Mark should eat his loss and move on. I'm guessing the coin eventually gets slabbed...and sold. Many others have. Enjoy your posts Andy....lets pick up the pace a little... . K
Seems to me that both Guy and Mark will eventually learn that to pay THAT kind of dough for a coin that is not in either a PCGS or NGC holder is INSANE! At least an "opinion" by either of those companies backs the coin to a great extent.
Anyone else notice how once we see a coin in person and get wrapped up in it's positive attributes.....and buy it........that upon further examination in leasure something we never noticed before JUMPS OUT at you! Why stake huge money (at least for me) on our single opinion when we're not prepared to eat any potential mistake.
JMHO.......
The Ex-"Crown Jewel" of my collection! 1915 PF68 (NGC) Barber Half "Eliasberg".
Once again resides with Legend, the original purchaser "raw" at live Eliasberg auction. Laura and i "love" the same lady!
Answers to PART II. Analysis under each possible choice in bold.
CHAPTER TWO (Posted Tuesday, April 22 at 4:20 PM)
Several weeks have passed. Mark has sent his 1813 half eagle to both major grading services. Both have bodybagged the coin for "Altered Surfaces". (In fact, the entire coin was probably very lightly whizzed.) Although Mark still thinks the coin looks great, he realizes that he made a big mistake paying 30K for the coin. He now has many options, including the following:
1. Accept that he made a mistake and sell the coin for what it is, a 20K+ loss. Absolutely! Does that mean Mark is going out of business? No one like to admit a mistake of this magnitude and will rarely do so in reality.
2. Try to return the coin to Guy for a full or partial refund. Most likely scenario in conjunction with option #3
3. Without saying what the coin graded, tell Guy a story about needing money. Consign the coin back to Guy and let him try to sell it to the original "customer back home". Most likely scenario in conjunction with option #2
4. Put the coin in an auction, raw, hoping that someone else will make the same mistake. Will happen if Guy is smart enough to refuse rebuying the coin
5. Send the coin to ACG with a required "minimum grade" of MS 65. Nah......required minimum grade should be MS-67.
What should Mark do? Get a competent grader to accompany him at all times!
Absolutely! Does that mean Mark is going out of business? No one like to admit a mistake of this magnitude, will rarely happen in reality.
Guy is a ficticious professional dealer. So is Mark. Guy was the seller, and so, doesent he have the moral obligation to reveal to Mark that the coin had altered surfaces? As a professional, Mark should have realized the coin had problems. He didn't notice. Okay. He's human like the rest of us and made a mistake. Does this dis-obligate Guy from making full disclosure to Mark? I believe that Guy must still provide adequate notice and full disclosure to any buyer about any raw coin's problem.
Isn't full disclosure necessary in any transaction, whether that transaction is between professionals, hobbyists, or others? Without full disclosure, how can a deal really be called "a deal?" matteproof
For Chapter 2, the best answer is #1, but the more likely action will probably be #4.
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Chapter 1 1. NO 2. Yes. that's what Guy asked for.
Chapter 2
I'm inclined to choose #1. Call it karma, call it the Holy Spirit, call it 'what comes around, goes around', whatever....Mark was asked for his honest opinion and didn't really give it, tried to make a major rip from Guy and got burned.
A lot of people will respond with something like, "Well, Guy is a PNG member, and should know what he has, and if he'a a 'legit' coin dealer (not a wann...I can't even type it!) he shouldn't rely on other dealers, survival of the fittest, blah,blah blah,... Dealers can't specialze in EVERYTHING. Even they have reference books and help each other along the way.
I would really choose option #6 (if it would have been an option in 1989)--Mark should send it in to ANACS, have them net grade it, sell it for what he can, and take the hit in that way. ( And hope he doesn't need an honest opinion from Guy in the future!)
no one has mentioned "mark" being a mark for this scam! i bet my money it was intentional, and "guy" asked about 50 people before he found one that didnt catch it was wizzed. i ALSO bet it ended up in a holder
Chapter 1 1 No 2 Moral No ethical yes. Guy wasn't looking for an offer to buy, he was requesting an opinion on the quality of the coin. Mark didn't give his opinion but instead pressured guy to sell the coin.
Chapter 2
1 accept he made a mistake, bite the bullet and take the loss.
<< <i>Why would it be ok for Guy to sell a whizzed coin and not share in the responsibilty of the loss? >>
Lets see, I believe Mark was identified in the first post as being an expert, and he had the chance to examine the coin carefully in person. I didn't see anything there about any representations made about the coin by Guy, He then made a decision based on his expertise and he blew it. I don't see for that set of facts by Guy should have to take part of the loss.
Hi Condor. You said; "didn't see anything there about any representations made about the coin by Guy,..."
You are correct Condor. This ficticious seller Guy did NOT make any representations about the coin to Mark. However, I'm suggesting that his not doing so is relevant and a factor to the moral question. If Guy had made disclosure about the coin's problem, then he would have been 100% "clean hands" in the transaction. But he didn't disclose, and that's the moral dilemna of the story for me.
My feeling is that that full disclosure of pertinent facts known is always necessary for a clean transaction regardless of who the players are (pro, non-pro, etc). Without proper notice of pertinent facts known, the parties cannot logically be said to have reached a true "meeting of the minds." matteproof
<< <i>If Guy had made disclosure about the coin's problem, then he would have been 100% "clean hands" in the transaction. But he didn't disclose, and that's the moral dilemna of the story for me.
My feeling is that that full disclosure of pertinent facts known is always necessary for a clean transaction regardless of who the players are (pro, non-pro, etc). >>
But you are making the assumption that Guy DID know that the coin had problems. There has been no evidence presented to demonstrate that he did. If he did't know of the problems then he couldn't disclose to Mark that it had problems.
Hi Condor. Thank you for the follow up. You said; "But you are making the assumption that Guy DID know that the coin had problems. There has been no evidence presented to demonstrate that he did. If he did't know of the problems then he couldn't disclose to Mark that it had problems."
I hear you. I considered that Guy might not have known about the coin's problems. However, Guy is a "professional" and therefore should have known even if he didn't. Accordingly, isn't Guy obligated to "disclose" even if he didn't know? Is a "not knowing" professional excused from the requirement of making full disclosure of a product that he sells? Consider this analogy, can a professional doctor use the excuse that he didn't know he was taking out someone's kidney when he was supposed to be taking out someone's appendix? It's an interesting question.
Now, of course, Mark is also a professional. He too should have known and I feel his "professional" status raises the bar more for him than it would for say, a non-pro hobbyist. Nevertheless, I don't believe that Mark's NOT recognizing the problem disobligates Guy (the Seller) from his obligation to fully disclose (and as mentioned above even if he didn't know Guy's obligation to disclose should still exist in my view). The burden is on the Seller to accurately describe his wares. Now, if it said "as is" in the bill of sale, this would likely change much for Guy because it would have provided "notice" to Mark that something might be wrong with the coin.
Finally, in the best case scenario, situations like this should be worked out between the "professional" parties. Each one of these "professionals" should eat a little crow in situations like this and come to a true meeting of the minds (unlike their first transaction). This interesting ficiticious story serves to prove - yet again - that FULL disclosure of ALL the facts in advance of any sale precludes any of these misunderstandings from arising after the sale. Thank GOD for slabs. Thank you again Condor for your terrific thoughts. matteproof
Although, Guy may not have been aware of the coin's problems when he sold it, I do believe, as a professional, that he either should have sold the coin "as is", meaning he has notified the buyer that he will not stand behind the coin, or should be willing to take the coin back and eat the loss. This is the risk that a coin dealer should take on and gets paid for. This is why Guy should have insisted the coin go through a TPG service before he took on the consignment. That would have removed the risk from him but would have reduced his profit since his consignee would not now have a more solid basis for estimating value and negotiating price.
Mark has no moral obligation other than making good payment for the coin and making sure the coin is not damaged or further altered. He absolutely should not try to pass the problem to someone else.
<< <i> Accordingly, isn't Guy obligated to "disclose" even if he didn't know? Is a "not knowing" professional excused from the requirement of making full disclosure of a product that he sells? Consider this analogy, can a professional doctor use the excuse that he didn't know he was taking out someone's kidney when he was supposed to be taking out someone's appendix? It's an interesting question. >>
But how do you disclose a problem that you don't know about? Sticking with the medical field a better analogy might be your surgery patient happens to be seriously allergic to the anesthesia but he has never had surgery before so neither he nor his doctor is going to know about it. The doctor refers him to the surgeon. When the patient is put under he suddenly and unexpectantly has a bad reaction to the anesthesia. Now is the first doctor responsible for not warning the surgeon about the allergy that he didn't know about?
Hi Condor. Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. You said; "But how do you disclose a problem that you don't know about?"
It's a very good question. I believe that there are instances when a person is obligated to disclose relevant facts even if he dosen't know what those facts are. This is generally true of professionals. Isn't a professional obligated to know because they are "supposed to know?" And, if he dosen't know, for whatever reason, isn't he still on the hook for the effect of not knowing?
You said; "Sticking with the medical field a better analogy might be your surgery patient happens to be seriously allergic to the anesthesia but he has never had surgery before so neither he nor his doctor is going to know about it. The doctor refers him to the surgeon. When the patient is put under he suddenly and unexpectantly has a bad reaction to the anesthesia. Now is the first doctor responsible for not warning the surgeon about the allergy that he didn't know about?"
I'm not sure, but shouldn't at least one of these professionals (or both of them) tested for this man's potential allergies beforehand? Thank you again for your input Condor. It is much appreciated. matteproof
<< <i>But how do you disclose a problem that you don't know about? >>
In this case, as a professional, you are supposed to protect your client. The doctor who didn't know his patient was allergic to anesthesia better have medical liability insurance. And in the case of a coin dealer, he better have the backing of a TPG. The buck has to stop somewhere and I don't think it should stop at the customer unless the customer was warned ahead of time.
I would send the coin to a good doctor for a nice smoke job and/or a bit of light touch up. Then off to Anacs to see if it will get a 64 or 65. Then I'd try to cross it to NGC holder in a box of other gold that's real nice. Then I'd contact the retail customer of "Guy" and stick him with the coin for $40,000 and split the profit with Guy. If that didn't work, I'd auction it hoping a crackout guy would make the same mistake I did.
Of course, I'm not a coin dealer and have no ethics at all.
Comments
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Anyone else notice how once we see a coin in person and get wrapped up in it's positive attributes.....and buy it........that upon further examination in leasure something we never noticed before JUMPS OUT at you! Why stake huge money (at least for me) on our single opinion when we're not prepared to eat any potential mistake.
JMHO.......
Once again resides with Legend, the original purchaser "raw" at live Eliasberg auction. Laura and i "love" the same lady!
I often pay THAT kind of dough for raw coins, and it has been profitable. Then again, profits don't make me sane.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Let's not forget that "Guy" is a PNG dealer, as stated in the first sentence of Chapter one... hmmmm >>
Well noted!
(1) YES.
(2) YES.
If dealers felt that trading amongst themselves was the moral thing to do thing they wouldn't have any customers to worry about, heh?
Separate posting for PART II.
CHAPTER TWO (Posted Tuesday, April 22 at 4:20 PM)
Several weeks have passed. Mark has sent his 1813 half eagle to both major grading services. Both have bodybagged the coin for "Altered Surfaces". (In fact, the entire coin was probably very lightly whizzed.) Although Mark still thinks the coin looks great, he realizes that he made a big mistake paying 30K for the coin. He now has many options, including the following:
1. Accept that he made a mistake and sell the coin for what it is, a 20K+ loss.
Absolutely! Does that mean Mark is going out of business? No one like to admit a mistake of this magnitude and will rarely do so in reality.
