@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
That's why the US mint shortened their return window a few years ago if I recall.
@leothelyon said:
During a 14 or 30 day RP, who owns the coin? I'd think the seller is the owner. I won't waste my time spelling out what this all entails except for one. The cgc should have some kind of database that connects up cert #s on slabbed coins with their owners b/c if someone tries to submit a certified coin during a transition and it's learned they don't own it and it does upgrade then the coin by default should be sent back to the owner and not given back to the submitter/buyer. And negotiations can just start all over again, right?
Oh no, have I just given another profitable idea to the cgc's again? Insurance?
Leo
This is silly. So if I buy a coin with a 30 day RP I can't submit it anywhere until 30 days have elapsed? Can I crack it out? Can I spend it?
Sorry, any court would rule that once buyer has taken possession and met the terms of the agreement (ie, made payment), the contract is executed. You would have to form a formal contract with a contingency to do what you are suggesting.
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
Who would offer returns on bullion. Who sends bullion to CAC.
@PerryHall said:
No matter how good the pics provided by the seller are, sometimes a coin bought mail order over the internet looks different in hand. Is it so wrong to get a second opinion on a coin before you commit to keeping the coin? Isn't that the purpose of offering a return period?
Isn't your own opinion good enough? You either like the coin when it arrives or you don't.
He probably returns a cherry pick that doesn't turn out to be a cherry pick.
I would block them as well.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
Who would offer returns on bullion. Who sends bullion to CAC.
Anyone who accepts cc payments for bullion, offers returns on bullion via chargeback. That was one of @jmlanzaf’s points in a different comment.
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
Who would offer returns on bullion. Who sends bullion to CAC.
Anyone who accepts cc payments for bullion, offers returns on bullion via chargeback. That was one of @jmlanzaf’s points in a different comment.
I do not equate a credit card chargeback to using an offered return policy. That would be unethical and extremely shady to put it mildly. Offer what you are comfortable with someone using. Seems really simple to me.
In my current tiny world of capped bust half dimes, the community is small and everyone either knows (or knows of) each other. Some of my favored acquisitions have been through people I call friends, or people who have heard others vouch for my integrity. I value and protect that.
I don't keep every coin that I attempt to acquire, and I've sent some back that just didn't meet my expectations. I've even had others review the coins I'm considering, and take their advice into account. I think that's fair game.
The difference to me is the presumption of quantifiable $$ value that the CAC bean confers. That, to me, crosses a line.
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
That's why the US mint shortened their return window a few years ago if I recall.
The Mint is still too generous with returns. > @ironmanl63 said:
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
Who would offer returns on bullion. Who sends bullion to CAC.
See above. I had a buyer return a kilo of silver after 170 days. If you pay with a CC, you can file a charge back, offeted returns or not.
If you take ebay payments or PayPal payments on ANYTHING, you are offering 180 to 540 day returns no matter what your stated policy is.
@DeplorableDan said:
I would consider that action to be equally unethical as someone who buys a coin with intent to try to flip it, and then if the coin doesn't sell they return it. You'd be taking advantage of the seller to mitigate your own risk, unless of course you had made arrangements with the seller beforehand and were forthcoming about your intentions. If you want a CAC example, I would recommend that you pony up for one, or roll the dice on your own accord but I think what you're suggesting is wrong.
If you were the seller and offered such a proposal would you agree to it or block the guy from bidding? I expect that most sellers would tell the guy to take a long walk off of a short pier.
@PerryHall said:
Would it be unethical for a dealer to sell a coin without first telling the buyer that he had already sent it to CAC and they refused to sticker it?
IMO no, but you should give an honest answer if asked.
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
Who would offer returns on bullion. Who sends bullion to CAC.
Anyone who accepts cc payments for bullion, offers returns on bullion via chargeback. That was one of @jmlanzaf’s points in a different comment.
I do not equate a credit card chargeback to using an offered return policy. That would be unethical and extremely shady to put it mildly. Offer what you are comfortable with someone using. Seems really simple to me.
There's a show in 2 weeks. I buy $100,000 in slabbed coins, mark them up and take them to the show. The day after the show, I return whatever didn't sell. You have no issue with this behavior?
Why is a CC any different? I'm simply using the 180 days that the CC offered me. It's still just me exercising my rights
@DeplorableDan said:
I would consider that action to be equally unethical as someone who buys a coin with intent to try to flip it, and then if the coin doesn't sell they return it. You'd be taking advantage of the seller to mitigate your own risk, unless of course you had made arrangements with the seller beforehand and were forthcoming about your intentions. If you want a CAC example, I would recommend that you pony up for one, or roll the dice on your own accord but I think what you're suggesting is wrong.
If you were the seller and offered such a proposal would you agree to it or block the guy from bidding? I expect that most sellers would tell the guy to take a long walk off of a short pier.
I would decline, because if it was a coin that had significant upside with a sticker and I thought it had a shot, I would be sending it myself. I would kindly inform the buyer that the coin is unlikely to sticker in my opinion, and they should treat it as a non CAC which is how it would be priced.
@DeplorableDan said:
I would consider that action to be equally unethical as someone who buys a coin with intent to try to flip it, and then if the coin doesn't sell they return it. You'd be taking advantage of the seller to mitigate your own risk, unless of course you had made arrangements with the seller beforehand and were forthcoming about your intentions. If you want a CAC example, I would recommend that you pony up for one, or roll the dice on your own accord but I think what you're suggesting is wrong.
