Professional Coin Grading Service

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's? response.? If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the? response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.? I will wait? for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved
Regards,
[redacted]Mr[redacted]: I will accept PCGS offer but (if possible) would like to see more transparency from the company regarding notes etc., on coins gradedWithout the notes etc, etc., one has no proof as to why the grader(s) lowered my coins from high value, perfect 70's to low value 66sNo proof whatsoever, it leaves a customer scratching his head as to how they came to their decisionWith? notes etc.,? its called transparency and without that it smells like a red herring

PCGS is a division of Collectors Universe which is a publicly traded company.  In the 32 years since PCGS’s founding, Collectors Universe has graded and authenticated over 68 million items for a combined current value of over $35 billion.  The nature of our business is that customers...

submit their coins and other collectibles to us for authentication and grading services. In this instance, this customer received a PCGS-graded coin as a gift. In the customer’s complaint, he mentioned that he was unsure if his friend purchased the coin directly from PCGS or not. PCGS does not buy or sell coins, we strictly authenticate and grade them. The coin was most likely purchased from another coin collector or from a PCGS Authorized Dealer online or in Mr. [redacted] Friend’s local area. Mr. [redacted] noticed two small blemishes or imperfections on the inner gasket of the PCGS holder (an inner plastic gasket holds the coin inside of and in place in the PCGS holder). Mr. [redacted] contacted PCGS regarding the issue he observed on the holder. PCGS requested images as is our normal procedure to ensure that customers are not sending PCGS-holdered coins back to PCGS for “correction” if they are correct and in the appropriate condition. We informed Mr. [redacted] that small blemishes such as the ones he had mentioned were not uncommon but we would still work with him to attempt to correct the issue once images were received as he was not satisfied with the current condition of the holder and gasket. Once images of the coin holder issue were received, we provided Mr. [redacted] with a pre-paid and fully insured FedEx label along with step-by-step instructions on how to send the coin to PCGS so that we could review the issue in-person and potentially correct it. Upon receiving the coin at PCGS, the coin was reviewed by one of PCGS’s most senior experts. The coin in question was correct as-is with no issue other than two small blemishes on the inner gasket. The coin was removed from the PCGS holder and gasket and placed into a new PCGS gasket then into a new PCGS holder. The PCGS holder was then sonically sealed by PCGS personnel. Prior to the coin being shipped back to Mr. [redacted], the PCGS Customer Service Representative that was working with Mr. [redacted] personally reviewed the coin and holder in question along with our Operations Personnel. They determined the blemish that Mr. [redacted] had referred to on the PCGS holder/gasket was no longer on this new gasket. The coin was then sent back to Mr. [redacted], once again on PCGS’s account, fully insured and at no cost to Mr. [redacted]. Once Mr. [redacted] received the coin back he was still not satisfied with the PCGS holder. At this point, Mr. [redacted] contacted PCGS Customer Service again and proceeded to inform our staff that he was not satisfied with the correction and felt that the issue had not been resolved. Mr. [redacted] was advised that if he was still not satisfied with the small imperfection on the inner plastic he could send it back to PCGS again on our account and at no charge to him for us to review the holder again but Mr. [redacted] did not want to go this route. All plastic used for PCGS holders, gaskets and any material that PCGS uses are of very specific materials and compositions to ensure that they cannot harm any coin or collectible that is placed into a PCGS holder. Once a coin is placed into a PCGS holder it is typically not removed, extreme amounts of research and care go into developing all materials used by PCGS to ensure the safe storage of the coin or other collectible over time. Throughout the process used to manufacture PCGS materials, very small blemishes or imperfections can sometimes be found in the outer areas of PCGS holders and/or gaskets. These small imperfections by no means affect the value of the PCGS-graded coin as they are on the PCGS holder and not the coin itself. As previously stated, PCGS does not buy or sell coins, thus we would not be able to exchange the coin in question. During the very beginning process of assisting Mr. [redacted], we did let him know that typically if there is an issue such as this, the coin can be exchanged through the person that the coin was purchased from. Sometimes for the consumer this is easier and quicker than sending the coin back to PCGS directly. If Mr. [redacted] would like to send the coin back to PCGS, I personally, along with our Operations Manager, will hand select the plastic holder and inner gasket to replace the current holder and gasket when placing the coin into a new PCGS holder. We cannot guarantee that there may or may not still be a very small blemish on the plastic as is common.

