I think the hobby was hurt when dealers convinced collectors that darkly toned coins with damaged surfaces were just as desirable if not more desirable than bright lusterous examples. Just like the common practice of harshly cleaning coins in the 50's and 60's, I think this trend will eventually reverse and a lot of people will be hurt financially.
There's no such thing as a crooked coin. You may have opinions on what toning is legitimate and what toning is crooked, but just remember all toning is chemically identical and anything else is just subjective hype.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I think the hobby was hurt when dealers convinced collectors that darkly toned coins with damaged surfaces were just as desirable
I think this is completely false. The damage done by dim-witted collectors trying to keep natural occuring toning away is unmeasurable. Polishing, scrubbing, dipping, etc. have reduced the quality and value of countless coins.
There's no such thing as a crooked coin.
I completely disagree with this also- coins that are cooked and artificially enhanced often have non-natural occuring colors, and non-natural occuring patterns of tone. Also, many of these coins never look "right" afterwards, just as an overdipped coin will never again look "right".
My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable !
A coin collector who doesn't like oxidation on his coins is dim-witted? So someone who doesn't like oxidation on his car (rust) is dim-witted too? Perhaps coin collectors who want their coins to look new are just incapable of seeing the true beauty of tarnish and need to be re-educated or shunned. After all, we wouldn't want them to mistreat those little pieces of metal, it's not like they actually OWN them is it?
Coins are artificial objects created by humans. They are subject to oxidation by man-made corrosive agents present in the air from entirely man made sources, and exhibitting patterns of toning from man-made storage containers. A tarnished silver coin is no more natural than a dead spotted owl stuffed with fiberglass and encased on solid bronze.
Now read this carefully: Putting a coin in a cardboard holder and watching it tone over 20 years is JUST AS DELIBERATE AND CALCULATED as cooking a coin in an oven at 350 degrees for 20 minutes. In both cases the coin is stored in an environment that allows hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere to react with the silver, in both cases the effect is to coat the surface of the coin with dark tarnish, and in both cases the owner says "Gee Wally, isn't this swell now I can sell it for more money!".
I cannot comprehend the argument that says toning a coin for 20 years GOOD, toning a coin for 20 minutes BAD.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
<< <i>I cannot comprehend the argument that says toning a coin for 20 years GOOD, toning a coin for 20 minutes BAD. >>
Ah! Now I know NT means Neglectfully Toned and AT really should be IT for Intentionally Toned?!?
Member Steamfitters Local 614 USMC Veteran 1981-1992 Cold War Veteran
It's truly funny, no make that truly sad, that people in this day and age are so wrapped up in their own little world that they refuse to try and teach someone else the correct or accepted way of doing things.
<< <i>Fraud by non-disclosure is a fictional term created by people who have no idea what fraud means. And for the record, I'm always in the minority.
FRAUD - An intentional perversion of truth; deceitful practice of device resorted to with intent to deprive another of some property or other right, or in some manner to do him injury. - Taken from a Superior Court website.
Where is the perversion of the truth?? What is he lying about? How come someone selling an NT coin can just say "toned" but someone selling an AT coin needs to give a history? When you sell a car, are you obligated to disclose that it has a $200 paint job instead of a $3000 paint job? Are you obligated to tell the buyer that the bumpers were rechromed last year? Should you detail everything you've ever done to the car including replacing the floor mats? Ridiculous. The only reason NT is more desirable than AT coins is that the majority want NT coins. THAT'S IT!!! You can't add anything to that sentence because we are talking about small circles of silver metal that have no other function than to be looked at. I'm going to try and make this as clear as I can. If you still don't get it after this example, you'll never understand.
IN MY OPINION, if you pay a premium for a heavily toned coin you are getting RIPPED OFF!! This coin is damaged, and the origin of the toning doesn't change this fact. The following disclosure should be put on any auction involving any toned coins: This coin has been heavily oxidized and the surface contains microscopic pits etched into the surface that has damaged the luster. This condition can never be reversed or corrected.