2. Try to return the coin to Guy for a full or partial refund.
Most likely scenario in conjunction with option #3
3. Without saying what the coin graded, tell Guy a story about needing money. Consign the coin back to Guy and let him try to sell it to the original "customer back home".
Most likely scenario in conjunction with option #2
4. Put the coin in an auction, raw, hoping that someone else will make the same mistake.
Will happen if Guy is smart enough to refuse rebuying the coin
5. Send the coin to ACG with a required "minimum grade" of MS 65.
Nah......required minimum grade should be MS-67.
What should Mark do?
Get a competent grader to accompany him at all times!
Absolutely! Does that mean Mark is going out of business? No one like to admit a mistake of this magnitude, will rarely happen in reality.
Isn't full disclosure necessary in any transaction, whether that transaction is between professionals, hobbyists, or others? Without full disclosure, how can a deal really be called "a deal?" matteproof
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
1. NO
2. Yes. that's what Guy asked for.
Chapter 2
I'm inclined to choose #1. Call it karma, call it the Holy Spirit, call it 'what comes around, goes around', whatever....Mark was asked for his honest opinion and didn't really give it, tried to make a major rip from Guy and got burned.
A lot of people will respond with something like, "Well, Guy is a PNG member, and should know what he has, and if he'a a 'legit' coin dealer (not a wann...I can't even type it!) he shouldn't rely on other dealers, survival of the fittest, blah,blah blah,... Dealers can't specialze in EVERYTHING. Even they have reference books and help each other along the way.
I would really choose option #6 (if it would have been an option in 1989)--Mark should send it in to ANACS, have them net grade it, sell it for what he can, and take the hit in that way. ( And hope he doesn't need an honest opinion from Guy in the future!)
no one has mentioned "mark" being a mark for this scam! i bet my money it was intentional, and "guy" asked about 50 people before he found one that didnt catch it was wizzed. i ALSO bet it ended up in a holder
1 No
2 Moral No ethical yes. Guy wasn't looking for an offer to buy, he was requesting an opinion on the quality of the coin. Mark didn't give his opinion but instead pressured guy to sell the coin.
Chapter 2
1 accept he made a mistake, bite the bullet and take the loss.
<< <i>Why would it be ok for Guy to sell a whizzed coin and not share in the responsibilty of the loss? >>
Lets see, I believe Mark was identified in the first post as being an expert, and he had the chance to examine the coin carefully in person. I didn't see anything there about any representations made about the coin by Guy, He then made a decision based on his expertise and he blew it. I don't see for that set of facts by Guy should have to take part of the loss.
You are correct Condor. This ficticious seller Guy did NOT make any representations about the coin to Mark. However, I'm suggesting that his not doing so is relevant and a factor to the moral question. If Guy had made disclosure about the coin's problem, then he would have been 100% "clean hands" in the transaction. But he didn't disclose, and that's the moral dilemna of the story for me.
My feeling is that that full disclosure of pertinent facts known is always necessary for a clean transaction regardless of who the players are (pro, non-pro, etc). Without proper notice of pertinent facts known, the parties cannot logically be said to have reached a true "meeting of the minds."
A witty saying proves nothing- Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor
does the truth become error because nobody will see it. -Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)
<< <i>If Guy had made disclosure about the coin's problem, then he would have been 100% "clean hands" in the transaction. But he didn't disclose, and that's the moral dilemna of the story for me.
My feeling is that that full disclosure of pertinent facts known is always necessary for a clean transaction regardless of who the players are (pro, non-pro, etc). >>
But you are making the assumption that Guy DID know that the coin had problems. There has been no evidence presented to demonstrate that he did. If he did't know of the problems then he couldn't disclose to Mark that it had problems.
I hear you. I considered that Guy might not have known about the coin's problems. However, Guy is a "professional" and therefore should have known even if he didn't. Accordingly, isn't Guy obligated to "disclose" even if he didn't know? Is a "not knowing" professional excused from the requirement of making full disclosure of a product that he sells? Consider this analogy, can a professional doctor use the excuse that he didn't know he was taking out someone's kidney when he was supposed to be taking out someone's appendix? It's an interesting question.