PCGS is a division of [redacted] which is a publicly traded company. In the 32 years since PCGS’s founding, [redacted] has graded and authenticated over 67 million items for a combined current value of over $32 billion. The nature of our business is that customers submit...

their coins and other collectibles to us for authentication and grading services. In this instance, the customer submitted coins to PCGS that were previously graded by another Third-Party Grading Service and requested that they be put into PCGS holders. When a coin is submitted to PCGS that is already graded by another Grading Service, this is considered a “Crossover.” Crossovers are reviewed by multiple PCGS Grading Experts including a Senior Grade/Verifier. If PCGS’s Grading Experts do not believe the coin in question would qualify for the same grade in a PCGS holder, the coin would not be removed from its holder and would be returned to the customer as is. We’ve contacted the customer directly via email, our response to the customer is below; Good Afternoon Mr. [redacted], My name is [redacted], I am the Customer Service Manager for PCGS. Your email was forwarded to me as soon as my team saw it in our email inbox. I apologize if this response is later than you expected, we receive a very high volume of calls and emails every day and we do our best to respond to each as quickly as possible. I reviewed your email below, your Revdex.com complaint regarding this order, the notes my team left on the order and I have spoken with the Customer Service Representatives that you spoke with regarding this order. I apologize if my team was not able to provide a full and adequate response as to why your coins did not cross. As to “DNC” – this stands for “Did Not Cross’ and is typically indicated on a Crossover that our graders did not feel met or exceeded whatever the minimum grade for that specific coin was based on PCGS’s standards. I believe there was a bit of confusion or miscommunication on what exactly you wanted as a minimum grade for each coin. Based on your submission form, you requested “ANY” which is any numerical grade from 1 to 70, however on the letter you provided with the order you stated, “if by chance you folks grade either one of them lesser than a 70, please do not crack out, but send them back in the ICG holders.” I know that you spoke with a few of our Customer Service Representatives and the Receiving Associate who processed your order after the submission was received, however the issue seems to have not been fully corrected prior to the order being completed and shipped back to you. I am going to have one of our Customer Service Representatives send you an email with instructions on how to return the coins to PCGS that did not cross, they will also provide you a pre-paid and fully insured FedEx mailing label to return the coins to us for us to continue to review them. If for some reason you’re not able to print the label, please let me know or let the Customer Service Representative that emails the label to you know and we will print and mail a physical label to you. Please reply to this email stating you are ok crossing the coins into PCGS holders at ANY numerical grade prior to sending them back, this way I can be sure we’re processing the order how you would like. As to PCGS’s Grading Standards in general, PCGS is known as the “Standard for the Rare Coin Industry” and also as the most conservative grading service in the industry. This is typically why PCGS holders fetch a much higher premium than coins graded by other Third Party Grading Services out on the market. With PCGS being considered more conservative than other Third Party Grading services, our opinion will vary from the other services and we will not always agree with their opinion. Although ICG or IGS may have graded your specific coins as a 70, PCGS did not agree with that grade based on our standards. For future orders of crossover submissions, you have a few options as to when PCGS will remove your coins from their crossover holder and put them into a PCGS holder; Crossing at the same gradeIf you do not list a minimum grade in the “Minimum Grade” column on the submission form, the numerical grade listed on the graded holder will be considered your minimum gradeIf PCGS’s Grading Experts do not believe the coin will cross at the current or a higher grade based on PCGS’s standards, the coin will not be removed from its holder and will not be placed into a PCGS holderCrossing at a lower minimum gradeIf you choose to do so, you can specify a minimum grade lower than the grade currently on the holder. For example, if your coin is currently in an MS65 holder but you would accept an MS62, you would list MS62 in the minimum grade column for that specific coin. You cannot specify a minimum grade higher than the current grade listed on the holder.If PCGS’s Grading Experts believe your coins is an MS62 or higher, we will remove the coin from its holder and will place it into a PCGS holder. If you list a specific minimum grade and PCGS believes the coin’s grade should be higher than that, PCGS will place the coin into a PCGS holder with the grade our Grading Experts believe the coin qualifies for based on PCGS’s standardsIf the coin is deemed as “Genuine, Not Gradable” (explained in the next bullet point), PCGS would not remove that coin from its holder and it would not be placed into a PCGS holder.If crossing at “ANY” gradeIf you write “ANY” in the minimum grade column for a crossover, PCGS will remove the coin from the other Grading Service’s holder and will place it into a PCGS holder as long as our Grading Experts feel the coin warrants a numerical grade anywhere from 01 to 70. If a coin is deemed “Genuine, Not Gradeable,” the coin will not be removed from the crossover holder and will not be placed into a PCGS Holder.“Genuine, Not Gradeable” coins are coins that are authentic but because of a problem, PCGS is not able to numerically grade them. For example, a coin may be authentic and numerically graded by another Grading Service but if PCGS believes the coin has been cleaned, damaged, or falls into one of our other “No Grade” codes, even if you state “ANY” as the minimum grade the coin will not be removed from its holder and placed into a PCGS holder. If crossing as “GENUINE”If you indicate “GENUINE” in the minimum grade column on the submission form, PCGS will remove your coin from its holder and place it into a PCGS holder as long as it is authentic and does not have any of the following issues:Coin is counterfeitCoin has PVC (Polyvinylchloride) on the coinThe lamination of the coin is peelingOur Grading Experts are not able to render a 100% opinion on a coin   For additional information on our “No Grade” codes/reasons and PCGS’s Grading Standards in general, please visit www.PCGS.com/Grades. I hope that I have been able to address each of your concerns and/or questions with this email. I will be responding to your Revdex.com complaint with an opening statement followed by the full text of this email. If my offer to have you return the coins, that did not cross, to PCGS to cross them and my other responses in this email are to your satisfaction, please respond to the Revdex.com complaint once you receive the updated email from them and confirm that you are satisfied with PCGS’s response. If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know.