If you were the seller and offered such a proposal would you agree to it or block the guy from bidding? I expect that most sellers would tell the guy to take a long walk off of a short pier.
I would decline, because if it was a coin that had significant upside with a sticker and I thought it had a shot, I would be sending it myself. I would kindly inform the buyer that the coin is unlikely to sticker in my opinion, and they should treat it as a non CAC which is how it would be priced.
Would you block him or hope that he chooses not to bid since you know his intentions if he is the winning bidder?
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
That's why the US mint shortened their return window a few years ago if I recall.
The Mint is still too generous with returns. > @ironmanl63 said:
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
Who would offer returns on bullion. Who sends bullion to CAC.
See above. I had a buyer return a kilo of silver after 170 days. If you pay with a CC, you can file a charge back, offeted returns or not.
If you take ebay payments or PayPal payments on ANYTHING, you are offering 180 to 540 day returns no matter what your stated policy is.
I do not doubt what you say about credit card chargebacks.
I would not call that a return and do not think it is relevant to the question asked. We can add many different circumstances and change the answer someone would give.
I want to make clear I do not support doing this. I think it is a extremely lame thing to do. I would not want to do business with someone who does. This would never happen to me as I would not offer a 30 day return policy.
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
That's why the US mint shortened their return window a few years ago if I recall.
The Mint is still too generous with returns. > @ironmanl63 said:
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
Who would offer returns on bullion. Who sends bullion to CAC.
See above. I had a buyer return a kilo of silver after 170 days. If you pay with a CC, you can file a charge back, offeted returns or not.
If you take ebay payments or PayPal payments on ANYTHING, you are offering 180 to 540 day returns no matter what your stated policy is.
I do not doubt what you say about credit card chargebacks.
I would not call that a return and do not think it is relevant to the question asked. We can add many different circumstances and change the answer someone would give.
I want to make clear I do not support doing this. I think it is a extremely lame thing to do. I would not want to do business with someone who does. This would never happen to me as I would not offer a 30 day return policy.
But, honestly, you SHOULD offer a 30 day return policy (unless cash only) because you HAVE a 180 day return policy even if you don't want one. By not offering it, you are damaging sales and, in the case of an actual problem, encouraging a charge back as the only recourse. And chargebacks are much worse than returns. You have a 50% chance that you will end up issuing a refund and the customer will get to keep the coin.
@Walkerlover said:
My question is dealing with purchasing a coin say on EBay with a 30 day money back return policy. Would it be unethical to submit it to CAC first and keep it if it stickered but return it if it fails. Disclaimer, I haven’t done it or contemplated it but was curious what others think. Perhaps some people have done this already.
The fact that you even ask the question answers the question. The "return" privilege is obviously meant to give you the chance to undo an unpleasant surprise, not to undo the failure to score a bonus.
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
Who would offer returns on bullion. Who sends bullion to CAC.
Anyone who accepts cc payments for bullion, offers returns on bullion via chargeback. That was one of @jmlanzaf’s points in a different comment.
I do not equate a credit card chargeback to using an offered return policy. That would be unethical and extremely shady to put it mildly. Offer what you are comfortable with someone using. Seems really simple to me.
There's a show in 2 weeks. I buy $100,000 in slabbed coins, mark them up and take them to the show. The day after the show, I return whatever didn't sell. You have no issue with this behavior?
Why is a CC any different? I'm simply using the 180 days that the CC offered me. It's still just me exercising my rights
WOW! It is amazing how far you will twist things. I have stated multiple times I think it is a lame thing to do.
@jmlanzaf said:
Really? So if I believe in slavery, that makes it ethical?
Unfortunately, yes because morality and ethics are subjective. If you really think slavery is OK then it doesn't violate your personal ethics.
The rest of us may have an opinion and use the army or police to force you to not do that but from the pro-slavery persons point of view they are living within their own code of ethics.
I'd like to point out that the bible has a LOT on managing your slaves. The book of Timothy in particular.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
@PerryHall said:
Would it be unethical for a dealer to sell a coin without first telling the buyer that he had already sent it to CAC and they refused to sticker it?
IMO, when I buy a coin on eBay, I buy the coin pictured. If warts were hidden, I would return it (although I've never returned an eBay coin). This is especially true for a slabbed coin--do your examination and buy or don't buy based on that; if there's an unpleasant surprise when the coin arrives, return it, but if it's as pictured, you bought that coin.
If a buyer asks before buying, and the seller lied, that's different. The same analysis applies, of course (if you get the coin you paid for, it's yours), but the fact that seller withheld material information about the coin's history, know to the seller, would make it ok, IMO, to return it (ignoring the simple fact that you'd never find out anyway).
Extremely weird to be defending something I am against and would never do. Obviously my definition of unethical is different than most and probably not correct. I agree with most of the posts on the subject. I feel like I am trapped in a Twilight Zone episode.
I told my local coin shop I planned to submit coin to PCGS after I purchased it. I asked if they would take it back if it did not slab and they said yes. It did not slab (this was before PCGS would slab problem coins). I returned it and instead of taking cash back, I asked them to leave the money as a store credit as I felt they were very generous.
@DeplorableDan said:
I would consider that action to be equally unethical as someone who buys a coin with intent to try to flip it, and then if the coin doesn't sell they return it. You'd be taking advantage of the seller to mitigate your own risk, unless of course you had made arrangements with the seller beforehand and were forthcoming about your intentions. If you want a CAC example, I would recommend that you pony up for one, or roll the dice on your own accord but I think what you're suggesting is wrong.
