-- "I don't think that (the tapes of the "TV coin hucksters") would necessarily reflect upon the grading company and any role it might have played in a possible deception. In fact, if I were a judge, I think I would exclude such evidence." --
And if I were the plaintiffs' lawyer, I'd name them as co-defendants so that the evidence comes in. In fact, I'd likely explore the business relationship between the TPGs and the telemarketers to establish a joint venture.
<< <i>Imho, NGC clearly explains the designation. Maybe the person suing should take a look at the retail marketer's representations. >>
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't think you can take a common phrase, change the definition, place the definition on an obscure webpage somewhere and expect a reasonable person to find it. In case law, I think it's even been proven that people don't read click through agreements for installing software and putting the text right there in front of them doesn't mean anything. If presenting someone with an agreement that they click on won't protect you, I don't see how putting text on a webpage that's not even referenced on the slab will. I don't think it's clear at all. IMO, it would be clearer if their definition was printed on the back of the insert. >>
When someone submits to the grading service seeking a certain designation, it would be assumed that they knew for what they were asking. Since NGC does not sell coins, the telemarketer would be the one liable for the representations and not NGC.
<< Imho, NGC clearly explains the designation. Maybe the person suing should take a look at the retail marketer's representations. >>
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't think you can take a common phrase, change the definition, place the definition on an obscure webpage somewhere and expect a reasonable person to find it. In case law, I think it's even been proven that people don't read click through agreements for installing software and putting the text right there in front of them doesn't mean anything. If presenting someone with an agreement that they click on won't protect you, I don't see how putting text on a webpage that's not even referenced on the slab will. I don't think it's clear at all. IMO, it would be clearer if their definition was printed on the back of the insert. >>
When someone submits to the grading service seeking a certain designation, it would be assumed that they knew for what they were asking. Since NGC does not sell coins, the telemarketer would be the one liable for the representations and not NGC. >>
not everyone is a submitter, or aware of the alternative definition of first strike
I think the damages are quite real. For instance look at the price of a gold Buffalo in MS 70 with first strike and without. The coins graded after the "deadline" for the designation could have been with newer dies than some of the latter coins but they don't have the designation. The difference in price can be $1000 or more. the coins without the desigantion are often earlie die strike coins, so the "First" part of the designation is very misleading. I think that may be the only coins that should have first stike are those that coin from coin and die sets.
You may see more lawsuits against the companies that are allowing their sales people to say that "First Strike" is in fact the first run from the mint. Despite the statement from the mint unscrupulous dealers/telemarketing companies are still doing this as of yesterday.
Putting "first strike" on any holder after the mint released that statement is just making it easier for these low lifes to rip people off.
I have written here on multiple occasions that the TPGs needed to put a disclosure statement on the slab. NGC could have avoided this whole mess with less than thirty tiny words. I don't know what exactly NGC has disclosed on their website but I know PCGS openly defined First Strike as recent as late Spring 2006 on their web site as:
<< <i>first strike A coin struck early in the life of a die. First strikes sometimes are characterized by striated or mirror-like fields if the die was polished. Almost always fully or well struck, with crisp detail. >>
I have no idea how many thousands were sold prior to them changing the definition on their site. BTW, the CU owned coin facts site had a similar definition on the site into the summer. CU simply removed the glossary at that time.
1. How is this person going to prove the coin was NOT a First Strike ?
2. What is the definition of First Strike? If the Mint sends out coins before ALL the coins have been struck, then the first set of coins were struck first.
<< <i>The end? No chance. But they may have to act a bit more responsibly in the future. >>
Are you saying the grading services that are pushing the "First Strike" designation are currently acting irresponsibly?
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
Yep, there is trouble here in River City...once the mint put out the statement that they could not determine a First Strike themselves...how could someone else!