A representative from PCGS has compensated me for my loss, and dealt with me in a very professional manner. I consider this case now closed.Thanks,[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Problem:Re: Complaint number [redacted]. I am providing an update on this complaint. I requested that PCGS provide a brief comment on each coin as to why they were graded 69 rather than 70. I received a comment on only 3 of the 8 coins that were graded 69. PCGS damaged one of the coins and I provided them with before and after photographs proving this. [redacted] asked me to send him the damaged coin and to "give me a few days to find a replacement". The damaged coin was received by PCGS on September 30. On October 17, I communicated with [redacted] by e-mail. He advised me that he would not provide a brief commentary as to the defect on the other coins and he had not even bothered to have the coin examined for damage after 17 days. Even though I send photographic proof of damage to the coin, he advised that "if" the coin had been damaged I would be "compensated accordingly". He no longer advised that he would replace the coin. It is now one month since they received the coin and I have heard nothing further. I am writing to advise that I consider the PCGS response to my complaint unsatisfactory.Desired Outcome:Replace the damaged coin. Provide a brief explanation as to what the defect was on each coin that was graded 69.
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
   I have read the response from the company and quite frankly find it as brazen and apathetic as both their business practices and their customer service.  The response from Mr. [redacted] appears to be nothing more than a "generic pat response" which is mostly comprised of corporate self promotion, irrelevant business statistics,  half truths, and outright misstatement of factual events regarding my complaint.     The fact of how long a company has been in business has absolutely no bearing on this complaint. nor does it in any way address or refute my claim.  Nor does the fact the firm has supposed measures in place that this type of thing could and did not occur.  The fact is that a coin is handled by several people along the line and there is every possibility that a single coin can in fact be damaged/dropped, scratched/fingerprinted etc while in their possession considering the many thousands of coins they handle every week.   In fact, collectors have publicly complained in the past on their very own company message boards  regarding coins that were damaged (fingerprinted, scratched, etc) while in the possession of PCGS presumably by either improperly trained or careless employees who seal the coins in the plastic holders, and the founder and CEO himself ([redacted]) replied that this matter would be looked into and it was later quietly resolved.  There have also been numerous other instances over the years where both collectors as well as professional coin dealers have remarked that a coin was mishandled and/or damaged while in the possession of PCGS.  It would be foolish and unrealistic to think that a firm where many different individuals handle so many thousands of coins per week could 'never' make a mistake and mishandle a coin here and there.    In addition, I did promptly request that PCGS cancel my 1 year  club membership and return my coins both ungraded and unholdered within just weeks of renewing my membership (3/20/15 at 2:07PM) , and have returned to them all club materials via first class USPS.   I had also sent 3 separate emails to the firm between 3/20/15 and 3/25/15 voicing my dissatisfaction with no response whatsoever which prompted this and other actions on my part.   In conclusion,  other than a long winded, off point, and rather callous response, Mr [redacted] at PCGS has offered no real resolution to my complaint, and it should also speak volumes that PCGS has not even offered to either examine or even discuss the damaged coin in question, but rather to simply respond with a generic  "we couldn't possibly have done it" type reply which is rather sad and completely untruthful.   The fact remains they have damaged my property and refuse to take any responsibility for their actions. 
Regards,
[redacted]

