Chapter Five - Long and Scary Thread!

MrEureka

To recap:

CHAPTER ONE

Long Beach Coin Show, 1989

Guy, a PNG dealer and "Pretty Nice Guy" (hence, his fictitious name) shows a raw uncirculated 1813 half eagle to Mark, a very sharp coin dealer. (It will later become clear how our second character got his fictitious name.) He explains that he has the coin on consignment and wants a second opinion on the coin before offering it to a good retail customer "back home".

Mark looks very closely at the coin, loves it, and rather than giving his free opinion he tries to buy it. Under some pressure from Mark, Guy reveals that the coin is on consignment to him at 25K and that he was going to charge his customer 30K. Mark convinces Guy to sell him the coin instead, at the same 30K, which at the time was about an MS64 price. A deal is consummated. Mark is thrilled because he thinks it's a 65 worth 100K. Guy pays the consignor 25K and both he and the consignor are happy.


CHAPTER TWO

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.

CHAPTER THREE

Mark confronts Guy and asks for a refund. Guy says "Sorry, a deal's a deal. Besides, I've alread paid my consignor and he's not going to give me a refund. Why should I have to give you a refund?" Under pressure from Mark, Guy reveals the name of the consignor - "Doc", a well known coin dealer and major league doctor. Mark confronts Doc, again asking for a refund, and gets nowhere. In fact, Doc refuses to acknowledge that the coin has been whizzed. (Doc's refusal may be sincere. We don't know if he whizzed the coin himself, and the coin is obviously very deceptive.)

CHAPTER FOUR

Mark decides that his best chance at getting his money back is to take Guy to PNG arbitration. (As you recall, Guy is a PNG dealer. PNG is an exclusive dealer organization that purports to hold its members to the highest standards.)

Mark makes two claims:

1. There is a set of unwritten rules among honest coin dealers, and those rules allow for the return of whizzed and/or repaired coins.

2. He was defrauded. He concedes that Guy may not have known that the coin was whizzed, but even so it would still be his responsibility to refund Mark's money and go after Doc.

Guy makes one lone claim in his own defense:

1. All dealer-to-dealer transactions are final and without recourse.

Three arbitrators are selected. They are deeply divided. Two strongly support Mark. One strongly supports Guy. The process by which they ultimately reach a unanimous decision will make for the most interesting chapter yet.

CHAPTER FIVE (Posted Sunday, April 27 at 11 AM)

The three arbitrators decide that because Mark did not rely on any of Guy's representations in making his purchase decision, there was no fraud. They also reject as too broad Guy's argument that all dealer-to-dealer transactions are final.

Still, the three arbitrators are deeply divided. Two of them believe that there are indeed "unwritten rules" that govern dealer-to-dealer transactions, and that those rules allow for the return of whizzed coins. They also believe that if these "unwritten rules" existed, then Mark was entitled to rely on them when making his purchase from Guy, and Mark would therefore be entitled to a refund. (Both of these arbitrators would, if in Guy's shoes, have unhesitatingly refunded Mark's money.)

The two pro-Mark arbitrators are surprised that the well-respected third arbitrator can see it any other way. They concede that the "unwritten rules" MAY not really exist. They determine that the only way to decide the case is to determine if the rules exist, and prepare a survey of PNG dealers (including Julian and MrEureka!).

The survey consists of 27 hypothetical cases, some of which are listed below. Of the 100 surveys distributed, 27 were returned with answers. Their answers are compiled and shown below.


SURVEY

It is the purpose of this survey to further clarify what is current "custom and practice" within the industry. It is assumed that in all the following cases the transaction has taken place between two responsible professional numismatists.

In all instances, dealer A is the seller and dealer B is the buyer.

Please determine the degree to which dealer B is entitiled to recourse from dealer A. Recourse is defined as a return privilege or compensation for damages.

