Is it just me or has NGC really made a BIG mistake on this one???

VamCollector · November 7, 2003 12:48PM

I think I know the answer but I will ask the question....is this a proof? 1878 8TF Proof on Ebay

VamCollector · November 7, 2003 12:49PM

Take out "think" from my prior statement. This is not a proof.

ConstellatioCollector · November 7, 2003 12:49PM

Doesn't appear to be a proof to me but, I only know copper!

Baley · November 7, 2003 12:51PM

my bet: holder neatly broken, coin replaced. Holder neatly resealed. that coin's not a proof.

Placid · November 7, 2003 12:51PM

Feedback of 96.2 and a private auction. Probably opened the holder and stuck a ms coin in it

zenny · November 7, 2003 12:51PM

it's definitely proof of something

Russ · November 7, 2003 12:53PM

Now, how could you guys say that? He's a Power Seller. They are held to the highest ethical standards.

Russ, NCNE

VamCollector · November 7, 2003 12:54PM

Duh, I never thought of that. Good point. I did crack a couple of NGC holders recently, though and they did come apart neatly. Unbelievable that someone would try that.

rainbowroosie · November 7, 2003 12:56PM

Hopefully, no one will buy that abomination....

ConstellatioCollector · November 7, 2003 12:58PM

Has anyone emailed this person to ask the question..."What the hell is going on with this auction?"

Well, I just did! I asked the seller if this coin is really a proof ? It looks to be AU to MS.

I will let you know his response.

razorface1027 · November 7, 2003 1:01PM

Feedback of 96.2 and a private auction. Probably opened the holder and stuck a ms coin in it ... OR, the other possibility which I've seen several times by the ELITE of the ELITE in coin grading, PCGS, erroneous LABELING. This numbskull could be trying to take advantage of this error. Anything's posible!

tradedollarnut · November 7, 2003 1:04PM

Mechanical error.

fountainheadgold · November 7, 2003 1:26PM

I concur mechanical error

MacCoin · November 7, 2003 7:55PM

+I don't know a lot about morgan but it looks pf to me. is the 8TF the vam #?

boiler78 · November 7, 2003 10:13PM

definitely mechanical error and not a proof. Similar to the Morgan dollar in a PCGS holder labeled Trade dollar that someone around here posted recently.

EVillageProwler · November 7, 2003 10:24PM

Let's say, hypothetically, that some newb bids on and wins this lot at somewhere far exceeding the MS63 money for this coin. (I think the current bid is already at that situation.) Some time later he realizes that it is obvious to anyone who isn't fresh meat that this is a mechanical error.

Pertaining to all grading services that have a legit warranty, what is this newb's recourse?

EVP

razorface1027 · November 7, 2003 10:27PM

"Where's the beef!" I mean THE RESERVE. Taking into consideration he has 300 or so feedback, one that has only that amount of feedback, usually puts a RESERVE on such a item...

boiler78 · November 7, 2003 10:32PM

EVP- I believe the newbie is screwed because the grading "guarantee" for both NGC and PCGS doesn't cover mechanical errors. At least thats my understanding. I doubt if he would be able to recoup from the ebay seller.

razorface1027 · November 7, 2003 10:43PM

Moreover, VAM-9 had 12 proofs struck that were given to various dignitaries. These same dies of VAM 9 were used to strike business coins. However, only about 4 proof and 4 business strike specimens are currently known making the coins struck from this die very rare. 8 TF proofs are also known in the vam-14-3 and 14-8 varities with vam 14-3 being the most common. According to the coiner's daily delivery records, 300 Morgan proofs were delivered during the time the 8 TFdesign was struck. This is fewer than the usual quoted figure of 500. All 8 TF proofs EXIBIT ONLY MODERATE CAMEO CONTRAST (Pp. 142, Van Allen & Mallis-4th ed.).

boiler78 · November 7, 2003 10:51PM

It ain't a proof but it does look like a pretty nice MS 63 coin.

segoja · November 8, 2003 12:06AM

If they call the mechanical, how about whne they make the same mistake on coins that really are hard to tell if they are proof or not?

In some of the 19th century series, this makes a huge difference in price and it's not readily apparent as proof status.

As for the coin pictured, if that's a proof, I have a monkey for a nephew.

About this guy being a power seller, I though the hard and fast rule was a 98% rating or better was mandatory. Seems as though E-Bay doesn't even follow through on it's own rules.

XpipedreamR · November 8, 2003 1:23AM

Certainly doesn't appear to be a proof.

