How is a newbie to know what is or is not an accidental or careless label error, but rather, a deliberate opinion rendered by NGC, regarding the coin's status?
<< <i>And anyone who thinks that this should be part of a grading guarantee is beyond out to lunch >>
David -- Have you discussed this with your legal counsel or is this just another flippant, off the cuff remark? More so, nice of you to remark on NGC's mistake, what about the Jadecoin error, or is that just another mechanical error that's not guaranteed?
<< <i>None should profit from mechanical errors >>
Except the grading services, unless they if fact stand behind their product.
<< <i>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. >>
Okay Mark, where do you lay the blame? All on the seller, or do you place a percentage on the TPGS who screwed up?
How is a newbie to know what is or is not an accidental or careless label error, but rather, a deliberate opinion rendered by NGC, regarding the coin's status?
Depends on the coin and the mistake. For example, nobody would expect PCGS to "make good" on a 91-S Morgan in a 93-S holder. Right?
Edited to say that it also depends on the level of expertise of both parties to the trade.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Then the seller is to blame, not the grading service. >>
David - isn't it be nice to own a company where you do not have to accept any liability for anything, and be able to blame everyone else for your original mistake.
<< <i>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. >>
a $1000 mistake to some people would be a VERY big mistake.
regardless of whether this is a "mechanical" error or not, coinguy is right; the concept of certification and encapsulation was supposed to facilitate sight-unseen transactions within the numismatic community.
in purchasing a pcgs or ngc coin the buyer receives the coin, the slab, the label and, presumably a guaranty.
The coin is theoretically the important part, the slab is for physical protection of the important part, the label is an opinion as to the quality/value of the coin, the guaranty is for the financial protection of the buyer, with respect to the opinion on the label.
i don't see how calling something a mechanical error should relieve the service of it's duty to recompense a buyer who relied on their opinion. wouldn't simply grading a coin "66" rather than "64" technically be simply a mechanical error?
<< <i>Since only a blind person would not realize that this coin is not a proof, .... David Hall >>
I disagree. I would say than any competent numismatist could clearly see that it is a business strike, but not everyone who collects coins. There are so many collectors out there, that I believe there are all kinds. Folks hire professionals for all sorts of tasks and depend upon those opinions. If someone buys this coin, what prevents the seller from insisting that it is a proof? He would have a argument that a paid expert said it was a proof, who was he, as a novice, to say it is not?
<< <i> 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. >>
Okay Mark, where do you lay the blame? All on the seller, or do you place a percentage on the TPGS who screwed up?
<< <i>
Michael, in answer to your questions:
I place the blame on the grading company, the original submitter and anyone who knowingly tries to sell a mislabeled coin.
I believe that, if (that could be a big or small if, depending upon the circumstances) it's feasible, the submitter should be the first choice to have to cough up any $ that has been spent / lost by a good faith purchaser. After all, the submitter is the one most likely to have profited unfairly and should have reported the error to the grading company.
Next in line should be the grading company which made the mistake and thereby enabled the submitter to profit unfairly at someone else's expense.
I also believe that under most, if not all circumstances, the grading company should take on the responsibility of going after the original submitter and / or any other bad faith party involved.
I guess there could be all kinds of arguements relative to basing the purchase of a coin on a paper insert. Here is a real life situation that occured, fortunately not to my bank. A client makes a three thousand dollar deposit at their bank, the teller mistakenly keys it in at $30,000 and gives the customer a receipt for the deposit of $30,000. The customer goes to a local car dealer buys a car with a personal check and shows the dealer the receipt so the dealer gladly hands him the keys and certificate of origin for the car. The bank discovers its error the next day and corrects the mistake and two days later returns the check NSF when it is presented for payment.
The law was on the bank's side, you can't as a customer take advantage of that mechanical error for your benefit to the detriment of the bank. The car dealer had to go get its car. If the bank had cashed the check and was out the money they could have prosecuted the customer for theft. This scenario is not that far off a mechanical error in a slab, obviously the law would probably not allow for criminal prosecution but a company shouldn't take the hit for a mechanical error either for the same reasoning.
Mark do you really believe that slabbing allows for the purchase of coins sight unseen?
Yes it would be about intent. Often I see newbies post granpa left me some coins and often people tell them to send them to pcgs or ngc to get them certified to avoid getting ripped of when selling them.
So if ngc sends grandpa's 1878 morgan dollar back to newbie graded proof 65 and newbie sells it on eBay as such that dosen't make him a crook.