If you were the seller and offered such a proposal would you agree to it or block the guy from bidding? I expect that most sellers would tell the guy to take a long walk off of a short pier.
I would decline, because if it was a coin that had significant upside with a sticker and I thought it had a shot, I would be sending it myself. I would kindly inform the buyer that the coin is unlikely to sticker in my opinion, and they should treat it as a non CAC which is how it would be priced.
Would you block him or hope that he chooses not to bid since you know his intentions if he is the winning bidder?
Probably not, I would assume that they would believe me when I tell them its not CAC quality. I only offer 14 day returns btw, 30 days is excessive.
" Is it unethical to submit a coin to CAC first and than return it if fails to the coin company ?"
But I'm interpreting this :
" Is it unethical to buy a slabbed coin from a seller who offers a return privilege, submit it to CAC, and if CAC doesn't sticker it, THEN send it back to original seller for a full refund because ? "
... I think that person has no ethics. Similar to any drug addict, ethics are out the door because they needs a fix. You know glue sniffing can be addictive.
@PerryHall said:
Would it be unethical for a dealer to sell a coin without first telling the buyer that he had already sent it to CAC and they refused to sticker it?
IMO, when I buy a coin on eBay, I buy the coin pictured. If warts were hidden, I would return it (although I've never returned an eBay coin). This is especially true for a slabbed coin--do your examination and buy or don't buy based on that; if there's an unpleasant surprise when the coin arrives, return it, but if it's as pictured, you bought that coin.
If a buyer asks before buying, and the seller lied, that's different. The same analysis applies, of course (if you get the coin you paid for, it's yours), but the fact that seller withheld material information about the coin's history, know to the seller, would make it ok, IMO, to return it (ignoring the simple fact that you'd never find out anyway).
If the seller said it had not been to CAC AFAIK CAC won't say if a coin has been rejected if asked. If it's sent in again I think they still give it a second look rather than rejecting it outright. So whether or not the seller mentions it may be irrelevant.
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
Who would offer returns on bullion. Who sends bullion to CAC.
Bullion is subject to the same return policy. No, it's not going to CAC but buying on speculation of market price change with the seller assuming the risk ? NO. I cannot agree with this at all. Say the buyer purchases 100 oz. of bullion. 1 week later the price drops 1 or 2 dollars an oz. The buyer returns it for " any reason " thus he's using the return policy as a 30 day insurance policy against a drop in price. I for one would refuse the return. At least the seller would have an idea of the reason for the return. Not so with a buyer sending it to CAC. I do have a question, what is the turnaround time to CAC ?
@PerryHall said:
Would it be unethical for a dealer to sell a coin without first telling the buyer that he had already sent it to CAC and they refused to sticker it?
IMO, when I buy a coin on eBay, I buy the coin pictured. If warts were hidden, I would return it (although I've never returned an eBay coin). This is especially true for a slabbed coin--do your examination and buy or don't buy based on that; if there's an unpleasant surprise when the coin arrives, return it, but if it's as pictured, you bought that coin.
If a buyer asks before buying, and the seller lied, that's different. The same analysis applies, of course (if you get the coin you paid for, it's yours), but the fact that seller withheld material information about the coin's history, know to the seller, would make it ok, IMO, to return it (ignoring the simple fact that you'd never find out anyway).
If the seller said it had not been to CAC AFAIK CAC won't say if a coin has been rejected if asked. If it's sent in again I think they still give it a second look rather than rejecting it outright. So whether or not the seller mentions it may be irrelevant.
If one believes that CAC knows what they're doing, then knowing that CAC didn't sticker a coin that was submitted tells you that that coin is not strong for the grade. So I don't consider the fact that it was not stickered to be "irrelevant," since that's a useful piece of information when buying a coin remotely, based of photographs. But, again, it's exceedingly unlikely that you ever would find out that it had been submitted before.
@PerryHall said:
Would it be unethical for a dealer to sell a coin without first telling the buyer that he had already sent it to CAC and they refused to sticker it?
IMO, when I buy a coin on eBay, I buy the coin pictured. If warts were hidden, I would return it (although I've never returned an eBay coin). This is especially true for a slabbed coin--do your examination and buy or don't buy based on that; if there's an unpleasant surprise when the coin arrives, return it, but if it's as pictured, you bought that coin.
If a buyer asks before buying, and the seller lied, that's different. The same analysis applies, of course (if you get the coin you paid for, it's yours), but the fact that seller withheld material information about the coin's history, know to the seller, would make it ok, IMO, to return it (ignoring the simple fact that you'd never find out anyway).
If the seller said it had not been to CAC AFAIK CAC won't say if a coin has been rejected if asked. If it's sent in again I think they still give it a second look rather than rejecting it outright. So whether or not the seller mentions it may be irrelevant.
If one believes that CAC knows what they're doing, then knowing that CAC didn't sticker a coin that was submitted tells you that that coin is not strong for the grade. So I don't consider the fact that it was not stickered to be "irrelevant," since that's a useful piece of information when buying a coin remotely, based of photographs. But, again, it's exceedingly unlikely that you ever would find out that it had been submitted before.
It's relevant if you know that it was rejected, but if the seller lies and said that it wasn't then you are correct in that it would be highly unlikely that you'd find out.
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
Who would offer returns on bullion. Who sends bullion to CAC.
