PCGS files lawsuit against alleged coin doctors...

[MarkFeld]

I bet that there will be a lot of very nervous coin doctors around the country, whether they will admit it or not.

 

 

" PCGS Announces Next Steps to Improve and Protect Hobby

 

- May 28, 2010

 

 

(Santa Ana, California) - Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) today revealed additional steps it is taking to improve its ability to detect altered coins. PCGS announced that it has a process in development which will detect any foreign substance on a coin's surface, and also announced a major lawsuit filed against alleged coin doctors.

 

According to PCGS officials, in conjunction with the development of coin recognition technology launched in March of this year, PCGS has been developing a process to detect foreign materials and other enhancements to a coin's surfaces. Using energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDX), Fournier Transform Infra-Red Spectral analysis (FT-IR), Raman Spectroscopy and other similar analytical techniques, this detection process (code-named by PCGS the PCGS Coin Sniffer™) will analyze the surfaces of a coin in a matter of seconds to detect foreign substances and provide quantitative information about the coin. "Coin doctors" often apply numerous materials to the surfaces of coins to conceal problems with the coin, and/or alter the surfaces to improve its appearance in an attempt to artificially increase its value. The simultaneous alloy determination will further aid in the detection of counterfeits as an additional benefit.

 

David Hall, cofounder of PCGS and President of its parent company Collectors Universe, Inc. said, "when we launched PCGS Secure Plus featuring coin recognition technology we stated that it was just a first step in improving grading and battling coin doctoring. The PCGS Coin Sniffer™ is the next significant development in our ongoing efforts. When combined with our existing PCGS Secure Plus service, this new process will make it extremely difficult for altered coins to go undetected."

 

"This new process is somewhat similar to what we often see as we are going through security at an airport" said Don Willis, PCGS President. "We have already filed a patent which covers the methodology and unique techniques we are using for processing coins. The new PCGS Coin Sniffer™ process will be integrated with the help of our partner CoinSecure Inc into the PCGS Secure Plus service and will be available at no additional cost. Our targeted production implementation is by this year end, although we will be conducting live testing much before then."

 

Additionally, Collectors Universe, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLCT), the parent company of the PCGS, has filed a Federal Court suit in United States District Court, Central District of California, against several individuals claiming they engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, breach of contract, conspiracy, unfair competition and fraud for allegedly submitting 'doctored' coins to PCGS for grading on multiple occasions for a period of years.

 

The suit claims the dealers violated federal laws, including the Lanham Act involving interstate commerce and RICO racketeering statutes, and also alleges "unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices" for submitting coins that were deceptively altered in an attempt to increase their value. The Complaint states: "Defendants knew that these coins had been 'doctored,' by themselves and/or other persons engaged by them for that purpose. Their methods included lasering the surfaces of extremely rare proof gold coins to remove surface imperfections, building up commonly-worn or weakly-struck portions of coins, and other physical and chemical processes. Defendants represented to PCGS that these coins had natural surfaces, intending to deceive PCGS's graders so that the 'doctored' coins would be certified by PCGS and then sold in the rare coin marketplace."

 

The suit claims the "Defendants have caused, and are continuing to cause, substantial and irreparable damage and injury to Collectors Universe and to the public and Defendants have benefited from such unlawful conduct and will continue to carry out such unlawful conduct and to be unjustly enriched thereby unless enjoined by this Court."

 

As many as 10 other defendants could be added to the Complaint. Collectors Universe is suing for triple damages as well as all profits made through these deceptive submissions.

 

"Every owner of a PCGS coin should be confident in the fact that PCGS stands behind its product guarantee 100%. Over the past 24 years PCGS has paid over $7 million under its guarantee program for coins which have developed some type of problem due to coin doctoring or some other issue," said David Hall. "Occasionally our graders have been deceived by the very clever application of foreign substances only to have these substances eventually spoil the coin and necessitate our buying it back. We believe we have compelling evidence against several individuals who, working together and separately, have made a business out of this practice. And we hope to develop evidence against others whom we believe either engaged in doctoring or conspired to profit by it. We hope the courts will provide a suitable remedy to this problem."

 

"We firmly believe coin doctoring to alter a coin's appearance is clearly illegal under the law", Hall continued, "and we know that it often ruins coins long term and certainly deceives grading services and future coin buyers. Today's announcements of the development of scientific doctoring detection and also the lawsuit filed against alleged coin doctors is another big step in the anti-coin doctoring process, but we will not be finished until we eliminate this unsavory practice once and for all."

