PCGS And CAC Incorrectly Graded My Coin

Even great collections doesn't know a seated liberty from a Trade dollar. This story is getting very confusing

I think this thread should be deleted and started from scratch. The OP has no idea what coin was wrong and GC can't tell their dollars apart.

I still think the specifics here aren't as important as the overall issue of what happened. The 'mechanical error' is a cop out for the grading companies. PCGS would have us believe a minimum of 3-4 graders correctly identified the coin as a weak S and the label simply got input incorrectly as a P mint coin. I don't buy it. I'll wager their graders went too fast and incorrectly attributed the coin.

If this transaction was on ebay and the buyer of the coin initiated a charge back for the same reasons, then ebay would immediately refund the buyer and take any funds they could from the seller. The seller would likely not get the coin back either. I think GC has gone above what ebay would do, but I think they could also do more for the seller in this case as none of this was their fault.

I'm just glad it wasn't a Trade dollar; great pics by the way...

Are you kidding? you think I as a new collector would have correctly attributed it as a 1866s when PCGS and CAC couldnt? of course I submitted it as 1866 10cents since I didnt see any mark.

@recollector,

Not trying to beat you down, but for a beginner you are selling pretty nice coins, kind of takes away from the narrative that you are a beginner. Beginners generally don't sell proof seared liberty dollars or rare dimes. Just saying.

The 2nd point relates to tracking what you sell. If sending coins to an auction house I would track how they did, doesn't seem like you were tracking or even keeping on top of it. The proof seated liberty is worth about the same as the Seated dime. Did you buy the dime as an 1866 p? If yrs get the money back from the person that sold it to you.

The 1871 PR58 Seated dollar is a stunning example. A fantastic pick up. Were you happy with the selling price?

It is unfortunate that you and Great Collections are both having to deal with issues caused by a PCGS grading problem. I agree GC should have had better communication, and I hope you can work something out with them to your satisfaction.

jecz79, I am reminded of a James Madison quote: "If Men were angels, no government would be necessary." The chain of mistakes by all parties does not seem intentional. The handling of those mistakes has not been particularly graceful, but to err is human.

Even ethics acknowledges that there is not perpetual responsibility. When you sell a house, the buyer brings in a third party inspector to evaluate the structure. The inspector is a legally sanctioned professional with an obligation to make a thorough report to both parties and their banks. If the buyer discovers a pre-existing mold problem long after the transaction, they cannot simply push that back onto the seller. Legally you would have to prove that the seller knew about the mold problem, concealed it, and intentionally violated the disclosure clause in the sales contract. Even so, considerable blame must fall on the home inspector who failed to detect the problem. Even if the seller's realtor felt obligated to refund the purchase price, that doesn't legally mean the realtor can just push that cost back onto the buyer. Diligence was completed by an agreed-upon third party—who themselves had their homework checked by yet another agreed-upon third party—and the transaction was settled for a considerable period of time. The buyer has rights in that situation, but so does the seller.

Let me pose the following question. The 1942/1 Mercury dime overdate is a rare and expensive variety. It is listed in the Cherrypicker Guide and attributed by PCGS, NGC, ANACS. If future analysis determines that the 1 is actually a die gouge, and the CPG entry is delisted, can the buyer push that back onto the seller? Trusted third party professionals determined the variety was rare and valuable, and other third party professionals attributed the coin as a genuine example. If their work is later admitted to be erroneous, it does not seem entirely ethical that the original good-faith seller should bear the brunt of that mistake. The seller's liability cannot be infinite and ambiguous.

To me, this really does seem like a situation where mediation by a lawyer would make sense, but I don't know the amounts of money involved.