Recently I had one come back from PCGS bodybagged as cleaned.
It was bought a few years ago as an original gem from a very well known ANDA dealer for serious money.
The invoice says "Gem with satin surfaces".
I asked the dealer about it and the response was go away.
What do you reckon ?
Gee echi, that really sucks mate..name the bastard to start with so I don't get caught..not that I can play with the big boys very often but sometimes we little people try :) This way they may see or hear back that people aren't happy with their service or lack there of, and might, just might do something about it..mate that's bloody poor form..so sorry to hear :(
You might also have legal avenues you can take as it's not as described and now that it's been pro graded one would think that might also count but the thing that may let it down is the time frame..but worth a thought maybe :good:
You waited too long to have it certified. The guy can always claim it was cleaned after it left him. You know the truth, but it can't be proven either way now. It's an expensive lesson.-John
the ANDA might help?
the dealer sounds odd to say go away if you have tried to explain the issue to him/her but you do get that , in all businesses, I suppose
with respect to pro-grading - some might argue that an ANDA dealer is also a pro-grader they just might not have a billion dollar business the same as PCGS
I trust my coin dealer 100% and he is not even an ANDA member
And I'd trust his grading over any other grading service in the world! Why - because of his expertise with Australian coins and I am very lucky to have a coin dealer with such a wealth of experience
I also have 2 other oldies of the coin world who I show my coins to for opinions and 9 times out of 10 all three will name the same grade even when I show each man the coin independently of each other
Coins are subject to opinion, expert or not, no different to artworks
but yeah, depending on the amount of years it might be tough to then go back complaining that pcgs didn't agree with the purchase grade, although having said that - what is it called? 'provenance'? - has a high place in the coin world, so hummm maybe the length of time to complain may not be such as issue?
though AJ might be right about the naming!! just to warn others
Could you post a photo of the coin so we can see what PCGS are talking about
NO naming peeps, cos the forum can get into trouble, use the PM system!
Quote from: 'stevo1962' pid='17551' dateline='1370745799'Could you post a photo of the coin so we can see what PCGS are talking about
http://www.pcgs.com/Cert/27455085.html
Association of nonsense dealing assholes?
gee
when I clicked the view value information for this coin and got the extra or different shots - that coin really does look to have satin fields - hang on THEY ARE DIFFERENT COINS ha ha - that is why thy look so good!!
but I have had some beautiful silver coins that independent purists has said, yup - she's cleaned
so I am no good for an opinion that is of any value!! ha ha
Quote from: 'enworb' pid='17554' dateline='1370746637'Association of nonsense dealing assholes?
ouch - that's nasty ?
have you have issues with the ANDA?
Quote from: 'Australian coin' pid='17552' dateline='1370746018'NO naming peeps, cos the forum can get into trouble, use the PM system!
might be true AC and maybe a bit frustrating
as the forum is used blatantly as a medium to sell to collectors
if collectors get stung well, should other members know about that ?
unfortunately with high end coins, there can be a huge $$ different
a Gem 1924 florin cat (my 2012 maccas) is $8,750 whereas Unc is $2,950 - over $5,000 price range (ex PCGS auction hype which throws a spanner in the works of the whole business)
so those grades have an incredible impact on both purchase and re-sale
I reckon crack it out of the slab and re-sell through a good auction house
it might also go in as a Gem in an aussie auction house
Presumably the dealer gave no guarantees as to how it would grade at PCGS. He (I imagine) probably gives no credence to their determination of it being cleaned either. He's not really obligated to.
If you're going to send coins to PCGS you need to learn to pick cleaned coins yourself and not rely on dealers opinions. At least then, when you get it wrong, you've got no-one to blame but yourself.
That all being said I've got a fair idea of who the dealer in question is......and if it is I'm not surprised at his reaction.
funny that you should make that comment Markn
my dealer has been starting to add a PCGS guesstimate with his coins more recently, (esp American coins) either on the holder or with the sale, so in he is a way he is guaranteeing a likely grade
he certainly has said to me, if they grade down on this, bring it back to me
so all the buyer has to do is tell him that sending over to PCGS is an intention
remembering that we have a grading system conversion as well
my coin dealer has also been selling PCGS stuff on consignment and gives the ''PCGS best in the world" blah blah with the sell - it is really sweet to see, as a few years ago that would not have been happening
Status had stacks of slabs last auction too
Quote from: 'robbiegal' pid='17559' dateline='1370748688'funny that you should make that comment Markn
my dealer has been starting to add a PCGS guesstimate with his coins more recently, (esp American coins) either on the holder or with the sale, so in he is a way he is guaranteeing a likely grade
he certainly has said to me, if they grade down on this, bring it back to me
so all the buyer has to do is tell him that sending over to PCGS is an intention
remembering that we have a grading system conversion as well
my coin dealer has also been selling PCGS stuff on consignment and gives the ''PCGS best in the world" blah blah with the sell - it is really sweet to see, as a few years ago that would not have been happening
Status had stacks of slabs last auction too
Good on him. A lot of dealers don't want a bar of PCGS graded coins for whatever reason. I think it's unreasonable to expect those sorts of dealers to provide any sort of assurance as to the grades of their coins.
Gosh, I've send over some coins I bought raw from dealers that PCGS called cleaned. I certainly didn't tell the dealers about them unless asked directly. I decided those coins were ok to send, and they were not. My fault and no-one else was to blame.