One = dealer B is entitled to absolutely no recourse
Two = dealer B is entitled to minimal recourse
Three = dealer B is entitled to significant recourse
Four = dealer B is entitled to full recourse


Question #1

Dealer A sells dealer B an 1893-S dollar in what appears to be pleasing VF at "bid". Within 30 days, the coin is found to be counterfeit.
(Responses: 1 "One", 21 "Fours")

Question #2

Dealer A sells dealer B an 1893-S dollar in what appears to be pleasing VF at "bid", with the provision that the transaction is "as is". Within 30 days, the coin is found to have an added mintmark.
(Responses: 14 "Ones", 1 "Three", 5 "Fours")

Question #3

Dealer A sells dealer B a raw 1796 half dollar in what appears to be pleasing VF at "bid". Within 30 days, the coin is found to have been holed and expertly plugged.
(Responses: 5 "Ones", 3 "Threes", 14 "Fours")

Question #4

Dealer A sells dealer B a 1796 half dollar in PCGS VF20 at "bid". Dealer B breaks it out of the holder to be sold to a slab-hating retail customer. Within 30 days, the coin is found to have been holed and expertly plugged.
(Responses: 10 "Ones", 4 "Twos", 3 "Threes", 5 "Fours") (Edited to say that PCGS wouldn't make a mistake like this. This is only a hypothetical!)

Question #5

Dealer A sells dealer B a raw 1893-S $1 for MS63 "bid". Within 30 days, the coin is found to have been lightly whizzed.
(Responses: 10 "Ones", 1 "Two", 5 "Threes", 6 "Fours")

Question #6

Dealer A sells dealer B a raw 1911-D $2.5 in a Capital Plastics holder for MS63 "bid". One hour later, the coin is removed from the holder and found to be ex:jewelry with traces of solder and flattened reeding.
(Responses: 3 "Ones", 1 "Two", 18 "Fours")

Question #7

Dealer A sells dealer B a raw 1855 large cent for MS66RD "bid". Within 30 days, the coin is found to have been dipped.
(Responses: 17 "Ones", 3 "Twos", 2 "Fours")

Question #8

Dealer A sells dealer B a raw 1795 dollar for 50K. B is told that it was "bought fresh out of an auction in London two weeks ago for 40K. Within 30 days, the coin is found to have repaired and retoned. It is further determined that the coin was not sold in London, but was sold at a Bowers auction three months earlier for $5500. The coin was purchased at that sale by dealer A.
(Responses: 5 "Ones", 5 "Threes", 12 "Fours")

Question #9

Dealer A sells dealer B a raw seated dime for MS66 "bid". Ten minutes later, he notices a hidden staple scratch and tries to return it.
(Responses: 15 "Ones", 4 "Twos", 3 "Fours")

Question #10

Dealer A sells dealer B a PCGS MS67 1797 half dollar for $1 million. Dealer A represents that the coin is "completely fresh, no one has seen or heard of it". ("Freshness" makes a coin easier and more likely to sell.) In trying to resell the coin, dealer B finds that dealer A had previously mentioned or offered the coin to many other dealers.
(Responses: 11 "Ones", 2 "Twos", 1 "Three", 8 "Fours")


The arbitrators had no choice but to acknowledge that no standard "unwritten rules" existed. Everyone simply abided by their own widely divergent unwritten rules. Decision in favor of Guy. Chapter 6 will reveal what happened to the coin.


Question: Do the results of the survey surprise you in any way?

Edited to number the questions from 1-10.

Nic

Only the results of #3 surprise me. Dealer B would be responsible for missing the repair IMHO. Agree with majority vote on the rest. K

FatMan

A real eye opener.

Although we are referring to a dealer to dealer transaction here, I find it difficult to make the leap to believe that as a customer I would be treated entirely different by these dealers who routinely rated the situation as "One - no recourse".

I went to the PNG web page and I do agree that the code of ethics really do not pertain to dealer transactions. I am amazed that a Dealer organization procalaiming itself as "Professional" does not address these issues. The PNG will have a problem until a set of Dealer to Dealer standards are addressed.

barberlover

To me the moral of the story is always the same and i'm suprised no one has said it yet!

When it comes to expensive coins, there are only Written rules [contracts] not unwritten wanna be rules. HEY, CMON FOLKS! Get it in writing, Terms for expensive coins should always be spelled out in writing for protection on both ends of a transaction.

I saw a very nice looking 16 d dime at a local show last fall i would grade vf 20. I wasn't asking the dealer to gaurentee the gtrade, but i did ask him to gaurentee authenticity, he wouldn't so i passed.