Bullion is subject to the same return policy. No, it's not going to CAC but buying on speculation of market price change with the seller assuming the risk ? NO. I cannot agree with this at all. Say the buyer purchases 100 oz. of bullion. 1 week later the price drops 1 or 2 dollars an oz. The buyer returns it for " any reason " thus he's using the return policy as a 30 day insurance policy against a drop in price. I for one would refuse the return. At least the seller would have an idea of the reason for the return. Not so with a buyer sending it to CAC. I do have a question, what is the turnaround time to CAC ?
I thought I have seen sellers not offer returns on bullion.
Bullion is not part of the original question. It has been added to change the original question.
I would do the exact same as you!
Return times vary. I have had submissions take from 3 1/2 to 6 weeks door to door.
So with that turnaround time it would be fairly hard to do. Receiving coin, packaging and shipping to CAC, waiting 25 to 42 days. receiving the coin back. Does CAC release grades before shipping such as our hosts do? This could shorten the time for the buyer to notify the seller of a return. I don't play the CAC game but if I did I just think it's wrong to do what the OP suggested.
Perhaps it would be helpful to ask whether the behavior described is the honorable vs ethical thing to do.
Seeking a win win business relationship should be the reference point to guide one’s behavior. Under that standard, I know that taking a sellers coin out of inventory for a month and to play a game as described would not be honorable.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@Catbert said:
Perhaps it would be helpful to ask whether the behavior described is the honorable vs ethical thing to do.
Seeking a win win business relationship should be the reference point to guide one’s behavior. Under that standard, I know that taking a sellers coin out of inventory for a month and to play a game as described would not be honorable.
Wouldn’t that different question be too easy to answer?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
Who would offer returns on bullion. Who sends bullion to CAC.
Anyone who accepts cc payments for bullion, offers returns on bullion via chargeback. That was one of @jmlanzaf’s points in a different comment.
I do not equate a credit card chargeback to using an offered return policy. That would be unethical and extremely shady to put it mildly. Offer what you are comfortable with someone using. Seems really simple to me.
There's a show in 2 weeks. I buy $100,000 in slabbed coins, mark them up and take them to the show. The day after the show, I return whatever didn't sell. You have no issue with this behavior?
Why is a CC any different? I'm simply using the 180 days that the CC offered me. It's still just me exercising my rights
WOW! It is amazing how far you will twist things. I have stated multiple times I think it is a lame thing to do.
That's not at all a twist. It's exactly the same thing. An attempt to establish a risk free profit.
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
Who would offer returns on bullion. Who sends bullion to CAC.
Anyone who accepts cc payments for bullion, offers returns on bullion via chargeback. That was one of @jmlanzaf’s points in a different comment.
I do not equate a credit card chargeback to using an offered return policy. That would be unethical and extremely shady to put it mildly. Offer what you are comfortable with someone using. Seems really simple to me.
There's a show in 2 weeks. I buy $100,000 in slabbed coins, mark them up and take them to the show. The day after the show, I return whatever didn't sell. You have no issue with this behavior?
Why is a CC any different? I'm simply using the 180 days that the CC offered me. It's still just me exercising my rights
WOW! It is amazing how far you will twist things. I have stated multiple times I think it is a lame thing to do.
That's not at all a twist. It's exactly the same thing. An attempt to establish a risk free profit.
Whether it’s unethical, in bad taste, unfair or whatever phrase you might use it’s not risk free profit. Whoever might attempt this is risking grading and shipping fees and potential loss or damage in the postal system.
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
Who would offer returns on bullion. Who sends bullion to CAC.
Anyone who accepts cc payments for bullion, offers returns on bullion via chargeback. That was one of @jmlanzaf’s points in a different comment.
I do not equate a credit card chargeback to using an offered return policy. That would be unethical and extremely shady to put it mildly. Offer what you are comfortable with someone using. Seems really simple to me.
There's a show in 2 weeks. I buy $100,000 in slabbed coins, mark them up and take them to the show. The day after the show, I return whatever didn't sell. You have no issue with this behavior?
Why is a CC any different? I'm simply using the 180 days that the CC offered me. It's still just me exercising my rights
WOW! It is amazing how far you will twist things. I have stated multiple times I think it is a lame thing to do.
That's not at all a twist. It's exactly the same thing. An attempt to establish a risk free profit.
It is not just a twist, It is an extreme twist. IMO.
@Maywood said:
If a seller offers a 30 day return policy and then blocks a bidder who uses that policy, the seller seems like the one who's ethics should be questioned. Why would you block someone who used what was offered?? That doesn't make sense.
Return policies can be abused. They are offered as an incentive and a convenience to give people the chance to return an item they are unhappy with. They aren't designed to give a person the opportunity to profit at no risk.
Think about it. You could make a fortune by buying bullion, hoping it goes up and returning it at the seller's expense if it didn't. That is not the purpose of allowing returns.
Who would offer returns on bullion. Who sends bullion to CAC.
Anyone who accepts cc payments for bullion, offers returns on bullion via chargeback. That was one of @jmlanzaf’s points in a different comment.
I do not equate a credit card chargeback to using an offered return policy. That would be unethical and extremely shady to put it mildly. Offer what you are comfortable with someone using. Seems really simple to me.
There's a show in 2 weeks. I buy $100,000 in slabbed coins, mark them up and take them to the show. The day after the show, I return whatever didn't sell. You have no issue with this behavior?
Why is a CC any different? I'm simply using the 180 days that the CC offered me. It's still just me exercising my rights
WOW! It is amazing how far you will twist things. I have stated multiple times I think it is a lame thing to do.
That's not at all a twist. It's exactly the same thing. An attempt to establish a risk free profit.