The closest I've had to a guarantee was one dealer who said he'd buy be a carton of beer if the coin in question didn't get the grade he thought it would!
did it Mark :huh:
Quote from: 'ausjack' pid='17563' dateline='1370751072'did it Mark :huh:
Yes. No beer for me!
at least you know he's pretty good..spewin ya missed a higher grade slab and a nice cold slab :)
I have a problem with dealer who suggests the grade of a coin and sells and it is cleaned or not close to the grade, especially with ANDA accreditation. There no difference between putting a cleaned coin as unc on ebay.
If it's a genuine mistake (which everybody makes from time to time) they just needed to help out in some way. The level of 'help' would depend on the error made (cost) and the time after the purchase.
Thanks for your responses everyone.
By the way I had a similar issue a number of years ago with a big auction house.
Eventually after two years of arguing my case they took it back and refunded me.
I believe its appropriate to go back to the seller in cases like this.
Quote from: 'b_j_w_79' pid='17568' dateline='1370752658'I have a problem with dealer who suggests the grade of a coin and sells and it is cleaned or not close to the grade, especially with ANDA accreditation. There no difference between putting a cleaned coin as unc on ebay.
If it's a genuine mistake (which everybody makes from time to time) they just needed to help out in some way. The level of 'help' would depend on the error made (cost) and the time after the purchase.
If you have a problem with an ANDA dealer grading to ANDA standards (whatever they are) then fine, you've got a leg to stand on. We're not talking about that though, we're talking about a grade or opinion on cleaning from a company that has no affiliation with ANDA. I am not sure, legally at least, you've got any recourse.
Morally, I think something completely different.
If I can just quote a few lines from the ANDA web site:http://www.anda.com.au/about.asp
Number 7.
QuotePromote the interchange of information relating to forged, faked, repaired or otherwise unsatisfactory items and take action believed appropriate, including legal proceedings, to prevent or reduce the issuing, making or distribution of such items.
In this instance the coin has had its surfaces altered by a (in the eyes of PCGS) light cleaning. Would this count as an unsatisfactory item?
-rob
Quote from: 'Fr45h3R' pid='17581' dateline='1370764463'If I can just quote a few lines from the ANDA web site:http://www.anda.com.au/about.asp
Number 7.
QuotePromote the interchange of information relating to forged, faked, repaired or otherwise unsatisfactory items and take action believed appropriate, including legal proceedings, to prevent or reduce the issuing, making or distribution of such items.
In this instance the coin has had its surfaces altered by a (in the eyes of PCGS) light cleaning. Would this count as an unsatisfactory item?
-rob
Possibly yes.
In reality ANDA is very reluctant to take action against one of its foremost members.
I have found this out the hard way in the past.
Despite blatant flouting they took no action in a previous case where a coin was sold as original whereas it was obviously cleaned and assessed as such by numerous leading dealers.
"I've been in the business for 50 years and the marks are die polishing lines."
It believe it was a blatant lie.
As mentioned in my previous post they eventually refunded after a lengthy battle.
Everyone in this thread assumes pcgs are correct in saying this or any other coin is cleaned. Pcgs has made mistakes, changed opinions and even placed different grading on the same coin. I am not saying pcgs are right or wrong here but I have a big problem with paying for done to tell me what a coin is when you hear regularly "resubmit a coin you get a low grade on and it might come back higher." This has happened. I have even heard cleaned coin on resubmission be not cleaned when regarded. Knowing this sort of thing happens I can not see why anyone would use them and trust them to get it right when it is known sometimes they get it wrong or can't make up their mind. When you talk about the money in the industry and the fact people can and do get ripped off buying tpgc coins then why does everyone bother? Simple answer here.... Too many treat what someone else says as gospel even though it is not And are prepared to over pay for this.
While not exactly the same - I share your pain.
I borught a UNC Year 2000 Incused 50 cents from eBay (I know, I know) a while back and sent it in to be graded. It also came back unc, but cleaned.
I sent an email to the person who I bought it from and he said that he rinsed it soap and water before taking photos of it. He obviously didn't know what he was doing because when I told him of the damage he did he said "Well, I know to not do that again".
It sucks, I almost have a Unc Year 2000 Incused 50 cents - but it's not quite there. Now I wonder to myself what it is worth in the condition that it is in. *sigh*
I know - this doesn't help you one bit. But it lets me get it off my chest.
Wavy20
Quote from: 'Bigfellani5' pid='17594' dateline='1370781266'Everyone in this thread assumes pcgs are correct in saying this or any other coin is cleaned...
...Too many treat what someone else says as gospel even though it is not And are prepared to over pay for this.
I absolutely agree. PCGS is not a service for collectors. It is a service for money men to make money
from collectors, by splitting hairs to get higher prices for their wares.
I for one would never ever get a coin slabbed, nor would I buy one for any sort of premium for being slabbed. Because I'm not a trader, I'm a collector. And as such, I care about
MY opinion, not some anonymous "professional"
(which, by the way, doesn't mean "good", but only "for money") grader.
gee Wavy
who would think that a wash in soap and water would be a 'clean' enough to damage an original surface
unless of course it also included a quick polish with nana's kitchen steelo!
to my thinking, your coin is still unc, just with an extra descriptor
I have some beautiful coins that have most definitely been cleaned
sometimes I think at times, it all gets a little too purist and the coin and it's history and attributes gets lost in a valuation exercise and well, i suppose that is the investment side of coin collecting
and yep I agree with you too bigfellani - grading is subjective and the parameters by the sounds of things from what you have been told, can change even with a mob like pcgs
i get a bit antsy with their colour designations as i think they under report on our reds but i must admit it makes me look harder for them!
Quote from: 'robbiegal' pid='17599' dateline='1370787834'sometimes I think at times, it all gets a little too purist and the coin and it's history and attributes gets lost in a valuation exercise and well, i suppose that is the investment side of coin collecting
I couldn't agree more. We've definitely lost our way I think.