<< Imho, NGC clearly explains the designation. Maybe the person suing should take a look at the retail marketer's representations. >>
>>
When someone submits to the grading service seeking a certain designation, it would be assumed that they knew for what they were asking. Since NGC does not sell coins, the telemarketer would be the one liable for the representations and not NGC. >>
not everyone is a submitter, or aware of the alternative definition of first strike >>
But if you are a coin collector you should understand the minting process and grading games, etc, etc etc. Who you going after next, used car salesmen?!?!?!?!!!
<< <i>I though PCGS was the first to use this first strike desingnation in there holders. >>
This case is using Florida's very tough deceptive practices law. I've seen a lot of comments about not violating FTC regulations. This is not about federal law, it's about state law. So the logical choice is NGC who operates in FL. If successful, I am sure that others will follow. Although the others are not based in FL, they have operated there. Not just by mail, but in person ie: the FUN show. I am sure the others are watching this very closely.
I see that PCGS has added a definition to their coin lingo page:
First Stike (TM)- Beginning in 2004, PCGS began designating coins delivered by the U.S. Mint in the 30 day period following the initial sales date of a new product as "First Strike". For instance, new American Silver Eagles typically go on sale each January 1st, thus any coins delivered between January 1 and January 31 qualify for the First Strike (TM) designation.
Nice job of CYA I guess they will hang their hat on the premise that the numismatic term first strike is competely different from the capitalized and trademarked First Strike (TM) Funny thing tho, they are missing the definition for first strike on the page . I guess they just ran out of room
It is my fervant wish, that as a result of this challenge, the term 'first strike' dies a miserable, gagging, painful death in numismatics. Next up? Perhaps AT/NT? We can only hope..... Cheers, RickO
<< <i>Certainly trying to find the best coins by finding the first shipped is a waste of time and effort. With many circulation issues they are made in such large quantities that even looking at first production will probably be a waste. >>
cladking - that is probably the best summation of the underlying issue.
Beyond that, this whole affair clearly illustrates the influence and dependency of collectors and investors on the TPGs today. With all due respect to the decent TPGs, as I do recognize the value they have truly added to the hobby, we have far too many collectors today who cannot grade a coin with any confidence, though many of them won't admit it. They depend on some parenting service to tell them if a coin is uncirculated, prooflike, ... Needing a label designation, like First Strike, to signify particular production merit is pathetically lame and deserves ridicule. If indeed First Strike did really mean higher quality and of a nature not reflected in the grade, I suppose it would be helpful for the sight-unseen market (which is rapidly shrinking with reasonable imaging of coins) -- but that is not apparently the case.
Just too many (to quote our pal Mikey on here) "paralyzed by plastic" folks involved in coins today. What a case like this decides really is whether their incompetence is relevant to the hobby per the bench, and that is where the danger in an affirmative ruling lies. We have been tap dancing around this issue for a long time. It admits the occasional hucksters who get to the greenhorns before we can but it also keeps regulation out. One would hope parties who engage in labeling and marketing of coins and who are the most sensitive to any future regulatory threat would be very cautious going forward with things like this that will only bait the hook.
Any grading company that reads its own message boards had fair warning of something like this lawsuit. I assume that they -- like any other company -- made a strictly financial decision to proceed after weighing anticipated revenue against potential costs. I doubt that the numismatic value of the "First Strike" designation played any part in the decision.
<< <i>Any grading company that reads its own message boards had fair warning of something like this lawsuit. I assume that they -- like any other company -- made a strictly financial decision to proceed after weighing anticipated revenue against potential costs. I doubt that the numismatic value of the "First Strike" designation played any part in the decision. >>
Some companies have an unofficial "do no evil" policy so they look hypocritical and get called on it when they appear to do so. Other companies have no such policy so they aren't hypocritical when they engage in these behaviors
It is not as simple if you already have a mountain of them out there with the designation on their labels. You discontinue the practice to avoid any liability in it, those existing ones become a suddenly enhanced liability themselves, with very clear trading margins. Hope everyone finds a good way out of this pickle. I am sure it has consumed a lot of hours of legal staff labor and board meetings already. And this is all supposed to be a fun hobby, huh?