Placid I don't disagree but if you adjudicate this in a U.S. court the judge and law is going to look at who profited from the deal. If it can be proven that you knew the labeling was incorrect then fraud might apply.
I guess technically ngc and the seller profited. Just like when a food mfg. fails to label a product cointains nuts and someone allergic to them dies. Both the store and the mfg. profited from the sale but the mfg. is held responsible.
Placid I am sure you already knew this that when it comes to health and saftey issues companies are held to a higher standard, as they should be. None of the parties profit when someone dies.
The seller of the erroneously labeled slab is the party who profited. Think what it would mean if it were done differently. You would pay many times over what you pay to have a coin slabbed, in fact you probably wouldn't have access to slabbing by a reputable company if the reverse were true. There is always a trade off in business between acceptable standards, customer service and price.
I sometimes think I am the only person on this board who has ever worked for a company that has made an error. I'd like to hear from someone who actually has a job that hasn't ever made a mistake.
NGC didn't profit, any more than they would have, if the label had been correct.
And, we don't know, for certain, if the Ebay seller will profit. It is (at least) possible that he was not the original submitter. He might have purchased the coin sight unseen and been unable to return it to the seller, in which case, he might be sitting on a loss position.
Or, he might be selling it on behalf of someone else.
Another possible scenario to consider - while I don't know the seller and am, therefore, speaking hypothetically, there is also the possibility that he or someone else tampered with the holder and switched coins. Maybe NGC didn't even make a mistake in this case.
<< <i>Mark do you really believe that slabbing allows for the purchase of coins sight unseen? >>
Mike, in some (limited) cases - yes. I did notice your wink, though.
<< <i>If someone buys this coin, what prevents the seller from insisting that it is a proof? He would have a argument that a paid expert said it was a proof, >>
That's right Tom. Someone in the hobby submitted a coin for unbiased, professional third party grading. They paid a fee to a professional, expert service for the grading process. When one holds himself out as an "expert", they hold themself to a higher standard. Just because some "expert" chooses to hire non-numistmatics in the holdering process, doesn't relieve them from the "expert" status. When third party grading services choose to have a minimal review process after the coin is holdered, they still have rendered a professional service. The customer doesn't pay for "part of the service" to be correct. He pays for the ENTIRE service to be correct.
There is one thing to keep in mind, however - at least in the case of authorized NGC and PCGS dealers, the dealers would / should have signed membership agreements. And, under the terms of those agreements, they would have agreed to conduct business in such a way, so as not to offer for sale, obviously mislabeled coins, etc.
Well now it appears as though we do have a fraudulent intent on the part of the seller.
He was advised of the mistake, he refused to take the coin off the market and relisted as a proof, even though he was informed by NGC as well as the "coin-industry" that this was a mechanical error. It is starting to appear as though he is meeting the legal intent for fraud.
It's quite sad his sales pitch includes this line --
<< <i>Committed to providing great Customer Service! >>
I fail to see that in regards to this auction.
Here's his description
<< <i>This auction is for a very nice 1878 8TF PF63 Morgan Silver Dollar. This is a proof grade silver dollar. At PF63 this coin values $2,100.00. A very rare coin at this grade. Coin values may be referenced here. Beautiful coin to add to your collection. See photos below for details. >>
And here's his recently added paragraph --
<< <i>I had this coins previously listed which brought a heated debate to the coin industry. Since then I cancelled the previous auction and am now listing it with new information. This coin is known as a "mechanical error" by NGC and others including a un-named industry group. Well, everyone wants to get their hands on the coin now. I have been contacted by individuals as well as the certification company themselves. "Do not sell it!" they tell me - well, welcome to America the coin is being sold! Sorry NGC your offer is refused and in America the highest dollars talks and I can't hear you. Good luck bidding!!! >>
On Nov-13-03 at 13:07:37 PST, seller added the following information:
I had this coins previously listed which brought a heated debate to the coin industry. Since then I cancelled the previous auction and am now listing it with new information. This coin is known as a "mechanical error" by NGC and others including a un-named industry group. Well, everyone wants to get their hands on the coin now. I have been contacted by individuals as well as the certification company themselves. "Do not sell it!" they tell me - well, welcome to America the coin is being sold! Sorry NGC your offer is refused and in America the highest dollars talks and I can't hear you. Good luck bidding!!!
