Be aware that NGC may do you wrong if you submit PCGS attributed varieties for crossover. — Welcome to the CAC Educational Forum

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Be aware that NGC may do you wrong if you submit PCGS attributed varieties for crossover.

Granted BOTH TPGs have some serious problems when it comes to variety attribution. Pretty much anybody who has submitted more than a couple varieties for attribution will attest that MANY mistakes are made. There have been many threads on the PCGS forums detailing the problems with variety attribution at PCGS. I don't read NGC forum so am unsure whether or not there has been much discussion re over there.

I seldom submit coins to NGC, but because the certified populations for many varieties are very low at NGC I decided to try to cross over a PCGS attributed variety. The Franklin half 1957-D/D FS-501 has a FBL population of 95 at PCGS, whereas the NGC pop for same is 16. It stands to reason that an NGC example could sell for more than a PCGS example simply because there are far fewer available.

So, greedy me decides to send an example for crossover, already properly attributed as FS-501 in a PCGS slab. To my great surprise, the coin returned from NGC with notation "not an RPM, machine doubling only". The fact that NGC's variety team failed to properly attribute the variety is bad enough.

But the real icing on the cake is this: NGC proceeded to cross the coin over into an NGC holder sans the variety designation. That is totally unethical. PCGS would never do that. PCGS procedure in a case such as this is to contact the submitter and explain that in PCGS's opinion the coin is not the requested variety, and therefore, they need permission to cross the coin without the variety designation.

Comments

  • Is there a possibility the original determination by PCGS may not be correct?

    What is the stated NGC policy for such an issue, or is there not a stated policy?

    I understand the relevance of population considerations for your choice of a submittal to another TPG, but that could also be a detriment if the designation for the particular coin is afforded more weight by the community depending on which TPG gave the opinion. Is that the situation with this coin?
  • Based on what you posted, it sounds as if NGC made a mistake.That said, since you can’t read their minds, I think you went way over the line in describing their actions as “totally unethical”.
  • edited June 20
    Zero chance that PCGS's original determination was incorrect John...

    The PCGS pop is 95 and I am the submitter of maybe 1/3 of those 95.

    No NGC has no stated policy that I am aware of for this issue.

    I stand by my statement that it was unethical. I'm no lawyer but I suppose NGC had a legal right to remove the coin from it's PCGS holder by way of their requiring each crossover submission submitter to sign a waiver giving them permission to crack out. However if they did not agree with PCGS's attribution, then they had no ethical right to do so.

  • Thank you. I do understand the conundrum, in light of the waiver requirement. Isn't there a review process, and a request to re-holder, based on proper identification due to error? I thought I read that, years ago. Maybe that has changed. The other question I have: does proper attribution of this piece actually require removal from the submitted slab? If not, I would surmise this was just a comedy of errors (no pun intended.....but after a little thought, I am inclined to pat myself on the back for it).

    I would probably employ the word insensitive, to describe the business lapse.
  • NGC blew it. Mistakes happen. What matters is how mistakes are managed.

    Once NGC agrees to their mistake (and I believe they will, but it will take some effort on OP's part, sadly), they will either re-slab the coin with its proper attribution or offer compensation on the lost value as is. The former is much more likely.
    Lance.
  • Zero chance that PCGS's original determination was incorrect John...

    The PCGS pop is 95 and I am the submitter of maybe 1/3 of those 95.

    No NGC has no stated policy that I am aware of for this issue.

    I stand by my statement that it was unethical. I'm no lawyer but I suppose NGC had a legal right to remove the coin from it's PCGS holder by way of their requiring each crossover submission submitter to sign a waiver giving them permission to crack out. However if they did not agree with PCGS's attribution, then they had no ethical right to do so.

    I don't have much grading service experience. But I have 40+ years of business experience and unless they told you they were going to do nothing about it, taking it public and calling them unethical will NOT help you in any way. It's self-sabotage.

    NGC will almost assuredly do the right thing here but it will take longer than it would have. Just my opinion and it does not make me right.

Sign In or Register to comment.