PCGS' major grading error 0

[bstrauss3]

As with any endeavor, it's more and more difficult and more and more expensive to improve quality.

 

You can go from 1 9 (.9 or 90% accurate) to 2 9s (.99 or 99% accurate) simply by having a person with limited knowledge review the final result. S/he may not be a coin expert, but the person running the slabbing machine knows the difference between an dime and a quarter.

 

You go to, say 3 9s (99.9% accurate) by having somebody who does know coins review the slabbed results. S/he may not be an expert in everything, but if s/he know the key things (or where to look them up)... so now you are paying for 3 graders, a slabber and a reviewer. 3 top salaries, 1 middle and 1 low.

 

4 9s (99.99%) - add another reviewer or two... 7 salaries...

etc.

 

You also hit diminishing returns. That 7th person knows that 6 others looked at it (several of them probably more skilled than s/he) and so starts with the mindset of "of course, the label is correct" - and now you are into human perceptions, where you tend to see what you expect to see.

 

So instead of adding more eyes, you let the result go out into the world, where the submitter (who is often quite knowledgeable) gets to review it. If it's wrong, they jump up and down and send it back for correction (at least if the mistake isn't in their favor).

 

Does this system sound familiar?

 

 

[Conder101]

On 3/5/2017 at 7:01 AM, MarkFeld said:

Sure, that would be to their financial advantage, but do,you really think that would be OK?

Well I never passed judgement as to the propriety of the action, but would you rather they just pull the certification of any coin when someone that doesn't own the coin tells them it is wrong?

[MarkFeld]

19 minutes ago, Conder101 said:

Well I never passed judgement as to the propriety of the action, but would you rather they just pull the certification of any coin when someone that doesn't own the coin tells them it is wrong?

No, of course not. But there might be other, alternatives which are more proactive than waiting to be contacted.

[TonerGuy]

On 3/5/2017 at 4:42 AM, WoodenJefferson said:

Ethically no, financially, yes. Just about every business model has a small percentage of human error built into it, course the goal is 0 % but anytime you deal with humans there are going to be mistakes. You attempt to keep those mistakes down to a minimum with quality control, but some slip through and once the product leaves your control you wait until there is a legitimate complaint from the buyer before you do anything. With grading coins, you are dealing with a unique singularity here and cannot trigger a recall of sorts to correct a defect.

If there is a media storm, as with what happened with the 1909 VDB proof, then yes, it would behoove the company to take quick action to resolve the error and prove that yes, they do make an occasional mistake and they will, within their powers to correct that mistake.

 

As someone who owned a small business I can say its really not that difficult to put into place policies that prevent large errors. For instance, any TPG could put into policy that any coin over X value ($10,000, $25,000 ect) go through a 2nd final verification process/inspection before the slab heads out of their building. They may already do this. If they dont, I would be very surprised.

If your graders miss a UCAM v CAM designation on a state quarter, its a mistake but not one thats going to leave egg on your face. But if you miss a $40,000 mechanical error you're going to have some explaining to do or at least you're gonna have to pass out a lot more grape-flavored Koolaid for the masses to drink.

If a mistake like that happened in my business, someone would have been fired.

Edited March 7, 2017 by TonerGuy

[Conder101]

On 3/6/2017 at 9:09 AM, MarkFeld said:

No, of course not. But there might be other, alternatives which are more proactive than waiting to be contacted.

Since the TPG doesn't know who owns the coin and can't contact them directly, what would you suggest?  I did suggest a notice on the certification page that the TPG needs to re-examine the coin.

[mumu]

I dont have first hand knowledge of the process so my opinion is with some assumptions.

I thought Coinfacts was only for coins of exceptional notability. Wouldnt a mechanical error have a hard time being flagged for notabilty? I doubt the person printing labels is the one flagging notability? This puts a red flag on the idea that this was a mechanical error unless that term includes more than just printing of the label. That being said the final value fee then confuses matters even more.

It would seem to me that coin grader 1 sends his grade, grader 2 sends his. Grader 3 then adds in their opinion. At this point you can make a key decision that would make mechanical errors light up like a flare. Fork the data at this point in the process, 1 slip goes to coinfacts, the other slip to the slabber/printer. If the printer makes an error, the coinfacts editor will have a different result. 

From what PCGS is claiming in this coin the data flow appears to go to coinfacts after the printing of the slab. That makes no sense. Who is making the decision as to what goes to coinfacts in that logic? the printer? Something doesnt add up here. The final value fee is bailing them out big time here. If someone simply forgot to add in the 1% factor, hey screwed up at the right time. But I just dont see how a mechanical error ends up being photographed for coinfacts.

 

Edited March 12, 2017 by mumu

[MarkFeld]

 

My guess is that the grading label (with the coin number and grade) automatically generated the Coinfacts images. And that input from graders (who didn't catch the grading label/coin number error) had nothing to do with it.

Edited March 12, 2017 by MarkFeld

[TonerGuy]

7 hours ago, mumu said:

But I just dont see how a mechanical error ends up being photographed for coinfacts.