Quote from: 'robbiegal' pid='17599' dateline='1370787834'gee Wavy
who would think that a wash in soap and water would be a 'clean' enough to damage an original surface
unless of course it also included a quick polish with nana's kitchen steelo!
I will say it. Has anyone considered it is just another example of pcgs getting it wrong.
Then it would be wise to get other opinions before pursuing the matter further.-John
Quote from: 'Bigfellani5' pid='17617' dateline='1370812816'I will say it. Has anyone considered it is just another example of pcgs getting it wrong.
This wasn't a discussion on the validity of their opinion, just on whether a dealer should have any responsibility if PCGS opinion differed to their own. I personally do not believe a dealer has any obligation at all.
In any event, perhaps PCGS was wrong, perhaps the dealer was wrong. Hard to say without seeing the coin in hand.
Valid points Markn.
I sold a beautiful 1938 Crown a few years ago on e-bay.
Although I am not a professional dealer, if the buyer approached me now after having an unsuccessful submission to PCGS, am I still responsible for the opinions of assigned grade at the time of the sale, an exchange or refund?
At a certain point, as commented several times in this thread, buyer accountability has to be assumed as well or we'd be forever exchanging all sorts of items, regardless of the sale condition at the time or length of time post sale.
Quote from: 'Bigfellani5' pid='17617' dateline='1370812816'Quote from: 'robbiegal' pid='17599' dateline='1370787834'gee Wavy
who would think that a wash in soap and water would be a 'clean' enough to damage an original surface
unless of course it also included a quick polish with nana's kitchen steelo!
I will say it. Has anyone considered it is just another example of pcgs getting it wrong.
They're not wrong. I've seen the coin. It is cleaned.
Quote from: 'Bigfellani5' pid='17594' dateline='1370781266'Everyone in this thread assumes pcgs are correct in saying this or any other coin is cleaned. Pcgs has made mistakes, changed opinions and even placed different grading on the same coin. I am not saying pcgs are right or wrong here but I have a big problem with paying for done to tell me what a coin is when you hear regularly "resubmit a coin you get a low grade on and it might come back higher." This has happened. I have even heard cleaned coin on resubmission be not cleaned when regarded. Knowing this sort of thing happens I can not see why anyone would use them and trust them to get it right when it is known sometimes they get it wrong or can't make up their mind. When you talk about the money in the industry and the fact people can and do get ripped off buying tpgc coins then why does everyone bother? Simple answer here.... Too many treat what someone else says as gospel even though it is not And are prepared to over pay for this.
PCGS makes mistakes. PCGS is not perfect, but, if you're a collector with a view to selling your coins down the line, you want to grade your coins under a consistently applied grading system with world recognition, PCGS (and NGC) is the only way to do that at the moment. We all know that a hundred different dealers in Australia have a hundred different opinions about a coin's grade, whether it's cleaned, whether the marks are hairlines or die polish, etc – but at the end of the day, PCGS has a global reputation that no dealer and no association can match. The reality is that whether you agree with them or not PCGS (and NGC) is the standard in the international coin market.
Anyway, how I see it is that no matter how many mistakes PCGS might make, the raw coin dealers in aggregate (collectively) make even more. At least PCGS backs up their opinions with a buyback guarantee – that goes years in the future – unlike echidna's friendly local raw coin dealer, whose response was to simply tell the customer to "go away". Would you prefer PCGS or this raw coin dealer? You choose.
I don't know when the purchase occurred but if since early 2011 then it is covered by the Australian Consumer Law and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 applies. A few of the sections are relevant.
In volume 3:
18 Misleading or deceptive conduct
(1) A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.
But it would only be misleading or deceptive if they specifically stated to you "This coin has not been cleaned". If they hold it out at uncirculated then it could still be uncirculated even if cleaned. They just haven't told you everything but in all likelihood they're probably not required to tell you unless you ask.
At S 20L 20 Unconscionable conduct within the meaning of the unwritten law
(1) A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is unconscionable, within the meaning of the unwritten law from time to time.
I don't think the examples fit.
More on Misleading statement at S 29:
29 False or misleading representations about goods or services
(1) A person must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connection with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services:
(a) make a false or misleading representation that goods are of a particular standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style or model or have had a particular history or particular previous use; or
But again as before it is questionable whether their statement that the coin was uncirculated is misleading (just incomplete). I think a more successful argument is under S 54
54 Guarantee as to acceptable quality
(1) If:
(a) a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer; and
(b) the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction;
there is a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality.
(2) Goods are of acceptable quality if they are as:
(a) fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied; and
(b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and
(c) free from defects; and
(d) safe; and
(e) durable;
as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods (including any hidden defects of the goods), would regard as acceptable having regard to the matters in subsection (3).
............................
(7) Goods do not fail to be of acceptable quality if:
(a) the consumer acquiring the goods examines them before the consumer agrees to the supply of the goods; and
(b) the examination ought reasonably to have revealed that the goods were not of acceptable quality.
Overall you would have a reasonable argument about the statutory guarantee on the acceptable quality grounds but you would have to ask if it is worth it. It may be sufficient to bring this statutory protection to their attention but probably not worth taking it to a tribunal.
I'd also throw in the disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer and haven't done the research to see whether coins fit the defn of "goods" or if there's anything else that would exclude the purchase. If purchased prior to 2011 then the Trade Practices Act would have applied which MAY have had a similar provision.
Of course this also presumes that PCGS is correct.