Whether it’s unethical, in bad taste, unfair or whatever phrase you might use it’s not risk free profit. Whoever might attempt this is risking grading and shipping fees and potential loss or damage in the postal system.
On that one coin, sure. But as a pattern of behavior, much less so. When you can return all the "losers" and keep all the "winners" you are guaranteeing yourself a profit by using someone else to fund your inventory.
There is zero potential loss or damage in the postal system. You insure that. All you are risking is the grading/shipping fees to CAC or the TPG. And you are sticking the seller with round-trip shipping costs in exchange, when they have no possibility of "winning".
Should those sellers who offer a 30 day return stipulate in their listing that the buyer is not allowed to show the coin to anyone else to get their opinion of the coin?
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
But why stop there?? Let's cut right to it and get around all the self-righteous posturing going on with forum members, because it's sort of sickening to me. If a seller, on eBay/FaceBook/a dealer anywhere offers a "30 day money back return policy" and a buyer returns the coin within that timeframe and asks for a refund then the refund should be given.
If the seller has a problem with that then they shouldn't offer a "30 day money back return policy" to buyers.
May be unethical but it happens allllll the time. Back when I was dealing on my own, some dealer bought 5 higher end coins off me right before a show where PCGS was doing onsite grading. He returned what didn't successfully recon. I blocked him after that and still won't do business with him, but there are always going to be folks looking for an edge anywhere they can get one.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
@DelawareDoons said:
May be unethical but it happens allllll the time. Back when I was dealing on my own, some dealer bought 5 higher end coins off me right before a show where PCGS was doing onsite grading. He returned what didn't successfully recon. I blocked him after that and still won't do business with him, but there are always going to be folks looking for an edge anywhere they can get one.
Why did you take any of the coins back? Usually sight seen transactions are "done deals" especially between two coin dealers. You should have at least charged him a hefty restocking fee.
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
But why stop there?? Let's cut right to it and get around all the self-righteous posturing going on with forum members, because it's sort of sickening to me. If a seller, on eBay/FaceBook/a dealer anywhere offers a "30 day money back return policy" and a buyer returns the coin within that timeframe and asks for a refund then the refund should be given.
If the seller has a problem with that then they shouldn't offer a "30 day money back return policy" to buyers.
What is so difficult to understand here??
I didn’t see where anyone said that a seller offering such terms shouldn’t honor them. The question was whether a buyer taking advantage of those terms in the manner described, was acting ethically. And some of us have answered “No.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@DelawareDoons said:
May be unethical but it happens allllll the time. Back when I was dealing on my own, some dealer bought 5 higher end coins off me right before a show where PCGS was doing onsite grading. He returned what didn't successfully recon. I blocked him after that and still won't do business with him, but there are always going to be folks looking for an edge anywhere they can get one.
Why did you take any of the coins back? Usually sight seen transactions are "done deals" especially between two coin dealers. You should have at least charged him a hefty restocking fee.
eBay. Didn't have a choice.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
During return period eBay may freeze a sellers funds so doing more than minimum return period allowed not in sellers best interests anyway. You don’t want to be the bank for the buyer returning some big ticket coin do you?
Whether buyer acting ethically people are picking off stuff off the bourse or online all the time even coming here and bragging about it. It’s like asking if gravity is ethical lol. The spread in CDN Bid or CPG for CAC vs non CAC can be quite substantial so players trying pick off stuff out there to get CAC bean on it should be no surprise. A lot of them even get a free ride on the CAC fee if it doesn’t CAC right?
@DelawareDoons said:
May be unethical but it happens allllll the time. Back when I was dealing on my own, some dealer bought 5 higher end coins off me right before a show where PCGS was doing onsite grading. He returned what didn't successfully recon. I blocked him after that and still won't do business with him, but there are always going to be folks looking for an edge anywhere they can get one.
Why did you take any of the coins back? Usually sight seen transactions are "done deals" especially between two coin dealers. You should have at least charged him a hefty restocking fee.
@DelawareDoons said:
May be unethical but it happens allllll the time. Back when I was dealing on my own, some dealer bought 5 higher end coins off me right before a show where PCGS was doing onsite grading. He returned what didn't successfully recon. I blocked him after that and still won't do business with him, but there are always going to be folks looking for an edge anywhere they can get one.
Why did you take any of the coins back? Usually sight seen transactions are "done deals" especially between two coin dealers. You should have at least charged him a hefty restocking fee.
eBay. Didn't have a choice.
You said the dealer "bought 5 higher end coins off me right before a show where PCGS was doing on site grading." It sounded like a dealer-to-dealer transaction before the coin show opened and the dealer took the coins to the PCGS table to get their opinion. You did the right thing by blocking this dealer from future transactions. Also, you may want to consider letting other dealers know what transpired.
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
@MFeld said: I didn’t see where anyone said that a seller offering such terms shouldn’t honor them. The question was whether a buyer taking advantage of those terms in the manner described, was acting ethically. And some of us have answered “No.”
That's just a stupid argument. Why is it unethical?? What has the buyer done that's wrong?? Maybe they did something that the seller wasn't anticipating but if they return the coin within the specified timeframe then they are above any retribution for committing some perceived ethical violation.
As explained by the OP, there are no conditions for the 30 day return, so the return is "unconditional" and needs no explaining. You can dance around it all you want and try to get as many Angels on the pinhead as you want to, but in the end there really isn't anything unethical about following the rules.
The seller who would take action against a buyer who performs within the rules the seller has laid out is really the one who is acting unethically, why can't you understand that simple point?? That sellers remedy is a simple one: accept the returned coin and change the return policy.