Now should my opinion be enforced on anyone selling an NT coin, and those who refuse banned from ebay? Really? How come you get to make the rules? Who made you the coin-god? >>
Iwog,
We all have opinions. The above is your opinion, so I'll respect that. I agree with your disclaimer idea about the toning. I'm not really into toning myself, but I do think that it is a beautiful thing of nature, and that is why most people want them. Because if a coin is toned naturally, it most times produces a beautiful and chaotic outcome.
Perhaps somebody should make some decent looking AT coins with uncirculated modern coins obtained for face value from the bank and sell them on E-Bay as Buy-it-now for just enough to cover costs, shipping and the time involved. The coins could be sold as monster rainbow artificially toned coins and right in the auction description give complete instructions on how the coins were AT'd. Sell them as educational reference AT coins to educate the Newbies and explain that there is a high probability that similar looking coins are AT. The coins would be so much cheaper than the ones people are currently cooking and auctioning that it would put an end to the practice. Just an idea. I'm too lazy to do such a thing but perhaps someone really into uNinTentionally toned coins might be motivated enough to do so.
MrSpud (p.s. here's a pic of my AT reference collection I made)
A coin collector who doesn't like oxidation on his coins is dim-witted?
Yes, if they resort to damaging the coin's surface with polishes, chemicals, scrubmarks, etc, in this inane pursuit to wash away natural patinas that occur because some metals (like silver) are very reactive. And your analogy with the car makes no sense- car's becoming rusted out is not comparable to a coin acquiring a natural patina over time.
A tarnished silver coin is no more natural than a dead spotted owl stuffed
That's an ignorant comment. A coin reacting to the environment over time and developing a patina is completely natural....
I cannot comprehend the argument that says toning a coin for 20 years GOOD, toning a coin for 20 minutes BAD.
Like I stated previously, coins that are doctored and baked oftentimes end up with colors and color patterns that are significantly different than coins that developed tone over long periods of time. Try sending in one of tonecoin's works to pcgs, and then send in a silver coin that toned over several decades in a folder. I have a strong hunch on which one would be bodybagged. I'm certainly no expert in toning matters, but I still think that people that cook their coins should be honest and upfront with people.....
My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable !
You know, it's funny how I can totally destroy your entire argument on the term "natural" and have you simply come back and repeat the same old blind assertion without giving a single example or explanation.
I'll ask you one more time, then I'll assume you have no answer. How can you take a man-made object that cannot exist in nature (unoxidized silver metal), expose it to man-made chemicals in the air (hydrogen sulfide) by way of a man made environment (coin album, roll, etc), and call it NATURAL?? Please answer the damn question instead of repeating the same point over and over and over.....
It cracks me up that you call tarnish on silver natural, then say RUST is somehow different. Unlike the process involved with silver coins, rust is entirely natural since steel reacts with the oxygen in the air to produce iron oxide and unlike most hydrogen sulfide, atmospheric oxygen Isn't man-made! I think my analogy makes perfect sense and I defy you to show me a single way that a rusted car differs from an oxidized coin.
Calling other coin collectors dimwitted because they dare to dip their coins is offensive and frankly beneath contempt. I suggest you and other elitists grow up.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Calling other coin collectors dimwitted because they dare to dip their coins is offensive and frankly beneath contempt. I suggest you and other elitists grow up.
If you actually look at the countless numbers of coins that have been ruined by the pointless pursuit of white silver, then maybe you would see why it's dimwitted. Be offended if you want, but I still believe that people have ruined millions of beautiful coins because they thought they could recapture a freshly minted look.
I've got little interest in having a mini-chemistry debate about what is natural and not natural. The fact remains that coins tone on their own over long periods of time. If someone deliberately bakes and paints their coins to sell to newbies and thereby cash in, they should disclose how they alter their coins.
My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable !
Fraud by non-disclosure is a fictional term created by people who have no idea what fraud means.
