Options
Coin World Editorial on Guarantee of Authenticity
majorbigtime
Posts: 2,937 ✭
Well folks, you have been slamming me for years on my quest for a clear statement from PCGS on the so-called guarantee of "Grade & Authenticity". As I have said:
Read the Guarantee for authenticity protection and you will ask yourself "Where's Waldo?"
QUOTE
PCGS guarantee of Grade & Authenticity
Customer Bill of Rights
The guarantee of Grade & Authenticity is fundamental to PCGS's concept of third-party grading. The cash-back policy ensures the accuracy of the grade assigned to any PCGS coin as long as it remains in its tamper-evident holder. If a coin is believed to be improperly graded, and a discrepancy is found when resubmitted through PCGS's Downgrade Resubmission service, the guarantee entitles the coin's owner to options designed for his protection.
UNQUOTE
Notice the word "authenticity" only appears in the title and first line?? It doesn't say diddly-squat about recourse if you buy a "bad" coin in a PCGS slab!!
Why doesn't PCGS clarify this?? IMO, the guarantee is not only deficient but is misleading as well.
The guarantee is not even gender politically correct-- "designed for his protection." Does that mean the ladies are unprotected, both as respects grade and authenticity? That would leave them "naked"!
Well, PCGS took a tiny step towards a meaningful written guarantee of authenticity.
In the June 26th Coin World, PCGS has a full page ad which includes the statement:
"2) guaranteed Authentication. PCGS guarantees the authenticity of every coin they grade and we support our promise with a money-back guarantee."
WOW! What money back? The PCGS grading fee? What you paid for the coin (what if inherited, bought for a song 40 years ago, found in circulation, etc.)?
I believe we are entitled to a specific form of compensation, not some nebulous "we'll make it right" type of recourse
*********************************** FROM COIN WORLD ************************************************
NOW, WE FIND AN OUTSTANDING EDITORIAL IN THIS WEEK'S COIN WORLD ENTITLED: Majors mum on authenticity guarantees
By our own "Conder101," a collector and a researcher of slabs and slab varieties.
A few excerpts:
QUOTE
..............
A great many of the third- and fourth-tier grading services do have written warranties of authenticity on their Web sites. Some of them are a bit vague about what specifically your compensation will be if an item is found to be fraudulent, but they do seem to imply that you will at least get your slabbing fees back.
.............
On the other hand, the major services on their Web sites all make sure to specifically inform the collector that the grading on their slabs is guaranteed and what the collector’s options are and how he will be compensated if the grading of the coin is wrong. However, none of the major services have any specific written guarantee of authenticity! There is nothing about how a collector will be compensated if his coin turns out to be a fake.
After several years on the Professional Coin Grading Service coin forums, a few "troublemakers" [who, MBT?] have agitated on this topic enough that, in at least one ad in Coin World, PCGS did include the line, "All coins in PCGS holders are guaranteed to be authentic." Not on their Web site, just in an advertisement. That is the sum total response of several years of questioning on the forum, and in my case 20 years of pointing out to anyone who would listen that their "guarantee" contained no discussion about authenticity.
The other major services Web sites are no better. No written guarantee of authenticity, no discussion of how a collector would be compensated.
.............
Now I admit, to date, the major grading services have been very forthright and have always stood behind their product and compensated the collector. But past behavior does not mandate future behavior. Having paid off others in the past does not obligate them to pay off for newly discovered fakes in the future. For that you need a written promise or guarantee, something that someone can point to and say, "You have made this obligation!"
So I have to wonder about the major grading firms. Why are they afraid of putting their necks on the line with a written, specific, guarantee of authenticity......
UNQUOTE
Maybe those who have slammed me in this quest will stop and think about this important subject, assuming they are cabable iof intelligent thinking.
Conder101 certainly has his thinking cap on!!
Read the Guarantee for authenticity protection and you will ask yourself "Where's Waldo?"
QUOTE
PCGS guarantee of Grade & Authenticity
Customer Bill of Rights
The guarantee of Grade & Authenticity is fundamental to PCGS's concept of third-party grading. The cash-back policy ensures the accuracy of the grade assigned to any PCGS coin as long as it remains in its tamper-evident holder. If a coin is believed to be improperly graded, and a discrepancy is found when resubmitted through PCGS's Downgrade Resubmission service, the guarantee entitles the coin's owner to options designed for his protection.
