Is NGC on the hook for this? The auctioneer? Or me?

[DirtyGoldMan]

In an auction last year, I purchased an 1846-O $10 NGC-45. The coin was okay for the grade, and I tucked it away with my other O Mint $10's. Recently, I pulled it out and sent to a well-known rare gold coin dealer with the intent of trading it toward another purchase. He informed me that the coin I had was really an 1846/5-O. Sure enough, I received the coin back today, checked it in the definitive resource for New Orleans gold coins, and plain as day (if you know what you are looking for ), it is the overdate.

 

Do I have any recourse and with whom? The auctioneer? NGC? The dealer/expert who informed me that I was sold a misattributed coin? Or is it my own darn fault for not knowing all the nuances of the series I collect? BTW, the price difference in Trends for the XF-45 is $850, with the overdate being the less expensive variety.

 

NGC has denied any responsibility in this, and the auctioneer is mulling it over.

 

[jtryka]

I would think NGC bears responsibility for this, they missed something they above anyone esle should have seen. I am really quite surprised they would deny responsibility, they usually stand up and take responsibility for their mistakes. What reason did they give?

[TomB]

I'm not blindly defending NGC on this, however, don't they have some sort of variety tier where you can have the variety noted on the holder for a minimal extra fee? Perhaps they don't offer this anymore, but I thought they did. Anyway, if I'm basically correct in what I recall, the coin you have might only be noted as a variety if that tier were selected. So, maybe the original submitter didn't use that tier and, as such, NGC wasn't obligated to note it on the holder. Just a plausible thought.

[jtryka]

I'm not blindly defending NGC on this, however, don't they have some sort of variety tier where you can have the variety noted on the holder for a minimal extra fee? Perhaps they don't offer this anymore, but I thought they did. Anyway, if I'm basically correct in what I recall, the coin you have might only be noted as a variety if that tier were selected. So, maybe the original submitter didn't use that tier and, as such, NGC wasn't obligated to note it on the holder. Just a plausible thought.

 

By that reasoning Tom, they could use the same excuse for a 1942/41 Mercury Dime, or a 1909/08 Saint, both of which are well recognized overdates. I wouldn't expect to submit an 09/09 Saint and pay extra for getting it right, not would I evpect to be "out of luck" if they got it wrong.

[EVillageProwler]

TomB,

 

I think the variety tier is not applicable here. That, I think, is mostly reserved for Cherrypicker, F-S and popularly collected die marriage varieties (like BB, Overton, Browning, etc.).

 

BTW, I am undecided on this issue.

 

EVP

 

[truthteller]

I looked in the Redbook, and it doesn't appear to be recognized. Maybe there is no acceptance on NGC's part of this variety. PCGS is known not to accept many varieties.

 

 

TRUTH

[Tradedollarnut]

I looked in the Redbook, and it doesn't appear to be recognized. Maybe there is no acceptance on NGC's part of this variety. PCGS is known not to accept many varieties.

 

NGC's current census shows the 46/5 as a recognized variety with 57 coins graded.

 

[truthteller]

Ok. Thanks for that information.

 

 

TRUTH

[Tradedollarnut]

There are 58 of the regular date graded.

 

I wonder what other varieties aren't guaranteed? If the label said 1942/1-D on a Merc dime [not the easiest to see with the naked eye] and it wasn't, would it be covered by NGC's guaranty or not?

[truthteller]

In my experience, if NGC mislabled a coin to my detriment, they have always resolved the problem to my satisfaction. This doesn't appear to be a big dollar amount, and I'm sure NGC will come through.

 

 

 

TRUTH

[Tradedollarnut]

In the Registry, NGC shows the 6/5 as being scored slightly higher. CU shows the variety as being worth more. Trends shows the variety being worth more in many grades - including XF40.

 

In fact, Trends value jumps from $700 to $2400 between XF40 to XF45 [that don't seem right - a quick scan shows NO other date jumping that much percentage wise] for the regular date, but only from $1050 to $1550 for the overdate. Something seems amiss in those numbers.

 

Overall, I'd say Trends is messed up in XF45 and AU50 and that's the root cause of the problem. But it does concern me that we collectors need to guess what on the label is guaranteed and what is not!

[EZ_E]

I certainly hope that NGC steps up to the plate and makes things right. ... or they can always consult David Hall for a little advice.

[DirtyGoldMan]

Good point! What if the coin is holdered as a 42/1 dime, and it really is a plain 42. Who would bear responsibility under those circumstances? Unfortunately, though this overdate is recognized by NGC, PCGS, and Trends, it is not a Redbook variety, nor does Greysheet recognize it. And it is not a naked eye overdate; you have to look at the date with magnification and tilt it a little bit. Frankly, my position is that the seller should be on the hook, and he/they can take it up with NGC if they would like. I will let you know here (and there ) what happens.

 

Robert

[truthteller]

I purchased a couple of PCGS and NGC coins that were misattributed. One in auction and two on the bourse. The misattributions were in my favor. However, I was surprised that they survived so long in older holders without being caught. And they were very obvious, such as a wrong mintmark and date. I guess this proves that not everyone will buy the coin.

 

 

 

TRUTH

[Leothelion]

It's not NGC's responsibility, they don't collect coins! If you can prove that the original owner asked for the attribution and NGC missed it, then maybe! Otherwise, NGC would have a strove of misguided collectors wanting NGC to tell them what they have and that's not likely to happen. Same goes for the proposed 1942/1 that's labeled as a regular 1942, if the submitter didn't ask for the varification, obviously the former missed it as well! But then again, I could be wrong! Just how far should the envelope go?