This is untrue. You most certainly can have fraud via a purposeful omission or an intentional failure to state material facts -- especially if knowledge of the material facts is necessary to make other statements not misleading.
And this arises in many different instances, from home buying to investments to insurance -- indeed, fraud by omission is such a problem that many professionals have an affirmative duty to disclose all material facts. Why have such disclosure requirements? A big reason is to prevent fraud by omission, or "non-disclosure," that is, concealing the truth, hiding the ball, playing "fast and loose" with the facts, etc.
In ALL the examples you mentioned, the required disclosures are written into the law for specific reasons. Usually it's because a material fact can be hidden from view. (termites in a house, the property is in a flood zone, the company has cooked the books and is really bankrupt, etc.) and significantly changes the market value. That is not what we're talking about and has nothing to do with a toned coin.
In this instance, the toning is NOT hidden from view but quite obvious in both the photographs and the description. A correct analogy would be to say the termite damage was clearly stated in the home purchase contract, but the period of time the termites were munching on the house wasn't disclosed and in fact might not even be known. I think everyone can agree that as long as the condition of the house is known by the buyer, NO ONE CARES about how long it took for the termites to eat the house.
Strangely enough, this debate isn't about the condition of the coin but about its environment and upbringing! Everyone seems to be concerned that the coin had good parents and came from a good home rather than WHAT IS BEING SOLD. It's a tarnished piece of metal, it's not a fiance. There is no fraud, no court in the world would assign fraud to this sale, and to insist the seller is committing fraud is libel and actionable by the seller should he want to sue for defamation! Now just so I'm not accused of leaving something out, lets talk about marketability. I agree that this coin looks like it was cooked yesterday and therefore MIGHT not bring a good price when resold. Need I remind you that in the 1960's, it was toned coins that were not marketable?? It's an art market and subject to whim. Braddick is paying $1500 for a Kenndy half in poor condition for god sake, how can anyone say what will be hot 10 years from now?
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
In ALL the examples you mentioned, the required disclosures are written into the law for specific reasons.
The examples were merely illustrative, not exhaustive, and meant to respond to the statement, "fraud by non-disclosure is a fictional term created by people who have no idea what fraud means." That simply isn't true.
Each state has a general fraud statute and I'd bet quite a bit a strong majority provide for fraud by omission. Again, by way of example, California defines fraud as, among other things, the "suppression of that which is true" with intent to deceive -- and California goes so far as to say actual fraud is "any other act fitted to deceive."
But you also say,
and significantly changes the market value. That is not what we're talking about and has nothing to do with a toned coin.
Coin-doctoring via rapid artificial toning does indeed significantly change the market value -- turning a valuable coin into a worthless one. That is why this seller's artificial toning is concealed, for if revealed, the market value plummets and the coin cannot be sold.
Hence the fraud is committed in suppressing -- or "omitting" or "concealing" -- a significant material fact known to the buyer, namely, the coin has been doctored and thus is not worth the market value of an undoctored coin. Contrary to your statement this has "nothing to do" with toned coins, I think the examples provide a good illustration: you yourself have said concealing material facts which negatively impacts market value is fraud.
Using your criteria, and given the broad definition of fraud, the Kennedy half referenced in this message is indeed a fraud.
Sequitur, you're not correct. A simple auction for a coin with a good photo and no assertion other than the coin is toned has NO intent to deceive. In fact, all the assumptions about the care and feeding of said coin is being made by the buyer, NOT the seller. Imagine the seller dies and the estate passes to an auction company which then sells the AT coins at auction. It would be patently absurd to claim the auction comany was committing fraud, yet you're claiming an idential auction with idential disclosures IS fraud.
One of the most famous legal cases in the coin collecting hobby actually supports my point fully. 1883 NO CENTS Liberty nickels were gold plated and passed off as $5 gold coins by Josh Tatum, a deaf man who was later put on trial for defrauding merchants. Being deaf and not able to speak, he never made any representation of the coin's value or asked for change. He was found not guilty and released.