The Act is here: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011C00003/Html/Volume_3#param66
Steve
As a dealer I back what I sell. As I do know pcgs do get it wrong i can not be expected to refund based on their opinion. I refund if a customer is unhappy with what I send them.... No questions asked....but anyone that buys a pcgs graded coin should do so not because of what pcgs say it is but because of what the buyer believes it is graded as. Don't be a fool and buy anything based on what someone else tells you something is graded at. Be smart and form your own opinion.
Quote from: 'robbiegal' pid='17630' dateline='1370827335'Valid points Markn.
I sold a beautiful 1938 Crown a few years ago on e-bay.
Although I am not a professional dealer, if the buyer approached me now after having an unsuccessful submission to PCGS, am I still responsible for the opinions of assigned grade at the time of the sale, an exchange or refund?
At a certain point, as commented several times in this thread, buyer accountability has to be assumed as well or we'd be forever exchanging all sorts of items, regardless of the sale condition at the time or length of time post sale.
There's no implied warranty on private sales. So you're not responsible for his coin not grading at PCGS. Returns for commercial sales include the "fit for purpose within a reasonable time frame". What this means for coins I have no idea. Given that they are second hand I suspect there's no warranty available at all.
Quote from: 'markn' pid='17637' dateline='1370830556'There's no implied warranty on private sales. So you're not responsible for his coin not grading at PCGS. Returns for commercial sales include the "fit for purpose within a reasonable time frame". What this means for coins I have no idea. Given that they are second hand I suspect there's no warranty available at all.
Markn, "Fitness for purpose" is only one of the criteria for "acceptable quality". They must also be "(b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and (c) free from defects; and" both arguable points. This is a statutory protection not an implied warranty. I agree the longer it takes to identify the quality issue then the weaker the argument. I think I'd be putting it down to experience.
Quote from: 'Steveqld' pid='17643' dateline='1370831451'Markn, "Fitness for purpose" is only one of the criteria for "acceptable quality". They must also be "(b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and (c) free from defects; and" both arguable points. This is a statutory protection not an implied warranty. I agree the longer it takes to identify the quality issue then the weaker the argument. I think I'd be putting it down to experience.
Given that most coins are second hand I am not sure any of this applies unless you buy them from a shop. I am fairly sure none of it applies if you're buying from eBay, public auction, or a garage sale. Interesting to think about though, thanks for posting up all the information :)
My name is Andrew Crellin, my business is Sterling and Currency and I'm the dealer that echidna has referred to here.
Rather than type up a full response, I've pasted below my (two) responses below. I welcome your comments and feedback:
-------------
First Response:
-------------
Thanks for your email.
I'm sorry to hear of the adverse finding by PCGS on those coins, that is never a welcome outcome.
I quite understand you asking the question re the 1924 florin, I have to say I don't recall the exact details of that specific transaction either I must say - our current POS system was installed in mid 2010, any activity earlier than that date has been archived.
My recollection is that as the PCGS system began to take prescience over the raw grading system, I have been appropriately circumspect as to how raw coins sold by us have been represented.
I've had a number of enquiries from collectors that have wanted to know if the grades of the coins on our website are PCGS grades, which they are not.
I have also had enquiries from clients that want to know if we guarantee that the grades we attribute to raw coins will match those that PCGS will attribute, which we cannot.
Where there is any question about the potential of any raw coin to "grade", I'll state my opinion as to the originality of the surfaces, and the estimated grade, however can't and won't guarantee that a coin will make any particular grade with PCGS.
I have, on occasion, advised clients that a particular coin is cleaned or if it may not grade for any other reason. Certain clients won't proceed with a particular transaction due to the answer they get, others will take a punt based on their opinion of a coin.
In short, as I don't recall guaranteeing that this particular coin had original surfaces, and that it would definitely "grade" with PCGS, I'm not in a position to agree to your request.
I can offer you the 1924 florin in PCGS MS63 that we currently have at cost - it is a consigned coin, so the cost would be $5250 - 15%, about $4,400. I may be able to get this down if you'd like me to look into it further.
Ironically, I commented on a post online re this very subject in early May:
http://www.coinworld.com/Articles/ViewArticle/accountability-matters
I appreciate the amount of business we've done, and hope you understand why I've taken this position re this coin.
-------------
Second Response:
-------------
I understand your disappointment about the PCGS result, however I don't see how I can be held accountable for that comment being measured against a grading / authentication / assessment standard that I was not aware of at the time the coin was sold.
If you had said to me - Andrew, I wish to purchase this coin only if you guarantee PCGS will agree that it has original surfaces, and only if the PCGS grade matches the grade you have attributed - if I had agreed to that request, then I would refund you outright without hesitation.
I know that this is not the case however, because I have had several such conversations with clients that solely collect PCGS-graded coins regarding items we have had on offer, and I have not given any such guarantee on any of those occasions, whatever the level of confidence I may or may not have in the item passing muster with PCGS.
Retrospective grading of items purchased prior to the PCGS standard became the de facto standard is an understandable process.
Presuming that a guarantee exists on a transaction where the other party is not explicitly aware that such a guarantee is being demanded, I don't believe is fair.
I empathise with your situation, and am prepared to offer the PCGS MS63 1924 florin that we have at present at cost as agreed.
Sale by auction is specifically excluded as are private sales and I'd agree Ebay, garage sales and public auctions are out. It must be a transaction in the course of trade or business and I'd include sales through advertisements in papers, magazines and internet websites, not just a physical shopfront. I guess it would include a market stall. Without looking further I think second hand goods are covered. I did read a decision a couple of months ago concerning a second hand engine purchased by someone in Brisbane from a business in the NT.
Shopfronts are offered some protection as the purchaser can usually inspect the item before purchase:
(7) Goods do not fail to be of acceptable quality if:
(a) the consumer acquiring the goods examines them before the consumer agrees to the supply of the goods; and
(b) the examination ought reasonably to have revealed that the goods were not of acceptable quality.
