careful, shiro! you may be quoting out of context. here's what jadecoin actually said: <<I agree 100% that "earlycoins" should have mentioned the 1795's problem. I just looked at the auction in question. I CAN'T speak for them, but it does mention an attempt to "scrape off the scratches" and a "shiny area" - things we did mention to them.>> maybe jade-coin thinks this was sufficient?
just pointing out again that i don't think the desc. fooled anyone to believe the coin was "original". but you have been correct since day 1 that others may disagree. bottom line for me is this, dudes. i don't know whether any of the deb's stories or the forum's stories are true. i might not care. the coins i got from "deb" were terific, and 100% original. others agree (pos. f.b.)
IS there, or IS THERE NOT proof that the "deb" listings were written with intent to deceive?
if you have PROOF, you should share it with us, because then would for sure smack of "scam". anything less than "proof", & doug may just have to settle for that field goal, and a tie score.
Comments
just pointing out again that i don't think the desc. fooled anyone to believe the coin was "original". but you have been correct since day 1 that others may disagree. bottom line for me is this, dudes. i don't know whether any of the deb's stories or the forum's stories are true. i might not care. the coins i got from "deb" were terific, and 100% original. others agree (pos. f.b.)
IS there, or IS THERE NOT proof that the "deb" listings were written with intent to deceive?
if you have PROOF, you should share it with us, because then would for sure smack of "scam". anything less than "proof", & doug may just have to settle for that field goal, and a tie score.
K S
K S
Obscurum per obscurius
Blast from the past!
Wow.... really the PAST....Lately a few of these old threads have resurfaced....this one is a good one... Cheers, RickO
It was great seeing all those "old timers'" posts and reliving smoe fun times! Thanks.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...