Crappy feedback+private auction=I don't think so!

MadMarty · November 8, 2003 3:25AM

Asked the seller about it and got this response...

<< 
> Are there any signs of tampering on the slab, that coin does not look
> like
a proof? What is your return policy?[/
Marty,
The photo shows scuffs on holder but I will ne glad to return it if it does not satisfy you. Thanks, BJ

Q]

Russ · November 8, 2003 3:47AM

<< On Nov-08-03 at 10:03:26 PST, seller added the following information:

NGC clearly indicates this Morgan as a proof. It may actually be a business strike according to a group at PCGS. Please note this may affect the value of the coin although it would still be a high grade and rare coin as well. Only NGC could answer for their grading. I can assure you the holder and coin have not been modified and I will guarantee if anyone is not completely satisifed with this item they can return it for a full refund. >>

At least he's reading the eMails. Looking at his feedback, though, I'm not real confident in his offer to refund if not satisfied.

Russ, NCNE

razorface1027 · November 8, 2003 3:48AM

No wonder the bidder IDs are hidden, this JERK doesn't want people like me emailing the bidders telling them to consider withdrawling their bids. He's a SCAMMER!...

jdimmick · November 8, 2003 3:52AM

Obviously,

After his response, it looks to be a clerical error and he is trying to capitalize on the un-informed!

baccaruda · November 8, 2003 5:27AM

His numerous complaints all note the same thing - junk. He's retaliated against every one too. Jackass. Power Seller my arse - what a joke.

Wolf359 · November 8, 2003 5:34AM

Not a proof. The reverse does not look like A1h (Vam-9 Presentation Piece proofs) or A1m (Most common 8TF Proof VAM 14.3) to me. I forget what the VAM-14.8 reverse (Some 8TF proofs) is, but the coin is definetly MS to me.

I agree the seller probably got lucky with a labeling error at NGC.

FrattLaw · November 8, 2003 9:27AM

I can't speak for Florida law, but if this was a PCGS slab I certainly be knocking on their door to buy this coin back and there are several cases/laws that would make that knock quite loud. I am sure Florida as customer protection stautes/laws that would provide the buyer the same recourse.

Why people here believe that what PCGS or NGC says has anything to do with their warranty/guaranty is beyond me. Mechanical error my arse, thats just another term for negligence. And everyone is responsible for their own acts of stupidity.

Michael

Russ · November 8, 2003 9:30AM

<< Why people here believe that what PCGS or NGC says has anything to do with their warranty/guaranty is beyond me. >>

Could be 17 years of history with no successful lawsuits on the issue.

Russ, NCNE

lordmarcovan · November 8, 2003 4:52PM

Yeah- I'll go with the "mechanical error" verdict.

coinguy1 · November 9, 2003 7:30AM

We have a new high bidder

and NGC will be notified of this on Monday, in case they wish to try to rectify the situation.

Stuart · November 9, 2003 7:41AM

Mark: Atta Boy !!!!

FrattLaw · November 9, 2003 7:49AM

<< Could be 17 years of history with no successful lawsuits on the issue. >>

Russ -- name one case that was tried and was unsuccessful. I only know of an ACG matter in regards to grading standards.

I don't think the mechanical error aspect has ever been tried before.

Enlighten me please

Michael

Russ · November 9, 2003 8:19AM

None have ever been tried, thus there has never been a successful one. If there were any merit at all to a mechanical error argument suit, one would have been filed and tried by now. Doesn't take a law degree to figure that one out.

Russ, NCNE

PRONUMIS · November 9, 2003 8:28AM

The seller should be ashamed of himself. Anyone who knows coins knows thats not a proof.

FrattLaw · November 9, 2003 8:42AM

<< If there were any merit at all to a mechanical error argument suit, one would have been filed and tried by now. Doesn't take a law degree to figure that one out. >>

Well actually it does Russ. Don't confuse failure for lack of effort. Actually there are numerous factors that determine whether a lawsuit will even be filed. And many of those factors have nothing to do with sucess. If your logic was correct the lightbulb should have been invented 400 years before Edison actually did it. I suppose it doesn't take an electrical engineering degree to figure that one out either.

Michael

DCAMFranklin · November 9, 2003 9:16AM

<< 

<< If there were any merit at all to a mechanical error argument suit, one would have been filed and tried by now. Doesn't take a law degree to figure that one out. >>

Well actually it does Russ. Don't confuse failure for lack of effort. Actually there are numerous factors that determine whether a lawsuit will even be filed. And many of those factors have nothing to do with sucess. If your logic was correct the lightbulb should have been invented 400 years before Edison actually did it. I suppose it doesn't take an electrical engineering degree to figure that one out either.

