SEGS 1795 dollar ...the Continuing Saga
0

276 posts in this topic

15,660 posts
Why did SEGS not make good on the full value of the coin? Why did NCA make up the difference, when it was SEGS mistake?

If you are asking me, I don't know, though technically, the "full value of the coin" is zero dollars (OK, maybe a few dollars for intrinsic value if it is made of silver) since it is not a genuine coin. And I know nothing about "NCA".

 

But I also am not making favorable comments with regard to SEGS business practices, which I think are flimsy at best. I AM making very favorable comments with regard to Larry Briggs as a numismatist.

 

Edited to add: I trust that everyone on this board understands that my supportive comments pertain to Larry as a numismatist, not as a businessman, since frankly, I only have experience with him per the former.

Edited by James_EarlyUS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,875 posts

It is typical, after a downgrade, for grading services to try and offer what you paid for the coin, rather than the fair market value, even if the purchase was 10 years ago. It's simply cheaper for them. Their next line of defense is Blue Sheet!

 

And NO, technically, the fair market value is based on what SEGS graded the coin, because we are determining the value before the problem was discovered. Again, compensation is neccesary because it's counterfiet, not in spite of it, James ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,548 posts
Hi James- I was asking anyone that might know. I`m wondering why SEGS didn`t come through 100%?

 

 

Probably because on their website they state that after a 6 month period they assume no liability for grades, designations, and authentication.

Edited by 123cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
694 posts

Ok, so a coin bought 10 years ago is found to be fake. SEGS pays what the coin was purchased for. NCA came in and gave the difference of what it`s worth now. Does this sound right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,686 posts

The way I understand it, Al would still be in limbo if Mark had not intervened and gotten a numismatic advocacy group involved, headed by J. Albanese. They agreed upon a market value for a similar problem coin. SEGS then split the reimbursement cost with the advocacy group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
694 posts

It seems to me that SEGS should of paid 100% for the coin and NCA should not of been involved, but I`m probably missing something???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,686 posts
It seems to me that SEGS should of paid 100% for the coin and NCA should not of been involved, but I`m probably missing something???

 

You're right, of course. I think that Al is lucky to have even gotten paid. The way things were going, it appeared that the Sovereign Entity was going to keep the coin and the money! Now, their name is forever smeared because of their shenanigans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,660 posts
It is typical, after a downgrade, for grading services to try and offer what you paid for the coin, rather than the fair market value, even if the purchase was 10 years ago. It's simply cheaper for them. Their next line of defense is Blue Sheet!

 

And NO, technically, the fair market value is based on what SEGS graded the coin, because we are determining the value before the problem was discovered. Again, compensation is neccesary because it's counterfiet, not in spite of it, James ;)

If I were the owner of SEGS, I would have compared the cost of the coin to greysheet at that time, and paid a commensurate (and proportionate) amount based on greysheet today. So, suppose $1300 was paid for a greysheet $1500 coin, and further suppose that in the intervening 10 years, greysheet has risen to $3000. I would have paid $2600 as fair compensation. But that is how I would run the business, and I can't speak for others.

 

Ok, so a coin bought 10 years ago is found to be fake. SEGS pays what the coin was purchased for. NCA came in and gave the difference of what it`s worth now. Does this sound right?

Where does "NCA" get a pile of money to throw around like that :) , making good on other people's guarantees? I don't know who "NCA" is, but this sounds kind of weird to me....

 

Hi James- I was asking anyone that might know. I`m wondering why SEGS didn`t come through 100%?

Probably because on their website they state that after a 6 month period they assume no liability for grades, designations, and authentication.

Yep, I didn't want to bring it up, but that is the SEGS guarantee, and is one of the huge weaknesses I find in their business practices. Again, if I owned a grading company, it would provide an iron-clad guarantee for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
694 posts

According to their website NCA was started in 2003 by President and founder John Albanese. There are some heavy hitters that are members, so I guess that is where the money comes from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
615 posts
It seems to me that SEGS should of paid 100% for the coin and NCA should not of been involved, but I`m probably missing something???

