade request ( which this wasn’t)...does that ever end in a downgrade either (when dealing with one of your own slabs)?
You seem to be ignoring the point I made about older holders and PL/DMPL. The standards were hot garbage and a LOT of those that remain in those holders are nowhere near PL/DMPL by present standards. CAC is useless on PL/DMPL as well, as John Albanese's standards are not as stringent as the TPG's standards. I am sure most knowledgeable PL/DMPL collectors/dealers will agree with me.
Should PCGS put them in the new holders anyway and compromise the integrity of the grades on the newer holders, pushing hardcore PL/DMPL collectors away from being able to buy newer PCGS PL/DMPL's without seeing them in hand, and being able to trust that they are all there?
There is no easy solution, but the best solution is for them to remove the designation when they can and pay out appropriately. Not according to wholesale or anything, but according to the real-world costs of acquiring a replacement.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
A few people have also privately IM’d me asking if the slab was environmentally damaged (water, smoke, etc) or cracked...the answers are all no...it just had those fine hairlines from sliding it across too many bourse tables...so it was a bit hazy...which I found annoying.
Next time use this.
https://www.amazon.com/Turtle-Wax-T-240KT-Headlight-Restorer/dp/B001TI5IIQ
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
...and no...my Slab Restore liquid wasn’t cutting it! I JUST WANTED A CRISP NEW SLAB!!!
You are getting a crisp new slab with the same coin in it. And some cash.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Yes, on rare occasions.
If that's the case a phone call should be made prior to cracking and give the submitter the option of keeping the existing slab or reholdering and dealing with the downgrade.
h> @PhilLynott said:
I disagree, the coin should be corrected, and then replaced with one that meets the modern definitions of the appropriate designation, or sent back along with a refund and appropriate compensation.
PCGS needs to protect the brand and the above is the best way to do that. Letting overgraded/misgraded coins go back out to market only hurts the brand more.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I don't know. I can see both sides of this. Many people have been complaining for years and years about gradeflation and "dreck" flooding the market. When PCGS attempts to do something about it, there's a huge outcry. OTOH, I understand the OP's frustration as he did not believe the coin was going to be reviewed in the process of doing a Reholder.
Then they need to clearly state that a reholder carries this possibility. When they say "For this submission type, the coins will not be graded." and "The coins will be received and then inspected by a member of the grading team to determine that the coin and PCGS holder are authentic. Once it is determined that the holder and coin are genuine, the coin will be removed and placed into a new PCGS holder." I expect exactly that to happen and not to have a regraded coin.
You seem to be ignoring that PCGS has done something that according to their own statements and definition of the service requested they will not do. What you think should be done or is correct is irrelevant, PCGS has interjected the grading process when they expressly say that will not be done for this type of service. The op didn't ask for a regrade only a simple reholder service.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
PCGS is protecting their brand, as they should, and I salute them for their proactiveness as well as the employee who spotted it and said something. Good for them! The integrity of the grades on the plastic is paramount above any one individuals feelings.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Wholesale cash....errr service credit, not retail cash.
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
...so then bottom line...I get back my newly devalued $85 coin...and have to reach into my pocket for $600+ to replace the new hole in my registry set.
That service credit is a wash on paper...but not really.
I agree that is not right, for what it is worth, and I think PCGS should step up and replace the coin with an actual PL example, or pay you for what it would cost to replace it right now.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I think you're missing the point. That being- they're doing something they explicitly tell their customers they don't do.
Maybe everyone at PCGS is busy with Long Beach, but I find it odd that they haven't commented here or contacted you to make a little better offer. A payout in grading vouchers isn't much of a guarantee and doesn't sound consistent with what they've done in the past. If you've accepted their offer, you're probably stuck with it.
OK...I'm also seeing that the coin in question along with a second PL reholder on the same invoice, have now both been issued totally new cert numbers??? When did reholders start getting issued new numbers...doesn't the old number usually carry over to the new plastic? And this is BOTH coins on the invoice...not just the downgraded coin.
I think someone goofed, and ran your coins as regrades. Stuff happens. I imagine/hope they'll make it right.
maybe you checked the wrong box (I have done that before
)
I just pulled the invoice: service requested...REHOLDER...that's it.
I had conservation done on a coin which had a TrueView (before and after). They issued a new cert# after conservation. I'm assuming so it wasn't any longer associated with the "before" TrueView.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
OK...I just received back an almost immediate reply,,,and I'll quote directly from the email (so everyone be aware)...
"These were not handled any different than a normal reholder(s), WHICH ARE ALL REEXAMINED FOR GRADE BEFORE CRACKOUT" [my emphasis added]
And then cites an example of not being able to simply re-certify a steel cent if it has corroded...which I don't believe is a fair comparison.
And they also don't know why the cert numbers changed.
I'm getting tired of all this...I really am...I smell a rat here, but where do you go from here?
So everyone please be aware that reholdering has apparently become a CYA opportunity to correct past sins...either real or imagined. I also wish they had called me PRIOR TO CRACKOUT...and explained any of this beforehand.
Copied from the downloadable PCGS Submission Form:
• REHOLDER: Re-encapsulation of PCGS-graded coin. Coin will not be regraded. Coins valued over
$2,500 require Gold Shield.
Your missing or perhaps ignoring the real issue, but hey its not your coin or your loss so its all good for you.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Yes that submission form can be more complex than a mortgage application.
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
The second coin on the invoice was also a 64PL...and worth 3x-4x more...so I guess I should be glad that they didn't go the extra mile on that one too!
Very interesting topic. And I can see a lot of things that PCGS quality control considers on reholders, crossovers, requests for their shield and TV services. I have encountered a large percentage of problem old holder PCGS coins. As a business they want to maximize profits and minimize risk.
So if coins had surface issues, they have wanted the coin to go through their conservation service as billable cost, not their warranty service, but I have patience and asked for coins to get the "Presidential review". And they honored several of the warranty submissions, and on one kicked out a $700 check with the coin coming back in an Unc. details problem holder. I had paid $2800 for the MS63 $20 Lib.. It took a long time but I was ok after the whole thing.
On guarantee submissions NGC conserved a previously DPL coin that downgraded to a PL, and they gave me a credit on my account; the coin had turned in the holder, and I paid a lot less for the problem coin to begin with. In other cases they didn't want to accept CAC's word that coins had pvc that they should have caught off the bat. But on conservation that I had done, Rick Montgomery in one higher value coin said I could declare a lot lower value for conservation charge purposes.
So everyone should send in their undergraded coins for reholder if it's cheaper than regrade.
Get those rattlers & OGH's ready!
Bottom line is that this just isn't right.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
It still has the old Cert #.
If that's the case they should get on ebay and buy up a ton of their mistakes! They are out there!
WOW! I guess it's because they demoted it. When coins get a + added they keep the same Cert. #.
I'd love to know when the coin was previously graded.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I haven’t read all of the replies yet, but why do you assume that “two independent evaluation teams missed the mark”? Wasn’t one of those teams from the same company that downgraded the coin?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Hello @RichR, Thank you for your post, please continue to work with our customer service department on this matter as they will be best able to answer your questions and provide any needed solutions.
Heather Boyd
PCGS Senior Director of Marketing