NGCs product represents a grading opinion. They also guarantee certain "things" such as authenticity. How they arrive at that opinion is "Proprietary" like wise so is their marketing. Proprietary. The use of the word "proprietary" as an adjective is descriptive. If their marketing is of the opinion that this coin or coins represents a "First Strike" or there abouts considering the coins source. It can be opined "First Strike" The suit is without merit.
All that this or any other TPG does is not listed above and is my opinion on the "First Strike" issue. Whether or not you or I like it, the "First Strike" is a marketing ploy. IMHO. got that? MY HUMBLE OPINION. Not my research of case law.
I own an HVAC/R company I have been in business, for myself, for 14years. Yet, it is perfectly legal for me to advertise 30 years experience. Why? Because I have that much experience in this business. That's marketing. Amongst a slew of other things one could use to advance his or her business.
If NGC wants to call a coin a "First Strike" and you understand coins you understand what you are buying, and you should, then refer to the above.
But you are assuming that people understand things and that is a bad assumption to make.....
You can't assume that collectors understand anything, in my opinion First Strike is a misleading term, first strike means first coins off of the die in my opinion and probably a majority of collectors.....
This is an assumption on my part, but a reasonable one and one with roots in collecting tradition I believe.....
Collection under construction: VG Barber Quarters & Halves
I think the TPG's brought this mess upon them themselves.They know what the actual term means.To call a later coin the same is just plain nonsense.The mint even issued a statement to clarify their nonsense.The first coins from the dies are First Strike...The mint gets them ...If there are more struck then they are seconds.......
I don't know, I'm really against the First Strike concept because it's pretty cheezy for one thing, and for another it's just another part of the endless TPG game. Is it misleading/deceptive? I can see how some would say yes, however, I also believe in caveat emptor, and all one has to do is look on eBay at these coins, and seeing that 99.9% of them are labeled as "First Strike" SHOULD clue in anybody with more than a few brain cells.
<< <i>All this fuss over meaningless bullion pieces.... >>
And it would all go away if they just droped the misleading designation. Funny how that's the one thing that's not happening, especially for companies who's main business includes AUTHENTICATION. Are these Authentic Fake First Strikes
see if i can get it back on here a bit, imo the legal damages that might be incurred by any of the grading services over this is minor to the loss in credibility. win or lose, the whole thing has diminished their credibility. and maybe they don't care, maybe they never inteneded on a long term business model.
Comments
Attorneys will get $500k in fees, and each NGC customer will get a 50 cent coupon for every "first strike" coin they bought.
And if I were the plaintiffs' lawyer, I'd name them as co-defendants so that the evidence comes in. In fact, I'd likely explore the business relationship between the TPGs and the telemarketers to establish a joint venture.
<< <i>
<< <i>Imho, NGC clearly explains the designation. Maybe the person suing should take a look at the retail marketer's representations. >>
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't think you can take a common phrase, change the definition, place the definition on an obscure webpage somewhere and expect a reasonable person to find it. In case law, I think it's even been proven that people don't read click through agreements for installing software and putting the text right there in front of them doesn't mean anything. If presenting someone with an agreement that they click on won't protect you, I don't see how putting text on a webpage that's not even referenced on the slab will. I don't think it's clear at all. IMO, it would be clearer if their definition was printed on the back of the insert. >>
When someone submits to the grading service seeking a certain designation, it would be assumed that they knew for what they were asking. Since NGC does not sell coins, the telemarketer would be the one liable for the representations and not NGC.