Furthermore, this auction doesn't fit the California statute at all. This seller is not committing any act (read ACTION) to deceive. He is simply selling an object. Your claim that putting an item up for sale in itself can be an act to deceive is wrong and not supported by law.
Baley is absolutely right. The market is independent of anyone's opinion on what value should be.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
<< <i> Need I remind you that in the 1960's, it was toned coins that were not marketable?? It's an art market and subject to whim. >>
I still have my pet rock I picked up at Lost City in Tennessee back when I was 12. You mean its possible that the market on Toned coins could make them worth just as much as my pet rock? I was hoping to become a millionaire on the sale of that pet rock. Good thing I don't have any toned coins I'd hate to "invest" in them only to see them wind up as "sentimentally valued" only, like "Sedi" my pet rock.
Member Steamfitters Local 614 USMC Veteran 1981-1992 Cold War Veteran
It's truly funny, no make that truly sad, that people in this day and age are so wrapped up in their own little world that they refuse to try and teach someone else the correct or accepted way of doing things.
A simple auction for a coin with a good photo and no assertion other than the coin is toned has NO intent to deceive. . . . This seller is not committing any act (read ACTION) to deceive. He is simply selling an object.
If gototoningcoins put the coin in the oven, or gave it a once-over with a blowtorch, and then lists it for auction absent disclosure, he is doing a lot more than "simply selling an object." We're talking about more than "simply selling."
has NO intent to deceive
Right -- which is why this seller (i) has changed identities more times than Larry King has changed wives, (ii) keeps bidders private, and (iii) keeps feedback private. I don't know how you can conclude "no intent to deceive" -- the evidence points to the contrary.
Your claim that putting an item up for sale in itself can be an act to deceive is wrong and not supported by law.
But that is not my claim, nor was it anyone else's claim in this discussion. In fact it grossly misrepresents the position.
Josh Tatum plated a nickel in gold, the presented it as a $5 gold piece, yet he wasn't guilty of fraud.
Putting a coin in a cardboard holder and storing it for 20 years is EXACTLY the same act as cooking it in an oven for 15 minutes. You're all hung up on time instead of what's actually being done to the coin. Should we hold anyone storing a coin for 20 years and not protecting it from the atmosphere accountable for fraud too? I keep going back to the same points and you keep ignoring them.
At the absolute worst, it's a case of buyer beware. At best it's a guy who's discovered that people like to buy his pretty coins and sells them on ebay. There is absolutely NO FRAUD being committed here and since you so vehemently disagree with me, I suggest you call an attorney and ask him.
Right -- which is why this seller (i) has changed identities more times than Larry King has changed wives, (ii) keeps bidders private, and (iii) keeps feedback private. I don't know how you can conclude "no intent to deceive" -- the evidence points to the contrary.
Everything you've said here is non-sequitur to the issue of fraud. I find it MUCH more likely that this guy is being repeatedly harassed by toned coin elitists who think they own the only valid definition of "toned coin" and try to destroy anyone who disagrees. If you think I'm wrong, check out the vicious and unprovoked attacks on ME for having the nerve to say that white lusterous coins are better. Thread.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
While we've sat here debating the issue the seller has successfully taken a $5.00 coin. Somehow, it attained the characteristic "with NICE TARGET RAINBOW TONED" and sold it for $42.50 +shipping and handling. I see where the incentive lies in his methods. The coin matches his limited description to a tee. My guess is the buyer purchased it for its "eye appeal" to him or her. If they're happy with the sale we've no ground to stand on. We may never know whether or not they are satisfied or dissatisfied with it since the sellers feedback is "private' so we may as well go ahead with the debates as we will never know whether or not the point is "moot"
Member Steamfitters Local 614 USMC Veteran 1981-1992 Cold War Veteran
It's truly funny, no make that truly sad, that people in this day and age are so wrapped up in their own little world that they refuse to try and teach someone else the correct or accepted way of doing things.
