@mark_dak said:
It's kind of weird that Heritage even shuffled past the gouge in their description:
Is it possible that Heritage owns this coin?
That wouldn't change the way they describe it.
How would you know that for sure?
Because:
They make more if people bid more, whether they own the coin or not. Their 30% is either more or their profit margin is higher. Either way, they always benefit from higher bidding.
Their corporate reputation is worth far more than a couple thousand dollars which is the maximum difference here.
This is not a zero feedback eBay seller without DECADES of history behind them.
@mark_dak said:
It's kind of weird that Heritage even shuffled past the gouge in their description:
Is it possible that Heritage owns this coin?
That wouldn't change the way they describe it.
How would you know that for sure?
Because:
They make more if people bid more, whether they own the coin or not. Their 30% is either more or their profit margin is higher. Either way, they always benefit from higher bidding.
Their corporate reputation is worth far more than a couple thousand dollars which is the maximum difference here.
This is not a zero feedback eBay seller without DECADES of history behind them.
But, go ahead, libel them.
I am not libeling NGC by wondering why the grade is inexplicably high without regard for a major scratch.
And I am not libeling the auction house by wondering why the description inexplicably fails to mention a major scratch.
@mark_dak said:
It's kind of weird that Heritage even shuffled past the gouge in their description:
Is it possible that Heritage owns this coin?
That wouldn't change the way they describe it.
How would you know that for sure?
Because:
They make more if people bid more, whether they own the coin or not. Their 30% is either more or their profit margin is higher. Either way, they always benefit from higher bidding.
Their corporate reputation is worth far more than a couple thousand dollars which is the maximum difference here.
This is not a zero feedback eBay seller without DECADES of history behind them.
But, go ahead, libel them.
I am not libeling NGC by wondering why the grade is inexplicably high without regard for a major scratch.
And I am not libeling the auction house by wondering why the description inexplicably fails to mention a major scratch.
Facts are stubborn things.
You are libeling the auction house if you suggest that they are treating it differently because they have a larger stake in it.
The grade itself is not inexplicably high. It's net graded.
The oversight by the auction house could be just that.
Speculating on selfish or evil intent is not a simple statement of facts.
@mark_dak said:
It's kind of weird that Heritage even shuffled past the gouge in their description:
Is it possible that Heritage owns this coin?
That wouldn't change the way they describe it.
How would you know that for sure?
Because:
They make more if people bid more, whether they own the coin or not. Their 30% is either more or their profit margin is higher. Either way, they always benefit from higher bidding.
Their corporate reputation is worth far more than a couple thousand dollars which is the maximum difference here.
This is not a zero feedback eBay seller without DECADES of history behind them.
But, go ahead, libel them.
I am not libeling NGC by wondering why the grade is inexplicably high without regard for a major scratch.
And I am not libeling the auction house by wondering why the description inexplicably fails to mention a major scratch.
Facts are stubborn things.
You are libeling the auction house if you suggest that they are treating it differently because they have a larger stake in it.
The grade itself is not inexplicably high. It's net graded.
The oversight by the auction house could be just that.
Speculating on selfish or evil intent is not a simple statement of facts.
In my humble opinion...
@MasonG said:
I wonder if the owner of the coin would be happy to read a thread such as this while the auction is still running.
You're probably correct they wouldn't be happy but the bidder considering whether or not to bid may be very interested.
@mark_dak said:
It's kind of weird that Heritage even shuffled past the gouge in their description:
Is it possible that Heritage owns this coin?
That wouldn't change the way they describe it.
How would you know that for sure?
Because:
They make more if people bid more, whether they own the coin or not. Their 30% is either more or their profit margin is higher. Either way, they always benefit from higher bidding.
Their corporate reputation is worth far more than a couple thousand dollars which is the maximum difference here.
This is not a zero feedback eBay seller without DECADES of history behind them.
But, go ahead, libel them.
I am not libeling NGC by wondering why the grade is inexplicably high without regard for a major scratch.
And I am not libeling the auction house by wondering why the description inexplicably fails to mention a major scratch.
Facts are stubborn things.
You are libeling the auction house if you suggest that they are treating it differently because they have a larger stake in it.
The grade itself is not inexplicably high. It's net graded.
The oversight by the auction house could be just that.
Speculating on selfish or evil intent is not a simple statement of facts.
In my humble opinion...