 

Leo

[EZ_E]

Regardless of the blame, something is squirrelly in Denmark since there is a large price differential between the two coins. Most probably the dealer took advantage of the situation.

[BushMan]

I'm confident NGC will make reimbursement for the price differential. And they will do it much quicker, with an apology, than the other TPG. I'm interested in knowing which auction house missed the problem?

[reid1836]

I can understand your situation to some extent. I recently purchased an NGC 1901/0- S Liberty $5 gold piece graded AU-50. The coin is labeled as a plain 1901-S the 1/0 was unattributed by NGC. I will attach a photo so you van see for yourself . The 1/0 is well pronounced even moreso than the plate coin in Breens. My purchae differs somewhat from your own in that the overdate variety of my coin is valued higher than the plain version.

[Leothelion]

I can understand your situation to some extent. I recently purchased an NGC 1901/0- S Liberty $5 gold piece graded AU-50. The coin is labeled as a plain 1901-S the 1/0 was unattributed by NGC. I will attach a photo so you van see for yourself . The 1/0 is well pronounced even moreso than the plate coin in Breens. My purchae differs somewhat from your own in that the overdate variety of my coin is valued higher than the plain version.

 

By the same token, you need to send it back along with a check to NGC and get that corrected!

 

Leo

[jom]

NGC has denied any responsibility in this

 

This is something it seems that PCGS would get ripped to shreads for on this (and the other) board. It is too early pass judgement yet since this seems to be a new situation.

 

This situation should be a good measuring stick to see how NGC takes care of their customers. It seems we know how PCGS "takes care" of these kinds of things so it'll be interesting to see what NGC does.

 

jom

[Tradedollarnut]

The resolution was posted across the street. The auction company issued a full refund.

 

Jom: I agree with you. Funny how the people who love to rip PCGS avoided this thread like the plague. It would have been comical how much venom would have been spewed here if PCGS would have been identified as the company in question.

[jom]

TDN: Agreed. But it would have been interesting to find out what happens now with the auction company and NGC. OR....the actual owner of the coin (the one who sold at auction) and NGC.

 

jom

[EVillageProwler]

I can't seem to find the thread across the street that touches on this. Can someone please help me clear of this senior moment?

 

Also, I think the cabal's reaction to this as opposed to if it involved PCGS is understandable. To me, NGC have gone out of its way to show understanding and friendliness to the collectors that comprise or influence the noisome cabal.

 

PCGS, on the other hand, have maintained a sterner stance toward the offensive cabal.

 

(BTW, I am not including SageRad as part of the cabal simply because he aired this issue. IMO, it takes much more than an honest airing of an issue to be offensive.)

 

EVP

[Tradedollarnut]

Thread

 

NGC does indeed have good service. And PCGS appears to have problems with theirs. Yet, sometimes I wonder if my perception is affected by the willingness of posters to overly bash the PCGS shortfalls and gloss over NGC's.

[EVillageProwler]

What the heck... I didn't know RYK and SageRad are one and the same. Another senior moment? I think not...

 

Anyway, TDN, I'd thank you for the pointer but I won't because I really can't stand you and you bite and I'm gonna kick your butt in Portland and do a Demi on all your coins.

 

And, one last thing - stop eating rats you foul germ-laden varmint!

 

 

EVP

[jtryka]

And, one last thing - stop eating rats you foul germ-laden varmint!

 

What the [!@#%^&^] is that supposed to mean?

[jom]

and do a Demi on all your coins.

 

I'm not sure what "Demi" means but if it means "break out coins" I'm sure you'd be good at it.

 

jom

[gmarguli]

This is something it seems that PCGS would get ripped to shreads for on this (and the other) board.

 

This is a different situation than what we have seen with PCGS. PCGS has a long history of trying to screw the customers and not standing behind their so-called guarantee. PCGS screwed up the GRADE with the Mark Feld 1945-P Merc dime. They refused to honor their grade. Then with the Jade Norweb coin they refused to honor their pedigree which added value to the coin according to Chipmunk himself. No one ever said that PCGS should have to pay out because they got the date or mint mark incorrect on a coin

 

This is a hard coin to decide on. NGC did get the grade correct. They just didn't list the variety. Perhaps this coin was graded before they recognized the variety? It's possible it was graded early on and just reholdered. Should NGC be on the hook for the coin if this is the case?

 

Personally, I think NGC should have stepped up had the auction company not taken the coin back. However, we'll never know in this situation what NGC would have done.

[Tradedollarnut]

In every case I'm aware of, PCGS has ultimately done the right thing. Granted, sometimes it's been like pulling teeth to get there, but they've always paid. It would have been interesting to see if the same would have been true in this situation....

[DirtyGoldMan]

Hello,

 

Sorry for taking so much time to follow up here. I will clarify as much as possible.

 

1. SageRad (NGC boards) = RYK (PCGS boards)--I thought the bust right half eagle icon would make me recognizable as the same here and there. I was not intending to hide or deceive.

2. Before taking up the issue with Heritage, I called NGC and spoke with one of their service reps, not a numismatist. I was told that this was a "mechanical error" that was not covered by NGC's guarantee. FYI, I posed the question as a hypothetical to David Hall on the PCGS board Q&A. We will see if/how he responds.

3. After a few phone calls and emails to Heritage, I was told to send the coin back to Heritage for a full refund. There's a bit more to the story, but that is the sum and substance of it.

4. I feel very fortunate to get out of the coin in the way that I had. Line 43 of Heritage's auction rules provides for Heritage to buy the coin back, but it does in no way mandate it.

5. After this (and other) problem purchases, I feel that it is unwise for me to purchase Heritage auction coins unless I have the ability to see the coin in person or have a trusted representative see the coin.

 

Robert