I am currently working with the complainant regarding this issue.  He is alleging that he submitted an extremely rare coin (of which there are only approximately two dozen known examples) and that it was swapped out while in our possession.In addition to the fact that Collectors Universe does...

not maintain an inventory of coins with which we could theoretically "swap" out for an individual customer's coin, I have verified through our various tracking and security systems that the coin we received was in fact a Proof coin, and not the rare SMS variant (note that it is common for us to receive what customers think is a rare variant only for us to confirm that the coin is the much more common version of the coin).From the time the coin came into our possession, we had five employees/experts evaluate the coin and all agreed that the coin was a PR variant and not SMS.Mr. [redacted] also provided us with some images of the coin in question with what is clearly a counterfeit label attached to the outside of the coin case.  The sticker/label is a clear counterfeit that was not produced at our facility as it is the wrong color, font, and paper-stock.  At the time the coin left our facility, this counterfeit label was not present.I will continue to work with this customer to resolve this issue.  That said, it is sometimes an unfortunate part of our job to have to notify customers that the item they believed to be a rare and high-value item is in fact a common coin.  PCGS was founded in 1986 and since that time has graded over 35 million coins for a combined current value of over $32 billion.  As a publicly traded company, Collectors Universe (the parent of PCGS) is subject to multiple quarterly and annual audits (both internal and external) along with regular security and control reviews.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and I have requested all membership fees returned and the $192.00 charges they charged for a $67.00 coin.I offered them to make a offer on my Stolen coin but no refund or offer made or and recourse. Its a shame that BLATANT LYING FROM THE COMPANY AS THEY NEVER have had any problems as this in all their years seems absurd as I am reading these complaints on the Revdex.com site regarding swap coins, and damaged coins which they never admit they have ever done anything to anyone.   8 complaints within a 2 year period tells me different.Full refund and I will consider this done on the Revdex.com site and resolved here.  
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.  I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]

Mr. [redacted] is correct in that the processing of his order took much longer than usual.  Due to an unexpected increase in the number of submissions combined with travel schedules and other commitments for the grading and processing teams, PCGS is experiencing longer than normal turnaround times....

 Although we do list on the submission form and publish on the website the expected/approximate turnaround times, it is always clearly noted that turnaround times are estimates and are not guaranteed.   That said, by the time this complaint was received, Mr. [redacted]'s order had already been returned to him.  We apologize to Mr. [redacted] for the longer than expected time it took to process his order.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
With regard to the response from the director of customer relations from PCGS, that response was factually incorrect on a number of points, and his entire response/argument was based on these incorrect facts and figures.  A)  He states my alleged value of the coin at $3000.00 was "extraordinarily overstated" based on the fact that even the same dated coin (1921-D) graded 3 points higher would not translate to a value even close to what I had valued my coin at.  In reality, 1921-D Morgan dollars have public auction records going upwards of $40,000.00 and it's not unusual for this date to bring close to a five figure price based on that particular coins quality and attributes.  In addition, the director of customer relations fails to recognize that the designation as well as numerical grade can have a very large effect on value (eg: PL and DMPL).  So to claim that even a coin graded 3 points higher would not be worth close to $3000.00 is not only very misleading but completely untrue as well.  In fact, the company's very own PCGS online coin price guide for my coin shows that values for this date can be as high as $45,000.00 depending on condition, and over $6000.00 for a coin in the same MS63 grade with a DMPL designation.  B)  I valued my coin based on the fact that both PCGS and NGC had previously graded this coin as an MS64 prooflike, and I felt the coin was a full deep mirror prooflike and subsequently submitted the piece to PCGS for a regrade.  I can accept the fact that opinions/grades can change on any given submission, and they can go both up and down and both gain and lose designations, however I cannot accept that my coin was damaged in the process while in the possession of PCGS which both harms me financially as well as it likely affected the final grade/designation of the coin this time around at PCGS.  C)  To say that my claim has been stripped of credibility is also completely false as indicated by the facts I've pointed out above.  It appears the company's latest response and total denial of responsibility is based on the fact that I both grossly overstated the value of my coin (which I surely did not based on past professional gradings) and also using incorrect and misleading valuations of coins of this date in various grades to falsely portray my claim as unfounded.  Also, the company has interestingly expressed no interest in actually seeing the coin in their sealed plastic holder for themselves to confirm or deny my claim, yet say they have not damaged the piece based on their investigation, and that my claim has essentially no merit to which I totally disagree.  D)  I consider myself a sophisticated collector with 40+ years of experience in the hobby, and I have been a good customer of PCGS essentially since their inception in the spring of 1986 and have never had an incident like this before.   My claim is legitimate and I feel I have been financially damaged as previously pointed out.In view of the above, I reject the offer from the company to refund my membership fee as a resolution, as this in my opinion is akin to a dry cleaner damaging an expensive garment and subsequently offering to resolve the issue by refunding the miniscule cost of the dry cleaning.   I would consider fair compensation for the company to either reimburse me for my financial loss based on damaging my coin, or to re-evaluate the coins current grade and make an adjustment from there.  
Regards,
[redacted]

