Submission FAILURE. NGC is turning sour 1 1

[RWB]

See Trivers' theory of self-deception. This might help understand some comments.

[GoldFinger1969]

2 hours ago, Joejingojack said:

P.S: The merger between PCGS and NGC I was talking about should not necessarily be "in your face" people. I hope you get it now.

There is no merger between them, either corporate-wise or business practice-wise.  It's all in your mind, JJJ.

[gmarguli]

I compared all 4 coins to multiple known authentic examples of each type. None of them match. 

Given the value of these coins, I'm sure NGC took extreme care in examining them. 

Your coins are counterfeit. 

[RWB]

43 minutes ago, gmarguli said:

I compared all 4 coins to multiple known authentic examples of each type. None of them match. 

Given the value of these coins, I'm sure NGC took extreme care in examining them. 

Your coins are counterfeit. 

Good, careful research! Nice to see. 

[Hoghead515]

1 hour ago, gmarguli said:

I compared all 4 coins to multiple known authentic examples of each type. None of them match. 

Given the value of these coins, I'm sure NGC took extreme care in examining them. 

Your coins are counterfeit. 

He's mad at the wrong ones. I guess he not the big experienced collector he thinks he is. Wants to be smarter than everyone. I'd be mad at the one who sold them to me. I don't like being wrong neither when I brag myself up to be something I'm not but I will agree with people who know what they are doing and swallow my pride. I don't  try to convince everyone there's some kind of conspiracy theory going on with the people who proved me wrong.  Especially if they are experts in the business and handle more coins in a week then I've ever seen in my life. I don't like to be around people like that. I'd rather have friends than act like that where no one wanted to be around me. People don't realize how acting like that actually makes them look to everyone else. My kids don't act that foolish.  

[Hoghead515]

Kinda felt bad for the guy at first. But if he gonna be one of those that act like that then I don't know. I actually still do but I shouldn't. 

[Henri Charriere]

On 4/18/2021 at 3:29 AM, Joejingojack said:

I own a very rare Chinese coin collection.
My coin collection is 100% GENUINE....

Two pieces of advice for the OP, Jjj... (repeated, in part, above)  Firstly, in light of your extensive experience and knowledge of the coin business, take your collection to a dealer or  professional numismatist you trust and have them review them and advise you accordingly.

Secondly, if the advice is contrary to what you expected, please do not foist the coins onto an unsuspecting public thereby making your problem theirs.

There isn't a coin collector anywhere who hasn't suffered a loss at one time or another. The smart collector learns as much as he can about the coins he has, asks questions, heeds advice, gets up, brushes the dust off, chalks it all up to bad experience -- and moves on.  In closing, I wish you all the best!

 

[GoldFinger1969]

1 hour ago, gmarguli said:

Given the value of these coins, I'm sure NGC took extreme care in examining them.  

Gmarg, how much would the coins be worth if legitimate ?  What range are we talking about ?

[Joejingojack]

So now they want to charge me over £900.00 for their money-laundering scheme of my authentic coins instead of just returning it to me, e.g. for a minimum fee. This is an absolute robbery imho.

Absolutely disgraceful, people.

These guys will pay it off big time..

Utter fraudsters!

[Henri Charriere]

A review of your Invoice has left me utterly speechless.  If it is not a violation of NGC Guidelines or.U.S. national security interests, or plain common courtesy, may I inquire as to whether these coins were bought from a reputable dealer or an individual, and, if so, when?  (Naturally, if someone such as The Great Zadok politely points out these were in the family for years, I will readily concede this entire matter was long ago a moot point).

[gmarguli]

17 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Gmarg, how much would the coins be worth if legitimate ?  What range are we talking about ?

Quarter million. 

I'd be upset too if I thought I had coins worth a quarter million only to find out they are worthless.

[GoldFinger1969]

The fees were based on your BELIEVED value of $190,500.  BTW, I don't know why you sent them to NGC International in the UK instead of NGC in the States.

Regardless....I do agree that if you were wrong on the value of the coins, the cost for grading them should be lower.  If I sent in a Saint-Gaudens coin that I believed was MS66 and worth $10,000 and it turns out to be AU-55 and worth $2,000.....I would expect grading fees to be based on the lower value.