You have a penchant for assuming poster intent.
Your fear of questioning the inconsistencies presented does not give you freedom to charge.
@mark_dak said:
It's kind of weird that Heritage even shuffled past the gouge in their description:
Is it possible that Heritage owns this coin?
That wouldn't change the way they describe it.
How would you know that for sure?
Because:
They make more if people bid more, whether they own the coin or not. Their 30% is either more or their profit margin is higher. Either way, they always benefit from higher bidding.
Their corporate reputation is worth far more than a couple thousand dollars which is the maximum difference here.
This is not a zero feedback eBay seller without DECADES of history behind them.
But, go ahead, libel them.
I am not libeling NGC by wondering why the grade is inexplicably high without regard for a major scratch.
And I am not libeling the auction house by wondering why the description inexplicably fails to mention a major scratch.
Facts are stubborn things.
You are libeling the auction house if you suggest that they are treating it differently because they have a larger stake in it.
The grade itself is not inexplicably high. It's net graded.
The oversight by the auction house could be just that.
Speculating on selfish or evil intent is not a simple statement of facts.
In my humble opinion...
You have a penchant for assuming poster intent.
Your fear of questioning the inconsistencies presented does not give you freedom to charge.
The facts of the matter stand.
I'm not the one assuming intent. I simply said that Heritage would not intentionally omit the scratch. When asked how I could know. I told you. Their decades of history matters. It is NOT their standard business practice, with numerous prior examples demonstrating this.
The poster speculating - based on NO FACTS WHATSOEVER - that Heritage owned the coin themselves and that's why they didn't mention the scratch is the person making assumptions.
@mark_dak said:
It's kind of weird that Heritage even shuffled past the gouge in their description:
Is it possible that Heritage owns this coin?
That wouldn't change the way they describe it.
How would you know that for sure?
Because:
They make more if people bid more, whether they own the coin or not. Their 30% is either more or their profit margin is higher. Either way, they always benefit from higher bidding.
Their corporate reputation is worth far more than a couple thousand dollars which is the maximum difference here.
This is not a zero feedback eBay seller without DECADES of history behind them.
But, go ahead, libel them.
I am not libeling NGC by wondering why the grade is inexplicably high without regard for a major scratch.
And I am not libeling the auction house by wondering why the description inexplicably fails to mention a major scratch.
Facts are stubborn things.
You are libeling the auction house if you suggest that they are treating it differently because they have a larger stake in it.
The grade itself is not inexplicably high. It's net graded.
The oversight by the auction house could be just that.
Speculating on selfish or evil intent is not a simple statement of facts.
In my humble opinion...
@MasonG said:
I wonder if the owner of the coin would be happy to read a thread such as this while the auction is still running.
You're probably correct they wouldn't be happy but the bidder considering whether or not to bid may be very interested.
Mark
Perhaps, but it has been a long standing forum tradition to not disparage active auctions.
@OKbustchaser said:
Well, if we're going to toss in coins where only 5 or 6 are known to exist...yeah, some exceptions are made.
All coins within a specific series should be graded using the same standards. There shouldn't be different standards based on rarity alone.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I don't understand how any of the parties involved, or at least the TPG and the venue get off scot-free and should be given a waiver on this. It is not libel and certainly could be corrected, even at the last moment if they so chose. It is simply wrong to allow this auction to go unamended. BTW, not sure how anybody speaks for the House even if they are generally beyond reproach.
And that is not libel - even if you agree that the scratch means nought, it is definitely prominent enough to bear mentioning. Such a mark may not be as easily picked up on a small I-phone or other media. I don't think the thrust of this argument is in any way suggesting malice on their part, simply an omission that ought to be corrected ahead of time.
The consignor? Well, he or she should not be shielded by inaccurate or incomplete description. The buyer should be informed as would be proper and this is one excellent forum for that.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
@ricko said:
Looking carefully at the enlarged pictures, the mark extends to the space between the curls... As if, at one time it was a struck through that retained material and recently lost the retention...with the tarnished portion having been lost much earlier. It is a direct continuation of the 'shiny' portion. My first impression was a gouge as well... but it looks just too convenient... and perhaps that is what the graders saw. JMO... open to further discussion. Cheers, RickO
@mark_dak said:
It's kind of weird that Heritage even shuffled past the gouge in their description:
Is it possible that Heritage owns this coin?