Hence this gives effect to the rule "Let the buyer beware".
Quote from: 'drakesterling' pid='17632' dateline='1370829591'Would you prefer PCGS or this raw coin dealer? You choose.
If PCGS were a dealer, there'd be no contest. But they're not. So unless the dealer you're buying from has already had it slabbed, you're going to be dealing with it down the line. A long way down the line, from all reports.
And that goes back to the original question about ethics. Does a dealer get to wash his hands, months or years later, or as soon as you walk out the door, or when exactly?
Does someone who cares about the whole slabbing thing need to draw up a binding contract and get the dealer to sign it before buying a coin? Do we even want to think about opening
THAT can of worms?
Thanks Andrew
Your response has addressed many of the important questions that are being asked around the sellers responsibility and also that of the buyers.
There is always two sides to a story and I am sure that you two will eventually come to some sort of agreement on the matter at hand.
Quote from: 'acrellin' pid='17647' dateline='1370832773'My name is Andrew Crellin, my business is Sterling and Currency and I'm the dealer that echidna has referred to here.
Rather than type up a full response, I've pasted below my (two) responses below. I welcome your comments and feedback:
-------------
First Response:
-------------
Thanks for your email.
I'm sorry to hear of the adverse finding by PCGS on those coins, that is never a welcome outcome.
I quite understand you asking the question re the 1924 florin, I have to say I don't recall the exact details of that specific transaction either I must say - our current POS system was installed in mid 2010, any activity earlier than that date has been archived.
My recollection is that as the PCGS system began to take prescience over the raw grading system, I have been appropriately circumspect as to how raw coins sold by us have been represented.
I've had a number of enquiries from collectors that have wanted to know if the grades of the coins on our website are PCGS grades, which they are not.
I have also had enquiries from clients that want to know if we guarantee that the grades we attribute to raw coins will match those that PCGS will attribute, which we cannot.
Where there is any question about the potential of any raw coin to "grade", I'll state my opinion as to the originality of the surfaces, and the estimated grade, however can't and won't guarantee that a coin will make any particular grade with PCGS.
I have, on occasion, advised clients that a particular coin is cleaned or if it may not grade for any other reason. Certain clients won't proceed with a particular transaction due to the answer they get, others will take a punt based on their opinion of a coin.
In short, as I don't recall guaranteeing that this particular coin had original surfaces, and that it would definitely "grade" with PCGS, I'm not in a position to agree to your request.
I can offer you the 1924 florin in PCGS MS63 that we currently have at cost - it is a consigned coin, so the cost would be $5250 - 15%, about $4,400. I may be able to get this down if you'd like me to look into it further.
Ironically, I commented on a post online re this very subject in early May:
http://www.coinworld.com/Articles/ViewArticle/accountability-matters
I appreciate the amount of business we've done, and hope you understand why I've taken this position re this coin.
-------------
Second Response:
-------------
I understand your disappointment about the PCGS result, however I don't see how I can be held accountable for that comment being measured against a grading / authentication / assessment standard that I was not aware of at the time the coin was sold.
If you had said to me - Andrew, I wish to purchase this coin only if you guarantee PCGS will agree that it has original surfaces, and only if the PCGS grade matches the grade you have attributed - if I had agreed to that request, then I would refund you outright without hesitation.
I know that this is not the case however, because I have had several such conversations with clients that solely collect PCGS-graded coins regarding items we have had on offer, and I have not given any such guarantee on any of those occasions, whatever the level of confidence I may or may not have in the item passing muster with PCGS.
Retrospective grading of items purchased prior to the PCGS standard became the de facto standard is an understandable process.
Presuming that a guarantee exists on a transaction where the other party is not explicitly aware that such a guarantee is being demanded, I don't believe is fair.
I empathise with your situation, and am prepared to offer the PCGS MS63 1924 florin that we have at present at cost as agreed.
Andrew
The ANDA code states:
I will immediately refund on any item sold by me where the description was either inaccurate or misleading, within a reasonable time frame.
It has been clearly demonstrated that the description was inaccurate.
The stated description in this case was Gem with satin surfaces.
I realize that "reasonable timeframe" is open to interpretation.
However would you comment rest of the ANDA statement please.
Setting aside the fact that the transaction took place in 2007, I personally do not agree that the description of the coin was either inaccurate or misleading.
The proposition you have made is that the above description somehow implied that the coin would meet the PCGS standard.
If you wish to lodge a complaint under ANDA's Ethics & Good Conduct Protocol about this situation, you are of course free to do so.
I assure you that I'll abide by any decisions made, and that the process is completely transparent and impartial.
You can find out more information about this process via the ANDA website.
Quote from: 'echidna' pid='17673' dateline='1370846247'Quote from: 'acrellin' pid='17647' dateline='1370832773'My name is Andrew Crellin, my business is Sterling and Currency and I'm the dealer that echidna has referred to here.
Rather than type up a full response, I've pasted below my (two) responses below. I welcome your comments and feedback:
-------------
First Response:
-------------
Thanks for your email.
I'm sorry to hear of the adverse finding by PCGS on those coins, that is never a welcome outcome.
I quite understand you asking the question re the 1924 florin, I have to say I don't recall the exact details of that specific transaction either I must say - our current POS system was installed in mid 2010, any activity earlier than that date has been archived.
My recollection is that as the PCGS system began to take prescience over the raw grading system, I have been appropriately circumspect as to how raw coins sold by us have been represented.
I've had a number of enquiries from collectors that have wanted to know if the grades of the coins on our website are PCGS grades, which they are not.