 

You're right, of course. I think that Al is lucky to have even gotten paid. The way things were going, it appeared that the Sovereign Entity was going to keep the coin and the money! Now, their name is forever smeared because of their shenanigans.

 

 

 

James,

what is your opinion of the above quote?

ReAlone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
615 posts
The way I understand it, Al would still be in limbo if Mark had not intervened and gotten a numismatic advocacy group involved, headed by J. Albanese. They agreed upon a market value for a similar problem coin. SEGS then split the reimbursement cost with the advocacy group.

 

 

And lastly James,

what is your take on the above quote?

ReAlone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,660 posts
(1) It seems to me that SEGS should of paid 100% for the coin and NCA should not of been involved, but I`m probably missing something???

You're right, of course. I think that Al is lucky to have even gotten paid. The way things were going, it appeared that the Sovereign Entity was going to keep the coin and the money! (2) Now, their name is forever smeared because of their shenanigans.

 

(3) The way I understand it, Al would still be in limbo if Mark had not intervened and gotten a numismatic advocacy group involved, headed by J. Albanese. They agreed upon a market value for a similar problem coin. SEGS then split the reimbursement cost with the advocacy group.

 

James,

what is your opinion of the above quote(s)?

ReAlone

There are 3 points as I have numbered them above, so my responses are:

 

1. SEGS should have prorated the value of the coin based on greysheet per my previous post. The statement "SEGS should of paid 100%" is lacking since it doesn't have a reference point. 100% of what? retail? wholesale? sight-unseen wholesale? median auction value for the past ten sales? But I think we get the gist of the comment that RIAL should have been "made whole".

 

I think a proportion greysheet is the appropriate reference, since this was not an esoteric coin, and it commonly and reliably trades at greysheet levels (and it did so 10 years ago).

 

2. I disagree that the SEGS name is "forever smeared" because of this one incident. My opinion is that such a statement is almost always flawed under any circumstances. People were saying that PCGS was "forever smeared" because of the infamous Norweb Hibernia, and that was not true, nor should it have been. In three months, nobody will even remember this incident. However, if SEGS doesn't learn something from this, then they will have failed to turn a negative into a positive, which would be too bad.

 

3. I don't know what actions other parties took "behind the scenes", but I will say that I know of the actions of one particular person who has not even been mentioned, and I think he probably provided the biggest impetus for SEGS corrective action. I doubt that "NCA" was the primary motivator, even if they did contribute $1000 to the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
615 posts

james and all,

I am just not knowledgeable enough to know about Mr Bigs contributions to the hobby, thus my ignorance hampers my ability to have a total informed opinion and for that I do apologize. If I were to rewrite anything I would have only discussed this one incident as a mar against the man's reputation anything other than this event I do not speak of nor can i speak of due to be ignorance with the past. So if i made my opinion cover Mr Big with one fell swoop that was wrong on my part and I thank James for pointing that out. So just to be clear in this one incident it was so badly mishandled by Mr Bigs that I am basically in disbelief.

 

Second point, and something that I can talk from experience ,one of my biggest numismatic loss(s) is due to buying a SUGS holdered coin. Whether it be again to my ignorance with the hobby and the fact that I was a total newbee but that comb was deadly and allowed me to screw up buying a SUGS holdered coin. I understand they net grade, so if a coin is corroded, then state on the holder "CORROSION of CORRODED" rather then what they did put on the label which was "LIGHTLY ROUGH SURFACES" which I only found out later meant corrosion. To me that is bs.

Anyway I sent said coin to SUGS to see if they would relook at the coin becasue i still didn't know what lightly rough surfaces meant and wasn't sure why a local dealer who is an arse and the one I bought it from wouldn't take it back, I thought maybe they would see that they possibly made a mistake and the coin didn't have lightly rough surfaces for I didn't see any lightly rough surfaces, again I was a newbee. But guess what SUGS did on their own volition they cracked it out of the holder, threw away that label and its description and made me a new label, and it stated "LIGHT CORROSION" this time. So now I knew what lighty rough surfaces meant and I lost most of the value of the coin when I dumped it. Did you ever here of a tpg doing something like that?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,832 posts

3. I don't know what actions other parties took "behind the scenes", but I will say that I know of the actions of one particular person who has not even been mentioned, and I think he probably provided the biggest impetus for SEGS corrective action. I doubt that "NCA" was the primary motivator, even if they did contribute $1000 to the situation.