That wouldn't change the way they describe it.
How would you know that for sure?
Because:
They make more if people bid more, whether they own the coin or not. Their 30% is either more or their profit margin is higher. Either way, they always benefit from higher bidding.
Their corporate reputation is worth far more than a couple thousand dollars which is the maximum difference here.
This is not a zero feedback eBay seller without DECADES of history behind them.
But, go ahead, libel them.
I am not libeling NGC by wondering why the grade is inexplicably high without regard for a major scratch.
And I am not libeling the auction house by wondering why the description inexplicably fails to mention a major scratch.
Facts are stubborn things.
You are libeling the auction house if you suggest that they are treating it differently because they have a larger stake in it.
The grade itself is not inexplicably high. It's net graded.
The oversight by the auction house could be just that.
Speculating on selfish or evil intent is not a simple statement of facts.
In my humble opinion...
You have a penchant for assuming poster intent.
Your fear of questioning the inconsistencies presented does not give you freedom to charge.
The facts of the matter stand.
I'm not the one assuming intent. I simply said that Heritage would not intentionally omit the scratch. When asked how I could know. I told you. Their decades of history matters. It is NOT their standard business practice, with numerous prior examples demonstrating this.
The poster speculating - based on NO FACTS WHATSOEVER - that Heritage owned the coin themselves and that's why they didn't mention the scratch is the person making assumptions.
Agree the poster should not have speculated.
We have the right in a forum as a participant in a great hobby to question a specific inaccuracy or incorrectness regarding grading or lot descriptions without it materializing into a libelous claim or unworthy criticism. These companies are representing the hobby and they should be held to a higher standard especially considering the level of accomplishment.
That is how the marketplace attains and maintains excellence.
With regard to commenting on an active auction lot, there are too many instances of hypocrisy amongst those that claim hands off to heed awareness. I can argue both sides of the issue convincingly. If it is a huge issue for the majority then the moderator possibly can be lobbied to make a rule for active auction lots. I don't know how you separate those however from retail web and other active sales listings.
@mark_dak said:
It's kind of weird that Heritage even shuffled past the gouge in their description:
Is it possible that Heritage owns this coin?
That wouldn't change the way they describe it.
How would you know that for sure?
Because:
They make more if people bid more, whether they own the coin or not. Their 30% is either more or their profit margin is higher. Either way, they always benefit from higher bidding.
Their corporate reputation is worth far more than a couple thousand dollars which is the maximum difference here.
This is not a zero feedback eBay seller without DECADES of history behind them.
But, go ahead, libel them.
I am not libeling NGC by wondering why the grade is inexplicably high without regard for a major scratch.
And I am not libeling the auction house by wondering why the description inexplicably fails to mention a major scratch.
Facts are stubborn things.
You are libeling the auction house if you suggest that they are treating it differently because they have a larger stake in it.
The grade itself is not inexplicably high. It's net graded.
The oversight by the auction house could be just that.
Speculating on selfish or evil intent is not a simple statement of facts.
In my humble opinion...
You have a penchant for assuming poster intent.
Your fear of questioning the inconsistencies presented does not give you freedom to charge.
The facts of the matter stand.
I'm not the one assuming intent. I simply said that Heritage would not intentionally omit the scratch. When asked how I could know. I told you. Their decades of history matters. It is NOT their standard business practice, with numerous prior examples demonstrating this.
The poster speculating - based on NO FACTS WHATSOEVER - that Heritage owned the coin themselves and that's why they didn't mention the scratch is the person making assumptions.
Agree the poster should not have speculated.
We have the right in a forum as a participant in a great hobby to question a specific inaccuracy or incorrectness regarding grading or lot descriptions without it materializing into a libelous claim or unworthy criticism. These companies are representing the hobby and they should be held to a higher standard especially considering the level of accomplishment.
That is how the marketplace attains and maintains excellence.
With regard to commenting on an active auction lot, there are too many instances of hypocrisy amongst those that claim hands off to heed awareness. I can argue both sides of the issue convincingly. If it is a huge issue for the majority then the moderator possibly can be lobbied to make a rule for active auction lots. I don't know how you separate those however from retail web and other active sales listings.
@MFeld said:
Thanks for the head's up. The lot description is being edited to note the scratch and the high bidder was already aware of it.
