@ianrussell said:
It's not shocking that eBay let the scammer back on their site. They have to, so they can make their quarterly numbers for wall street.
But seriously - at some point, eBay needs to take a stand. We invite them to join the PNG or the ANA. Or ANY numismatic body that has a code of ethics.
Ian
Just for the record, how much does GC spend on background checks of consignors?
Thank you in advance.
Thats an unfair and stupid question . Coins are sent to GC where their numismatists verify authenticity . They are also vetted by the organizations Ian listed .
Your question really isn’t as clever as you think 🙄🙄
Agreed. I have no doubt that @ianrussell, Raleen, and staff monitor for fake slabs. They even note damage on legitimate slabs. And if a convincing fake were to ever make it by, I’m sure GC would step up and make it right. Comparing GC to Sleazebay is insulting.
You might reread the original comment. The principal at GC made an affirmative accusation, without evidence. It was unnecessary.
It is also untoward and a violation of forum rules to attack the integrity of corporate entities.
Online or off, caveat emptor is the golden rule
By: Will Astor March 1, 2002
When Henry Gottfried saw a mint-condition 1854 U.S. gold dollar in an eBay auction last month, he thought it would make the perfect gift for his son’s 25th birthday. He researched the seller and the coin, and placed a bid.
Gottfried, a vice president of the Greater Rochester Metro Chamber of Commerce Inc. and a frequent online purchaser, was elated when his nearly $1,300 bid won. The coin was worth substantially more. The seller, Richard Albright of Myersville, Md., had racked up rave reviews over the past year on eBay buyer feedback.
Gottfried’s son, David, a serious amateur coin collector, would be thrilled. What could be wrong?
Gottfried, however, never received the coin he ordered. He soon learned that neither did some 30 other people across the country who had placed winning bids on Albright’s coins. Gottfried concluded he had been scammed.
Albright has since been banned by eBay, the site reports. A scan of his recent eBay feedback pages shows more than 20 complaints, virtually all reporting checks or money orders cashed and coins not sent.
Gottfried’s case is hardly unique. Though law-enforcement authorities say the majority of online transactions are safe and getting safer, they acknowledge that online fraud is a persistent problem.e now has a good story to tell.
So he has been in business for more than 20 years, and they’re just suing him now?
I don’t know when they became aware of his actions, but that date would be far more relevant.
Fair point, but even assuming NGC just figured it out, it is shocking he could have stayed hidden for so long. You would have thought that there would be a trail of denied guarantee claims that would have aroused suspicion.
I don’t know when the defendant initiated those activities. But even if it was long ago, if the buyers were mostly unknowledgeable about grading, it’s not a great surprise to me that there wasn’t a trail of denied guarantee claims.
The charge from 20 years ago was different. At the time, he had sold coins he never delivered. The current accusations might ask result from recent activity. Unless someone knows Mr. Albright, we have no idea what he was doing in the intervening years.
The case I mentioned earlier involved a dealer who had been of excellent reputation in a 3 generation family coin business. But when he became desperate for money, he did desperate things. That could also be the case here. Or not. Any attempt to fill in the 20 year gap is pure speculation.
@BStrauss3 said:
Go ahead and read the TRO that i posted the link to above and understand the restrictions were AGREED to by the plaintiff and defendant!!!
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the attorneys for the respective parties hereto that:
The injunctive relief previously granted in the TRO shall remain in place through the pendency of this litigation. Accordingly, Defendant is hereby restrained and enjoined from engaging in any of the following acts or omissions pending the final hearing and determination of this action or under further order of the Court:
a. Using any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of NGC's trademarks (collectively, the “NGC Marks”) to identify any goods not authorized by NGC;
b. Engaging in any course of conduct likely to cause confusion, deception or mistake, or to injure NGC's business reputation;
c. Using a false description or representation including words, symbols, or artwork tending falsely to describe or represent Defendant's unauthorized goods as being those of NGC or sponsored by or associated with NGC and from offering such goods into commerce;
d. Further infringing the NGC Marks by distributing, circulating, selling, marketing, offering for sale, advertising, promoting, renting, displaying or otherwise disposing of any products not authorized by NGC bearing any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of the NGC Marks;
e. Using any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of the NGC Marks in connection with the promotion, advertisement, display, sale, offering for sale, circulation or distribution of any unauthorized products in such fashion as to relate or connect, or tend to relate or connect, such products in any way to NGC, or to any goods sold, manufactured, sponsored or approved by, or connected with NGC;
f. Making any statement or representation whatsoever, or using any false designation of origin or false description, or performing any act, which can or is likely to lead the trade or public, or individual members thereof, to believe that any products distributed, or sold by Defendant are in any manner associated or connected with NGC, or are sold, manufactured, licensed, sponsored, approved or authorized by NGC;
g. Secreting, destroying, altering, removing, or otherwise dealing with the unauthorized products or any books, records, or other documents that contain any information relating to the importing, manufacturing, producing, distributing, circulating, selling, marketing, offering for sale, advertising, promoting, renting or displaying of all unauthorized products that infringe the NGC Marks; and
h. Effecting assignments or transfers, forming new entities or associations or utilizing any other device for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise avoiding the prohibitions set forth in subparagraphs (a) through (h).
Now remember, the defendant hasn't admitted doing any of this, so agreeing not to do more of it is not the home run it might sound like at first. There's nothing that prevents him from selling NGC coins as long as the slabs aren't tampered with, for example.
Yeah. The home run is not that, as part of litigation, they are getting the accused to agree to not break the law going forward. The home run is that NGC is taking the time, and expending the necessary resources, to go after an individual, hard, as a warning to everyone else in order to protect the value of their business, and of their customers' slabs.
It's a big deal because many businesses don't do it, due to the time, hassle, expense and uncertain outcome.
Comments
You might reread the original comment. The principal at GC made an affirmative accusation, without evidence. It was unnecessary.
It is also untoward and a violation of forum rules to attack the integrity of corporate entities.
The charge from 20 years ago was different. At the time, he had sold coins he never delivered. The current accusations might ask result from recent activity. Unless someone knows Mr. Albright, we have no idea what he was doing in the intervening years.
The case I mentioned earlier involved a dealer who had been of excellent reputation in a 3 generation family coin business. But when he became desperate for money, he did desperate things. That could also be the case here. Or not. Any attempt to fill in the 20 year gap is pure speculation.
No matter what, Mr. Albright appears to be in deep do do.
I would rather join with an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by sheep.
Yeah. The home run is not that, as part of litigation, they are getting the accused to agree to not break the law going forward. The home run is that NGC is taking the time, and expending the necessary resources, to go after an individual, hard, as a warning to everyone else in order to protect the value of their business, and of their customers' slabs.
It's a big deal because many businesses don't do it, due to the time, hassle, expense and uncertain outcome.
I thought it not only unfair but also perhaps a bit self-serving in fact. Ebay and GC are not apples/apples venues.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
NGC Wins Justice with Coin Tampering Settlement
https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/11938/