IWOG, let me respond to this 1873 "case." I do not understand what you are saying. You first write, "Liberty nickels were gold plated and passed off as $5 gold coins by Josh Tatum, a deaf man who was later put on trial for defrauding merchants. Being deaf and not able to speak, he never made any representation of the coin's value or asked for change." You also say, "Josh Tatum plated a nickel in gold, the presented it as a $5 gold piece, yet he wasn't guilty of fraud."
Now how could a person "present" a coin as a $5 gold piece, yet make no "representation" about the coin's value?
But even more fundamentally, this gold-plated nickel case you're talking about is a trial, not a pretrial motion or appellate opinion, right? Well, the fact that the case even WENT to trial undercuts your argument, for if there were no legal foundation for the fraud charge, it would have been thrown out on a motion to dismiss or similar pretrial motion. Obviously the legal basis for the charge had some merit, hence the court allowed it to proceed.
So the case goes to trial and either the jury or the judge declares "not guilty," as you say. Fine, Tatum is acquitted because, well, who knows why? I fail to see how a factual finding in this particular case supports you at all (and really, without an opinion, who can say why he got off? Perhaps the jury or judge felt sorry for him. That's why trials have zero precedental value.)
I'm sorry you don't understand, let me make it very simple.
A deaf man who can't speak gold plates a nickel and pays for a small purchase without saying a word. The merchant gives him change as if it was a $5 gold coin. This case is so famous in the coin industry I can't believe you haven't heard it. He's accused of fraud, brought to trial, and judged not guilty BECAUSE HE MADE NO FALSE REPRESENTATION WHEN PASSING THE COIN. In spite of your attempt to show otherwise, fraud is not possible without false representation. Even in cases where legally required disclosures are not provided, it's STILL not criminal fraud in any state.
Interesting attempt to discredit a very famous coin case by blaming the jury. lol
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I'm sorry you don't understand, let me make it very simple.
I understand English quite well, it's your explanation that is lacking.
This case is so famous in the coin industry I can't believe you haven't heard it.
IWOG, I've heard a passing reference to the "Racketeer Nickel," but no, I'm not versed in the particulars of the case. I guess that makes you better that the rest of us.
In spite of your attempt to show otherwise, fraud is not possible without false representation. Even in cases where legally required disclosures are not provided, it's STILL not criminal fraud in any state.
First, did you even read what I wrote about the California statute and other state statutes? You most certainly can have fraud absent an affirmative "false representation" -- the statutes say exactly that, indeed define fraud by stating it is, among other things, omitting material facts.
Now, nice attempt to belatedly add the word "criminal" to the discussion. Previously we were talking about fraud in the common, or civil law, sense. But if you think you can't have a criminal fraud conviction for concealing material facts, you are badly mistaken. So you are incorrect on both counts.
Interesting attempt to discredit a very famous coin case by blaming the jury.
Seriously, I have no idea what you're talking about, "discrediting" the case or "blaming" the jury. What I am discrediting is your reliance on a 120-year old jury trial -- which as you know has zero precedental value -- to justify your demonstrably false claim there can be no fraud by ommission. It just isn't so, and the language of statutes themselves soundly refute your assertion.
Okay, just for kicks......do you have ANYTHING to support your position? Case law? Citations? Legal opinions from judges? I'm growing kind of weary of making valid legal arguments when the entire weight of your position rests on "No it isn't!"
This auction cannot be considered fraud in any state in the US on legal grounds, and it cannot be considered fraud on common sense grounds either. You STILL haven't told me the difference between someone intentionally toning a coin over 20 years and someone intentionally toning a coin over 20 minutes, and you never will.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I'm growing kind of weary of making valid legal arguments when the entire weight of your position rests on "No it isn't!"
I was responding to your claim, "Fraud by non-disclosure is a fictional term created by people who have no idea what fraud means." In my view, that is not a valid legal argument.
Will you at least concede this was error, or perhaps a bit too hasty? As for a citation, here is California's section 1572(3), defining "actual fraud" as, among other things, "The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact."