I have also had enquiries from clients that want to know if we guarantee that the grades we attribute to raw coins will match those that PCGS will attribute, which we cannot.
Where there is any question about the potential of any raw coin to "grade", I'll state my opinion as to the originality of the surfaces, and the estimated grade, however can't and won't guarantee that a coin will make any particular grade with PCGS.
I have, on occasion, advised clients that a particular coin is cleaned or if it may not grade for any other reason. Certain clients won't proceed with a particular transaction due to the answer they get, others will take a punt based on their opinion of a coin.
In short, as I don't recall guaranteeing that this particular coin had original surfaces, and that it would definitely "grade" with PCGS, I'm not in a position to agree to your request.
I can offer you the 1924 florin in PCGS MS63 that we currently have at cost - it is a consigned coin, so the cost would be $5250 - 15%, about $4,400. I may be able to get this down if you'd like me to look into it further.
Ironically, I commented on a post online re this very subject in early May:
http://www.coinworld.com/Articles/ViewArticle/accountability-matters
I appreciate the amount of business we've done, and hope you understand why I've taken this position re this coin.
-------------
Second Response:
-------------
I understand your disappointment about the PCGS result, however I don't see how I can be held accountable for that comment being measured against a grading / authentication / assessment standard that I was not aware of at the time the coin was sold.
If you had said to me - Andrew, I wish to purchase this coin only if you guarantee PCGS will agree that it has original surfaces, and only if the PCGS grade matches the grade you have attributed - if I had agreed to that request, then I would refund you outright without hesitation.
I know that this is not the case however, because I have had several such conversations with clients that solely collect PCGS-graded coins regarding items we have had on offer, and I have not given any such guarantee on any of those occasions, whatever the level of confidence I may or may not have in the item passing muster with PCGS.
Retrospective grading of items purchased prior to the PCGS standard became the de facto standard is an understandable process.
Presuming that a guarantee exists on a transaction where the other party is not explicitly aware that such a guarantee is being demanded, I don't believe is fair.
I empathise with your situation, and am prepared to offer the PCGS MS63 1924 florin that we have at present at cost as agreed.
Andrew
The ANDA code states:
I will immediately refund on any item sold by me where the description was either inaccurate or misleading, within a reasonable time frame.
It has been clearly demonstrated that the description was inaccurate.
The stated description in this case was Gem with satin surfaces.
I realize that "reasonable timeframe" is open to interpretation.
However would you comment rest of the ANDA statement please.
I'd just like to commend Andrew for full disclosure here. Class act in my books.
Quote from: 'Steveqld' pid='17649' dateline='1370833488'(7) Goods do not fail to be of acceptable quality if:
(a) the consumer acquiring the goods examines them before the consumer agrees to the supply of the goods; and
(b) the examination ought reasonably to have revealed that the goods were not of acceptable quality.
Hence this gives effect to the rule "Let the buyer beware".
Surely then, if you've looked at a coin (presumably second-hand) in a shop, decided it is of acceptable quality and bought then the vendor isn't required to refund on the coin if it's determined to be cleaned (by some party) at a later point.
I guess arguments could be made that if a coin is cleaned or treated in some way that in not detectable with a loupe in a store and required some higher level of detection (microscope or 'sniffer') then the coin could still be of unacceptable quality. Then a return may be warranted.
Quote from: 'markn' pid='17685' dateline='1370852196'Quote from: 'Steveqld' pid='17649' dateline='1370833488'(7) Goods do not fail to be of acceptable quality if:
(a) the consumer acquiring the goods examines them before the consumer agrees to the supply of the goods; and
(b) the examination ought reasonably to have revealed that the goods were not of acceptable quality.
Hence this gives effect to the rule "Let the buyer beware".
Surely then, if you've looked at a coin (presumably second-hand) in a shop, decided it is of acceptable quality and bought then the vendor isn't required to refund on the coin if it's determined to be cleaned (by some party) at a later point.
I guess arguments could be made that if a coin is cleaned or treated in some way that in not detectable with a loupe in a store and required some higher level of detection (microscope or 'sniffer') then the coin could still be of unacceptable quality. Then a return may be warranted.
That's my understanding. The buyer knows exactly what you're getting and what you're paying for it. I think the purpose of the Act is just to ensure the parties conduct the transaction openly and on an equal footing. To elaborate on my comments re Ebay purchases earlier. I think an ebay auction would be excluded from the Act. I suspect if a dealer has an Ebay Shop and the purchase occurs through that then it would be covered but I have no idea whether a "Buy it now" purchase would be covered as I suspect it is not as an auction.
"I will immediately refund on any item sold by me where the description was either inaccurate or misleading, within a reasonable time frame."
Surely, if a transaction had taken place is 2007 (i.e. up to six years ago) then the seller or auctioneer would no longer have an exchange or refund liability. Surely that is reasonable, regardless to any third party grading's?
After a length of time in all auctions, bidders have paid, vendors returns are settled and records go into the archive.
Post sale responsibility for most goods is usually and often, at the most, about a 30 day time frame?
This is making me very nervous as hell is goanna freeze over before I refund on my sales from 6 years ago. Thank-fully I am not an ANDA dealer but I still sell with integrity and have refunded fully including return post for a buyer who got the coin 'regraded 'by a coin dealer on delivery and subsequently was not happy with my grade. Fortunately with e-bay the block bidder facility works very well!
My hubby once refunded coin purchases that a collector had made from him, over nine months earlier and multiple purchases over several months. The hubby refunded but I felt that it was unreasonable after 9 months and in the following financial year for a customer to say 'oh I already had these in my collection and then expect a full return. I refuse to deal with that person as well, and blocked him on e-bay.