In situations like this, i always want things cleary spelled out in writing before i buy. How could any profesional dealer miss this unwritten rule [GET IT IN WRITING] hopefully the decision you mentioned will in the future lead to more contracts and less misunderstandings and hard feelings after the fact when unwritten rules that aren't enforsable don't mean a damn thing. Les

Nic

These are dealer to dealer, professional to professional transactions. Buyer, who does this to make money, beware. No whining. K

copperhead

The ONLY situation I feel requires NO recourse is if the deal is clearly done "as is". If you buy as is the coin is yours. Other than that I feel it is only common practice to do the right thing and refund the money IN FULL. It may cause some ill feeling but that is dealing in coins. Sometimes you win sometimes you lose.
For example, I bought a 16-D merc. dime back in 1983. Before all this hype with third party grading came about. When I submit the coin, you guessed it "added D". I hold the person I bought it from blameless. I mark it down to a learning experience. I bought the coin for $375. Sold it for $50.

roadrunner

Surprised? You bet I am! I thought things had changed over the past 13 years. So much for the PNG. On a local dealer level I'd bet that the responses would be much more skewed to the "full recourse" side.

I still remember a PNG dealer telling me why a specific dealer was allowed to be a member of the PNG. For many years that dealer had sold terribly overgraded coins to many customers. I had many of those shipped to me on approval but fortunately never got stung. The answer: it was easier to control and monitor the individual as a PNG member than if he was outside the group.

roadrunner

mojojoe

The second question:"Dealer A sells dealer B a 93s dollar "as is" which 30 days later turns out to be have an added "s""

AND,according to 14 PNG dealers,dealer B has absolutly no recourse!


Holy Mackeral!!!What nice honest coiny dealers that outfit has!

mojojoe

<< <i>The ONLY situation I feel requires NO recourse is if the deal is clearly done "as is". If you buy as is the coin is yours. ( >>



I always believed "as is" meaning CONDITION-DEFECTS-APPEARANCE! Never the authenticity!

I`m appalled that a professional coiny dealer would NOT FOREVER (as long as he`s in the business of shysting,I mean selling coins),guarantee his coin as genuine,i.e.,a 93s dollar was indeed a 93-S(not a P)!!!

Julian

Title never passes to counterfeit or altered (date/mintmark) coins, regardless of the terms, unless it is being sold as a counterfeit.

mojojoe

<< <i>Title never passes to counterfeit or altered coins, regardless of the terms, unless it is being sold as a counterfeit. >>



Have I missed something in regards to question #2,Julian?

Julian

As is does not count for counterfeit or added mintmark coins.

TheNumish

Julian,

Is a coin that has been worked on considered altered? Where do you draw the line between a coin that has been "enhanced" or "altered"? Is any coin that has been "improved" upon be considered altered?

To me anything that is done to a coin that goes into the surfaces of the coin is damage. If a coin as been dipped or cleaned in some way where the surfaces are not damaged that would be acceptable and not hurt the coin. I think in this case the coin sold would be considered altered/damaged.

kranky

I'm not surprised that the arbitrators found in favor of Guy, nor am I surprised by the survey results. All the scenarios represented dealer-to-dealer transactions. I wouldn't assume the answers would be the same if the buyer was a collector.

The results also point out the degree of severity that certain problems are judged to have. Dipping, hidden staple scratch, and lightly whizzed are categorized as things that a sight-seen buyer dealer should have detected and therefore the group felt no recourse was due. Jewelry mounting damage that couldn't be seen in the Capitol holder was determined to be worthy of full recourse.

The first two scenarios are very interesting. The exact same situation with the only difference being one was an "as-is" deal, and the survey results were 180 degrees apart. What that says to me is that "as-is" is clearly understood in the business to mean "it's yours." I would argue that a counterfeit/altered coin should always be returnable (as mojojoe said, guaranteed authentic forever), but apparently in a dealer-to-dealer situation, "as-is" overrides that.

I wonder if, in a situation where a possibly unscrupulous dealer is selling a shady coin to another possibly unscrupulous dealer, saying it's "as-is" is a code for "I think there's something wrong with the coin, but if you buy it, don't come back to me." The buyer might hear "as-is" and think it doesn't matter because he has a potential sucker to lay the coin off onto. Since a transaction between dealers is a "done deal" anyway, what would be the purpose of throwing in "as-is"?

Julian

I edited my original post to read "altered (date/mintmark). This does not apply to surfaces, etc. I actually believe that it may be law, although I cannot site any specifics. If the US Secret Service would seize it, title cannot pass. That may be simpler.

mojojoe

<< <i>As is does not count for counterfeit or added mintmark coins. >>



I agree, but :according to the survey above,other PNG dealers besides yourself do not.

I consider "as is" to mean "What you see is what you get." If a dealer is selling a 93s $ "as is" that`s fine, as long as the coin IS a 93s .It could have all the problems and defects and enhancements you or I could imagine, as long as you and I and any professional coin person concur that it is indeed a 93 dollar minted in San Fran.

DCAMFranklin

The 5th question is the only one that specifically pertains to Guy & Mark's situation. The responses are strongly tilted toward the buyer receiving absolutely no recourse. So, if the arbitrators are going to use the responses to determine their decision, then Mark should get very little, if anything.

PNG shows themselves to be a rag-tag bunch, at best, if they can distribute 100 surveys and have only 27 surveys completed and returned. That tells me the vast majority would rather have these kind of matters stay "unwritten" and unenforceable. What a meaningless organization of dealers that shows so little dedication and puts forth such minimal effort.

mojojoe

<< <i>The first two scenarios are very interesting. The exact same situation with the only difference being one was an "as-is" deal, and the survey results were 180 degrees apart. What that says to me is that "as-is" is clearly understood in the business to mean "it's yours." I would argue that a counterfeit/altered coin should always be returnable (as mojojoe said, guaranteed authentic forever), but apparently in a dealer-to-dealer situation, "as-is" overrides that.[/]

Alas,Kranky,they are not the exact same situation(with the difference being "as-is").
The first 93s was counterfeit.
The second was a real 93 dollar with an s added.
The survey seems to reveal that it is ok(as a majority of png dealers who responded say)to sell another dealer a coin with an added mintmark with no recourse, but not a fake coin!



I suspect an error in wording(?)was made by Mr Eureka when posting this,and if not,I`m aghast!

pmh1nic

Survey and dealer to dealer transaction aside I think Mark should have recourse to a full refund. At some point a knowing fraud took place and not allowing (where possible) recourse to the injured parties once the fraud is exposed IMHO is an incentive for more fraud.

MS68

The responses to question number two are very disturbing to me. I have always been under the impression that counterfeit or added mintmark coins can and should be returned back to find their original source. This is how I have been conducting my business for the last fifteen years and I have yet to run into a problem where someone told me otherwise. I have a filled application to PNG on my desk right now and will contact Bob Brueggeman to see if this is still policy before I bother to return it and continue the application process any further. Why it would be considered a good policy to pass on fraudulent coins so that a retail customer could get stuck with it down the line is beyond my scope of comprehension?

mojojoe

For the record,I think Mark has no recourse.He swung for the fence(as DCAM? said)and popped out to the catcher.
If the coin is nice enough to fool Mark,someone out there will feel the same way,and Mark should be able to rcoup some or most of his losses.

FatMan

<< <i>If the coin is nice enough to fool Mark,someone out there will feel the same way,and Mark should be able to rcoup some or most of his losses. >>



No! No! No! That altered coin could well end up in one of our collections. That is an awful view. THAT is what is wrong with our hobby. If Mark were to do that.........well so much for holding any PNG dealer in high regard.

MS68

One other thing that puzzles me is that this scenario in which Doc, Guy, and Mark were involved in is almost the identical condition that question number five posed to the PNG members.



<< <i>Dealer A sells dealer B a raw 1893-S $1 for MS63 "bid". Within 30 days, the coin is found to have been lightly whizzed. >>




<< <i>TextResponses: 10 "Ones", 1 "Two", 5 "Threes", 6 "Fours") >>



The survey appears split almost down the middle as to how Mark should be compensated in this matter. Half of the respondents voted for no to little recourse and the other half voted for full to significant recourse. Please explain how the three arbitrators came to side with Guy on this issue? The decision does not appear to be in line to the will of the body of the membership.

Julian

Regarding the 1813, the coin still has value. It may have been enhanced, but it is still attractive and does have a value. Someone would appreciate the coin. You cannot assume that the coin is worthless.

MrEureka

The survey appears split almost down the middle as to how Mark should be compensated in this matter. Half of the respondents voted for no to little recourse and the other half voted for full to significant recourse. Please explain how the three arbitrators came to side with Guy on this issue?

The sole purpose of the survey was to determine if there were any "standards and practices" upon which Mark could have been relying when he made his purchase. The survey results indicated that there were not, especially in the most relevant hypothetical scenario.

DCAMFranklin

Andy- Are you as disappointed as I am in the percentage of surveys completed and returned?

Sounds like Mark had no set of "standards and practices" on which he could have been relying when he made his purchase. Question #5 is the most relevent to their situation. Though the answers are evenly split between the 2 parties, it is heavily weighted toward no compensation due the buyer with 10 respondants voting 1. But with respondants clearly split right down the middle, it is self evident that dealers do NOT have a set standard or practice in such a situation. They are evenly divided.

keets

Question: Do the results of the survey surprise you in any way?

not a bit. caveat emptor. as outlined in chapter one, Guy didn't seem to misrepresent the coin and allowed Mark to make his own assessment. poor old Mark appears to have been a victim of his own avarice.

al h.

MrEureka

poor old Mark appears to have been a victim of his own avarice

Convicted in Keets' Court of Poetic Justice!

oreville

MrEureka:

Your question:

<< <i>Question: Do the results of the survey surprise you in any way? >>



My answer: NO.

MrEureka

Are you as disappointed as I am in the percentage of surveys completed and returned?

Yes, but I wasn't surprised. Nobody got paid to take the survey.

MS68

My next question is pretty simple. Are you sure nobody got paid to take this survey? The results to some of the questions are so outlandish as to suggest otherwise.

nwcs

Yes, some of the results surprise me. And they are dismaying. I'm so thankful I will never pay more than $150 for a coin ever again except in rare cases (like generic classic gold). Minimizes my chances of getting taken.

MrEureka

Are you sure nobody got paid to take this survey?

No, but I highly doubt it. As one of the three arbitrators, I still have everyone's answers. They make for interesting reading, but I don't think there was any "funny business".

nwcs

Another sad part is that the decision was made based on a 27% opinion survey return rate. It could have been argued that it is not representative of the membership population but only of those who returned a survey. Statistically, it would be invalid to use as results.

MrEureka

It could have been argued that it is not representative of the membership population but only of those who returned a survey. Statistically, it would be invalid to use as results.

If there was a bias, it would have been that the more responsible and ethical dealers would be more likely to respond. Therefore, in theory, the results would have been even more "wild western" if everyone responded. However, based on the actual facts as to who responded, I think that we got a fair cross-section of the PNG membership and that there was no bias.

oreville

MrEureka: Does the PNG have a continuing education requirement?

Flash

MrEureka... as one of the artbitrators, which side did you originally fall on in this issue? Were you one of the two that thought Mark should receive compensation, or were you the holdout?

MrEureka

Were you one of the two that (originally) thought Mark should receive compensation?

Yes.

mojojoe

<< <i>It could have been argued that it is not representative of the membership population but only of those who returned a survey. Statistically, it would be invalid to use as results.

If there was a bias, it would have been that the more responsible and ethical dealers would be more likely to respond. Therefore, in theory, the results would have been even more "wild western" if everyone responded. However, based on the actual facts as to who responded, I think that we got a fair cross-section of the PNG membership and that there was no bias. >>



So,may I ask,what is your opinion of the results recieved on question#2? Why is it ok,according to png dealers, for one dealer to sell another dealer a coin with a mintmark added? If it wasn`t sold as is, then would the responses,in your opinion,be more in line with question #!?

Any personal biases held by you,Mr. Eureka,or the other 2 arbitrators,could have serious economic results for Guy or Mark,which I would wonder about, in lieu of your initial feeling that Mark should have recourse.

IMOP,a dealer buying from another dealer,sight seen(all 3 sides),has no recourse,except in cases of counterfeiting or date/mint alterations.It is up to the buyer,when physically examining a coin,to assure himself of what he`s buying.If he`s unsure,he should pass, get a return option,second opinion,etc. as negotiated,BEFORE he says SOLD,DONE DEAL,etc.Otherwise,as someone mentioned,the buyer can reap the profits from his RIPS,and come crawling back bawling,crying RIP-OFF!when he couldn`t see the whizzing because he had $$$ in his eyes.I take responsibility for MY actions.

dimeadzn

Did Guy know Doc was a coin doctor? If so, then he should bear some of the loss.

It sounds to me like both Guy and Mark should have agreed to sell the coin as a whizzed example, and go after doc for compensation.

MrEureka

Did Guy know Doc was a coin doctor?

Yes, but that doesn't mean that Guy knew that THIS coin was doctored.

MrEureka

Why is it ok,according to png dealers, for one dealer to sell another dealer a coin with a mintmark added?

Some dealers believe that when a coin is sold "as is", it is understood that the authenticity is in question and the buyer must be willing to assume that risk. (The situation becomes more "interesting" when the seller KNOWS that the coin is fake.)

vam44

<< <i>Why is it ok,according to png dealers, for one dealer to sell another dealer a coin with a mintmark added?

Some dealers believe that when a coin is sold "as is", it is understood that the authenticity is in question and the buyer must be willing to assume that risk. (The situation becomes more "interesting" when the seller KNOWS that the coin is fake.) >>



How could a {{{PNG dealer}}} believe such a notion. Isn`t this against their rules? Question 2 states the seller sold the 93 s dollar at BID!!!I don`t think the buyer knew or was told that the mintmark was added,and had the buyer known/suspected it,he sure would NOT be paying BID!!!

au58

What difference does any of this make?
Who knew what?
What were the terms?
Who owes whom?
More importantly, a lot of dealers have been doing this to the public INTENTIONALLY for a long, long time and many other dealers who know of the practice say nothing.

Julian

Selling counterfeit/altered coins is not tolerated by the vast majority of the professional community. Many of my colleagues have counseled law enforcement on numismatics and have acted privately to stop fradulent practices. I will personally act, if it is brought to my attention. I am sure that others will as well. It is not fair to condemn all dealers, AU 58.

MrEureka

Selling counterfeit/altered coins is not tolerated

Julian -

If I show you a coin that belongs to a customer (let's say it's a bank trust department), and if I tell you that I have to buy it "as is" or pass, and if I tell you that they need a decision immediately or they are going to accept someone else's offer, and if I tell you I'm not sure it's real but I think it's 50/50, and if I'm being honest with you and you believe me, and if you think it's 100% real, wouldn't you give me a no-recourse offer? And if you buy the coin and then it turns out to be fake, would you really believe that I had to refund your money???

The world is not as black and white as we would like to believe. Sorry.

au58

Julian -

Please go back and read my post (to which you recently responded.) I said "a lot of dealers", not all dealers.
More significantly, in this instant case, the consignor was a known "doctor" and the seller knew that he was a known doctor.
Whether the seller knew the coin was doctored or not is not relevant. Conducting business with "the doctor" condones his actions. This was the premise of my post.

"Doctors" operate with impunity because purported "professionals" do business with them. Can you explain this?

While you're at it, can you explain what a professional dealer means when he describes a coin as a "mail order 60"? If you are going to the Central States show, you will likely be sitting within 100 feet of at least a few dealers who know or have used the term. Why does this persist?

Or, can you explain why the leading coin publications allow mail order operations to continue to sell sliders as "Select BU"?
Is there not enough concern and or are there not enough resources among the professionals in the industry to end this practice?

Are you the only one in the industry who cares or is the problem really as significant as I may have suggested in my last post?

I still don't see the relevance of the basic issue. It happens ALL THE TIME. Unfortunately, too often it is a collector on the receiving end and he doesn't typically find out until it's way too late.

MrEureka

"Doctors" operate with impunity because purported "professionals" do business with them. Can you explain this?

Although addressed to Julian, I'll take a crack at this question. Yes, I can explain it. People do business with coin doctors because they can do good, profitable, honest business with them.

Besides, if you refuse to deal with a doctor - presumably to try to put the doctor out of business - somebody else will buy the coin and resell it to you. In other words, if you can't tell if a coin is doctored, you might as well buy it from the source!

au58

Andy -

Good answer!!!! Even though it was not the answer I was hoping for, it is probably the most accurate. Thank you.

I would like to think (quite idealistically) that not doing business with "the doctor" would happen just because it is the right thing to do. If that puts the doctor out of business, so be it.

Do you have equally accurate answers to my other questions?

I understand that doing business with the doctor can be profitable, but how can you describe it as being "honest" business? Ignorance is not an excuse. In the instant case, at least one dealer (but maybe two) couldn't detect the alteration, but the grading services could.

MrEureka

I understand that doing business with the doctor can be profitable, but how can you describe it as being "honest" business?

First, understand that doctors sell some undoctored coins.

Second, understand that you can buy doctored coins at honest prices. A doctored coin is worth SOME price. Sometimes, that price even exceeds the price of the same coin before it was doctored. (Imagine a scrubbed pink large cent recolored to a nice chocolate brown. Doctored, but still worth more than before.)

MrEureka

While you're at it, can you explain what a professional dealer means when he describes a coin as a "mail order 60"? If you are going to the Central States show, you will likely be sitting within 100 feet of at least a few dealers who know or have used the term. Why does this persist?

It persists because there will always be price-shopping beginners happy to buy the bargain "60"s. But you knew that already.