If you can concede fraud by "non-disclosure," or omission, or concealment, etc. does indeed exist, then we can discuss the auction.
If fraud by non-disclosure is possible, how come you can't provide anything that says it? Thank you for your citation, it shows conclusively that fraud cannot exist without suppression, false assertion, deception, or false suggestion.
Now answer my question.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
If fraud by non-disclosure is possible, how come you can't provide anything that says it?
I just did. What in the heck do you think "suppression" of a "fact" is? That's omission, concealment, non-disclosure, or any other term of art you desire. You're not going to play this nonsensical word game where you want a statute that says exactly, "non-disclosure," are you?
You STILL haven't told me the difference between someone intentionally toning a coin over 20 years and someone intentionally toning a coin over 20 minutes, and you never will.
I can tell you...
it's 10,684,780 minutes
edit: oh, and sometimes the resulting appearance of the longer-taking toned coin is more desireable, to experienced collectors (all else being equal; usually a fast toned coin looks fake to the trained eye).
You do not understand the legal meaning of "suppressing a fact" Sequitur, that's why this argument is getting very old and boring. I cannot teach you law on a PCGS message board!
Covering rust with paint is suppressing a fact, removing the word "copy" from a coin is suppressing a fact, removing a oil refinery from a photograph of your house with photoshop is suppressing a fact. Leaving out how a coin was toned, where it was stored, or who the coin's mommy was IS NOT SUPPRESSING A FACT. This is not fraud, once again I implore you to seek the advice of an attorney because you don't seem to want to listen to me.
Now answer my question. (last chance)
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
You do not understand the legal meaning of "suppressing a fact" Sequitur, that's why this argument is getting very old and boring. I cannot teach you law on a PCGS message board!
The "legal meaning" of suppressing a fact? I understand the "meaning" because I can read English -- and because I can read the statute, just as you can.
I tire of your patronizing comments, most especially because you won't admit you are so demonstrably wrong when you said, as a general matter, "Fraud by non-disclosure is a fictional term created by people who have no idea what fraud means." The statement is total nonsense -- I've given you a statute and examples that irrefutably disprove your comment -- and you should at least have the temerity to say you spoke too soon, responded too hastily, however you wish to say it.
Instead, you respond with this gibberish about not "understanding" the "legal meaning" of "suppressing a fact" -- whatever the hell that means (read: "legal meaning" is a meritless retort). More to the point, you've adopted a nonsensical, condescending tone because you will not admit you were wrong and are too immature to concede a point even a 1L would readily understand.
Accordingly, I am finished with this discussion. (And I'm surprised a purported lawyer has never heard of fraud by omission -- exceedingly common in everyday practice -- and am even more surprised at the disingenuous effort to argue such a cause of action does not exist. Seriously, just concede the general point, because you're wrong.)
Comments
There's no such thing as a crooked coin. You may have opinions on what toning is legitimate and what toning is crooked, but just remember all toning is chemically identical and anything else is just subjective hype.
I think this is completely false. The damage done by dim-witted collectors trying to keep natural occuring toning away is unmeasurable. Polishing, scrubbing, dipping, etc. have reduced the quality and value of countless coins.
There's no such thing as a crooked coin.
I completely disagree with this also- coins that are cooked and artificially enhanced often have non-natural occuring colors, and non-natural occuring patterns of tone. Also, many of these coins never look "right" afterwards, just as an overdipped coin will never again look "right".
Coins are artificial objects created by humans. They are subject to oxidation by man-made corrosive agents present in the air from entirely man made sources, and exhibitting patterns of toning from man-made storage containers. A tarnished silver coin is no more natural than a dead spotted owl stuffed with fiberglass and encased on solid bronze.
Now read this carefully: Putting a coin in a cardboard holder and watching it tone over 20 years is JUST AS DELIBERATE AND CALCULATED as cooking a coin in an oven at 350 degrees for 20 minutes. In both cases the coin is stored in an environment that allows hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere to react with the silver, in both cases the effect is to coat the surface of the coin with dark tarnish, and in both cases the owner says "Gee Wally, isn't this swell now I can sell it for more money!".