Now, of course, Mark is also a professional. He too should have known and I feel his "professional" status raises the bar more for him than it would for say, a non-pro hobbyist. Nevertheless, I don't believe that Mark's NOT recognizing the problem disobligates Guy (the Seller) from his obligation to fully disclose (and as mentioned above even if he didn't know Guy's obligation to disclose should still exist in my view). The burden is on the Seller to accurately describe his wares. Now, if it said "as is" in the bill of sale, this would likely change much for Guy because it would have provided "notice" to Mark that something might be wrong with the coin.
Finally, in the best case scenario, situations like this should be worked out between the "professional" parties. Each one of these "professionals" should eat a little crow in situations like this and come to a true meeting of the minds (unlike their first transaction). This interesting ficiticious story serves to prove - yet again - that FULL disclosure of ALL the facts in advance of any sale precludes any of these misunderstandings from arising after the sale. Thank GOD for slabs. Thank you again Condor for your terrific thoughts.
I do believe, as a professional, that he either should have sold the coin "as is",
meaning he has notified the buyer that he will not stand behind the coin, or should
be willing to take the coin back and eat the loss. This is the risk that a coin dealer
should take on and gets paid for. This is why Guy should have insisted the coin
go through a TPG service before he took on the consignment. That would have
removed the risk from him but would have reduced his profit since his consignee
would not now have a more solid basis for estimating value and negotiating price.
Mark has no moral obligation other than making good payment for the coin and
making sure the coin is not damaged or further altered. He absolutely should not
try to pass the problem to someone else.
Please check out my eBay auctions!
My WLH Short Set Registry Collection
<< <i> Accordingly, isn't Guy obligated to "disclose" even if he didn't know? Is a "not knowing" professional excused from the requirement of making full disclosure of a product that he sells? Consider this analogy, can a professional doctor use the excuse that he didn't know he was taking out someone's kidney when he was supposed to be taking out someone's appendix? It's an interesting question. >>
But how do you disclose a problem that you don't know about? Sticking with the medical field a better analogy might be your surgery patient happens to be seriously allergic to the anesthesia but he has never had surgery before so neither he nor his doctor is going to know about it. The doctor refers him to the surgeon. When the patient is put under he suddenly and unexpectantly has a bad reaction to the anesthesia. Now is the first doctor responsible for not warning the surgeon about the allergy that he didn't know about?
I suspect the coin was "conserved" or doctored and got into a holder. Then mark sold it for a big profit.
It's a very good question. I believe that there are instances when a person is obligated to disclose relevant facts even if he dosen't know what those facts are. This is generally true of professionals. Isn't a professional obligated to know because they are "supposed to know?" And, if he dosen't know, for whatever reason, isn't he still on the hook for the effect of not knowing?
You said; "Sticking with the medical field a better analogy might be your surgery patient happens to be seriously allergic to the anesthesia but he has never had surgery before so neither he nor his doctor is going to know about it. The doctor refers him to the surgeon. When the patient is put under he suddenly and unexpectantly has a bad reaction to the anesthesia. Now is the first doctor responsible for not warning the surgeon about the allergy that he didn't know about?"
I'm not sure, but shouldn't at least one of these professionals (or both of them) tested for this man's potential allergies beforehand? Thank you again for your input Condor. It is much appreciated.
<< <i>But how do you disclose a problem that you don't know about? >>
In this case, as a professional, you are supposed to protect your client.
The doctor who didn't know his patient was allergic to anesthesia better
have medical liability insurance. And in the case of a coin dealer, he better
have the backing of a TPG. The buck has to stop somewhere and I don't
think it should stop at the customer unless the customer was warned
ahead of time.
Please check out my eBay auctions!
My WLH Short Set Registry Collection
Of course, I'm not a coin dealer and have no ethics at all.