@Maywood said: @MFeld said: I didn’t see where anyone said that a seller offering such terms shouldn’t honor them. The question was whether a buyer taking advantage of those terms in the manner described, was acting ethically. And some of us have answered “No.”
That's just a stupid argument. Why is it unethical?? What has the buyer done that's wrong?? Maybe they did something that the seller wasn't anticipating but if they return the coin within the specified timeframe then they are above any retribution for committing some perceived ethical violation.
As explained by the OP, there are no conditions for the 30 day return, so the return is "unconditional" and needs no explaining. You can dance around it all you want and try to get as many Angels on the pinhead as you want to, but in the end there really isn't anything unethical about following the rules.
The seller who would take action against a buyer who performs within the rules the seller has laid out is really the one who is acting unethically, why can't you understand that simple point?? That sellers remedy is a simple one: accept the returned coin and change the return policy.
Obviously, you and I have different opinions regarding what constitutes ethical/unethical behavior. Yet I didn’t call your point of view “stupid”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
But why stop there?? Let's cut right to it and get around all the self-righteous posturing going on with forum members, because it's sort of sickening to me. If a seller, on eBay/FaceBook/a dealer anywhere offers a "30 day money back return policy" and a buyer returns the coin within that timeframe and asks for a refund then the refund should be given.
If the seller has a problem with that then they shouldn't offer a "30 day money back return policy" to buyers.
What is so difficult to understand here??
Whether or not the action can be defined as "unethical" is just a matter of semantics, but that doesn't change the fact that many of us feel it's not right. When I originally answered the question, I had to ask myself internally- "Is this something I would do?" My answer- "No". The coins I buy tend to be much more expensive with stickers than without, so chances are it's probably been sent and failed before. I'm not going to play some silly game trying to pick out a coin that will CAC from ebay photos, I would just wait for a CAC example to come along. Then I asked myself- "Is this something that I would want someone to do to me?" My answer- "No". When i'm selling a coin, if theres a good size spread between the CAC price and the non CAC price and the coin isn't a complete turd, Im sending it in myself. I only offer 14 day returns on ebay, but the buyer can ask me beforehand about the coins CAC status, and i'll tell them that it didn't pass or that I doubt it will pass. It's easier for me to be forthright about it from the jump than have a buyer do what OP was suggesting, which would just be a colossal waste of everyones time.
Whether or not you choose to accept these answers is your own prerogative, but to suggest that everyone in this thread is sickening you with their "self righteous posturing " is quite presumptuous. Speaking for myself, my comments reflect my own actions and the way I would conduct myself, and that is all. That doesn't mean that I think someone that does this should be tarred and feathered, but I just think its a lousy way to do business. If you'd like, I'll change my final answer to "No, its not unethical. However, it's not something I would ever do, nor would I want someone to do it to me". Is that better?
Comments
That's why the US mint shortened their return window a few years ago if I recall.
http://ProofCollection.Net
This is silly. So if I buy a coin with a 30 day RP I can't submit it anywhere until 30 days have elapsed? Can I crack it out? Can I spend it?
Sorry, any court would rule that once buyer has taken possession and met the terms of the agreement (ie, made payment), the contract is executed. You would have to form a formal contract with a contingency to do what you are suggesting.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Who would offer returns on bullion. Who sends bullion to CAC.
He probably returns a cherry pick that doesn't turn out to be a cherry pick.
I would block them as well.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Anyone who accepts cc payments for bullion, offers returns on bullion via chargeback. That was one of @jmlanzaf’s points in a different comment.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
When I look at a coin online, I hope for true views.
Still, even the photos from our host can be juiced.
Reduced quality 2D images on a color compromised computer screen?
Spent a decade as a photographer... nothing is as it seems because of lighting.
You either trust the grading company or you are playing games.
Outside of a variety with PUP's, you can't make meaningful decisions with 2D images.
Short term gains at the expense of forming meaningful dealer connections.
This is a cherrypicker wasting peoples time.... and I am a cherrypicker.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
I do not equate a credit card chargeback to using an offered return policy. That would be unethical and extremely shady to put it mildly. Offer what you are comfortable with someone using. Seems really simple to me.
Kudos on an interesting thread, folks!
In my current tiny world of capped bust half dimes, the community is small and everyone either knows (or knows of) each other. Some of my favored acquisitions have been through people I call friends, or people who have heard others vouch for my integrity. I value and protect that.
I don't keep every coin that I attempt to acquire, and I've sent some back that just didn't meet my expectations. I've even had others review the coins I'm considering, and take their advice into account. I think that's fair game.
The difference to me is the presumption of quantifiable $$ value that the CAC bean confers. That, to me, crosses a line.
New website: Groovycoins.com Capped Bust Half Dime registry set: Bikergeek CBHD LM Set
The Mint is still too generous with returns. > @ironmanl63 said:
See above. I had a buyer return a kilo of silver after 170 days. If you pay with a CC, you can file a charge back, offeted returns or not.
If you take ebay payments or PayPal payments on ANYTHING, you are offering 180 to 540 day returns no matter what your stated policy is.
If you were the seller and offered such a proposal would you agree to it or block the guy from bidding? I expect that most sellers would tell the guy to take a long walk off of a short pier.
IMO no, but you should give an honest answer if asked.
There's a show in 2 weeks. I buy $100,000 in slabbed coins, mark them up and take them to the show. The day after the show, I return whatever didn't sell. You have no issue with this behavior?