I cannot comprehend the argument that says toning a coin for 20 years GOOD, toning a coin for 20 minutes BAD.
Even so, I myself still like both bright white and nice slow toned coins and don't like fast toned ones.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>I cannot comprehend the argument that says toning a coin for 20 years GOOD, toning a coin for 20 minutes BAD.
>>
Ah! Now I know NT means Neglectfully Toned and AT really should be IT for Intentionally Toned?!?
USMC Veteran 1981-1992
Cold War Veteran
It's truly funny, no make that truly sad, that people in this day and age are so wrapped up in their own little world that they refuse to try and teach someone else the correct or accepted way of doing things.
The ONLY rational definitions that anyone has ever been able to come up with regarding toning on coins is..........
NT Toned by accident
AT Toned on purpose
<< <i>Fraud by non-disclosure is a fictional term created by people who have no idea what fraud means. And for the record, I'm always in the minority.
FRAUD - An intentional perversion of truth; deceitful practice of device resorted to with intent to deprive another of some property or other right, or in some manner to do him injury. - Taken from a Superior Court website.
Where is the perversion of the truth?? What is he lying about? How come someone selling an NT coin can just say "toned" but someone selling an AT coin needs to give a history? When you sell a car, are you obligated to disclose that it has a $200 paint job instead of a $3000 paint job? Are you obligated to tell the buyer that the bumpers were rechromed last year? Should you detail everything you've ever done to the car including replacing the floor mats? Ridiculous. The only reason NT is more desirable than AT coins is that the majority want NT coins. THAT'S IT!!! You can't add anything to that sentence because we are talking about small circles of silver metal that have no other function than to be looked at. I'm going to try and make this as clear as I can. If you still don't get it after this example, you'll never understand.
IN MY OPINION, if you pay a premium for a heavily toned coin you are getting RIPPED OFF!! This coin is damaged, and the origin of the toning doesn't change this fact. The following disclosure should be put on any auction involving any toned coins: This coin has been heavily oxidized and the surface contains microscopic pits etched into the surface that has damaged the luster. This condition can never be reversed or corrected.
Now should my opinion be enforced on anyone selling an NT coin, and those who refuse banned from ebay? Really? How come you get to make the rules? Who made you the coin-god? >>
Iwog,
We all have opinions. The above is your opinion, so I'll respect that. I agree with your disclaimer idea about the toning. I'm not really into toning myself, but I do think that it is a beautiful thing of nature, and that is why most people want them. Because if a coin is toned naturally, it most times produces a beautiful and chaotic outcome.
<< <i>I cannot comprehend the argument that says toning a coin for 20 years GOOD, toning a coin for 20 minutes BAD. >>
Right...so it just comes down to whether you LIKE the coin or not. If you do, buy it. If not, forget it.
To me this toning debate or AT vs NT is WAY overblown....
jom
MrSpud (p.s. here's a pic of my AT reference collection I made)
Yes, if they resort to damaging the coin's surface with polishes, chemicals, scrubmarks, etc, in this inane pursuit to wash away natural patinas that occur because some metals (like silver) are very reactive. And your analogy with the car makes no sense- car's becoming rusted out is not comparable to a coin acquiring a natural patina over time.
A tarnished silver coin is no more natural than a dead spotted owl stuffed
That's an ignorant comment. A coin reacting to the environment over time and developing a patina is completely natural....
I cannot comprehend the argument that says toning a coin for 20 years GOOD, toning a coin for 20 minutes BAD.
Like I stated previously, coins that are doctored and baked oftentimes end up with colors and color patterns that are significantly different than coins that developed tone over long periods of time. Try sending in one of tonecoin's works to pcgs, and then send in a silver coin that toned over several decades in a folder. I have a strong hunch on which one would be bodybagged. I'm certainly no expert in toning matters, but I still think that people that cook their coins should be honest and upfront with people.....