UNQUOTE
Notice the word "authenticity" only appears in the title and first line?? It doesn't say diddly-squat about recourse if you buy a "bad" coin in a PCGS slab!!
Why doesn't PCGS clarify this?? IMO, the guarantee is not only deficient but is misleading as well.
The guarantee is not even gender politically correct-- "designed for his protection." Does that mean the ladies are unprotected, both as respects grade and authenticity? That would leave them "naked"!
Well, PCGS took a tiny step towards a meaningful written guarantee of authenticity.
In the June 26th Coin World, PCGS has a full page ad which includes the statement:
"2) guaranteed Authentication. PCGS guarantees the authenticity of every coin they grade and we support our promise with a money-back guarantee."
WOW! What money back? The PCGS grading fee? What you paid for the coin (what if inherited, bought for a song 40 years ago, found in circulation, etc.)?
I believe we are entitled to a specific form of compensation, not some nebulous "we'll make it right" type of recourse
*********************************** FROM COIN WORLD ************************************************
NOW, WE FIND AN OUTSTANDING EDITORIAL IN THIS WEEK'S COIN WORLD ENTITLED: Majors mum on authenticity guarantees
By our own "Conder101," a collector and a researcher of slabs and slab varieties.
A few excerpts:
QUOTE
..............
A great many of the third- and fourth-tier grading services do have written warranties of authenticity on their Web sites. Some of them are a bit vague about what specifically your compensation will be if an item is found to be fraudulent, but they do seem to imply that you will at least get your slabbing fees back.
.............
On the other hand, the major services on their Web sites all make sure to specifically inform the collector that the grading on their slabs is guaranteed and what the collector’s options are and how he will be compensated if the grading of the coin is wrong. However, none of the major services have any specific written guarantee of authenticity! There is nothing about how a collector will be compensated if his coin turns out to be a fake.
After several years on the Professional Coin Grading Service coin forums, a few "troublemakers" [who, MBT?] have agitated on this topic enough that, in at least one ad in Coin World, PCGS did include the line, "All coins in PCGS holders are guaranteed to be authentic." Not on their Web site, just in an advertisement. That is the sum total response of several years of questioning on the forum, and in my case 20 years of pointing out to anyone who would listen that their "guarantee" contained no discussion about authenticity.
The other major services Web sites are no better. No written guarantee of authenticity, no discussion of how a collector would be compensated.
.............
Now I admit, to date, the major grading services have been very forthright and have always stood behind their product and compensated the collector. But past behavior does not mandate future behavior. Having paid off others in the past does not obligate them to pay off for newly discovered fakes in the future. For that you need a written promise or guarantee, something that someone can point to and say, "You have made this obligation!"
So I have to wonder about the major grading firms. Why are they afraid of putting their necks on the line with a written, specific, guarantee of authenticity......
UNQUOTE
Maybe those who have slammed me in this quest will stop and think about this important subject, assuming they are cabable iof intelligent thinking.
Conder101 certainly has his thinking cap on!!
0
Comments
<< <i>But past behavior does not mandate future behavior. >>
Yes, in fact, it does. Credibility is the meat and potatoes of "reputable" TPG's like PCGS and NGC. Having backed their product so much as once, to reneg on any future situation requiring that backing is to immediately surrender credibility. If that happens, people like yourself would immediately shout it so far and wide from the battlements that the TPG would unlikely recover.
You, and people like you, are the proof.
Since PCGS mentions authenticity in their headline, that is enough for me.
They say "guarantee of grade and authenticity"
There is nothing else that needs to be said.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
I don't completely agree with that. It could be argued in a court of law, that based upon any general or specific "guarantee" language they have used AND the fact that they have made good on the guarantee repeatedly in the past, that buyers are reasonably relying upon them to continue to do so in the future.
The grading companies which profit from their "guarantees" and the reliance upon those guarantees by buyers, would have a very difficult time, legally, changing their established way/pattern of handling such situations. In other words, I believe that the legal terms "Estoppel" and "Detrimental Reliance" might come into play: see here
<< <i><<Having done so in the past does not mean they are REQUIRED to do so>>
I don't completely agree with that. It could be argued in a court of law, that based upon any general or specific "guarantee" language they have used AND the fact that they have made good on the guarantee repeatedly in the past, that buyers are reasonably relying upon them to continue to do so in the future.