Unfortunately, I don't believe that we will be able to come up with a resolution that satisfies Mr. [redacted].As I mentioned before, we are sometimes put in the uncomfortable position of having to tell a customer that the item they submitted that they thought was a rare variety worth a significant premium is in fact a common coin.  That is the case in this situation.  PCGS had multiple experts review the coin that we received and they all agreed that the final grade as determined by PCGS is correct.  In fact, at Mr. [redacted] request, we performed an additional review prior to shipping back the coin.Mr. [redacted]' allegations regarding a "cover-up" at PCGS are without merit.  PCGS would have no interest in swapping out coins and/or intentionally giving coins an incorrect designation.  Over more than 30 years PCGS has graded over 35 million coins and as a public company we are subjected to multiple internal and external audits along with control-process reviews and other external oversight.  There is no rationale/motive where it would be beneficial for PCGS to take the steps that Mr. [redacted] is alleging.

To whom it may concern: PCGS has thoroughly investigated the allegations made by Mr. [redacted] and we have found no evidence to suggest that his coin was damaged at any point while his order was in our possession.   PCGS has been in business for 28 years and is a division of...

Collectors Universe (a publicly traded company).   As part of being in business for 28 years and the reputation PCGS has built and maintained, PCGS has in place multiple internal controls to prevent these sorts of problems.   In order to protect specifically against these sorts of allegations, when coins (or other types of collectibles) are submitted, the packages are opened under security cameras and all items are tracked throughout the process.   Upon Mr. [redacted] receiving the email communication from PCGS showing his grades were completed and he was able to view them, Mr. [redacted] contacted our Division President directly informing him that the PCGS grades and opinions were laughable and an insult to his intelligence, he also requested that we not place the coins into PCGS holders and send them back to him as is. At the time that Mr. [redacted] contacted our Division President the order had already shipped, PCGS could not remove the coins from our holders and return them to Mr. [redacted] in “raw” form. In this same communication from Mr. [redacted] to our Division President, Mr. [redacted] stated that he wished to have PCGS cancel his membership and remove his information from any and all PCGS systems. We stopped the future billing so that Mr. [redacted] would not be charged for membership upon the expiration of his current membership. All PCGS memberships are non-refundable, the customer is informed of this when purchasing the membership online, therefore no refund was processed for Mr. [redacted]’s membership, he used the membership and the complimentary submissions that came with the membership. After a thorough review of this order and the process around this order, PCGS has determined that none of the coins submitted by Mr. [redacted] were damaged by PCGS. Once completed, the order was shipped back to the client, according to the USPS tracking it was delivered on 3/23/15. Mr. [redacted] did not inform PCGS of the alleged damage to his coin at that time, nor did Mr. [redacted] contact PCGS regarding any alleged damage to any coins. Mr. [redacted] sent this order to PCGS to have PCGS render our opinion based on our grading standards and our expert’s knowledge, Mr. [redacted] was not happy with the grades and it seems after over a week of having the coins in his possession he decided that PCGS damaged his coins and pursued action through the Revdex.com to recoup the cost of his non-refundable PCGS membership along with a claim to have money paid out to him for the alleged damage of the coin in question. The unfortunate reality of our business is that people sometimes submit collectibles to us that they believe are rare or otherwise unique.   We are sometimes put into situations where we have to explain to customers that the item they thought was a rare or unique variety is actually not. In this case it appears that Mr. [redacted] was simply not happy with PCGS’ opinion of the grades for these coins. We appreciate the opportunity provided to us by the Revdex.com to respond to this complaint. Thank you, 
[redacted]PCGS Customer Service Manager