 

Interesting point...

[WoodenJefferson]

"an enigma wrapped in a paradox"

All I know is, it was a major embarrassment to have collectors point out this faux pas on a public chat board, then spread to other chat boards like wild fire.

[robec1347]

If the coin was sent to PCGS under the Secure service level the coin gets an automatic TrueView and a presence in CoinFacts. I don't have proof this level was used, but the 2 coins with cert numbers just preceding this 1909 VDB were sent in using the Secure level.  The next 7 or 8 coins with cert numbers sequentially higher than the VDB were given Details grading and no information is available on them as to which service level was used.

If the submitter paid for TrueView service and used any other level other than Secure it would also receive a presence in CoinFacts.

[MarkFeld]

On March 7, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Conder101 said:

Since the TPG doesn't know who owns the coin and can't contact them directly, what would you suggest?  I did suggest a notice on the certification page that the TPG needs to re-examine the coin.

I like the idea of notice on the certification page. Beyond that, I wonder if efforts are ever made to locate the owners of such coins. And if not, I feel that perhaps they should be.

[WoodenJefferson]

In a quirk of fate, the misattributed error is probably worth more than just a business strike in a slab now...to error slab collectors, this is close to the Holy Grail for mechanical errors.

[TonerGuy]

Does anyone know if this is biggest mistake PCGS has ever made that they have acknowledged publicly, mechanical or otherwise ?

There has to be bigger... this is only a $40,000 mistake (technically not actually)

Was there some penny that turned or some rare ASE that was a 70 that developed spots... I cant really remember.

[Nutmeg Coin]

All the puttied coins they put in holders that cost them so much back around 2009 especially were huge errors, and they tried to pass the buck by suing the coin doctors.  Check out their "warranty claims" page on their statistics page where they show what they are paying out on sour coins.  NGC should have something like this.  

 

Edited June 11, 2017 by Nutmeg Coin

[WoodenJefferson]

9 hours ago, TonerGuy said:

Does anyone know if this is biggest mistake PCGS has ever made that they have acknowledged publicly, mechanical or otherwise ?

There has to be bigger... this is only a $40,000 mistake (technically not actually)

Was there some penny that turned or some rare ASE that was a 70 that developed spots... I cant really remember.

This cent turned in the holder after about a year, spots and was down graded ~ouch~

 

PCGS Certifies First Perfect Business Strike Cent

- August 29, 2006
It took 20 years and over 160,000 tries, but in August 2006, the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) finally assigned the MS-70 grade to a Lincoln cent struck for circulation. The historic coin is a perfect 2003 Cent in full Red MS-70.

Other Lincoln Cents, such as Proof and Satin Finish coins, have earned a grade of 70 in the past, but those were coins produced through special minting processes designed to produce coins of near-perfection. The fact that this coin is a "business strike" meant for everyday commerce makes it all the more special, since no special steps were taken to ensure the quality of this piece when it was made.

According to Jaime Hernandez, Price Guide Editor at PCGS, "This coin is the Holy Grail of Lincoln Cents and something for which we have been searching for two decades. If this coin comes on the market, the competition for it will be fierce. Every advanced Cent or type collector will want to own this coin."

In 2009, the Lincoln Cent will celebrate its 100th Anniversary. Will another perfect MS-70 Cent show up anytime soon? "Not likely", says PCGS President Ron Guth. "This is a remarkable coin and one of the very few that will ever be able to meet PCGS' strict requirements for the MS-70 grade."

 

PRESS RELEASE BY TELETRADE:

The 2003 1¢ PCGS MS-70 Red
It took 20 years, but in August 2006, the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) finally assigned the MS-70 Red grade to a Lincoln cent struck for circulation. This historic coin is a perfect 2003 Cent in full Red MS-70 and is being offered in Teletrade®'s Premier Plus auction to be held on Thursday, September 28, 2006.

Ian Russell, President of Teletrade® commented: "This is the first time PCGS has given a circulation strike Lincoln cent the MS-70 Red grade, and I am pleased Teletrade® was entrusted with its sale.... This is a rare opportunity to acquire the 2003 1c PCGS MS-70 Red, which is likely to end up in one of the top Registry sets."

 

[t-arc]

OK I am behind on this.  Did the new owner send this coin back to pcgs to have it de-matte-proofed??  I think it is in his right to just keep it the way it is.

I know that I would.

 

[t-arc]

As far as pcgs making  errors, I once saw a 1913 type one buffalo nickel they graded ms65 that was no better than a MS61.  It was horrible.  It had to have been a grading error.

Or the graders and the finalizer were have their worst off-day ever. 

Also remember a dealer had a gem unc liberty head nickel and 1916 mate proof buffalo nickel with the labels switched. 

slabbed by pcgs. 

[t-arc]

Wonder what would happen if the owner just refused to return the coin to pcgs.  what would they do?

I had a thread going years ago about this coin which is a 1916 "matte proof" lincoln cents WHICH IS NOT a matte proof

& was certified and sold in a heritage auction.  if you check the cert number it is still in the data base.

take a good look.  probably happens more than you might think.  Most respondents to my original thread agreed

that despite the certification it is not a proof.  Wonder who owns this now.  It was in a Proof 66 rb holder.

[Conder101]

All they really can do is post a notice on the certification page that they need to re-examine the coin.  The current owner may not want to send it back and risk having it down graded, but since more and more people seem to be looking at the certification page when they are considering buying an expensive coin, it would make selling such a questionable piece much more difficult.  Would you buy a coin which such a notice on the page?  How about if PCGS froze their compensation guarantee at the price level the coin was at on the day they posted the notice?

[t-arc]

I think with the attitude expressed by the owner he will not return the coin to pcgs.  And I think PCGS would have a hard time EVER getting it back if the collector wants to play hardball.   It is his property.

He can just claim he misplaced it.  If PCGS wants to get their lawyers involved fine, but the owner only has $56 involved in the initial purchase and then maybe less than $100 for the grading trip.

I bet he just holds onto it.    I bet  if he gets a lawyer they could offer to sell the coin to pcgs for $10,000 where the lawyer would have the coin returned after the owner receives the ten grand.

 

[t-arc]

Over 10 years ago I purchased a 1936 pcgs proof-65 walker half dollar for about $450 when it was valued at $4500.  It was a pricing error and they did not catch it.  Transaction went thru and I got the coin.  About 2 months later

I got a frantic somewhat nasty call from a Heritage employee demanding that I return the coin.  I certainly did not have to.  But as a company they had treated me well over the years so I worked out a deal where they sent my

lawyer-sister a check for the price of the coin plus an additional $750 for returning it.  We were all happy.  The coin was mine and I did not really have to return it.  If the current owner of the pcgs misatrributed  09vdb cent contacts

a lawyer they could just tell them they want all their grading fees returned plus,  say ten grand for their mental anguish.   It is HIS coin.  And I bet he does not return it. 

[t-arc]

Yes, I bet this guy has already contacted a lawyer. 

[t-arc]

To be continued.  But pcgs could really just offer to give him 10 grand or so.  Setting up a middle man such as a reputable lawyer to collect the money.  But, just make some  popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the ride.

Too bad the owner just did not keep quite.

[MarkFeld]

1 hour ago, t-arc said:

To be continued.  But pcgs could really just offer to give him 10 grand or so.  Setting up a middle man such as a reputable lawyer to collect the money.  But, just make some  popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the ride.

Too bad the owner just did not keep quite.

I'm glad the owner spoke up and I hope that the mistake can be corrected. He should not profit financially, based on an error of that type and he should not sell the coin to an unsuspecting buyer.

[t-arc]

“"I'm glad the owner spoke up and I hope that the mistake can be corrected. He should not profit financially, based on an error of that type and he should not sell the coin to an unsuspecting buyer”"

yes mark, all the OP needs is a big fat 10 grand check from pcgs to settle the matter.

[WoodenJefferson]

On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 4:05 PM, t-arc said:

Wonder what would happen if the owner just refused to return the coin to pcgs.  what would they do?

I had a thread going years ago about this coin which is a 1916 "matte proof" lincoln cents WHICH IS NOT a matte proof

& was certified and sold in a heritage auction.  if you check the cert number it is still in the data base.

take a good look.  probably happens more than you might think.  Most respondents to my original thread agreed

that despite the certification it is not a proof.  Wonder who owns this now.  It was in a Proof 66 rb holder.

You seem to want to 'smear' NGC on their own website chat board. This is your second attempt to interject this 1916 PR-66 stating emphatically that it is not what it claims to be. Do you think the posters who responded previously where bias towards another company and were just bashing our host here?  

[Conder101]

a lawyer they could just tell them they want all their grading fees returned plus,  say ten grand for their mental anguish.   It is HIS coin.

And PCGS could decline and simply cancel the certification with a notice on the page that coin it is misattributed and the guarantee does not apply to this coin.. Yep, it's his coin.

[t-arc]

Say pcgs calls the owner of this coin and the owner says “sorry but I lost it somewhere in my house and I am just now trying to locate it.”  Every time they call this is what the owner says.  Despite what the written agreement to grading might say I don’t see how pcgs get this coin back unless the owner actually wants to have this corrected.  He just may have become attached to it and want to keep it as a souvenir.  And so it goes.  On and on and on.  I think this is what may be happening right now between the owner and pcgs.  Or the owner could also say   “I sold it for x dollars a week ago”,  done deal.  here is the pix of the coin again.  obviously not a matte proof.  has no characteristics of one.

[t-arc]

I have nothing personal against ngc, nor pcgs.  I think they both do a very good job.

[Conder101]

 Despite what the written agreement to grading might say I don’t see how pcgs get this coin back unless the owner actually wants to have this corrected.  

Hence the reason for the not on the certification page freexing the guarantee.  If the guy holds it for ten years and manages to sell it at a much higher current level, PCGS is still only on the hook at most for the value at the time they tried to get it back for re-evaluation.