<< <i><<
<< Imho, NGC clearly explains the designation. Maybe the person suing should take a look at the retail marketer's representations. >>
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't think you can take a common phrase, change the definition, place the definition on an obscure webpage somewhere and expect a reasonable person to find it. In case law, I think it's even been proven that people don't read click through agreements for installing software and putting the text right there in front of them doesn't mean anything. If presenting someone with an agreement that they click on won't protect you, I don't see how putting text on a webpage that's not even referenced on the slab will. I don't think it's clear at all. IMO, it would be clearer if their definition was printed on the back of the insert. >>
When someone submits to the grading service seeking a certain designation, it would be assumed that they knew for what they were asking. Since NGC does not sell coins, the telemarketer would be the one liable for the representations and not NGC. >>
not everyone is a submitter, or aware of the alternative definition of first strike
Settlement with ALL reputable TPGs…and thankfully an end to FS designation.
FloridaBill
...
...
Putting "first strike" on any holder after the mint released that statement is just making it easier for these low lifes to rip people off.
<< <i>first strike
A coin struck early in the life of a die. First strikes sometimes are characterized by striated or mirror-like fields if the die was polished. Almost always fully or well struck, with crisp detail. >>
I have no idea how many thousands were sold prior to them changing the definition on their site. BTW, the CU owned coin facts site had a similar definition on the site into the summer. CU simply removed the glossary at that time.
<< <i>Is this the beginning of the end for the grading services? >>
oohhh, Laura pulls out the big stick to stir the pot.
This will go to 500 easy now. Let me get my popcorn.
The end? No chance. But they may have to act a bit more responsibly in the future.
Two things:
1. How is this person going to prove the coin was NOT a First Strike ?
2. What is the definition of First Strike? If the Mint sends out coins before ALL the coins have been struck, then the first set of coins were struck first.
This case is going no where.
<< <i>The end? No chance. But they may have to act a bit more responsibly in the future. >>
Are you saying the grading services that are pushing the "First Strike" designation are currently acting irresponsibly?
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>The magic 8 ball says this thread has will have a short life span. >>
Surprising this has lasted through the night and continues to grow.
<< <i>
<< <i>The end? No chance. But they may have to act a bit more responsibly in the future. >>
Are you saying the grading services that are pushing the "First Strike" designation are currently acting irresponsibly?
I did not say that.
<< <i>
<< <i><<
<< Imho, NGC clearly explains the designation. Maybe the person suing should take a look at the retail marketer's representations. >>
>>
When someone submits to the grading service seeking a certain designation, it would be assumed that they knew for what they were asking. Since NGC does not sell coins, the telemarketer would be the one liable for the representations and not NGC. >>
not everyone is a submitter, or aware of the alternative definition of first strike >>
But if you are a coin collector you should understand the minting process and grading games, etc, etc etc. Who you going after next, used car salesmen?!?!?!?!!!
<< <i>Another frivolous lawsuit leading to higher consumer prices and lack of confidence in the company. >>
In this particular case, it wasn't the lawsuit that led to higher prices & a new lack of confidence.
I suspect that this lawsuit could eventually reach class action status.
PCGS, ANACS, & NGC Certified Coins on My Website.
<< <i>I though PCGS was the first to use this first strike desingnation in there holders.
This case is using Florida's very tough deceptive practices law. I've seen a lot of comments about not violating FTC regulations. This is not about federal law, it's about state law. So the logical choice is NGC who operates in FL. If successful, I am sure that others will follow. Although the others are not based in FL, they have operated there. Not just by mail, but in person ie: the FUN show. I am sure the others are watching this very closely.
First Stike (TM)- Beginning in 2004, PCGS began designating coins delivered by the U.S. Mint in the 30 day period following the initial sales date of a new product as "First Strike". For instance, new American Silver Eagles typically go on sale each January 1st, thus any coins delivered between January 1 and January 31 qualify for the First Strike (TM) designation.
Nice job of CYA
I guess they will hang their hat on the premise that the numismatic term first strike is competely different from the capitalized and trademarked First Strike (TM)
Funny thing tho, they are missing the definition for first strike on the page . I guess they just ran out of room
<< <i>
I suspect that this lawsuit could eventually reach class action status. >>
The original post states that it is a class action.
