unethical title description for an auction

Geoman

I have read many threads about how people try to be deceptful with their online auctions. And I have been bothered by one persons' description for a while, and thought I'd put it up to you. So here goes...

This person uses the terms "Cameo" or "Deep Cameo" in their title of the auction, along with mentioning the grade and service. For example, "1982-S PCGS Proof 69 with Cameo." But when you read the fine print, they say "It is a Cameo in my opinion, but not listed on the holder." I know the older PCGS holders didn't designate Cameo, but these are the newer holders, as they have a small picture on auction. I know people could see that Cameo isn't on the slab, but when it is listed in the title, it may be overlooked on the picture.

What do you think, deceptive? Or legit?

FatMan

deceptive-Yes
fraudulent-No

coinguy1

Geoman,

I'm with you 100% on that one. The seller can mention in his description (rather than the auction heading) that he thinks his coin is a cameo. That way, he can still get his point across but not potentially mislead someone in the process.

Edited to add - Geoman, why not post (or P.M. me about) one of the items? I'd be happy to send the seller an email about it.

kranky

To me that's completely deceptive, especially if they place the word "Cameo" right after "PCGS" and the grade. It's obviously designed to catch people who are searching for cameo.

I thought ebay banned putting words in the title that don't apply to the item (they have a term for it, but I don't remember what it is). An example would be "Athletic shoes, size 9, similar to Nike". If the shoes aren't Nike, you can't put Nike in the title.

TWODOGS

The one that REALLY gets me is a certain ebay seller that has been mentioned here MANY times. So many times in fact, I won't need to mention dale_earnhardt_will_be_missed's name. He lists a coin like so: "1886-O, MS-65 at $1500!!!"

The coin in the listing is EF, at best. He gets bids WAY over what the coins should go for. Nobody reads the actual listings, we all know that, but NOWHERE in the listing does he mention the actual grade. OR the fact that it's NOT an MS-65 coin. Now THAT'S deceptive.

Geoman

Thought I'd should give the link.

DesertLizard

The Reed Edge does something very similar. A MS64 coin will be listed as "...MS64 PQ MS65?..." Every darn coin he has is "PQ". What is annoying is his coins show up in a search for more than one grade. This is deliberate, he may call it marketing but I call it deceptive and I will never bid on his coins. On principle, I cannot do business with those who try to mislead and not play by the rules.

Russ

I agree that it's deceptive and I also find it irritating. However, let me play devil's advocate for a minute (crap, I must be channeling Karl).

Let's say a seller is listing a raw coin that may, or may not, be strong enough to make the cameo designation at PCGS or NGC. This seller puts the word "cameo" in the title, and in the description states that in his opinion the coin is cameo. Is he wrong for doing that? Is that deceptive?

In other words, does his opinion matter when there is no plastic surrounding the coin, but become irrelevant when there is?

Russ, NCNE

Russ

Geoman,

Whoah! I need to start selling on Yahoo! That's a $20 to $25 coin going for $68!

EDIT: Oops, just noticed it has no bids; that's his opening.

Russ, NCNE

kranky

<< <i>I agree that it's deceptive and I also find it irritating. However, let me play devil's advocate for a minute (crap, I must be channeling Karl).

Let's say a seller is listing a raw coin that may, or may not, be strong enough to make the cameo designation at PCGS or NGC. This seller puts the word "cameo" in the title, and in the description states that in his opinion the coin is cameo. Is he wrong for doing that? Is that deceptive?

In other words, does his opinion matter when there is no plastic surrounding the coin, but become irrelevant when there is?

Russ, NCNE >>



I think the difference is this: If the title says PCGS PR68 CAMEO, then I think any reasonable person would conclude that PCGS graded it cameo. Disclaiming it in the fine print isn't enough for me. If the title says Proof 68 Cameo, I can live with that (no reference to a service). Just don't put it in the auction title exactly as it would appear on the slab, and later on say that's just the seller's opinion.

If I have a PCGS coin that I think should be a 68, but they only graded it 66, isn't it the same thing to have "PCGS graded MS68" in the title, and down in the description just say that my opinion is that it was 68? After all, the coin IS PCGS graded.

Geoman

Russ,

A valid and good point. I agree with you 100% that if the coin is raw, and the seller feels it is a cameo, then list it. However, once a grade and Cameo or no Cameo designation has been rendered by a grading service, such as PCGS, I still feel that seller shouldn't list it in their title, right after the word PCGS. To me, it does matter about the "plastic" as I admit I am not the best grader, and do TRUST the PCGS graders over my grades (or other sellers assigned grades). So the plastic does carry some "weight" to it, and I would trust it more than the seller.

Yea, Yahoo! is below eBay in my opinion. But every once in a while, you find a seller that doesn't know anything, and is selling something for far less than it is valued. I feel that Yahoo! is either grossly over-priced, and in some instances, way under priced, with not much middle ground. I have found several great deals on Yahoo. The last 3 were a NGC 1963 Dime PF68 Cameo for $3.75, a NGC 1958 Dime PR68 for $3.75, and a 1981-S PCGS PF69DCAM Kennedy for $7. However, most are way overpriced.

Gotta run, the Vikings are on TV!

Russ

You know, it's really no fun playing devil's advocate when the argument is so quickly and effectively shot down.

Russ, NCNE

MrLee

I was going to call you dorkruss....but you gave up to quickly.

And the term for adding words to the title that don't apply but get people to look at the auction is Word Spamming and it is against eBay policies.

Dog97

YES IT IS FRADULANT!!!!!
Because the coin for sale IS NOT a PCGS - PR 68 CAMEO .
What kranky refers too is key word spamming which is not allowed on eBay but I can't comment on Yahoo policy.

Spooly

I hate ANACS auctions. ANACS AU-50! Great Coin!


You open the auction to find AU-58.......... NET AU-50 "Damaged"

mr1931S

i think an ebay sellers should be very careful in coin auction titling...especially if there is no return policy...

i recently emailed a seller about an 09SVDB that i think is not genuine on "close inspection of the coin's excellent images" i said...he did not guarantee his coin to be genuine in his description...no return for refund policy either...

There was no indication in the auction title that the coin offered may not be genuine...

Guess what can happen...you pay for this coin and find out on good authority it's not genuine and tell the seller this.The seller will point to his auction description complete with his opinions,
not his auction title,and proceed to tell you that you should learn how to read...

A live controversy is born...

wingedliberty

You have no idea how angry this makes me, I know the guy you're talking about,the thing
I hate about it the most is that he wastes my time by making me look. I think its fraud and
deception. If he thinks its CAM/or DCAM, maybe he should work for Hagar the Horrible. There is nothing
wrong with stating that in the text of the description but not in the MAIN header.


Brian.

BNE

TwoDogs: Usually Dale-Earnhardt_Will_Be_Missed says something like: "the coin is worth $1500 in MS-65 ALONE!" As if the EF coin might be a 66, or a 67, or even a 73!

His stuff might be o.k. if it were graded correctly and not cleaned to hell.