Hmm, I had come to the conclusion that this seller was a jerk before I read this. I have no idea how much NGC offered him for the error slab, but it looks like he thinks he can get more and he doesn't care what sort of grief this coin may cause down the road.
One of us should buy it and get it off the market. I'll be keeping an eye on it. I'd give it back to NGC as well for a reasonable fee or just a batch of grading comps.
While I might give this auction a bid or two, it will certainly be the last time I'll bid on any Hooger Coins auctions.
"Lenin is certainly right. There is no subtler or more severe means of overturning the existing basis of society(destroy capitalism) than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
If you try to buy it better watch out because NGC may have a bid on it and you could run it up. This guy does not state that he is an ANA, PCGS or NGC dealer-I wonder if he is?--------------BigE
IrishMike: excellent analogy with the bank situation. To make it even closer to the grading company situation, the person cashing the check would have signed a form stating that it was his responsibility to point out the error to the teller..........
Scam and a lie. We all know NGC never offered him anything for this mechanical error. To state they did to jack up the appeal is all the "inside" details a now informed bidder should need to know.
Someone above stated it is about intent. They're correct. Intent, in this auction, has now been declared.
Do you really think NGC didn't make an offer on this coin? I'm not arguing with you but I would think they would want to get this coin off the market. Especially in light of how the seller is advertising it.
<< <i>We all know NGC never offered him anything for this mechanical error. >>
I don't believe we know that at all. My hat is off to NGC for attempting to do the right thing! I'm proud of their professionnal ethics. Many thanks to Mark Feld for bringing it to NGC's attention. It's just a shame that the seller is such a huckster.
<< <i>Scam and a lie. We all know NGC never offered him anything for this mechanical error. To state they did to jack up the appeal is all the "inside" details a now informed bidder should need to know.
Someone above stated it is about intent. They're correct. Intent, in this auction, has now been declared. >>
Update - I have learned that a certain forum member was high bidder at $1776 (how patriotic ). Gee, I sure hope most of the under-bidders were trying to prevent the uninformed from ending up with it!
He has indicated to me that he sent the following message to the seller and has not heard back yet:
Dear seller,
I have recently learned that this coin was mislabeled by NGC, that it is a business strike, not a Proof, that you were aware of it, that NGC contacted you and asked you not to sell it, but you did anyway and, that they offered to get you out of the coin without a loss.
Yet, you still listed it the way you did, mentioning at least 5 different times, that it was a Proof, when you KNEW otherwise! That sounds like intentional deception and fraud to me! Needless to say, I will not be completing this transaction.
Since I see that at the bottom of your listing, you mentioned a "mechanical error"(though, without going into detail or admitting the coin was not a Proof), I do not plan to leave you negative feedback at this time, in the hopes that you will do the right thing and not try to take advantage of someone in the future.
If you need me to verify with Ebay that this transaction is not being completed (so that you get any listing or other fees back), I will be happy to confirm that.
" 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."
David, unless the dealer placed the words "not responsible for typograghical errors" in his ad, he obligated to sell the coin for the advertised price.
"It's far easier to fight for principles, than to live up to them." Adlai Stevenson
Comments
<< <i>And anyone who thinks that this should be part of a grading guarantee is beyond out to lunch >>
David -- Have you discussed this with your legal counsel or is this just another flippant, off the cuff remark? More so, nice of you to remark on NGC's mistake, what about the Jadecoin error, or is that just another mechanical error that's not guaranteed?
<< <i>None should profit from mechanical errors >>
Except the grading services, unless they if fact stand behind their product.
<< <i>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. >>
Okay Mark, where do you lay the blame? All on the seller, or do you place a percentage on the TPGS who screwed up?
Michael
Depends on the coin and the mistake. For example, nobody would expect PCGS to "make good" on a 91-S Morgan in a 93-S holder. Right?
Edited to say that it also depends on the level of expertise of both parties to the trade.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Then the seller is to blame, not the grading service. >>
David - isn't it be nice to own a company where you do not have to accept any liability for anything, and be able to blame everyone else for your original mistake.
Michael
<< <i>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. >>
a $1000 mistake to some people would be a VERY big mistake.
regardless of whether this is a "mechanical" error or not, coinguy is right; the concept of certification and encapsulation was supposed to facilitate sight-unseen transactions within the numismatic community.
in purchasing a pcgs or ngc coin the buyer receives the coin, the slab, the label and, presumably a guaranty.