But never having submitted, I'll leave it to the veterans here to chime in. 

Edited April 20, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[Alex in PA.]

On 4/19/2021 at 10:34 AM, LOCK34 said:

“sense of humor

 

[gmarguli]

1 minute ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Regardless....I do agree that if you were wrong on the value of the coins, the cost for grading them should be lower.  If I sent in a Saint-Gaudens coin that I believed was MS66 and worth $10,000 and it turns out to be AU-55 and worth $2,000.....I would expect grading fees to be based on the lower value.

But never having submitted, I'll leave it to the veterans here to chime in. 

The TPG charge fees based on the tier selected which partly corresponds to what the submitter claims the value is. Most submitters have an idea of value before submitting. If you over value the coin, that's on you. The TPG still provided the service speed level you selected and they still need to insure it for your declared amount while in their possession and when shipping it back to you.

No one ever complains when they get a grade they weren't expecting and the coin is worth way more than the grading tier they paid for. 

[RWB]

3 hours ago, Joejingojack said:

Utter fraudsters!

No. You are culpable.

You deceived yourself. You did not check the copious on-line resources to help validate the pieces you submitted. You assigned value. You knew in advance from the submission form the cost. You decided to submit them to the UK office (unless you live in the UK or EU). You signed the form agreeing to the terms and conditions. You owe (or paid) the invoice amount. You got the independent opinion of authenticity as agreed. You accepted responsibility for your decisions. You failed in 'due diligence.' Now you want to blame others for your mistakes.

Edited April 20, 2021 by RWB

[Alex in PA.]

When the last PCGS baad didn't work we get this 'new name' where PCGS and NGC, now merged together, and both are committed to ruin this guy's life.  Personally, I believe this one is intentionally submitting counterfeit coins in an effort to "pull one over" and get a payday.  If I were NGC I'd get the Legal Team on this guy.

[Hoghead515]

If I was gonna pay that much money I'd hire an expert who knew something about them to examine them first. I wouldn't let my pride take over and let me make a costly error like that. 

[RWB]

1 hour ago, Hoghead515 said:

If I was gonna pay that much money I'd hire an expert who knew something about them to examine them first. I wouldn't let my pride take over and let me make a costly error like that. 

Agreed -- But you're a reasonable, responsible person.

[Oldhoopster]

I love the method he uses when he doesn't get what he wants.

Rant, carry on, and say bad things about the person (company in this case).

I'm sure if you keep this up  you'll convince everybody here that you're right 

I think my kids learned that this wasn't a good technique when the they were 4 or 5.  Maybe they could give you some advice 

 

[Woods020]

Joe,

I’m sure you don’t want to hear this, but if you take a deep breath and consider the 900 pounds as the price of a lesson learned you will take something away. Numismatic education can be expensive at times, but it may just be worth the cost of tuition if you actually learn from it. As it stands it’s money wasted. 

[Henri Charriere]

My sentiments do not coincide with 99.44% of the comments posted on this thread.  I do not care if the submitter is a nincompoop or a rocket scientist.  The TPGS in England pursued an ill-advised course of action, period.

There are viewers here who appear to have detected glaring and subtle anomalies in the posted photos almost instantly.  It stands to reason then that professional graders who do these detailed examinations for a living must have come to the quick realization that a grievous mistake had been made.

[When the $1,200. coin (exclusive of tax) I had purchased but chose not to take immediate delivery of, preferring instead to have the seller send it directly to PCGS for evaluation declined to cross-grade it, I received two phone calls: one confirming payment was received and my coin was being forwarded; the other stating it was rejected and that my money had been refunded in full.  To my knowledge, I was not charged a cent for the courtesies extended me.]

A great many questions remain unanswered in the OP's account.  Be that as it may, the flurry of gratuitous attacks, some notably cruel and insensitive, were uncalled for. If a great deal of money is involved, the TPGS should have placed a call to the submitter, explain the matter to his satisfaction, and, minus necessary return-shipping expenses, forward the questionable coins back to him expeditiously.

This is elementary customer service. I could not charge a member for something I was unable to do -- accept payment genuine or counterfeit -- in good conscience.  The OP acted in good faith.  Little point is served in victimizing him twice. And the reception he received here, from fellow collectors and members, was unhelpful and nothing less than disgraceful.