No surprise to me that Heritage treats all auction lots in the most ethical manner.
Thanks for letting us know.
Agree. Also, Heritage takes decent pictures of the coins they sell and I consider the pics to be part of the description. Heritage has a stellar reputation and they wouldn't do anything to damage it.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@OKbustchaser said:
Well, if we're going to toss in coins where only 5 or 6 are known to exist...yeah, some exceptions are made.
All coins within a specific series should be graded using the same standards. There shouldn't be different standards based on rarity alone.
Mostly agree... What about where there was a die change in the series, as with the 1921 versus later peace dollars? Are there accepted differences in grading based on the high versus low relief?
100th pint of blood donated 7/19/2022 . Transactions with WilliamF, Relaxn, LukeMarshal, jclovescoins, braddick, JWP, Weather11am, Fairlaneman, Dscoins, lordmarcovan, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, JimW. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that who so believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
@logger7 said:
If grading companies nitpicked peevishly over every "suspicious" mark or impairment we wouldn't have many straight graded coins, would we?
@logger7 said:
If grading companies nitpicked peevishly over every "suspicious" mark or impairment we wouldn't have many straight graded coins, would we?
That's their job and what they get paid to do.
Not exactly. They get paid to apply their standards in totality, not "nitpick" over a single mark.
A scratched coin is a scratched coin whether there is only 1 in existence or a million. Grading standards should apply equally. If there are less straight graded coins so be it. That would also bring the value of the straight graded examples higher.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
@gumby1234 said:
A scratched coin is a scratched coin whether there is only 1 in existence or a million. Grading standards should apply equally. If there are less straight graded coins so be it. That would also bring the value of the straight graded examples higher.
I had a well worn key date Liberty nickel with a light old scratch that I picked up raw at Sloats that graded fine15 and then figured I'd include it in a cac submission which I was surprised to see passed. You never know how the graders and finalizer will see it. On the comment on some type of insider activity in grading favoritism, unfortunately I've heard stuff like that before and dismissed it as questionable reasoning.
Why would it get a details grade over a gorge? As long as the surface is uncirculated and no cleaning or alterations then it’s a MS grade of 60 or higher. It likely would have graded higher without the mark but if that would trigger a “details” rating then we would not have many mint state coins. The whole reason for 60 to 70 is to rate the presence or absence of nicks and dings on a subjective scale. A details grade means it was altered or damaged above and beyond general wear and tear
@Che_Grapes said:
Why would it get a details grade over a gorge? As long as the surface is uncirculated and no cleaning or alterations then it’s a MS grade of 60 or higher. It likely would have graded higher without the mark but if that would trigger a “details” rating then we would not have many mint state coins. The whole reason for 60 to 70 is to rate the presence or absence of nicks and dings on a subjective scale. A details grade means it was altered or damaged above and beyond general wear and tear
There is a difference between damage, like a scratch, and bag marks. A scratch of that magnitude, even if in a coin that is otherwise a 70, is enough for a details grade.
While you could argue that they are so damage- and I'm sure our autistic forum members will soon do so - grading guidelines and the market have differentiated.
Comments
Because:
But, go ahead, libel them.
I am not libeling NGC by wondering why the grade is inexplicably high without regard for a major scratch.
And I am not libeling the auction house by wondering why the description inexplicably fails to mention a major scratch.
Facts are stubborn things.
You are libeling the auction house if you suggest that they are treating it differently because they have a larger stake in it.
The grade itself is not inexplicably high. It's net graded.
The oversight by the auction house could be just that.
Speculating on selfish or evil intent is not a simple statement of facts.
In my humble opinion...
I wonder if the owner of the coin would be happy to read a thread such as this while the auction is still running.
You're probably correct they wouldn't be happy but the bidder considering whether or not to bid may be very interested.
Mark
You have a penchant for assuming poster intent.
Your fear of questioning the inconsistencies presented does not give you freedom to charge.
The facts of the matter stand.
I'm not the one assuming intent. I simply said that Heritage would not intentionally omit the scratch. When asked how I could know. I told you. Their decades of history matters. It is NOT their standard business practice, with numerous prior examples demonstrating this.
The poster speculating - based on NO FACTS WHATSOEVER - that Heritage owned the coin themselves and that's why they didn't mention the scratch is the person making assumptions.
Perhaps, but it has been a long standing forum tradition to not disparage active auctions.