The grading companies which profit from their "guarantees" and the reliance upon those guarantees by buyers, would have a very difficult time, legally, changing their established way/pattern of handling such situations. In other words, I believe that the legal terms "Estoppel" and "Detrimental Reliance" might come into play: see here >>
Maybe, maybe not. Will you be citing Wikipedia in your legal brief?
<< <i>Authenticity is black and white.
Since PCGS mentions authenticity in their headline, that is enough for me.
They say "guarantee of grade and authenticity"
There is nothing else that needs to be said. >>
Julian, I respect your opinions highly but believe you are way off base here. PCGS spells out the recourse on the grading guarantee, but is silent on authenticity. There is something else that needs to be said!
<< <i>
<< <i><<Having done so in the past does not mean they are REQUIRED to do so>>
I don't completely agree with that. It could be argued in a court of law, that based upon any general or specific "guarantee" language they have used AND the fact that they have made good on the guarantee repeatedly in the past, that buyers are reasonably relying upon them to continue to do so in the future.
The grading companies which profit from their "guarantees" and the reliance upon those guarantees by buyers, would have a very difficult time, legally, changing their established way/pattern of handling such situations. In other words, I believe that the legal terms "Estoppel" and "Detrimental Reliance" might come into play: see here >>
Maybe, maybe not. Will you be citing Wikipedia in your legal brief?
No, actually, I'd cite voluminous case law in my brief.
<< <i>
Maybe, maybe not. Will you be citing Wikipedia in your legal brief?
No, actually, I'd cite voluminous case law in my brief.
You shouldn't have to litigate recourse under the so-called guarantee.
Why doesn't the guarantee just say how the coin owner would be compensated for a "bad" coin slabbed by PCGS?
<< <i>Why doesn't the guarantee just say how the coin owner would be compensated for a "bad" coin slabbed by PCGS? >>
Because there could be a lot of potential "remedies."
They could find a suitable replacement coin and exchange the "bad" coin for it.
They could reslab the coin at a lower grade and compensate the owner for the different in fair market value.
They could just "buy" the coin from the owner at the fair market value of the grade on the slab and be done with it.
There may be other options as well that I haven't considered.
Any of these could be potentially legitimate in terms of the owner being "made whole." There may be cases where the owner may have a choice of remedies, depending on the situation, so why limit their options by locking in specifics?
I understand the uneasiness about not having specifics down in writing. But until someone provides a credible case that they were screwed by a major TPG on a grade/authenticity guarantee, it's full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
And sometimes the messenger gets in the way of the message.
"All they sold you was a guaranteed piece of ----."
<< <i>
<< <i>Why doesn't the guarantee just say how the coin owner would be compensated for a "bad" coin slabbed by PCGS? >>
Because there could be a lot of potential "remedies."
They could find a suitable replacement coin and exchange the "bad" coin for it.
They could reslab the coin at a lower grade and compensate the owner for the different in fair market value.
They could just "buy" the coin from the owner at the fair market value of the grade on the slab and be done with it.
>>
And they could just say it too!!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Why doesn't the guarantee just say how the coin owner would be compensated for a "bad" coin slabbed by PCGS? >>
Because there could be a lot of potential "remedies."
They could find a suitable replacement coin and exchange the "bad" coin for it.
They could reslab the coin at a lower grade and compensate the owner for the different in fair market value.
They could just "buy" the coin from the owner at the fair market value of the grade on the slab and be done with it.
>>
And they could just say it too!! >>
Maybe they don't know how.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Why doesn't the guarantee just say how the coin owner would be compensated for a "bad" coin slabbed by PCGS? >>
Because there could be a lot of potential "remedies."
They could find a suitable replacement coin and exchange the "bad" coin for it.
They could reslab the coin at a lower grade and compensate the owner for the different in fair market value.
They could just "buy" the coin from the owner at the fair market value of the grade on the slab and be done with it.
>>
And they could just say it too!! >>
Maybe they don't know how. >>
They know how--do they want to?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Why doesn't the guarantee just say how the coin owner would be compensated for a "bad" coin slabbed by PCGS? >>
Because there could be a lot of potential "remedies."
They could find a suitable replacement coin and exchange the "bad" coin for it.
They could reslab the coin at a lower grade and compensate the owner for the different in fair market value.
They could just "buy" the coin from the owner at the fair market value of the grade on the slab and be done with it.
>>
And they could just say it too!! >>
Maybe they don't know how. >>
They know how--do they want to? >>
They seem to not care.