Thanks goodness :@
I just went to the ANDA medication process PDF
http://www.anda.com.au/about_mediation.asp
"Time Frame for Validity of Complaints 3.1 All complaints must be filed in writing and on the prescribed form within 90 days of the occurrence of the event the complaint relates to, or within 90 days of the Complainant becoming aware of the actions giving rise to the complaint. 3.2 In no event shall a complaint be heard relating to an event that has occurred more than two (2) years prior to the complaint being filed."
Quote from: 'robbiegal' pid='17690' dateline='1370854641'"I will immediately refund on any item sold by me where the description was either inaccurate or misleading, within a reasonable time frame."
Surely, if a transaction had taken place is 2007 (i.e. up to six years ago) then the seller or auctioneer would no longer have an exchange or refund liability. Surely that is reasonable, regardless to any third party grading's?
After a length of time in all auctions, bidders have paid, vendors returns are settled and records go into the archive.
Post sale responsibility for most goods is usually and often, at the most, about a 30 day time frame?
This is making me very nervous as hell is goanna freeze over before I refund on my sales from 6 years ago. Thank-fully I am not an ANDA dealer but I still sell with integrity and have refunded fully including return post for a buyer who got the coin 'regraded 'by a coin dealer on delivery and subsequently was not happy with my grade. Fortunately with e-bay the block bidder facility works very well!
My hubby once refunded coin purchases that a collector had made from him, over nine months earlier and multiple purchases over several months. The hubby refunded but I felt that it was unreasonable after 9 months and in the following financial year for a customer to say 'oh I already had these in my collection and then expect a full return. I refuse to deal with that person as well, and blocked him on e-bay.
Thanks goodness :@
I just went to the ANDA medication process PDF
http://www.anda.com.au/about_mediation.asp
"Time Frame for Validity of Complaints 3.1 All complaints must be filed in writing and on the prescribed form within 90 days of the occurrence of the event the complaint relates to, or within 90 days of the Complainant becoming aware of the actions giving rise to the complaint. 3.2 In no event shall a complaint be heard relating to an event that has occurred more than two (2) years prior to the complaint being filed."
I don't think you have too much to worry about Robbie. 99% of the people who buy my products use credit card and they have up to 12 months to claim their money back by making a claim against their credit card company (known as a chargeback). And there's effectively nothing I can do about it. Sounds kind of scary but since 2003 I've had less than 10 people (from 10000+ transactions) do chargebacks on their credit cards.
That being said I pretty much give anyone their money back if they ask for it. Sometimes it's just not worth the hassle. Of course I don't sell a physical product so it's quite different to taking returns on material goods.
ta
I guess I work on good faith as well
99% of the time is a fair reliability factor
I think you can get business insurance?
I have professional indemnity insurance and that is up to $20,000,000.00 ( 20 million $, did i write that right?) but that doesn't actually cover my e-bay store. ha ha!
I'd like to comment on the purpose of the thread.
There are two issues - the specific coin in question and the general issue.
The general issue:
This was the real reason for the thread.
With PCGS becoming the standard my guess is that there will be similar issues coming up.
There will be others in the same boat.
I felt it was important to find out where collectors stand.
I think that has been established - there is no recourse.
That is the reason why I raised the ANDA code issue.
With regard to this specific coin yes its been 6 YEARS since purchase and any complaint via the ANDA process would obviously be dismissed on that reason at least.
Any resolution depends on goodwill alone.
I believe that goodwill is extremely important in the coin dealing world.
I also commend Andrew for his input.
I don't agree with all his comments however.
Legal wrangling is not the way to go.
One important issue everyone has again missed the boat on. Was pcgs correct? If Andrew at the time thought the coin was not cleaned and the buyer at the time thought the coin was not cleaned then there has to be doubt on pcgs opinion. Assuming this is the case I think Andrew has done the right thing here. Don't forget pcgs only dish out paid opinions and are not always correct. They are not a standard.... Merely an opinion..... And an overpriced opinion at that.
Quote from: 'echidna' pid='17693' dateline='1370860622'I think that has been established - there is no recourse.
There seldom is. Even with ever-increasing mountains of legislation attempting to "protect" us, it still boils down to Caveat Emptor.
Quote from: 'echidna' pid='17693' dateline='1370860622'I believe that goodwill is extremely important in the coin dealing world.
Absolutely. And reputable dealers know that
(the shonks probably know it too, but don't care, figuring they can always scam someone else next time). Andrew offered a possible solution in the spirit of goodwill, even though not obligated to do so. Have you weighed up the relative values of the original purchase, its new downgraded worth, and the value of his offer?
Quote from: 'echidna' pid='17693' dateline='1370860622'I also commend Andrew for his input.
I think we'd
all agree with that. Class act.
Quote from: 'echidna' pid='17693' dateline='1370860622'I don't agree with all his comments however.
If you agreed, there would be no dispute, discussion or resolution, and this thread wouldn't exist. The disagreement is giving us all food for thought.
Quote from: 'echidna' pid='17693' dateline='1370860622'Legal wrangling is not the way to go.
Indeed. Don't feed Trolls, Bears or the Bottom-feeders who are the only real winners in any legal wrangle.
I think the key question is "When the coin was sold, was the description accurate?".
If you are told something by a seller (such as a grade) and you rely on what you are told, then it must be true or you are being deceived.
On the general issue I think it's highly unlikely any of us are going to be involved in any transaction which results in lawyers and courts. You'd have to be talking about losses of $50,000 - $100,000 for it to be worthwhile and there are too many other avenues for resolving a dispute. I agree with Robbiegal that (at least) 99% of disputes are resolved by good faith and common sense, however the world is full of bush lawyers (myself included) misinterpreting and misquoting legislation and there is every likelihood of them self representing before a small claims tribunal as it costs so little.