Why is a CC any different? I'm simply using the 180 days that the CC offered me. It's still just me exercising my rights
I would decline, because if it was a coin that had significant upside with a sticker and I thought it had a shot, I would be sending it myself. I would kindly inform the buyer that the coin is unlikely to sticker in my opinion, and they should treat it as a non CAC which is how it would be priced.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Would you block him or hope that he chooses not to bid since you know his intentions if he is the winning bidder?
I do not doubt what you say about credit card chargebacks.
I would not call that a return and do not think it is relevant to the question asked. We can add many different circumstances and change the answer someone would give.
I want to make clear I do not support doing this. I think it is a extremely lame thing to do. I would not want to do business with someone who does. This would never happen to me as I would not offer a 30 day return policy.
But, honestly, you SHOULD offer a 30 day return policy (unless cash only) because you HAVE a 180 day return policy even if you don't want one. By not offering it, you are damaging sales and, in the case of an actual problem, encouraging a charge back as the only recourse. And chargebacks are much worse than returns. You have a 50% chance that you will end up issuing a refund and the customer will get to keep the coin.
The fact that you even ask the question answers the question. The "return" privilege is obviously meant to give you the chance to undo an unpleasant surprise, not to undo the failure to score a bonus.
It's unethical, and worse, IMO.
WOW! It is amazing how far you will twist things. I have stated multiple times I think it is a lame thing to do.
Unfortunately, yes because morality and ethics are subjective. If you really think slavery is OK then it doesn't violate your personal ethics.
The rest of us may have an opinion and use the army or police to force you to not do that but from the pro-slavery persons point of view they are living within their own code of ethics.
I'd like to point out that the bible has a LOT on managing your slaves. The book of Timothy in particular.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
IMO, when I buy a coin on eBay, I buy the coin pictured. If warts were hidden, I would return it (although I've never returned an eBay coin). This is especially true for a slabbed coin--do your examination and buy or don't buy based on that; if there's an unpleasant surprise when the coin arrives, return it, but if it's as pictured, you bought that coin.
If a buyer asks before buying, and the seller lied, that's different. The same analysis applies, of course (if you get the coin you paid for, it's yours), but the fact that seller withheld material information about the coin's history, know to the seller, would make it ok, IMO, to return it (ignoring the simple fact that you'd never find out anyway).
Extremely weird to be defending something I am against and would never do. Obviously my definition of unethical is different than most and probably not correct. I agree with most of the posts on the subject. I feel like I am trapped in a Twilight Zone episode.
I told my local coin shop I planned to submit coin to PCGS after I purchased it. I asked if they would take it back if it did not slab and they said yes. It did not slab (this was before PCGS would slab problem coins). I returned it and instead of taking cash back, I asked them to leave the money as a store credit as I felt they were very generous.
Probably not, I would assume that they would believe me when I tell them its not CAC quality. I only offer 14 day returns btw, 30 days is excessive.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
This is the thread title:
" Is it unethical to submit a coin to CAC first and than return it if fails to the coin company ?"
But I'm interpreting this :
" Is it unethical to buy a slabbed coin from a seller who offers a return privilege, submit it to CAC, and if CAC doesn't sticker it, THEN send it back to original seller for a full refund because ? "
... I think that person has no ethics. Similar to any drug addict, ethics are out the door because they needs a fix. You know glue sniffing can be addictive.
If the seller said it had not been to CAC AFAIK CAC won't say if a coin has been rejected if asked. If it's sent in again I think they still give it a second look rather than rejecting it outright. So whether or not the seller mentions it may be irrelevant.
Bullion is subject to the same return policy. No, it's not going to CAC but buying on speculation of market price change with the seller assuming the risk ? NO. I cannot agree with this at all. Say the buyer purchases 100 oz. of bullion. 1 week later the price drops 1 or 2 dollars an oz. The buyer returns it for " any reason " thus he's using the return policy as a 30 day insurance policy against a drop in price. I for one would refuse the return. At least the seller would have an idea of the reason for the return. Not so with a buyer sending it to CAC. I do have a question, what is the turnaround time to CAC ?
If one believes that CAC knows what they're doing, then knowing that CAC didn't sticker a coin that was submitted tells you that that coin is not strong for the grade. So I don't consider the fact that it was not stickered to be "irrelevant," since that's a useful piece of information when buying a coin remotely, based of photographs. But, again, it's exceedingly unlikely that you ever would find out that it had been submitted before.
Buyers who return items - I block/ ban whether online or not. This is nothing personal just business policy.
The op buyer appears to be somebody trying pickoff non CAC get CAC’d get the extra CAC MV. So for sure a block target.
It's relevant if you know that it was rejected, but if the seller lies and said that it wasn't then you are correct in that it would be highly unlikely that you'd find out.
I thought I have seen sellers not offer returns on bullion.
Bullion is not part of the original question. It has been added to change the original question.
I would do the exact same as you!
Return times vary. I have had submissions take from 3 1/2 to 6 weeks door to door.
Is it unethical to submit coins to ANACS, knowing that is the long way around ?
So with that turnaround time it would be fairly hard to do. Receiving coin, packaging and shipping to CAC, waiting 25 to 42 days. receiving the coin back. Does CAC release grades before shipping such as our hosts do? This could shorten the time for the buyer to notify the seller of a return. I don't play the CAC game but if I did I just think it's wrong to do what the OP suggested.
Perhaps it would be helpful to ask whether the behavior described is the honorable vs ethical thing to do.