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]
The response from PCGS indicates that they graded 4 coins for me. That is incorrect. They graded 11 coins. 88% of the coins were graded as 69. Looking at their population figures for most modern coins (which is available  on the internet), usually the percentage graded as 70 is about equal to the number graded as 69. In the average case then, about 50% of the coins would have received a 70. I don't question that the firm has extensive experience grading coins. However, other collectors have advised me that the grading companies place the most inexperienced graders on modern coins because these are much less complex to grade. Based on the grading results, I doubt that an experienced grader(s) looked at my coins. I think is is quite reasonable to ask that an experienced grader have another look at them. This would be quick and easy because PCGS already has high resolution digital photographs of the coins on file. I consider a refusal to do this unacceptable. The PCGS response to the issue of the damaged coin is acceptable. I will certainly contact Mr. [redacted] to arrange this. Unfortunately he has not given me a contact phone number or e-mail which is inconvenient. I will do my best to contact him. In any event, I find it disturbing that I should have to complain to the Revdex.com to get PCGS to reply to my complaint and offer to "make me whole" on my damaged coin. Yours truly, [redacted]

The first we heard about this issue was from this complaint.  Since that time we have been trying to contact the customer and resolve this issue but as of yet we haven’t been able to get a hold of him.   We will continue our efforts to resolve this directly with the...

customer.   Thank you, David TalkPCGS Customer Service Manager

PCGS is a division of Collectors Universe which is a publicly traded company.  In the 30 years since PCGS’ founding, Collectors Universe has graded and authenticated over 60 million items for a combined current value of over $30 billion.  The nature of our business is that customers submit...

their coins and other collectibles to us for authentication and grading services.In this particular instance, the customer submitted four coins to us, all of which were modern bullion or commemorative coins.  What customers are paying for when they submit their items to us is our opinion as to the authenticity and grade of each item.   In this case, we deemed all four coins as authentic with grades of Proof 69.Despite the fact that many modern bullion and commemorative coins submitted to us are never circulated nor even removed from the original mint packaging, the majority of these coins still do not merit the highest-possible grade of Proof 70.  Even small imperfections that occur during the minting process will often prevent a coin from achieving a grade of Proof 70.  The majority of modern bullion coins that we receive are either returned back as ungraded or as Proof 69 grades.In this case, it is our opinion that all four of the coins submitted merit the grade of Proof 69.With regards to the possible damage of one of the coins, I invite Mr. [redacted] to contact me directly and I'll happily arrange a postage-paid return for him in which we can evaluate the coin.  By all means, if we did damage the coin we will absolutely make the customer whole.Thank you, [redacted]VP, OperationsCollectors Universe, Inc.

Mr[redacted] submitted coins to PCGS for our professional
opinion of their authenticity and grade, included in Mr[redacted]'s submission was
a complimentary submission voucher that expired in April of and a PCGS
submission form that expired in
Mr[redacted] was informed via
telephone that he needed to be a
current member of the PCGS Collectors Club to submit coins directly to PCGS for
gradingHis membership had expired when his voucher had expiredWhile Mr
[redacted] was on the phone with a PCGS Customer Service Representative (CSR), Mr
[redacted] had the CSR process a PCGS Membership for $to allow PCGS to process
his current order in-houseMr[redacted] was also informed that his voucher had
expired and that we would be sending him an email outlining the charges that
would be processed for his orderHe was asked to reply to the PCGS email as
soon as possible so that we could continue to process his orderThis was a
courtesy, allowing Mr[redacted] to review the charges prior to PCGS processing
them and is not required for PCGS to charge the credit card listed on the
submission form
On our submission form, in the credit card field that Mr
[redacted] filled out and signed, it clearly states: "All fees must be paid in
advance before PCGS can process your orderFailure to include shipping and
handling fees will delay your orderPCGS reserves the right to correct
submission form to reflect current fees and appropriate Shipping/Handling
Fees."
In the email to Mr[redacted], he was informed of the full
amount due by him ($167.95), and that this amount would be charged once the
order was completed
There was an internal glitch with PCGS's processes in which
our system charged Mr[redacted]'s credit card earlier than anticipated
Once PCGS was contacted regarding this early charge, we
attempted to work with Mr[redacted] to resolve the issue
Mr[redacted] was upset that his credit card was charged the
full amount of $167.95, rather than the $he had listed on his submission
form, even though Mr[redacted] had been advised of the new updated total due to
PCGS prior to the charge being processed
As a courtesy, PCGS agreed to refund Mr[redacted] the
difference between the $actually due and the $that Mr[redacted]
thought he should have been charged ($79)At the time that the PCGS CSR
submitted the refund request for approval, Mr[redacted] was informed that the
refund process would take approximately 7-business daysThis was on
2/25/16, the refund was applied to the original credit card on 3/2/16,
business days after Mr[redacted] spoke with the PCGS CSR regarding the refund
As PCGS charged Mr[redacted]'s credit card earlier than
expected, we agreed to refund Mr[redacted] the two overdraft charges he saw on his
bank account based on the date of the PCGS charge, our CSR requested that Mr
[redacted] provide a bank statement or account summary showing the overdraft charges
and that PCGS's charge was the reason for the overdraft feesMr[redacted] became
upset with the CSR and could not understand why PCGS would need to see proof
that he was charged overdraft feesAfter the CSR explained to him multiple
times that we cannot refund something to him that we cannot see, he finally
understood and stated that he would provide us with a copy of his statement
showing the overdraft feesThis was on 2/25/
The CSR that was originally assisting Mr[redacted] had not
received further communication from Mr[redacted] business days laterAt this
time the CSR attempted to contact Mr[redacted] to resolve this issue, however Mr
[redacted] was not able to be reached via telephoneThe PCGS CSR left a voicemail
for Mr[redacted] on 3/7/reminding him of the requested documentation
Mr[redacted] then provided a bank statement from his bank
showing the PCGS $membership charge that was processed on 2/17/along with
the grading order charge that was processed on 2/24/and two over draft fees
that were charged by Mr[redacted]'s financial institution on 2/24/and 2/25/16.The
first overdraft fee of $was actually charged minute before the PCGS order
charge of $167.95, the second overdraft fee of $was charged the day
following the PCGS order chargeWe cannot verify that in fact both overdraft
fees were charged based on PCGS's charge
While the PCGS CSR was reviewing Mr[redacted]'s statement, one
overdraft charge stated that it was pendingMr[redacted] was informed that we
needed an updated statement showing that the overdraft charge had actually been
charged to his account and was not still pending, we cannot refund a charge if
the charge is removed or fell off of Mr[redacted]'s account
We have still not received an updated statement from Mr
[redacted] showing the final overdraft charges
We are attempting to work with Mr[redacted] to resolve his
concerns, however he is not providing the documentation requested or
communicating with PCGS in a timely mannerWe should not be held liable for
any other account fees charged to Mr[redacted] from his financial institution
based on Mr[redacted] failing to communicate with PCGS
In Mr[redacted]'s Revdex.com complaint, he also mentions the grading
of his coins during this orderMr[redacted] states that he paid "about $
each" to have his coins graded and that PCGS did not even grade three out of
the four coinsThis is factually incorrectMr[redacted] was originally charged
$per coin, he was then refunded $79, or $per coin, bringing his per
coin fee down to $$per coin resulted in Mr[redacted] saving almost
$per coin to have his coins graded
The three coins mentioned by Mr[redacted], that PCGS allegedly
did not grade, we're in fact graded by PCGSThe three coins were improperly
cleaned by someone at some pointPCGS rendered an opinion, which is what Mr
[redacted] requestedIn our opinion, the coins were authentic but had been cleaned
in a way that would not allow us to provide a numerical grade
We have already discounted our services greatly for Mr
[redacted], we will not provide an additional $or any amount to Mr[redacted] based
on his dissatisfaction with PCGS's opinion of his coins
PCGS stated that each of the coins had been cleaned, we also
provided a "details grade" of each coinThe "details grade" tells the grade
range in which each coin would have f[redacted] into if they had not been improperly
cleaned
We would still like to work with Mr[redacted] to refund his two
$over draft fees, even though only one of them seems to have been cause
by PCGS, however Mr[redacted] refuses to provide the requested documentation and
Mr[redacted] has now filed a complaint with the Revdex.com rather than working with PCGS
directly even though we have attempted to resolve this issue with Mr[redacted] on
multiple occasions