[dollarfan]

30 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

My sentiments do not coincide with 99.44% of the comments posted on this thread.  I do not care if the submitter is a nincompoop or a rocket scientist.  The TPGS in England pursued an ill-advised course of action, period.

There are viewers here who appear to have detected glaring and subtle anomalies in the posted photos almost instantly.  It stands to reason then that professional graders who do these detailed examinations for a living must have come to the quick realization that a grievous mistake had been made.

[When the $1,200. coin (exclusive of tax) I had purchased but chose not to take immediate delivery of, preferring instead to have the seller send it directly to PCGS for evaluation declined to cross-grade it, I received two phone calls: one confirming payment was received and my coin was being forwarded; the other stating it was rejected and that my money had been refunded in full.  To my knowledge, I was not charged a cent for the courtesies extended me.]

A great many questions remain unanswered in the OP's account.  Be that as it may, the flurry of gratuitous attacks, some notably cruel and insensitive, were uncalled for. If a great deal of money is involved, the TPGS should have placed a call to the submitter, explain the matter to his satisfaction, and, minus necessary return-shipping expenses, forward the questionable coins back to him expeditiously.

This is elementary customer service. I could not charge a member for something I was unable to do -- accept payment genuine or counterfeit -- in good conscience.  The OP acted in good faith.  Little point is served in victimizing him twice. And the reception he received here, from fellow collectors and members, was unhelpful and nothing less than disgraceful.

wow, coming from YOU of all people.  cmon man

[GoldFinger1969]

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

This is elementary customer service. I could not charge a member for something I was unable to do -- accept payment genuine or counterfeit -- in good conscience.  The OP acted in good faith.  Little point is served in victimizing him twice. And the reception he received here, from fellow collectors and members, was unhelpful and nothing less than disgraceful.

Disgraceful ?  I beg to differ, QA......

• He arrogantly attacks NGC when it appears their analysis and grading was 100% accurate.
• While I agree the grading was costly and NGC should have probably alerted him, he didn't properly evaluate the coins beforehand.  You don't send $200,000 in coins that will cost you $1,000 without first making sure your coins are legit and close to the value you cite (as Gmarguli said, that's on you). 
• I feel bad anybody gets stung with fake coins, but we need to know if he bought them, was given to him, or he inherited them -- and how long he had them without ever taking them to a professional. 
• He said he was an expert on the coins -- but clearly, he isn't. 

I wasn't aware that fees were related to the value of the coins -- so if I was going to submit coins that I said were worth $200,000 but might be worth as little as 10% or less of that amount (or even close to zero)......I'd MAKE SURE that the coins are close to my estimate by having some "experts" check them out before NGC or PCGS.

I agree that paying the fee based on the estimated value -- since reduced by 90-99% -- is probably a bit "unfair." 

But if that is how the contract reads, not sure how we can say he was taken advantage of.

[Conder101]

21 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

BTW, I don't know why you sent them to NGC International in the UK instead of NGC in the States.

Possibly he doesn't live in the US.

 

21 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

If I sent in a Saint-Gaudens coin that I believed was MS66 and worth $10,000 and it turns out to be AU-55 and worth $2,000.....I would expect grading fees to be based on the lower value.

Nope, fees are based on the declared value...UNLESS it is obvious the submitter significantly low balled the value in order to submit under a lower cost tier.  For example sent in a coin that would obviously be worth several thousand under the economy tier.

 

12 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

This is elementary customer service. I could not charge a member for something I was unable to do -- accept payment genuine or counterfeit -- in good conscience.  The OP acted in good faith.  Little point is served in victimizing him twice.

This is the same argument that used to be used years ago when the TPG's bodybagged problem coins as well as counterfeits.  People would complain that they paid to have their coins graded and they came back bodybagged so they didn't get the service they paid for.  The thing is they DID get the service they paid for.  When you submit a coin you are not really paying for it to be graded.  What you are paying for is an opinion as to authenticity and if authentic THEN what the grade is.  You are paying for an OPINION.  And if that opinion is that it is counterfeit, you have still received the opinion you contracted for, so you owe the fees agreed to for that opinion.  The TPG fulfilled their side of the contract and are due their money.  They are not responsible for the first "victimization" he received.

