| Author |
 Replies: 162 / Views: 10,625 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2023 Posts |
Quote:
So, PCGS updated the coin from the "weak S", their numbers: 543974 (Variety of 4644), to the 1866 "P" number 4643 on the current slab, with the same grade and cert number; sorry for my confusion. It might be the other way around -- it was a "P" then updated to "weak S" when they realized the mistake, but they didn't correct the type# (from 4643 to 543974) so the label is wrong. I'm thinking the OP consigned the raw coin in good faith as "P", GC sent it to PCGS that way, PCGS logged it as "P" on receipt, caught the "weak S" during grading/certification, and sent it back to GC with the original/incorrect label designation. But that's all just an uneducated guess based on everything here and with no direct insight to how PCGS really works. Edit to add: CAC probably got their details from the cert# which has the correct information, but didn't notice the label or type# to double-confirm. Edited by Alpha2814
03/23/2024 9:00 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
517 Posts |
Thanks Alpha2814 again; I am back on track...
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Portugal
655 Posts |
Quote:
I am confused. How can the grade not be guaranteed to the original submitter? So if I'm unhappy with a graded note I submitted to PCGS, I cannot re-submit that note with a guarantee it won't grade lower, but if I sell it to Joe Blow, he can re-submit it and gets the guarantee? I agree, this makes no sense. And I can no longer understand who is in the right in this mess. If anyone is. But thank you for the case and discussion. For many years I collected without buying or selling online. Want to see the coin in hand, deal in hand. Now just as I considered giving a try and even sell, I see this. It was very informative and timely. Buying and selling online has many pitfalls! I hope we will be told the outcome. |
|
Valued Member
 Canada
191 Posts |
i have finally been told what happened to the dime. it has been reassessed and is back on GC being auctioned, which I agreed to have done a couple days ago. you can find the link here https://www.greatcollections.com/Co...30-CAC-Greenbidding on this historic dime that changed (or should change) the way that people consign to auction houses going forward, is now open. the original report of how much it sold for I was no longer able to find in my GC account. luckily, I did save copies of all my sales soon after they occurred (note that I monitor every single coin I submit to any auction house, obviously , as I am keenly invested in knowing the outcome, debunking accusations made by another poster on here that I did not monitor it.) once I see what a coin sold for, I ( logically I thought at the time) didnt need to follow it further, as I assumed that no further changes would be made once a sale and pay out is done and no further informtion from GC was forthcoming. the dime originally sold for $2,305.00 |
|
Valued Member
Canada
191 Posts |
the original certfication number for the no mintmark coin last june was 46742602, which is the same as the weak S one now. so pcgs just "erased" their mistake like it never happened.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10982 Posts |
Edited by BH1964
03/27/2024 2:34 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
244 Posts |
I don't know what to think. This story started as the OP sending in a Trade dollar Misattributed as a Proof. 1 when in reality it was a 1866-S Liberty Seated dime with a weak S. The OP said they meant to say Seated Liberty dollar instead of a Trade dollar but the coin that was removed is the 1866-weak S dime. 2 I do apologize if some of the info is wrong this is for my own clarification and under standing of the situation.
Quote:OP : I sent in a raw coin Trade dollar for auction, auction house sent it to pcgs it came back as proof then sent to cac and verified. - GC Rep: The coin in question is not a Trade dollar, It's a 1866 Dime, both PCGS and CAC did miss that it was a Weak S version of this date. I think we caused the OP's confusion as to which coin it was, since we referenced GC Item ID 1352179 instead of 1352178.
Quote:
OP : 6 months later my sale was reversed.
-
GC Rep: Within 30 days of the auction (not six months), we canceled the sale. The coin took several months to fix at PCGS and CAC, at no cost to consignor, we paid for the resticker at CAC and the return shipping). 1 (When asked if it was a 1875 S Trade dollar with a weak S there was no clarification until the GC Rep posted more info 5 days later. In which only the OPs actual coin was stated not the coin it was confused with this being clarified again by GC as being a 1871 PR-58 1871 Seated Liberty dollar)2 Quote:I was getting ready to post pics of the Trade dollar (my mistake, a Seated Liberty dollar).2 now I see the post on the 1866 dime. So, the first time I'm hearing that it was the 1866 dime that was reversed, not the dollar, is on a coin community message board, 8 months after the sale. I was told the item in question was the liberty dollar. Not an 1866 dime. They made a mistake telling me which item was reversed and, more egregiously, as the 1866 dime I also consigned to them sold some time in July 2023 , they did not bother to inform me for roughly 8 months about this situation. |
|
Valued Member
Canada
191 Posts |
to put it simply: i sold some coins in the spring of 2023 and got paid. but not end of story. a couple weeks ago, GC told me one of my coins from that spring sale was incorrectly graded by pcgs and I now owed them money, as the sale was reversed. GC sent me the coin number. the coin number was for a seated liberty dollar. (i am a new collector of US coins so I mixed up seated liberty with Trade dollar (i know, its unforgivable) and thats why I started the post with " Trade dollar") then I found out on this message board that it wasnt a Seated Liberty dollar that was graded incorrectly, it was an 1866 dime. hope that clarifies. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
982 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
I'm still absolutely floored that GC would hold the consignor responsible for PCGS's mistake.
Apparently due diligence isn't in their vocabulary as an auctioneer.
I've thought about using them in the past, but definitely would avoid them now just because of the way they have handled this situation.
Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3848 Posts |
Sooooo did you return the funds to GC or not?
Suffering from bust half fever. Want to learn how to attribute early half dollars by die variety? Click Here: http://goccf.com/t/434955Shoot me a PM if you are looking to sell bust halves. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Disconcerting for sure. I've always the very best experiences with Ian and GC.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4468 Posts |
Quote:
Sooooo did you return the funds to GC or not? The OP does not know what amount to return until the 1866 S is sold at auction. GC took the liberty of sending the 1866 P holder to PCGS and CAC without the OP's knowledge or approval. If the OP has to give the money back, maybe he would want the 1866 P holder. If I am the OP, I would take the position that when GC refunded the buyer and sent the 1866 P to PCGS and CAC without his knowledge GC took ownership of the coin. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
Quote:
Maybe the winning bidder will crack it out of the slab and resubmit it Maybe that's how the OP ended up holding the bag. Who knows how many times this coin has been bought raw as a 1866-P, submitted and come back 1866-S, cracked out and passed off to the next guy, Quote:
this historic dime that changed (or should change) the way that people consign to auction houses going forward I think you're making way too big of a deal out of this. |
| |
Replies: 162 / Views: 10,625 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 03/23/2024 9:03 pm