 

He has made him self known in his usual blunt and subtle way - hmmm Is that even possible 'to be bluntly subtle" He started his own thread and said he would not comment here further

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,875 posts
Ok, so a coin bought 10 years ago is found to be fake. SEGS pays what the coin was purchased for. NCA came in and gave the difference of what it`s worth now. Does this sound right?

 

That's what happened, but, NO, how could it possibly be right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,880 posts

I'm glad everything worked out well for you, Al.

 

Perhaps I missed it, but I've never even heard of NCA. Who are they, what do they do, where do they get their money, why do they give it away, what is their purpose? It is mighty generous of them to get involved, but I'd like to know a bit more about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,880 posts

Yeah, Mark Feld just sent me the website: www.stopcoinfraud.org

 

Looks like a good group, and I'm glad they were able to help Al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,932 posts

Hello, Guys.

 

Well, this conversation has certainly taken an unexpected turn. I had typed up one of my magnum opus posts here and promptly deleted it because I have nothing more to add, except the following:

 

First, thanks you for all your support and guidance on this. Had the original suggestion weeks ago to contact Mr. Briggs not been posted, none of this would have taken place and I would still be in possession of a fake 1795 dollar. So thank you for that advice.

 

Second, I have nothing but respect for Mr. Briggs and his handling of this issue. Bottom line, he had no obligation to do anything as the coin was WAY beyond the 6 month authenticity guaranty period as is policy of SEGS. Though I was a little a bit disappointed in the agreed upon compensation, the additional financial participation of the NCA and Mr. Albanese did help to bring the expected full compensation of $2200 a bit more up to line for the value of the piece and I am most grateful for their involvement. As pointed out to me by a most respected member of this board, because of the cleaning, it was not a high value coin, even if it was genuine.

 

It was NEVER my intention to question the integrity of Mr. Briggs and I deeply regret that some are not in agreement with me on this point. That's what public forums are for and agreement is not a prerequisite for participation. The length between beginning and end of this matter is now a non-issue in my mind as I know that Mr. Briggs is dealing with matters of far more significance than this.

 

Finally, it was suggested that if the coin was returned to me from SEGS as a fake and thus not certified, then I would have recourse against the seller and probably, I would have sought a replacement coin at the current market value back then. This is probably true. I counter than argument by asking how many businesses do you know that will take something back, on their own initiative, after an extended period of time and pay the buyer back the original selling price? Coins are different, I understand, and I did miss a significant upswing in value had I replaced the coin back years ago. That I regret. I never had any reason to question the accuracy of the SEGS slab and now won't be able to afford another 1795 at today's prices. I took a risk by buying the coin, SEGS miscalled the piece (how often does this happen with other grading services) and the result was voluntary compensation from Mr. Briggs, Mr. Albanese and the NCA.

 

So, all things considered, I am sadder but wiser, but I don't think I came out too badly in this. That damn coin was treasured by me, but in the long run, someday down the road when I sold it, I would feel truly badly if I found out later that it was a fake. I guess this did work out OK. I would rather all this whole event never happened, and PCGS slapped it in a "Genuine" labeled slab. It was not to be.

 

Another magnum opus post after all...sorry guys. doh!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,686 posts

So, Big Al, who was the original seller. Is he still active in the market?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,932 posts

Good question, E-ZE. When I have time, I am going to search for the receipt. I generally save that stuff, but off hand, I don't know who I bought it from. I'll bet he was glad to unload it though! Maybe he knew something I didn't????

 

When I (If I) find the receipt, I will be in touch with him...in the hopes that he will remember where HE got it (unless he made it in his garage...) my wildest fantasy is tracking it back to the original source...like, yea...that's gonna happen... ???? Of course, he will refund my $1200 too...when pigs fly.