In the last 20 years I've self represented before small claims, Right to Information and Workcover (Qlds workplace injury insurer) and been successful each time (1 business and 2 government agencies) with the latter represented by a Barrister. Anyone can do it but you have to be sure that you're right and know when to pull out and be prepared to wear your losses.
Both buyers and sellers should have a basic understanding of their obligations and entitlements just so the wool isn't pulled over their eyes but I agree that talking about legislation implies lawyers and courts and can do more harm than good by getting someone's back up.
On this specific issue I agree Andrew did the right thing by putting this out in the open so we have both sides without necessarily taking either side. Hopefully they can come to a resolution but this probably shouldn't be done in the public eye as it becomes an exercise in garnering the most support to put pressure on each other.
I personally believe that acceptance of the PCGS standard has been nothing less than a tectonic shift in the Australian numismatic marketplace - it has altered it fundamentally. As this change has empowered collectors to have more confidence that they are now acquiring only coins that meet a standard they agree with, that is of course a positive trend.
Whether it is acknowledged or not, the entire market is going through this process, and will be doing so for the coming few years yet.
The reason I responded to this post publicly is because I agree this issue needs to be discussed broadly, so we all get a clearer idea of where we stand.
If that means I open myself up to criticism and further consequences, I accept that.
I don't take any satisfaction at all from the outcome to this situation, and I wholeheartedly agree that goodwill and integrity are vital to our hobby / trade functioning effectively.
To say that there is no recourse is not correct at all however.
Specifically regarding the ANDA E&GCC process, I can say that I have acted as the Chair of that process in the past, and have assisted collectors in obtaining resolutions in a number of cases - I was also a prime mover in bringing the process into existence, to supplement ANDA's code of ethics.
The clause regarding the timeframe for action describes the time within which the complainant becomes aware of the situation, not necessarily the period since the alleged event took place.
For example, if a collector were to purchase a genuine 1923 halfpenny from an ANDA member, and then discover 6 years later that the coin was counterfeit, then as far as I would interpret the E&GCC process (as an ANDA member and a former Chair of the E&GCC), provided the complaint was lodged within 90 days of the collector being advised that the coin was counterfeit, the passing of 6 years would not excuse the ANDA member from any responsibility they might have.
The reason I have declined to refund on this occasion is that the description of the coin being Gem Unc and with satin surfaces, was taken as an implied guarantee that the coin had original surfaces, as would be determined by PCGS.
I have traded in coins full-time since the mid-1990's, and can say that it is only in the past few years (perhaps 4), that the PCGS standard has really begun to guide the way that coins are traded. Prior to that, coins were traded in good faith to a different standard.
Yes, there have been many cleaned and dipped coins sold in Australia over the years under false pretences, however that doesn't also mean that coins now determined by PCGS not to have original surfaces, and sold in good faith prior to the PCGS standard taking prescience in Australia, were also sold under false pretences.
The same also applies to coins that met a certain raw grade, yet are now graded at a different level under the PCGS standard.
Gold coins are also affected significantly - several recent auctions have included gold coins that were widely accepted as being premium grade when they appeared previously (sometimes 5 - 30 years ago), however under the PCGS standard, they don't meet the same grade. As an example, it isn't inconceivable for a coin that was correctly graded Choice Unc to be now graded as about Unc if there is friction in the fields.
I don't believe that such adjustments in the prevailing standard are always the fault of the previous vendors - it is simply a change in what collectors deem to be desirable and acceptable.
Quote from: 'echidna' pid='17693' dateline='1370860622'I'd like to comment on the purpose of the thread.
There are two issues - the specific coin in question and the general issue.
The general issue:
This was the real reason for the thread.
With PCGS becoming the standard my guess is that there will be similar issues coming up.
There will be others in the same boat.
I felt it was important to find out where collectors stand.
I think that has been established - there is no recourse.
That is the reason why I raised the ANDA code issue.
With regard to this specific coin yes its been 6 YEARS since purchase and any complaint via the ANDA process would obviously be dismissed on that reason at least.
Any resolution depends on goodwill alone.
I believe that goodwill is extremely important in the coin dealing world.
I also commend Andrew for his input.
I don't agree with all his comments however.
Legal wrangling is not the way to go.
I don't think that the idea of looking at the laws is necessarily heading to "I will see you in court", hopefully it is more looking at "What are the rules we are all supposed to be playing by".
If everyone agrees nicely what the rules are and how they should apply, then reasonable people can accept the outcome of playing "by the rules" even if the don't like the outcome.
Thanks for clarifying that for me Andrew
I did wonder if one could 'split hairs' with respect to when the complaint was lodged as opposed to when a coin was originally purchased etc.
Quote from: 'robbiegal' pid='17555' dateline='1370747113'Quote from: 'Australian coin' pid='17552' dateline='1370746018'NO naming peeps, cos the forum can get into trouble, use the PM system!
might be true AC and maybe a bit frustrating
as the forum is used blatantly as a medium to sell to collectors
if collectors get stung well, should other members know about that ?
(http://www.ifish.net/board/images/smilies/yeahthat.gif)
hey Bob
did you work at the Sydney Mint?
When did the mint close down?
:hi: Just off the top of my head the Sydney Mint, famously, I thought, went broke making money in 1926. I've changed my signature several times this arvo, well, because I can. The sydney mint thing was meant to indicate that i was conceived and born in this city. :hi:
ta
it is fun to play around with that stuff
I lived in Sydney once or twice many many years ago
it was ok too