 

PCGS is a division of Collectors Universe, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLCT)"

 

[jtryka]

So I am not quite clear on this, if the so called "doctors" tried to convince the PCGS graders that the coins were natural, and they didn't believe them and hence didn't certify them, then there is not harm right? If they did certify them, then wouldn't that just be negligence on the part of PCGS since they hold themselves out to be the "experts" on such things?

 

Or is this just a matter of PCGS getting some PR from trying to recover their payouts under their guarantee for doctored coins?

[MarkFeld]

So I am not quite clear on this, if the so called "doctors" tried to convince the PCGS graders that the coins were natural, and they didn't believe them and hence didn't certify them, then there is not harm right? If they did certify them, then wouldn't that just be negligence on the part of PCGS since they hold themselves out to be the "experts" on such things?

 

Or is this just a matter of PCGS getting some PR from trying to recover their payouts under their guarantee for doctored coins?

I am guessing that some coins were graded and others weren't. Either way, typically, dealers who want to become authorized member dealers agree to certain terms and conditions when they sign up with a grading company. And, for example, if the dealers doctored coins and/or submitted coins for others who they knew had done so, they were in violation of those agreements.

 

Your post makes me think that you might wish to deflect blame from the coin doctors to PCGS - I hope that is not the case.

 

I say good for PCGS and the industry.

[kryptonitecomics]

If it works they way they say it is certainly a good thing but I am more than a bit skeptical without seeing some test cases/examples etc. I believe that potentially good coins will get bagged with this process, which really isn't a change from what they are doing now but I don't believe legit coins bagged already will ever find a place in their graded holders even if they pass the sniff test.

 

Certainly the idea is a step in the right direction as far as building up consumer confidence in buying toned coins among others.....

[jtryka]

So I am not quite clear on this, if the so called "doctors" tried to convince the PCGS graders that the coins were natural, and they didn't believe them and hence didn't certify them, then there is not harm right? If they did certify them, then wouldn't that just be negligence on the part of PCGS since they hold themselves out to be the "experts" on such things?

 

Or is this just a matter of PCGS getting some PR from trying to recover their payouts under their guarantee for doctored coins?

I am guessing that some coins were graded and others weren't. Either way, typically, dealers who want to become authorized member dealers agree to certain terms and conditions when they sign up with a grading company. And, for example, if the dealers doctored coins and/or submitted coins for others who they knew had done so, they were in violation of those agreements.

 

Your post makes me think that you might wish to deflect blame from the coin doctors to PCGS - I hope that is not the case.

 

I say good for PCGS and the industry.

 

Mark,

 

I am certainly not trying to deflect blame from the "doctors" but I do find it troubling that the reason many doctors are likely in business, and why they do the things they do so aggressively is the chance at a big payday should their wares slip by the TPGs. I just don't think that PCGS' or any of the TPGs' have really "clean hands" with regard to this issue either. The way I see it, the "doctors" are guilty of fraud, the TPGs were duped and graded the fraudulent material, they were called to account by collectors, dealers and other purchasers of certified coins, they made good (?) on their guarantees and bought the coins back, now they are simply going back to the original parties that caused the fraud to recover their damages. PCGS is simply using the situation as a good PR move.

 

Really, this is no different than if you as a dealer sold a stolen coin to a customer. If you found it was stolen, the police would confiscate the coin from your customer, and return it to the rightful owner. You being a solid upstanding dealer would give a refund to your customer, and your would then have the right to bring an action against the person that sold you the coin to recover the cost, and so on until we got to the thief. You suing the seller doesn't make you a hero, it simply makes you a middleman. Maybe that's a great thing if you bust up a coin stealing ring, but it doesn't make you the great hero that PCGS is trying to make themselves out to be.

 

Just my .

[Schatzy]

The Defendants named in the suit include: Al Rossman of Nevada, Rick Wesslink of California, and Robert Lehmann of Maryland, in addition to three members of the Professional Numismatists Guild who were also named; Eric Steinberg of Florida, Silvano DiGenova of California, and Greg Krill of California

 

PCGS sated that as many as 10 other defendants could be added to the Complaint.

 

A couple of examples given in the complaint include the following coins:

 

1926-D 25C, originally submitted to PCGS on March 23, 2001 through Liberty Coins. Re-purchased in September 23, 2008 under PCGS Guarantee. Liverty’s head artificially enhanced.

 

1810 $10 gold piece, originally submitted to PCGS on November 29, 2006 through Defendant Steinberg. Re-purchased in June 2009 for $1800 under PCGS Guarantee. Foreign substance added to coin’s surface to cover marks.

 

1881 $2.5 gold piece, originally submitted to PCGS on Dec 16, 2009 by Steinberg on behalf of Defendant Rossman, held by PCGS pending trial in this action. Lines on coin’s surface lasered off.

 

1885 $5 gold piece, originally submitted to PCGS on Dec 16, 2009 by Steinberg on behalf of Defendant Rossman. Foreign substance added to coin’s surface to cover marks.

 

1879 $4 Stella gold piece, Originally submitted by Heritage on May 8, 2008. Resubmitted on August 28, 2009 by DiGenova after having been laser treated to remove lines. PCGS refused to grade the coin.

 

1918-D Mecury 10C, orginially submitted to PCGS on May 17, 2001 by Defendant Digenova’s company, Tangible Assets. Re-purchased in April 27, 2010 for $90,000 under PCGS Guarantee. Crossbands on dime had been rebuilt.

 

1833 Bust 50C, originally submitted on April 8, 2004 by Superior Galleries. Re-purchased in June 22, 2008 for $8,500 under PCGS Guarantee.

 

1928-D Standing Liberty 25C, originally submitted on May 30, 2001 by Digenova’s company, Tangible Assets. Re-purchased in March 2005 for $4,650 under PCGS Guarantee. Liberty’s Head was rebuilt to appear “full”.

 

1904 $20 gold piece, originally submitted April 1998 by Krill. Re-purchased December 2007 for $1,250 under PCGS Guarantee. Foreign substance applied.

 

1926-D Standing Liberty 25c originally submitted in July 2001 by Lehmann. Re-purchased in June 2007 for $7,500 under PCGS Guarantee. Liberty’s head rebuilt.

 

1919-S Mercury dim originally submitted on August 13, 2001 by Lehmann. Re-purchased in September 2009 for $4,887. Crossbans on dime had been rebuilt.

 

1918-S quarter orginally submitted in April 2001 by Dan Ratner. Re-purchased in February 2007 for $3500. Liberty’s heat rebuilt.

 

[Schatzy]

Certainly the idea is a step in the right direction as far as building up consumer confidence in buying toned coins among others.....

 

Actually the lawsuit has nothing to do with toned coins.

[MarkFeld]

Certainly the idea is a step in the right direction as far as building up consumer confidence in buying toned coins among others.....

 

Actually the lawsuit has nothing to do with toned coins.

I don't know where you get that. A number of the coins listed were noted as having substances added to the surfaces - that might or might not have to do with toned coins. And we also don't know what other coins might be included or what other defendants might later be named. For all we know, this could be the tip of the iceberg.

[kryptonitecomics]

Certainly the idea is a step in the right direction as far as building up consumer confidence in buying toned coins among others.....

 

Actually the lawsuit has nothing to do with toned coins.

I don't know where you get that. A number of the coins listed were noted as having substances added to the surfaces - that might or might not have to do with toned coins. And we also don't know what other coins might be included or what other defendants might later be named. For all we know, this could be the tip of the iceberg.

 

I was referring to the process of sniffing out AT coins....not PCGS suing someone...that's potentially an added bonus if these individuals are found guilty. The process will add to consumer confidence as would prosecution identified doctors. It's funny that some of us know the names of coin doctors but it has taken many years for me to see any chargesd filed against anyone....and I don't see names on the list that should be but they have to start somewhere.... (thumbs u

[MarkFeld]

Certainly the idea is a step in the right direction as far as building up consumer confidence in buying toned coins among others.....

 

Actually the lawsuit has nothing to do with toned coins.

I don't know where you get that. A number of the coins listed were noted as having substances added to the surfaces - that might or might not have to do with toned coins. And we also don't know what other coins might be included or what other defendants might later be named. For all we know, this could be the tip of the iceberg.

 

I was referring to the process of sniffing out AT coins....not PCGS suing someone...that's potentially an added bonus if these individuals are found guilty. The process will add to consumer confidence as would prosecution identified doctors. It's funny that some of us know the names of coin doctors but it has taken many years for me to see any chargesd filed against anyone....and I don't see names on the list that should be but they have to start somewhere.... (thumbs u

Shane, I was referring to the reply to your post - "Actually the lawsuit has nothing to do with toned coins. "

[James_OldeTowne]

I would love to see the brakes put on activities such as puttying coins and lasering off scratches and such. But I seriously doubt PCGS has any chance of winning such a lawsuit, as described above.

[kryptonitecomics]

Certainly the idea is a step in the right direction as far as building up consumer confidence in buying toned coins among others.....

 

Actually the lawsuit has nothing to do with toned coins.

I don't know where you get that. A number of the coins listed were noted as having substances added to the surfaces - that might or might not have to do with toned coins. And we also don't know what other coins might be included or what other defendants might later be named. For all we know, this could be the tip of the iceberg.

 

I was referring to the process of sniffing out AT coins....not PCGS suing someone...that's potentially an added bonus if these individuals are found guilty. The process will add to consumer confidence as would prosecution identified doctors. It's funny that some of us know the names of coin doctors but it has taken many years for me to see any chargesd filed against anyone....and I don't see names on the list that should be but they have to start somewhere.... (thumbs u

Shane, I was referring to the reply to your post - "Actually the lawsuit has nothing to do with toned coins. "

 

 

I know just clarifying at the end of the posts conected to mine via quotes....

[MarkFeld]

Wow, the timing of this announcement is intriguing to me. I just cataloged an expensive but severely doctored coin in a PCGS "no problems" holder! As a matter of fact, I've recommended to the auction company that the coin be rejected and sent back to the consignor. It is too embarrassing a coin to be associated with.

 

(The problem isn't unique to PCGS of course. I've recommended rejection on about a 50/50 rate between PCGS and NGC coins.)

 

I would love to see the brakes put on activities such as puttying coins and lasering off scratches and such. But I seriously doubt PCGS has any chance of winning such a lawsuit, as described above.

Have you looked at their authorized dealer agreement, and the language pertaining to coin doctoring?

[WoodenJefferson]

Mark, I'm sure you remeber this statement I made:

 

I’ve thought about this and came to the conclusion that by submitting a raw coin with known problems, especially ones that have been manipulated and covered up, is hedging on almost being libel.

 

What are your thoughts now?

 

[gmarguli]

Other than outing these people, I don't see what good will actually come of this with the exception of maybe scaring away some submissions from the so-called doctors. I do not believe this is going to have a favorable outcome for PCGS in a court.

 

How is this going to look in court? You have a company that proclaims itself to be the expert and now they are saying that people fooled them. Who is to blame, the people who allegedly tricked them or the experts that (for lack of a better term) aren't expert enough to detect these issues?

 

The simplest of facts regarding this is that had the graders spent just a little more time examining the coin (what they are paid to do), then it is highly likely that they would have been able to detect these problems and the coins would not have been holdered. Now who is to blame here that PCGS incurred costs associated with holdering these coins? Do you blame the person who doctored and submitted them or do you blame the company that has found a balance between speed and efficiency and knows that they will miss some problems at this level, but keeps the speed at the current level likely because they believe it is the most profitable level for them?

 

I'm also not sure how their graders were "deceived". Did the submitter misrepresent the coin as being unaltered in any way directly to the graders or did they just submit it and let the graders make up their mind about the condition of the coin? In order to be deceived, you'd have to be led to believe one thing that wasn't true. Who led the graders to believe anything?

[$ilverHawk]

I am in agreement with the published intentions of PCGS. However, IMHO this is grandstanding by PCGS looking for some positive PR. PCGS has been well aware that they have graded coins that have been altered. The law suit is a covering action by PCGS to protect their integrity.The horses are out of the barn.

 

As has been stated previously, The coin collecting community is well aware of certain "coin doctors". The facts are that when coins are altered and accepted by a TPG the integrity of collecting is diminished.

 

To me this is a prime example of why collectors should rely on their individual experience and judgement on the condition of a coin and not on the grade assigned by a TPG.

 

As a relative "newbie" I am becoming more convinced to rely on my experience and that of my fellow collectors rather than the evaluation of a TPG to establish the true condition/grade of a coin that I wish to acquire.

 

$ilverHawk

[gmarguli]

Wow, the timing of this announcement is intriguing to me. I just cataloged an expensive but severely doctored coin in a PCGS "no problems" holder! As a matter of fact, I've recommended to the auction company that the coin be rejected and sent back to the consignor. It is too embarrassing a coin to be associated with.

 

(The problem isn't unique to PCGS of course. I've recommended rejection on about a 50/50 rate between PCGS and NGC coins.)

 

I would love to see the brakes put on activities such as puttying coins and lasering off scratches and such. But I seriously doubt PCGS has any chance of winning such a lawsuit, as described above.

Have you looked at their authorized dealer agreement, and the language pertaining to coin doctoring?

 

Was the language there way back when some of these coins were originally submitted?

 

And who is to say that the recent submissions weren't being submitted for "Genuine Only" holders?

[physics-fan3.14]

Ignoring the lawsuit half of the press release, I think the Coin Sniffer is an absolutely fantastic innovation. Absolutely useful, and if it works with the accuracy that they claim, fantastically beneficial.

 

I wonder, can it sniff out AT/NT? How do they know which chemicals reacted naturally versus intentionally? Some chemicals might be easy to distinguish, of course, but many doctors use chemicals found on naturally toned coins, with different processes.

[jesbroken]

I personally feel this is a good thing that PCGS is doing and feel that it transcends grandstanding. They stand to spend a large sum of money taking this action and possibly even face lawsuits theirselves. Whenever someone stops something illegal it is amazing how many people say how they should have done something sooner. For this type of court action, a lot of time had to be spent gathering and documenting evidence in order to satisfy the action of filing a lawsuit and all that entails without leaving their company open to many lawsuits(whether frivolous or not). Obviously, many things are at stake here---peoples reputations(which will be tainted whether convicted or not), great amounts of monies will be spent pressing these suits and defending them, and lastly the protection of the hobby. I feel we should support any action that benefits our hobby and not be so quick to point fingers at either participants in this legal action. JMO

Jim

[MercuryMan]

If it helps keep down Coin Doctors I'm for it!

 

[Conder101]

if the so called "doctors" tried to convince the PCGS graders that the coins were natural, and they didn't believe them and hence didn't certify them, then there is not harm right?

No harm to PCGS, but the doctors are still guilty of fraud by altering the coins with the intent to deceive.

 

Frankly I like the coin sniffer idea, but it might have some problems with all the gunk that can get on coins naturally. It will help if it can do a quantitative analysis as well as a qualitative one.

[MarkFeld]

Mark, I'm sure you remeber this statement I made:

 

I’ve thought about this and came to the conclusion that by submitting a raw coin with known problems, especially ones that have been manipulated and covered up, is hedging on almost being libel.

 

What are your thoughts now?

My thoughts are that it has nothing to do with libel (" a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression"). However, I do agree that it could cause problems for the submitter if the grading company thinks he is trying to get it through as a non-problem coin, in order to get a grade. I guess the best thing to do in such cases would be to write a note on the submission invoice, indicating a desire for a genuine-only label.

[MarkFeld]

Other than outing these people, I don't see what good will actually come of this with the exception of maybe scaring away some submissions from the so-called doctors. I do not believe this is going to have a favorable outcome for PCGS in a court.

 

How is this going to look in court? You have a company that proclaims itself to be the expert and now they are saying that people fooled them. Who is to blame, the people who allegedly tricked them or the experts that (for lack of a better term) aren't expert enough to detect these issues?

 

The simplest of facts regarding this is that had the graders spent just a little more time examining the coin (what they are paid to do), then it is highly likely that they would have been able to detect these problems and the coins would not have been holdered. Now who is to blame here that PCGS incurred costs associated with holdering these coins? Do you blame the person who doctored and submitted them or do you blame the company that has found a balance between speed and efficiency and knows that they will miss some problems at this level, but keeps the speed at the current level likely because they believe it is the most profitable level for them?

 

I'm also not sure how their graders were "deceived". Did the submitter misrepresent the coin as being unaltered in any way directly to the graders or did they just submit it and let the graders make up their mind about the condition of the coin? In order to be deceived, you'd have to be led to believe one thing that wasn't true. Who led the graders to believe anything?

The blame would go to any submitters who violated their membership agreements, by submitting coins they had doctored or those they knew others had doctored. The graders were "deceived" by anyone who submitted coins under those circumstances, in violation of their agreement.

 

 

[cpm9ball]

Once they get all of the bugs worked out of the system, I wonder if I should resubmit a couple coins that they bagged for AT.

 

Chris

[Mark T]

People are we missing the whole point of a coin doctor ??

They make the sick coins feel better , we do want our coins to feel good , right ??

 

Seriously this coin sniffer technology is fantastic , I am surprised it took them so long to come up with this . Now they need to enable it to sniff through plastic

[physics-fan3.14]

 

Seriously this coin sniffer technology is fantastic , I am surprised it took them so long to come up with this . Now the need to enable it to sniff through plastic

 

Since most of this is based on light, there really isn't any reason that it couldn't. You would just have to subtract the light signature of the slab.

[Arizonadesertrat]

I am in agreement with the published intentions of PCGS. However, IMHO this is grandstanding by PCGS looking for some positive PR. PCGS has been well aware that they have graded coins that have been altered. The law suit is a covering action by PCGS to protect their integrity.The horses are out of the barn.

 

As has been stated previously, The coin collecting community is well aware of certain "coin doctors". The facts are that when coins are altered and accepted by a TPG the integrity of collecting is diminished.

 

To me this is a prime example of why collectors should rely on their individual experience and judgement on the condition of a coin and not on the grade assigned by a TPG.

 

As a relative "newbie" I am becoming more convinced to rely on my experience and that of my fellow collectors rather than the evaluation of a TPG to establish the true condition/grade of a coin that I wish to acquire.

 

$ilverHawk

 

Silver Hawk, I have been collecting coins off and on for 40+ years, and the problem with doctored coins is getting worse. Years ago, most of the doctoring involved whizzing and polishing--both are easy to spot if you know what to look for. Now, increasing numbers of skillfully doctored (tooled, AT'd, lasered) coins are appearing and a small percentage of these are getting by graders (whose coin evaluation skills are light years better than those of all but a handful of collectors). The coin docs that work on coppers have gotten good enough that the TPGs won't guarantee the color anymore.

 

Any collector who relies on his individual experience (with a few exceptions) will get burned unless he restricts his collecting interests to coins the coin doctors don't think are worth fooling with.

[MarkFeld]

I am in agreement with the published intentions of PCGS. However, IMHO this is grandstanding by PCGS looking for some positive PR. PCGS has been well aware that they have graded coins that have been altered. The law suit is a covering action by PCGS to protect their integrity.The horses are out of the barn.

 

As has been stated previously, The coin collecting community is well aware of certain "coin doctors". The facts are that when coins are altered and accepted by a TPG the integrity of collecting is diminished.

 

To me this is a prime example of why collectors should rely on their individual experience and judgement on the condition of a coin and not on the grade assigned by a TPG.

 

As a relative "newbie" I am becoming more convinced to rely on my experience and that of my fellow collectors rather than the evaluation of a TPG to establish the true condition/grade of a coin that I wish to acquire.

 

$ilverHawk

 

Silver Hawk, I have been collecting coins off and on for 40+ years, and the problem with doctored coins is getting worse. Years ago, most of the doctoring involved whizzing and polishing--both are easy to spot if you know what to look for. Now, increasing numbers of skillfully doctored (tooled, AT'd, lasered) coins are appearing and a small percentage of these are getting by graders (whose coin evaluation skills are light years better than those of all but a handful of collectors). The coin docs that work on coppers have gotten good enough that the TPGs won't guarantee the color anymore.

 

Any collector who relies on his individual experience (with a few exceptions) will get burned unless he restricts his collecting interests to coins the coin doctors don't think are worth fooling with.

NGC still guarantees copper for 10 years, if it was graded April 1, 2000 or later.

[Arizonadesertrat]

MF: Correction noted. Thanks for keeping me honest.

[$ilverHawk]

I just reread your post and you cut right to the point. PCGS and other TPGs are supposed to be able to detect altered coin submissions. That's their business.

 

In effect, PCGS is admitting that they have been fooled by coin doctors and are looking to the courts for injunctive relief.

 

If the main reason a company is in business is to act as a third party arbitor to establish the authenicity of a coin and they have on staff many trained experts to that end, why go running to the courts when your experts have failed in a small percentage of cases?

 

Is the arguement that the collecting community is being over run by the work of coin doctors and the TPG s are unable to do the job that their business is based on?

 

Do not misunderstand, I am all for any systems that will make coin collecting/investing a safer venture. But when I look at the timing and juxtaposition of various moves by PCGS as well as the nature of their announcements it strikes me as a Publicity Campaign.

 

TPGs are in the business to grade coins. PCGS spent money on developing/buying the new detection systems to cut down on buy backs and increase the bottom line. That's the truth and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

$ilverHawk