Perhaps, but it has been a long standing forum tradition that is regularly ignored to not disparage active auctions.
FIFY.
Lol. True. Has anyone viewed the coin in hand?
Well, if we're going to toss in coins where only 5 or 6 are known to exist...yeah, some exceptions are made.
Here's one that while a few more are known--I think it's up to 10 now--a lot more non-specialists have heard of it.
1817/4
No, it's not mine. LOL
All coins within a specific series should be graded using the same standards. There shouldn't be different standards based on rarity alone.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I don't understand how any of the parties involved, or at least the TPG and the venue get off scot-free and should be given a waiver on this. It is not libel and certainly could be corrected, even at the last moment if they so chose. It is simply wrong to allow this auction to go unamended. BTW, not sure how anybody speaks for the House even if they are generally beyond reproach.
And that is not libel - even if you agree that the scratch means nought, it is definitely prominent enough to bear mentioning. Such a mark may not be as easily picked up on a small I-phone or other media. I don't think the thrust of this argument is in any way suggesting malice on their part, simply an omission that ought to be corrected ahead of time.
The consignor? Well, he or she should not be shielded by inaccurate or incomplete description. The buyer should be informed as would be proper and this is one excellent forum for that.
Well, just Love coins, period.
I can see what you are describing
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
Agree the poster should not have speculated.
We have the right in a forum as a participant in a great hobby to question a specific inaccuracy or incorrectness regarding grading or lot descriptions without it materializing into a libelous claim or unworthy criticism. These companies are representing the hobby and they should be held to a higher standard especially considering the level of accomplishment.
That is how the marketplace attains and maintains excellence.
With regard to commenting on an active auction lot, there are too many instances of hypocrisy amongst those that claim hands off to heed awareness. I can argue both sides of the issue convincingly. If it is a huge issue for the majority then the moderator possibly can be lobbied to make a rule for active auction lots. I don't know how you separate those however from retail web and other active sales listings.
Agreed.
Thanks for the head's up. The lot description is being edited to note the scratch and the high bidder was already aware of it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No surprise to me that Heritage treats all auction lots in the most ethical manner.
Thanks for letting us know.
Thanks very much.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Agree. Also, Heritage takes decent pictures of the coins they sell and I consider the pics to be part of the description. Heritage has a stellar reputation and they wouldn't do anything to damage it.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
If grading companies nitpicked peevishly over every "suspicious" mark or impairment we wouldn't have many straight graded coins, would we?
It’s a double edged sword
Mostly agree... What about where there was a die change in the series, as with the 1921 versus later peace dollars? Are there accepted differences in grading based on the high versus low relief?
The owner should NOT want to be putting one over on potential buyers.
Congrats to Heritage on doing the right thing and of course Mr. Feld.
Well, just Love coins, period.
That's their job and what they get paid to do.
Not exactly. They get paid to apply their standards in totality, not "nitpick" over a single mark.
That's a nitpick? Please.
Well, just Love coins, period.
A scratched coin is a scratched coin whether there is only 1 in existence or a million. Grading standards should apply equally. If there are less straight graded coins so be it. That would also bring the value of the straight graded examples higher.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
That's actionable slander. I would be careful making statements like that.
My Early Large Cents
Totally agree.
I had a well worn key date Liberty nickel with a light old scratch that I picked up raw at Sloats that graded fine15 and then figured I'd include it in a cac submission which I was surprised to see passed. You never know how the graders and finalizer will see it. On the comment on some type of insider activity in grading favoritism, unfortunately I've heard stuff like that before and dismissed it as questionable reasoning.
Why would it get a details grade over a gorge? As long as the surface is uncirculated and no cleaning or alterations then it’s a MS grade of 60 or higher. It likely would have graded higher without the mark but if that would trigger a “details” rating then we would not have many mint state coins. The whole reason for 60 to 70 is to rate the presence or absence of nicks and dings on a subjective scale. A details grade means it was altered or damaged above and beyond general wear and tear
Slander is spoken words. You meant libel. I think it was fairly obviously an attempt at humor. YMMV.
There is a difference between damage, like a scratch, and bag marks. A scratch of that magnitude, even if in a coin that is otherwise a 70, is enough for a details grade.
While you could argue that they are so damage- and I'm sure our autistic forum members will soon do so - grading guidelines and the market have differentiated.