 

RI AL...I got my computer back...so nice to be off that piece of ____ laptop.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
615 posts

RIAL you said the following in your last post:

"Second, I have nothing but respect for Mr. Briggs and his handling of this issue. Bottom line, he had no obligation to do anything as the coin was WAY beyond the 6 month authenticity guaranty period as is policy of SEGS. Though I was a little a bit disappointed in the agreed upon compensation, the additional financial participation of the NCA and Mr. Albanese did help to bring the expected full compensation of $2200 a bit more up to line for the value of the piece and I am most grateful for their involvement. As pointed out to me by a most respected member of this board, because of the cleaning, it was not a high value coin, even if it was genuine. "

 

My question is did the SEGS holder say that this coin was cleaned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,832 posts
RIAL you said the following in your last post:

"Second, I have nothing but respect for Mr. Briggs and his handling of this issue. Bottom line, he had no obligation to do anything as the coin was WAY beyond the 6 month authenticity guaranty period as is policy of SEGS. Though I was a little a bit disappointed in the agreed upon compensation, the additional financial participation of the NCA and Mr. Albanese did help to bring the expected full compensation of $2200 a bit more up to line for the value of the piece and I am most grateful for their involvement. As pointed out to me by a most respected member of this board, because of the cleaning, it was not a high value coin, even if it was genuine. "

 

My question is did the SEGS holder say that this coin was cleaned?

 

Why dont you read the Complete post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
615 posts

JR,

you definitely can be a pain in the arse. I don't remember and don't want to go thru 27 pages otherwise if I did remember I wouldn't ask. I can't remember if the holder said "cleaned", simple question and if you know the answer why don't you answer the question :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,932 posts

Hi, Realone.

 

Short and sweet. YES, the label said "VF 25 cleaned".

 

RI AL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
615 posts

RIAL,

thanks somewhere along the line I must have definitely missed that fact.

So the fair market value is as you state for a cleaned genuine vf25.

I also didn't know that SEGS had a 6 month guarantee which I just read about.

These two facts are interesting. The first thing I thought when I read 6 months is how generous of them extending their guarantee to 10 years and then I thought wait a second, we are discussing genuine not color, this is something that is permanent and should not have a restricted guarantee. A genuine opinion should last with the life of the holder, I mean what is the purpose of buying a holder if they can't get genuine correct?

And secondly as to the fact that SEGS correctly stated it was "Cleaned" on the holder should mean the value would be less than if it were original/uncleaned. They did right on the holder and in computing fair market value. The only two things that I have contention with is the time and way it was UN-handled and the shorting you of today's approx. market value. Now if Mr Briggs were truly and seriously ill that is a factor that can't be ignored, but the business model, how a grading company operates should mean that the business continue, that customer service carries on and expert decisions still go forward or what business model does he really have here. A grading company has to be always up and running and if it isn't then it isn't a true grading company and would be more comparable to a back in my garage based operation imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,875 posts
RIAL,

thanks somewhere along the line I must have definitely missed that fact.

So the fair market value is as you state for a cleaned genuine vf25.

I also didn't know that SEGS had a 6 month guarantee which I just read about.

These two facts are interesting. The first thing I thought when I read 6 months is how generous of them extending their guarantee to 10 years and then I thought wait a second, we are discussing genuine not color, this is something that is permanent and should not have a restricted guarantee. A genuine opinion should last with the life of the holder, I mean what is the purpose of buying a holder if they can't get genuine correct?

And secondly as to the fact that SEGS correctly stated it was "Cleaned" on the holder should mean the value would be less than if it were original/uncleaned. They did right on the holder and in computing fair market value. The only two things that I have contention with is the time and way it was UN-handled and the shorting you of today's approx. market value. Now if Mr Briggs were truly and seriously ill that is a factor that can't be ignored, but the business model, how a grading company operates should mean that the business continue, that customer service carries on and expert decisions still go forward or what business model does he really have here. A grading company has to be always up and running and if it isn't then it isn't a true grading company and would be more comparable to a back in my garage based operation imho.

 

Very well said!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,686 posts

I agree, very well put! We need more posts like that instead of snide remarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0