A question of ethics, would you...
2 2

45 posts in this topic

117 posts

No, it's not okay. Once a coin is taken out of a holder, then that cert # should not be used again. Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,029 posts
17 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

You are correct we do see the world quite differently, you do have X coin but you want to show it as though you have 2 examples of X when you only have one X coin.

You seem to be very into collecting points by representing that you have the same coin in two different holders, and you do not.

 

I'm not representing that I have 2 different coins. I have one coin, and I'm using it in one place on one registry. I'm not using the same coin twice in a registry. It fills a single slot. 

Fact: NGC graded the coin MS-64.

Fact: PCGS graded the coin MS-64.

Fact: I own the single coin. 

Fact: PCGS does not allow NGC coins into their registry, and NGC did not allow PCGS coins into their registry at the time I bought it. 

So, if I want to participate in both websites, should I buy 2 separate copies of the coin? Or, should I exclude myself from one community because the coin is in different plastic? 

What about the coins that I do use in separate sets: I've got a Capped Bust Half in a capped bust set, and the same coin is also in my 7070-style type set. Is it then unethical to use the same coin in two different sets, and get double the points for the one coin? Should I buy two separate coins for the two sets on the same Registry? Absolutely not - I think everyone would think that's crazy. 

Essentially, I'm doing the same thing by using an old NGC number. 

At least, that's my opinion. Clearly, others feel very strongly opposite, and that's ok. If NGC tells me I'm not allowed to do it, then I won't. But until then, I personally don't see anything wrong with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,142 posts
1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I'm not representing that I have 2 different coins. I have one coin, and I'm using it in one place on one registry. I'm not using the same coin twice in a registry. It fills a single slot. 

Fact: NGC graded the coin MS-64.

Fact: PCGS graded the coin MS-64.

Fact: I own the single coin. 

Fact: PCGS does not allow NGC coins into their registry, and NGC did not allow PCGS coins into their registry at the time I bought it. 

The facts don't change anything you are representing that you have two coins one in NGC and one in PCGS when in fact you only have one coin.

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

So, if I want to participate in both websites, should I buy 2 separate copies of the coin? Or, should I exclude myself from one community because the coin is in different plastic? 

Currently now you don't have to as PCGS coins are allowed back in.  But if you want to participate in the PCGS registry and only have an NGC coin you would have to buy another or cross and then you should change your set here to reflect the cross.

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

What about the coins that I do use in separate sets: I've got a Capped Bust Half in a capped bust set, and the same coin is also in my 7070-style type set. Is it then unethical to use the same coin in two different sets, and get double the points for the one coin? Should I buy two separate coins for the two sets on the same Registry? Absolutely not - I think everyone would think that's crazy. 

Apples and oranges using the same coin in different sets is fine and allowed by the registry because you are using the same cert number, what you fail to understand is that using two cert numbers for one coin is the problem.  That presents that you have two coins one in NGC and one in PCGS when you only have one coin.

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

Essentially, I'm doing the same thing by using an old NGC number. 

At least, that's my opinion. Clearly, others feel very strongly opposite, and that's ok. If NGC tells me I'm not allowed to do it, then I won't. But until then, I personally don't see anything wrong with it. 

It is not the same you are using two different cert numbers for one coin.  You have stated that it is not ok to represent the coin at time of sale as NGC certified, then why is it ok to represent the coin as NGC certified in the registry when the coin is no longer NGC certified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
753 posts
10 hours ago, zadok said:

...kilt wearers might take exception to the one leg at a time comparison...skirt wearers as well...

 

And what about old dinosaurs like me who sit on a bed, raise both legs simultaneously, whilst pulling both through a pair of trousers? [Nothing personal, zadok.  It's just that all the other participants on this thread conspired (publicly, of course) to block me in one well-coordinated attack.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,029 posts

Eh, I give up, Coinbuf. 

You see a problem here. I don't. Neither of us is going to convince the other. 

So, have a Merry Monday, a drink of your choice, and may you have a happy week. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,142 posts

Thank you, we will agree to disagree, it was a very good and civil discussion which does not always happen on the internet.  :)  Have a great week. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,313 posts
On 9/20/2020 at 10:59 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

As a sometime Troll and unapologetical rank amateur, I find the very fact such an unseemly matter requires discussion. Remember Joseph N. Welch's query: "Have you no decency, sir, at long last?" Numismatics ought to be above such goings-on.