The coin is theoretically the important part, the slab is for physical protection of the important part, the label is an opinion as to the quality/value of the coin, the guaranty is for the financial protection of the buyer, with respect to the opinion on the label.
i don't see how calling something a mechanical error should relieve the service of it's duty to recompense a buyer who relied on their opinion. wouldn't simply grading a coin "66" rather than "64" technically be simply a mechanical error?
where would it end...
z
<< <i>Since only a blind person would not realize that this coin is not a proof, .... David Hall >>
I disagree. I would say than any competent numismatist could clearly see that it is a business strike, but not everyone who collects coins. There are so many collectors out there, that I believe there are all kinds. Folks hire professionals for all sorts of tasks and depend upon those opinions. If someone buys this coin, what prevents the seller from insisting that it is a proof? He would have a argument that a paid expert said it was a proof, who was he, as a novice, to say it is not?
Tom
<< <i> 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. >>
Okay Mark, where do you lay the blame? All on the seller, or do you place a percentage on the TPGS who screwed up?
<< <i>
Michael, in answer to your questions:
I place the blame on the grading company, the original submitter and anyone who knowingly tries to sell a mislabeled coin.
I believe that, if (that could be a big or small if, depending upon the circumstances) it's feasible, the submitter should be the first choice to have to cough up any $ that has been spent / lost by a good faith purchaser. After all, the submitter is the one most likely to have profited unfairly and should have reported the error to the grading company.
Next in line should be the grading company which made the mistake and thereby enabled the submitter to profit unfairly at someone else's expense.
I also believe that under most, if not all circumstances, the grading company should take on the responsibility of going after the original submitter and / or any other bad faith party involved.
The law was on the bank's side, you can't as a customer take advantage of that mechanical error for your benefit to the detriment of the bank. The car dealer had to go get its car. If the bank had cashed the check and was out the money they could have prosecuted the customer for theft. This scenario is not that far off a mechanical error in a slab, obviously the law would probably not allow for criminal prosecution but a company shouldn't take the hit for a mechanical error either for the same reasoning.
Mark do you really believe that slabbing allows for the purchase of coins sight unseen?
So if ngc sends grandpa's 1878 morgan dollar back to newbie graded proof 65 and newbie sells it on eBay as such that dosen't make him a crook.
Just like when a food mfg. fails to label a product cointains nuts and someone allergic to them dies.
Both the store and the mfg. profited from the sale but the mfg. is held responsible.
The seller of the erroneously labeled slab is the party who profited. Think what it would mean if it were done differently. You would pay many times over what you pay to have a coin slabbed, in fact you probably wouldn't have access to slabbing by a reputable company if the reverse were true. There is always a trade off in business between acceptable standards, customer service and price.
I sometimes think I am the only person on this board who has ever worked for a company that has made an error.
And, we don't know, for certain, if the Ebay seller will profit. It is (at least) possible that he was not the original submitter. He might have purchased the coin sight unseen and been unable to return it to the seller, in which case, he might be sitting on a loss position.
Or, he might be selling it on behalf of someone else.
Another possible scenario to consider - while I don't know the seller and am, therefore, speaking hypothetically, there is also the possibility that he or someone else tampered with the holder and switched coins. Maybe NGC didn't even make a mistake in this case.
<< <i>Mark do you really believe that slabbing allows for the purchase of coins sight unseen?
Mike, in some (limited) cases - yes. I did notice your wink, though.
<< <i>If someone buys this coin, what prevents the seller from insisting that it is a proof? He would have a argument that a paid expert said it was a proof, >>
That's right Tom. Someone in the hobby submitted a coin for unbiased, professional third party grading. They paid a fee to a professional, expert service for the grading process. When one holds himself out as an "expert", they hold themself to a higher standard. Just because some "expert" chooses to hire non-numistmatics in the holdering process, doesn't relieve them from the "expert" status. When third party grading services choose to have a minimal review process after the coin is holdered, they still have rendered a professional service. The customer doesn't pay for "part of the service" to be correct. He pays for the ENTIRE service to be correct.
You make some good points.
There is one thing to keep in mind, however - at least in the case of authorized NGC and PCGS dealers, the dealers would / should have signed membership agreements. And, under the terms of those agreements, they would have agreed to conduct business in such a way, so as not to offer for sale, obviously mislabeled coins, etc.
Edited to add: I see the sale has been ended.
But the thread lives on!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Wilhelmus Hoogerwerff
PO Box 42
Coopersburg, PA 18036-0042
Hey, if you can't trust a guy named Wilhelmus Hoogerwerff, who can you trust?
Doug
He was advised of the mistake, he refused to take the coin off the market and relisted as a proof, even though he was informed by NGC as well as the "coin-industry" that this was a mechanical error. It is starting to appear as though he is meeting the legal intent for fraud.
It's quite sad his sales pitch includes this line --
<< <i>Committed to providing great Customer Service! >>
I fail to see that in regards to this auction.
Here's his description
<< <i>This auction is for a very nice 1878 8TF PF63 Morgan Silver Dollar. This is a proof grade silver dollar. At PF63 this coin values $2,100.00. A very rare coin at this grade. Coin values may be referenced here. Beautiful coin to add to your collection. See photos below for details. >>
And here's his recently added paragraph --
<< <i>I had this coins previously listed which brought a heated debate to the coin industry. Since then I cancelled the previous auction and am now listing it with new information. This coin is known as a "mechanical error" by NGC and others including a un-named industry group. Well, everyone wants to get their hands on the coin now. I have been contacted by individuals as well as the certification company themselves. "Do not sell it!" they tell me - well, welcome to America the coin is being sold! Sorry NGC your offer is refused and in America the highest dollars talks and I can't hear you. Good luck bidding!!! >>
Quite sad really.
Michael
perhaps saint F would be interested?
I had this coins previously listed which brought a heated debate to the coin industry. Since then I cancelled the previous auction and am now listing it with new information. This coin is known as a "mechanical error" by NGC and others including a un-named industry group. Well, everyone wants to get their hands on the coin now. I have been contacted by individuals as well as the certification company themselves. "Do not sell it!" they tell me - well, welcome to America the coin is being sold! Sorry NGC your offer is refused and in America the highest dollars talks and I can't hear you. Good luck bidding!!!
Hmm, I had come to the conclusion that this seller was a jerk before I read this. I have no idea how much NGC offered him for the error slab, but it looks like he thinks he can get more and he doesn't care what sort of grief this coin may cause down the road.
One of us should buy it and get it off the market. I'll be keeping an eye on it. I'd give it back to NGC as well for a reasonable fee or just a batch of grading comps.
While I might give this auction a bid or two, it will certainly be the last time I'll bid on any Hooger Coins auctions.
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
maybe after loading and reading 1 description, I got the impression they were scammers
so can NGC email eBay and have them stop this auction??
Someone above stated it is about intent. They're correct.
Intent, in this auction, has now been declared.
Do you really think NGC didn't make an offer on this coin? I'm not arguing with you but I would think they would want to get this coin off the market. Especially in light of how the seller is advertising it.
<< <i>We all know NGC never offered him anything for this mechanical error. >>
I don't believe we know that at all. My hat is off to NGC for attempting to do the right thing! I'm proud of their professionnal ethics. Many thanks to Mark Feld for bringing it to NGC's attention. It's just a shame that the seller is such a huckster.
<< <i>Scam and a lie. We all know NGC never offered him anything for this mechanical error. To state they did to jack up the appeal is all the "inside" details a now informed bidder should need to know.
Someone above stated it is about intent. They're correct.
Intent, in this auction, has now been declared. >>
I guess I didn't know that, thanks for the info.
He has indicated to me that he sent the following message to the seller and has not heard back yet:
Dear seller,
I have recently learned that this coin was mislabeled by NGC, that it is a business strike, not a Proof, that you were aware of it, that NGC contacted you and asked you not to sell it, but you did anyway and, that they offered to get you out of the coin without a loss.
Yet, you still listed it the way you did, mentioning at least 5 different times, that it was a Proof, when you KNEW otherwise! That sounds like intentional deception and fraud to me! Needless to say, I will not be completing this transaction.
Since I see that at the bottom of your listing, you mentioned a "mechanical error"(though, without going into detail or admitting the coin was not a Proof), I do not plan to leave you negative feedback at this time, in the hopes that you will do the right thing and not try to take advantage of someone in the future.
If you need me to verify with Ebay that this transaction is not being completed (so that you get any listing or other fees back), I will be happy to confirm that.
Sincerely,
a very disappointed bidder
But I bet he relists it! Its probably in his nature.
Michael
David, unless the dealer placed the words "not responsible for typograghical errors" in his ad, he obligated to sell the coin for the advertised price.