<< <i>Because there could be a lot of potential "remedies." >>
There are a lot of potential remedies for grading errors as well, and PCGS spells them out and what the owners options are. I would think there would be a lot fewer "remedies" or "options" if the coin is a fake than if the grade was wrong.
<< <i>
<< <i>Because there could be a lot of potential "remedies." >>
There are a lot of potential remedies for grading errors as well, and PCGS spells them out and what the owners options are. I would think there would be a lot fewer "remedies" or "options" if the coin is a fake than if the grade was wrong. >>
Well said.
<< <i>There are a lot of potential remedies for grading errors as well, and PCGS spells them out and what the owners options are. I would think there would be a lot fewer "remedies" or "options" if the coin is a fake than if the grade was wrong. >>
Certainly true, but then, what would be the fair compensation? I think most of us would agree it should be tied to the "fair market value" of an authentic coin at that grade. But what is the "fair market value?" Is it according to the PCGS guides? Auction records?
Even if the TPGs explicitly said they would compensate at FMV of an authentic coin, there would be continued controversy over the definition of "fair market value" and that if the TPG is allowed to decide it, it's like the fox guarding the henhouse...
All this asked and said, clarification of guarentee seems reasonable.
Every coin stands on it's own merit. Insurance companies have clauses to screw you out of your money and here is a company (PCGS) trying to protect the integrity of coins. Is it like PCGS slabs fakes or deliberately screws you out of your money by mis-grading ?
Do we build a bridge , or a wall ?
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Certainly true, but then, what would be the fair compensation? I think most of us would agree it should be tied to the "fair market value" of an authentic coin at that grade. But what is the "fair market value?" Is it according to the PCGS guides? Auction records?
Even if the TPGs explicitly said they would compensate at FMV of an authentic coin, there would be continued controversy over the definition of "fair market value" and that if the TPG is allowed to decide it, it's like the fox guarding the henhouse... >>
Compensation for grading errors are also tied to "fair market value" so there should be the same problems of determining what the "fair market value" is. But that doesn't seem to slow them down with specific guarantees there. I believe with the grading fair market value compensation the TPG does decide on what to offer (sometimes with more than on option) and the owner of the coin decides which option to take. If he is not satified with any of them I believe they then tend to go to third party arbitration. (not sure about the arbitration though.)
I'm glad to see one thing, there do seem to be more people coming to the conclusion that a more specificly outlined guarantee would be a good or at least reasonable thing.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Because there could be a lot of potential "remedies." >>
There are a lot of potential remedies for grading errors as well, and PCGS spells them out and what the owners options are. I would think there would be a lot fewer "remedies" or "options" if the coin is a fake than if the grade was wrong. >>
Well said. >>
Agreed--this is an important matter that warrants a response from PCGS IMO!
I have never seen or even herd of it. If you have what happed?
Thanks
I wonder if he's actually even dealt with PCGS regarding this issue.
<< <i>Has anyone here ever bought or owned a "fake" in a PCGS slab???
I have never seen or even herd of it. If you have what happed?
Thanks >>
PCGS recalled about 200 Morgans with the micro O mintmark (1896, 1900, & 1902) which were determined to be counterfeit. Owners were fairly compensated as far as I know.
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>
<< <i>Because there could be a lot of potential "remedies." >>
There are a lot of potential remedies for grading errors as well, and PCGS spells them out and what the owners options are. I would think there would be a lot fewer "remedies" or "options" if the coin is a fake than if the grade was wrong. >>
Well said. >>
The only option is pay the owner the value of a genuine coin of the same grade. PCGS publishes a price guide, so that should be the measurement IMO!
and this is where I disagree STRONGLY. Here's why:
Completely hypothetical situation: Say someone finds a coin in the ground, looks like a 1792 half disme. Sends it to PCGS, they slab it. THEN the coin is shown to be a very good counterfeit, and is still owned by the finder. No money has changed hands, and the cost basis is zero, plus the slabbing fee and shipping.
YOU think the finder is entitled to be paid by PCGS what a real one is worth??
Hahahahahahah no court in the world will agree with you.
NOW, assume the finder sold it to buyer B, who paid full retail. Finder spends the money and then dies. THEN the coin is shown to be counterfeit.
IN THAT CASE buyer B is entitled to compensation of what he paid.