[Morpheus1967]

12 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

My sentiments do not coincide with 99.44% of the comments posted on this thread.  I do not care if the submitter is a nincompoop or a rocket scientist.  The TPGS in England pursued an ill-advised course of action, period.

There are viewers here who appear to have detected glaring and subtle anomalies in the posted photos almost instantly.  It stands to reason then that professional graders who do these detailed examinations for a living must have come to the quick realization that a grievous mistake had been made.

[When the $1,200. coin (exclusive of tax) I had purchased but chose not to take immediate delivery of, preferring instead to have the seller send it directly to PCGS for evaluation declined to cross-grade it, I received two phone calls: one confirming payment was received and my coin was being forwarded; the other stating it was rejected and that my money had been refunded in full.  To my knowledge, I was not charged a cent for the courtesies extended me.]

A great many questions remain unanswered in the OP's account.  Be that as it may, the flurry of gratuitous attacks, some notably cruel and insensitive, were uncalled for. If a great deal of money is involved, the TPGS should have placed a call to the submitter, explain the matter to his satisfaction, and, minus necessary return-shipping expenses, forward the questionable coins back to him expeditiously.

This is elementary customer service. I could not charge a member for something I was unable to do -- accept payment genuine or counterfeit -- in good conscience.  The OP acted in good faith.  Little point is served in victimizing him twice. And the reception he received here, from fellow collectors and members, was unhelpful and nothing less than disgraceful.

 

Say you were to go to the doctor, complaining of a sore shoulder, and the doctor told you that there was nothing wrong he could see and sent you on your way.  He did not find the cause of your pain.  So are you just going to ignore his bill when it comes in the mail?  You are paying for a service, even if that service does not give you the results or findings you were looking for.

I am sure the coins with the stated values above are not going to be assigned to a grader who has been there for 6 months.  At that declaration of value, I am sure these were assigned to a senior grader with tons of experience, AND with a niche set of coins as well.  You have to pay for the service and expertise.  You're not only paying for the actual act of the grading, but for the years of experience it took the grader to get to the experience level to be able to spot fakes.

[Hoghead515]

Also under terms and conditions I'm pretty sure it says that you will be charged whether it gets encapsulated or not. They tell you ahead of time. So it should be up to you to make sure of what you got before you take the risk of sending it in. It's not like they surprise you with it. They warn you ahead of time if you read everything. 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Hoghead515

[GoldFinger1969]

The thing is....by declaring the coins to be worth $200,000 he was setting himself up for a big bill.

If you have raw coins and this is how the TPGs operate, then you better be right on the value or close to it.....OR.....have them screened beforehand to make sure you don't pay a fee based on $200,000 in assessed value for coins that are worth less than $1,000.

[coinsandmedals]

13 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

My sentiments do not coincide with 99.44% of the comments posted on this thread.  I do not care if the submitter is a nincompoop or a rocket scientist.  The TPGS in England pursued an ill-advised course of action, period.

There are viewers here who appear to have detected glaring and subtle anomalies in the posted photos almost instantly.  It stands to reason then that professional graders who do these detailed examinations for a living must have come to the quick realization that a grievous mistake had been made.

[When the $1,200. coin (exclusive of tax) I had purchased but chose not to take immediate delivery of, preferring instead to have the seller send it directly to PCGS for evaluation declined to cross-grade it, I received two phone calls: one confirming payment was received and my coin was being forwarded; the other stating it was rejected and that my money had been refunded in full.  To my knowledge, I was not charged a cent for the courtesies extended me.]

A great many questions remain unanswered in the OP's account.  Be that as it may, the flurry of gratuitous attacks, some notably cruel and insensitive, were uncalled for. If a great deal of money is involved, the TPGS should have placed a call to the submitter, explain the matter to his satisfaction, and, minus necessary return-shipping expenses, forward the questionable coins back to him expeditiously.

This is elementary customer service. I could not charge a member for something I was unable to do -- accept payment genuine or counterfeit -- in good conscience.  The OP acted in good faith.  Little point is served in victimizing him twice. And the reception he received here, from fellow collectors and members, was unhelpful and nothing less than disgraceful.

I fervently disagree with most of your points, and they highlight an inadequate understanding, or a complete lack thereof, of the entire submission process.

Your anecdotal evidence as it relates to your "$1200" coin is irrelevant. Based on what I can gather from your account, the dealer submitted the coin on your behalf and absorbed the associated fees when it failed to cross. In your example, the fees were still collected by PCGS because a service was rendered.

Regarding the original post, several coins were submitted that NGC determined were not genuine. Like your situation, an opinion was provided, and thus a service was rendered. The amount of time it took them to reach this conclusion is irrelevant to the point. The submitter is not due any special consideration because of their lack of due diligence before submitting them in the first place. Also, £900 is not a great deal of money in the grand scheme of things, but even if it were, it is irrelevant.

Reading the comments of other posters, there seems to be a general lack of understanding of the policies and procedures associated with submitting coins to NGC. This information can be found on the NGC website, and I encourage you to read it before making comments out of hand. Failing to do so only adds further misinformation within a thread that is ripe with poor judgment.

11 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I wasn't aware that fees were related to the value of the coins -- so if I was going to submit coins that I said were worth $200,000 but might be worth as little as 10% or less of that amount (or even close to zero)......I'd MAKE SURE that the coins are close to my estimate by having some "experts" check them out before NGC or PCGS.

I agree that paying the fee based on the estimated value -- since reduced by 90-99% -- is probably a bit "unfair." 

But if that is how the contract reads, not sure how we can say he was taken advantage of.

Arguing that paying a fee based on estimated value is unfair when the coin's value is reduced by 90-99% is complete hogwash. Although I am not sure about PCGS, NGC has consistently urged collectors to submit their coins through an authorized dealer. Doing so affords the submitter a professional opinion before NGC collects any associated fees. It is the submitter's responsibility to determine the declared value, and if they are unsure how to do so, they are advised to seek a professional who can. In this case, the submitter claims to be an expert, so in reality, they only have themselves to blame for the outcome.

In my opinion, the original post is an ill-informed and unwarranted hit piece on NGC. I see no harm in calling it for what it is.

[GoldFinger1969]

11 minutes ago, coinsandmedals said:

Arguing that paying a fee based on estimated value is unfair when the coin's value is reduced by 90-99% is complete hogwash. Although I am not sure about PCGS, NGC has consistently urged collectors to submit their coins through an authorized dealer. Doing so affords the submitter a professional opinion before NGC collects any associated fees. It is the submitter's responsibility to determine the declared value, and if they are unsure how to do so, they are advised to seek a professional who can. In this case, the submitter claims to be an expert, so in reality, they only have themselves to blame for the outcome.

I agree with you.  Having never submitted any coins, I just know if my fees were tied to the value of the coins and they were raw to begin with, I'd certainly make sure they were legit and close to my market value in the first place.

11 minutes ago, coinsandmedals said:

In my opinion, the original post is an ill-informed and unwarranted hit piece on NGC. I see no harm in calling it for what it is.

No argument whatsoever.  I understand the submitters anger and maybe embarassment at getting a $1,000 bill to have his coins declared counterfeit.  He also may be upset because he is suddenly "out" $200,000.

But the whole thing is cloudy because he INSISTS he is an expert in the field and that he knows the coins are legit and any opinion to the contrary is false.  This makes his appeal less symptathetic, IMO.

We still don't know WHEN and HOW he came into the coins -- and at what cost. 

Edited April 21, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[Conder101]

4 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

The thing is....by declaring the coins to be worth $200,000 he was setting himself up for a big bill.

And if they had come back genuine he would have happily paid it.  But that was the risk he agreed to take

 

7 minutes ago, coinsandmedals said:

Although I am not sure about PCGS, NGC has consistently urged collectors to submit their coins through an authorized dealer.

That was the whole reason why they set up the authorized dealer network in the first place, so the authorized dealers could "pre-screen" the submissions and help keep collectors from sending in coins not worth submitting (optimistic grade estimates, counterfeits, and other coins that just weren't worth submitting).  That was why in the early years collectors couldn't submit directly to PCGS or NGC.  But the collectors insisted they should be able to direct submit, and now they pay for their mistakes.