Seeking a win win business relationship should be the reference point to guide one’s behavior. Under that standard, I know that taking a sellers coin out of inventory for a month and to play a game as described would not be honorable.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Wouldn’t that different question be too easy to answer?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That's not at all a twist. It's exactly the same thing. An attempt to establish a risk free profit.
Whether it’s unethical, in bad taste, unfair or whatever phrase you might use it’s not risk free profit. Whoever might attempt this is risking grading and shipping fees and potential loss or damage in the postal system.
It is not just a twist, It is an extreme twist. IMO.
On that one coin, sure. But as a pattern of behavior, much less so. When you can return all the "losers" and keep all the "winners" you are guaranteeing yourself a profit by using someone else to fund your inventory.
There is zero potential loss or damage in the postal system. You insure that. All you are risking is the grading/shipping fees to CAC or the TPG. And you are sticking the seller with round-trip shipping costs in exchange, when they have no possibility of "winning".
Should those sellers who offer a 30 day return stipulate in their listing that the buyer is not allowed to show the coin to anyone else to get their opinion of the coin?
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
@PerryHall, I think you're on to something!!
But why stop there?? Let's cut right to it and get around all the self-righteous posturing going on with forum members, because it's sort of sickening to me. If a seller, on eBay/FaceBook/a dealer anywhere offers a "30 day money back return policy" and a buyer returns the coin within that timeframe and asks for a refund then the refund should be given.
If the seller has a problem with that then they shouldn't offer a "30 day money back return policy" to buyers.
What is so difficult to understand here??
May be unethical but it happens allllll the time. Back when I was dealing on my own, some dealer bought 5 higher end coins off me right before a show where PCGS was doing onsite grading. He returned what didn't successfully recon. I blocked him after that and still won't do business with him, but there are always going to be folks looking for an edge anywhere they can get one.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Why did you take any of the coins back? Usually sight seen transactions are "done deals" especially between two coin dealers. You should have at least charged him a hefty restocking fee.
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 didn’t see where anyone said that a seller offering such terms shouldn’t honor them. The question was whether a buyer taking advantage of those terms in the manner described, was acting ethically. And some of us have answered “No.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
eBay. Didn't have a choice.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
During return period eBay may freeze a sellers funds so doing more than minimum return period allowed not in sellers best interests anyway. You don’t want to be the bank for the buyer returning some big ticket coin do you?
Whether buyer acting ethically people are picking off stuff off the bourse or online all the time even coming here and bragging about it. It’s like asking if gravity is ethical lol. The spread in CDN Bid or CPG for CAC vs non CAC can be quite substantial so players trying pick off stuff out there to get CAC bean on it should be no surprise. A lot of them even get a free ride on the CAC fee if it doesn’t CAC right?
They don't do that for anybody but new sellers and/or idiots that try to play around their rules.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
You said the dealer "bought 5 higher end coins off me right before a show where PCGS was doing on site grading." It sounded like a dealer-to-dealer transaction before the coin show opened and the dealer took the coins to the PCGS table to get their opinion. You did the right thing by blocking this dealer from future transactions. Also, you may want to consider letting other dealers know what transpired.
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
@MFeld said: I didn’t see where anyone said that a seller offering such terms shouldn’t honor them. The question was whether a buyer taking advantage of those terms in the manner described, was acting ethically. And some of us have answered “No.”
That's just a stupid argument. Why is it unethical?? What has the buyer done that's wrong?? Maybe they did something that the seller wasn't anticipating but if they return the coin within the specified timeframe then they are above any retribution for committing some perceived ethical violation.
As explained by the OP, there are no conditions for the 30 day return, so the return is "unconditional" and needs no explaining. You can dance around it all you want and try to get as many Angels on the pinhead as you want to, but in the end there really isn't anything unethical about following the rules.
The seller who would take action against a buyer who performs within the rules the seller has laid out is really the one who is acting unethically, why can't you understand that simple point?? That sellers remedy is a simple one: accept the returned coin and change the return policy.
Obviously, you and I have different opinions regarding what constitutes ethical/unethical behavior. Yet I didn’t call your point of view “stupid”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Whether or not the action can be defined as "unethical" is just a matter of semantics, but that doesn't change the fact that many of us feel it's not right. When I originally answered the question, I had to ask myself internally- "Is this something I would do?" My answer- "No". The coins I buy tend to be much more expensive with stickers than without, so chances are it's probably been sent and failed before. I'm not going to play some silly game trying to pick out a coin that will CAC from ebay photos, I would just wait for a CAC example to come along. Then I asked myself- "Is this something that I would want someone to do to me?" My answer- "No". When i'm selling a coin, if theres a good size spread between the CAC price and the non CAC price and the coin isn't a complete turd, Im sending it in myself. I only offer 14 day returns on ebay, but the buyer can ask me beforehand about the coins CAC status, and i'll tell them that it didn't pass or that I doubt it will pass. It's easier for me to be forthright about it from the jump than have a buyer do what OP was suggesting, which would just be a colossal waste of everyones time.
Whether or not you choose to accept these answers is your own prerogative, but to suggest that everyone in this thread is sickening you with their "self righteous posturing " is quite presumptuous. Speaking for myself, my comments reflect my own actions and the way I would conduct myself, and that is all. That doesn't mean that I think someone that does this should be tarred and feathered, but I just think its a lousy way to do business. If you'd like, I'll change my final answer to "No, its not unethical. However, it's not something I would ever do, nor would I want someone to do it to me". Is that better?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook