AP reports (Dec. 17 — via the Las Vegas Sun and Insurance Journal) on a new suit in Florida seeking compensation for coin collectors allegedly duped by application of the designation "first strike" to collectible coins: 

[S]ome collectors say the label is misleading and that the coins aren’t special at all.  Now, a Miami attorney has filed class-action federal lawsuits on behalf of potentially thousands of collectors claiming that the "first strike” designation is unfair and deceptive.  More than $10 million in damages could be at stake.

‘Basically, what we are saying is that it’s impossible to know which coin is the "first strike,"” said attorney Charles Lipcon, who filed the lawsuits on behalf of collector Thomas Francisco and others.  ‘People are paying a lot of money and not getting a better coin. Really, there’s no difference between those coins and any other coins.”

Named defendants are two leading coin sellers, Numismatic Guaranty Corp., of Sarasota, Florida, and Professional Coin Grading Service of Newport Beach, California.  Their spokespersons maintain that the companies’ definitions of "first strike" are clear, acccurate and reasonable.  The $10 Million valuation of the claims comes from the plaintiff’s attorneys, and is based on the assumption that the U.S. District Court will grant class action status to the case.

The story makes clear that any knowledgeable collector should know that “first strike” status is by and large an abstract concept: it is “first strike” because people say it is “first strike,” with little or no objective correlation to the physical quality of the coin in question.  In essence, the potential class plaintiffs are disappointed because they have lost the opportunity to share with others — or, more likely, collect a premium resale price from others for — the essentially imaginary extra value that the words “first strike” carry with them.

The suit is a change of pace for the plaintiff’s counsel, the Miami firm of Lipcon, Margulies & Alsina, whose website emphasizes their specialty in bringing suits against cruise lines.

One inexperienced, grandstanding or lackadaisical lawyer can foul things up. Two can make life unbearable. A few months ago — through a long, hot August — two lawyers jousted over the sale of a Sutton Place two-bedroom listed for $1.375 million, even though the buyer and seller had already agreed on a price. “Literally from the moment these two attorneys made contact,” said Joan Sacks, an associate broker at Stribling & Associates, “there were sparks.”

The lawyers’ conflagration baffled and shocked Ms. Sacks, who was representing the seller.

“There were fiery e-mails shooting between attorneys that stopped short of saying, ‘You’re a moron.’ I was trying to step in as peacemaker and say: ‘Let’s keep the deal together, boys. Let’s stay on track, let’s stay focused.’ It got to the point where it wasn’t about the deal anymore. It was about who was going to win — who was going to make the other appear to be so dumb that they would come out with some banner on their back saying they were the smartest attorney in town.”

Before the contract could be signed, brokers for both sides swooped in and deposited their clients alone together in the Sutton Place apartment.

“When they finally spoke, the intensity was defused,” Ms. Sacks said. “I think the buyer and seller were very reasonable. It’s just that sticking points that shouldn’t have existed at all were intensified as issues by the attorneys.”

Third week in a row the Sunday Real Estate section in the Times highlighted lawyer-caused problems; if only the News and Business section reporters were to take lessons. (Teri Karush Rogers, “How Not to Scare Off Buyers”, NY Times, Dec. 17).