Because there can be so many "it depends", there will NEVER be a guarantee such as you state.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>The only option is pay the owner the value of a genuine coin of the same grade. PCGS publishes a price guide, so that should be the measurement IMO!
and this is where I disagree STRONGLY. Here's why:
Completely hypothetical situation: Say someone finds a coin in the ground, looks like a 1792 half disme. Sends it to PCGS, they slab it. THEN the coin is shown to be a very good counterfeit, and is still owned by the finder. No money has changed hands, and the cost basis is zero, plus the slabbing fee and shipping.
YOU think the finder is entitled to be paid by PCGS what a real one is worth??
Hahahahahahah no court in the world will agree with you.
NOW, assume the finder sold it to buyer B, who paid full retail. Finder spends the money and then dies. THEN the coin is shown to be counterfeit.
IN THAT CASE buyer B is entitled to compensation of what he paid.
Because there can be so many "it depends", there will NEVER be a guarantee such as you state. >>
I disagree--if the TPG screws-up, it shoud pay the price. The slabbing fee is for grading and authenticity, plain & simple!
<< <i>They could reslab the coin at a lower grade and compensate the owner for the different in fair market value. >>
Considering we are discussing matters of authenticity, I don't think reslabbing it at a lower grade is a viable option.
<< <i> read that editorial and immediately realized that the writer simply was conjuring up a case that was full of false assumptions, false scenarios and generally a propagandist position. >>
Exactly what false assuptions and false scenarios were "conjured up"?
As for being a "propagandist position" I will fully agree since any case where an attempt is made to sway a subjects opinion to a particular viewpoint is an example of propaganda. Propaganda can be good or bad and can be used to sway opinion to a position that is true or false. ALL advertising, even public service announcements, are forms of propaganda. So just because the editorial is a "propagandist position" is no reason to reject it out of hand.
<< <i>So just because the editorial is a "propagandist position" is no reason to reject it out of hand. >>
I beleive it should be a populist position. This is a very important issue for anyone who has put faith in the major TPs in making a numismatic purchase, plain and simple.
The real issue concerns a meaningful guarantee of AUTHENTICITY!!!!
<< <i>The only option is pay the owner the value of a genuine coin of the same grade. PCGS publishes a price guide, so that should be the measurement IMO! >>
One would think so but that is not the case. A dealer friend of mine had the 1970 NO S Jeff in 67DCAM. It had turned bad in the holder. PCGSs offer what they stated was fair market value was $1,100. Even though the price guide stated $1,400 and then went up to $1,450. The dealer paid $1,400 for the coin and PCGSs answer to that was, we don't care if the dealer paid too much, we pay what we think is FMV.
<< <i>Has anyone here ever bought or owned a "fake" in a PCGS slab???
I have never seen or even herd of it. If you have what happed?
Thanks >>
I have. It is a loooooooooong story.
<< <i>
<< <i>The only option is pay the owner the value of a genuine coin of the same grade. PCGS publishes a price guide, so that should be the measurement IMO! >>
One would think so but that is not the case. A dealer friend of mine had the 1970 NO S Jeff in 67DCAM. It had turned bad in the holder. PCGSs offer what they stated was fair market value was $1,100. Even though the price guide stated $1,400 and then went up to $1,450. The dealer paid $1,400 for the coin and PCGSs answer to that was, we don't care if the dealer paid too much, we pay what we think is FMV. >>
".....we pay what we think is FMV"
WHen it comes to authenticity, how do you like "we'll make it right"???
That's as clear as mud!
<< <i>
<< <i>The only option is pay the owner the value of a genuine coin of the same grade. PCGS publishes a price guide, so that should be the measurement IMO! >>
One would think so but that is not the case. A dealer friend of mine had the 1970 NO S Jeff in 67DCAM. It had turned bad in the holder. PCGSs offer what they stated was fair market value was $1,100. Even though the price guide stated $1,400 and then went up to $1,450. The dealer paid $1,400 for the coin and PCGSs answer to that was, we don't care if the dealer paid too much, we pay what we think is FMV. >>
I've dealt with a similar reimbursement from PCGS and this is one of the reasons I don't submit to them any more.
<< <i>So even with their detailed grade guarantee we find that it leaves something to be desired. How secure should you feel about a non-existant authenticity guarantee that is little more than a verbal promise to "Make it right"? >>
Rather that just "make it right", David Hall has promised to comply with Julian's suggestion to "beef it up".
Let's just hope we don't end up asking "where's the beef"?