Michael >>

Well said! The mechanical error is such a lame means for a TPG service to crawfish out of their guarantee! It doesn't take a genious to figure out the possible judgement would never justify the expense of challenging the judgement in a court of law.

boiler78 · November 9, 2003 9:22AM

I am sure NGC will be happy to get this obvious mechanical error off the market without anyone having to threaten a lawsuit.

Russ · November 9, 2003 9:23AM

<< It doesn't take a genious to figure out the possible judgement would never justify the expense of challenging the judgement in a court of law. >>

Yeah, just like it doesn't take a genius to figure out the difference between a proof 1964 Kennedy half and a business strike 1964 Kennedy half mis-labeled as an MS69 by a garbage grading service, does it DCAMFranklin?

Russ, NCNE

coinguy1 · November 10, 2003 1:39AM

Update - I was not the first person to contact NGC about the listing. They hope / plan to have Ebay pull the sale and to get in touch with the seller.

FrattLaw · November 10, 2003 2:49AM

Hopefully, NGC will buy this coin back and make good on their guaranty. Mechanical error or not, the TPGS is only as good as what they are willing to stand behind and guaranty. Isn't that the reason to purchase coins in plastic anyway?

Michael

BillJones · November 10, 2003 3:25AM

Yes, it looks like NGC messed this one up big time. I've seen them get the mint mark wrong the label and call a type I Buffalo a type II, but this is a BIG BO-BO.

homerunhall · November 10, 2003 3:51AM

This is an obvious mechanical error. We do the same thing occasionally. If you grade 100,000 coins a month, an occasional mechanical error will happen.

Anyone who thinks NGC "made a BIG mistake" is barking up the wrong tree. And anyone who thinks that this should be part of a grading guarantee is beyond out to lunch. A coin industry anaolgy would be a dealer advertising a $20,000 coin and the ad saying $200...then someone calls him up and insists he sell the coin to them at $200. It's a clerical error and has nothing to do with anybody's competency. This is a mechanical error and the submitter does not deserve a huge windfall profit on a simple clerical error. Since only a blind person would not realize that this coin is not a proof, I don't see how anyone suffers...unless of course a seller would try to sell an obvious mechanical error. Then the seller is to blame, not the grading service.

David Hall

coinguy1 · November 10, 2003 4:14AM

David, in this particular case, where the photos make the error clear, I think I agree with you.

I would disagree, however, if / when the photos are not clear and / or when someone buys a PCGS or NGC coin (particularly, if it is from an authorized dealer), sight-unseen and does not have the luxury of images.

The grading AND the accuracy of the grading labels are relied upon by buyers and, I believe that you initiated the concept of sight-unseen trading when you founded and promoted PCGS.

Sight-unseen trading can become a fiasco, if the major grading services make so-called "mechanical" or other errors and wont stand behind them.

Edited to add:

Obviously, I do not believe anyone (especially a slime-ball submitter who receives a coin back with an incorrect label and attempts to sell it) should profit unfairly, in such cases. But, I don't think an innocent / good faith buyer should suffer financially, either.

Wolf359 · November 10, 2003 4:15AM

Nice to know common sense applies in a situation like this. None should profit from mechanical errors.

MrEureka · November 10, 2003 4:20AM

This would have been much more interesting if the coin had been DMPL but was mistakenly slabbed as a proof.

BigE · November 10, 2003 4:25AM

Maybe the entire label is wrong and belongs to a different coin, if so I wonder where the real proof is------BigE

Placid · November 10, 2003 4:34AM

The ngc graded 1884-cc proof in the Heritage auction that just ended is a coin I would not know if it was a proof or not either.

Check it out here.

MrEureka · November 10, 2003 4:43AM

The ngc graded 1884-cc proof in the Heritage auction that just ended is a coin I would not know if it was a proof or not either.

I didn't see that coin so I have no opinion about it. However, let's say that the coin is obviously (to us) PL and that it really was - HAD TO BE - a mechanical error. It would not be obvious to a novice. Then we could have a much more interesting situation, eh?

coinguy1 · November 10, 2003 4:44AM

Placid, branch mint proof coins are often the subject of speculation, controversy and debate. However, the coin you linked was NOT an accidental or careless label error, but rather, a deliberate opinion rendered by NGC, regarding the coin's status.

Is it just me or has NGC really made a BIG mistake on this one???

Comments

Leave a Comment