<< <i>Certainly trying to find the best coins by finding the first shipped is a waste of time and effort.
With many circulation issues they are made in such large quantities that even looking at first
production will probably be a waste. >>
cladking - that is probably the best summation of the underlying issue.
Beyond that, this whole affair clearly illustrates the influence and dependency of collectors and investors on the TPGs today. With all due respect to the decent TPGs, as I do recognize the value they have truly added to the hobby, we have far too many collectors today who cannot grade a coin with any confidence, though many of them won't admit it. They depend on some parenting service to tell them if a coin is uncirculated, prooflike, ... Needing a label designation, like First Strike, to signify particular production merit is pathetically lame and deserves ridicule. If indeed First Strike did really mean higher quality and of a nature not reflected in the grade, I suppose it would be helpful for the sight-unseen market (which is rapidly shrinking with reasonable imaging of coins) -- but that is not apparently the case.
Just too many (to quote our pal Mikey on here) "paralyzed by plastic" folks involved in coins today. What a case like this decides really is whether their incompetence is relevant to the hobby per the bench, and that is where the danger in an affirmative ruling lies. We have been tap dancing around this issue for a long time. It admits the occasional hucksters who get to the greenhorns before we can but it also keeps regulation out. One would hope parties who engage in labeling and marketing of coins and who are the most sensitive to any future regulatory threat would be very cautious going forward with things like this that will only bait the hook.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>Any grading company that reads its own message boards had fair warning of something like this lawsuit. I assume that they -- like any other company -- made a strictly financial decision to proceed after weighing anticipated revenue against potential costs. I doubt that the numismatic value of the "First Strike" designation played any part in the decision. >>
Some companies have an unofficial "do no evil" policy so they look hypocritical and get called on it when they appear to do so. Other companies have no such policy so they aren't hypocritical when they engage in these behaviors
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
guarantee certain "things" such as authenticity. How they
arrive at that opinion is "Proprietary" like wise so is their marketing.
Proprietary.
The use of the word "proprietary" as an adjective is descriptive.
If their marketing is of the opinion that this coin or coins represents
a "First Strike" or there abouts considering the coins source. It can
be opined "First Strike"
The suit is without merit.
All that this or any other TPG does is not listed above and is my
opinion on the "First Strike" issue. Whether or not you or I like it,
the "First Strike" is a marketing ploy. IMHO.
got that? MY HUMBLE
OPINION. Not my research of case law.
I own an HVAC/R company I have been in business, for myself, for
14years. Yet, it is perfectly legal for me to advertise 30 years
experience. Why? Because I have that much experience in this
business. That's marketing. Amongst a slew of other things one
could use to advance his or her business.
If NGC wants to call a coin a "First Strike" and you understand coins
you understand what you are buying, and you should, then refer
to the above.
the average person completely knows the difference between First Strike and First Strike™
But you are assuming that people understand things and that is a bad assumption to make.....
You can't assume that collectors understand anything, in my opinion First Strike is a misleading term, first strike means first coins off of the die in my opinion and probably a majority of collectors.....
This is an assumption on my part, but a reasonable one and one with roots in collecting tradition I believe.....
Looking for alot of crap.
<< <i>100 ...now i'm happy!
Happy... to be a cheater, you mean.
i don't try that hard.
<< <i>All this fuss over meaningless bullion pieces....
And it would all go away if they just droped the misleading designation. Funny how that's the one thing that's not happening, especially for companies who's main business includes AUTHENTICATION. Are these Authentic Fake First Strikes
imo the legal damages that might be incurred by any of the grading services over this is minor to the loss in credibility.
win or lose, the whole thing has diminished their credibility.
and maybe they don't care, maybe they never inteneded on a long term business model.
Fred, Las Vegas, NV