But it clearly is not above such goings-on, and that is the object lesson for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,044 posts
On 9/20/2020 at 6:03 PM, Walkerfan said:

I KNOW for a fact that there are plenty of 'PHANTOM SETS' out there.

Wouldn't surprise me.  I remember back when the Registries first started people would go out and "harvest" slab serial numbers and create high grade Registry sets for themselves.  If someone else bought the coin and tried to put it in their set it wouldn't go because it was already in someones else's set.  They would send an image to the TPG and they would contact the other set owner (with the phantom set).  He would remove it and then go out and harvent another number for his "set".  Some of those early phantom sets are probably still active.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,925 posts
On 9/21/2020 at 12:26 PM, Coinbuf said:

If you look at the registry info:  "All NGC-certified coins are eligible for the NGC Registry".  So my question to you is once a coin is cracked out of a slab is it still NGC certified?

This answers your own question.  If there are explicit rules that everyone agrees to abide by, by virtue of participating in the registry, then it is a rules violation to list a cracked-out coin as being certified.  (A coin must remain in the NGC holder to still be "certified" ,with the exception of some Ancients, which are photo-certified by NGC.)

  

On 9/21/2020 at 12:26 PM, Coinbuf said:

This is the argument and the way to rationalize putting one's ethics on pause that I see used often, "nobody is going to be harmed right".

I don't agree.  The first argument is (as I queried orginally): What to the rules explicitly state?  If the rules set an explicit form of conduct (i.e. "certified coins only"), then that should prevail.  If there are no such explicit rules, then the second criteria would be "will actual harm occur".  But as you just explained, there ARE rules about coins having to be certified only, so given that, I would agree with you that there is an ethical violation in the OP scenario.

Regarding the infamous Norweb Hibernia, in order to turn it into an ethical dilemma, I was required to discover whether or not the PCGS guarantee explicitly covered a stated provenance for a coin, and as it turned out, it did.  Therefore, that as well was a violation of a stated rule.

Great discussion, Coinbuf!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,276 posts
49 minutes ago, James_OldeTowne said:

Regarding the infamous Norweb Hibernia, in order to turn it into an ethical dilemma, I was required to discover whether or not the PCGS guarantee explicitly covered a stated provenance for a coin, and as it turned out, it did.  Therefore, that as well was a violation of a stated rule.

 

I have never gone back and read the original threads on this subject, if they still exist at all, but I wondered about what the guarantee actually did state when this incident took place. If, in fact the guarantee did specifically cover provenance at the time the coin was sold and subsequently returned, it was PCGS' duty, in my opinion, to make you whole, at least to FMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,925 posts

What happened was, eventually, a certain executive at a certain grading company made a public, printed statement that the provenance was covered under the guarantee.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,003 posts
16 hours ago, Conder101 said:

Wouldn't surprise me.  I remember back when the Registries first started people would go out and "harvest" slab serial numbers and create high grade Registry sets for themselves.  If someone else bought the coin and tried to put it in their set it wouldn't go because it was already in someones else's set.  They would send an image to the TPG and they would contact the other set owner (with the phantom set).  He would remove it and then go out and harvent another number for his "set".  Some of those early phantom sets are probably still active.

I was speaking, mainly, of sets that have been sold outright, yet never removed.  I know several of these.  But, to intentionally deceive by stealing cert. numbers is even WORSE.  Makes you wonder: 'what kind of satisfaction could one get from that??'  Trust me, though, I DO believe you and and I know that has also happened, which is why I think that it's good that NGC/PCGS have cert. #s hidden, on the Registries.  I remember, in the early days, they weren't obscured.  Makes you think TWICE before posting a slab shot.      

Edited by Walkerfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,142 posts
15 hours ago, James_OldeTowne said:

Great discussion, Coinbuf!

 

Thank you, I appreciate everyone for your thoughts and knowledge that was shared on this thread and subject.  Everyone has a lot on their plate this year but it never hurts to take a moment and think and discuss about the hobby/business including how our actions or inactions can affect others in ways we may never expect or consider.

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
2 2