I'll ask you one more time, then I'll assume you have no answer. How can you take a man-made object that cannot exist in nature (unoxidized silver metal), expose it to man-made chemicals in the air (hydrogen sulfide) by way of a man made environment (coin album, roll, etc), and call it NATURAL?? Please answer the damn question instead of repeating the same point over and over and over.....
It cracks me up that you call tarnish on silver natural, then say RUST is somehow different. Unlike the process involved with silver coins, rust is entirely natural since steel reacts with the oxygen in the air to produce iron oxide and unlike most hydrogen sulfide, atmospheric oxygen Isn't man-made! I think my analogy makes perfect sense and I defy you to show me a single way that a rusted car differs from an oxidized coin.
Calling other coin collectors dimwitted because they dare to dip their coins is offensive and frankly beneath contempt. I suggest you and other elitists grow up.
If you actually look at the countless numbers of coins that have been ruined by the pointless pursuit of white silver, then maybe you would see why it's dimwitted. Be offended if you want, but I still believe that people have ruined millions of beautiful coins because they thought they could recapture a freshly minted look.
I've got little interest in having a mini-chemistry debate about what is natural and not natural. The fact remains that coins tone on their own over long periods of time. If someone deliberately bakes and paints their coins to sell to newbies and thereby cash in, they should disclose how they alter their coins.
This is untrue. You most certainly can have fraud via a purposeful omission or an intentional failure to state material facts -- especially if knowledge of the material facts is necessary to make other statements not misleading.
And this arises in many different instances, from home buying to investments to insurance -- indeed, fraud by omission is such a problem that many professionals have an affirmative duty to disclose all material facts. Why have such disclosure requirements? A big reason is to prevent fraud by omission, or "non-disclosure," that is, concealing the truth, hiding the ball, playing "fast and loose" with the facts, etc.
In this instance, the toning is NOT hidden from view but quite obvious in both the photographs and the description. A correct analogy would be to say the termite damage was clearly stated in the home purchase contract, but the period of time the termites were munching on the house wasn't disclosed and in fact might not even be known. I think everyone can agree that as long as the condition of the house is known by the buyer, NO ONE CARES about how long it took for the termites to eat the house.
Strangely enough, this debate isn't about the condition of the coin but about its environment and upbringing! Everyone seems to be concerned that the coin had good parents and came from a good home rather than WHAT IS BEING SOLD. It's a tarnished piece of metal, it's not a fiance. There is no fraud, no court in the world would assign fraud to this sale, and to insist the seller is committing fraud is libel and actionable by the seller should he want to sue for defamation! Now just so I'm not accused of leaving something out, lets talk about marketability. I agree that this coin looks like it was cooked yesterday and therefore MIGHT not bring a good price when resold. Need I remind you that in the 1960's, it was toned coins that were not marketable?? It's an art market and subject to whim. Braddick is paying $1500 for a Kenndy half in poor condition for god sake, how can anyone say what will be hot 10 years from now?
The examples were merely illustrative, not exhaustive, and meant to respond to the statement, "fraud by non-disclosure is a fictional term created by people who have no idea what fraud means." That simply isn't true.
Each state has a general fraud statute and I'd bet quite a bit a strong majority provide for fraud by omission. Again, by way of example, California defines fraud as, among other things, the "suppression of that which is true" with intent to deceive -- and California goes so far as to say actual fraud is "any other act fitted to deceive."
But you also say,
and significantly changes the market value. That is not what we're talking about and has nothing to do with a toned coin.
Coin-doctoring via rapid artificial toning does indeed significantly change the market value -- turning a valuable coin into a worthless one. That is why this seller's artificial toning is concealed, for if revealed, the market value plummets and the coin cannot be sold.
Hence the fraud is committed in suppressing -- or "omitting" or "concealing" -- a significant material fact known to the buyer, namely, the coin has been doctored and thus is not worth the market value of an undoctored coin. Contrary to your statement this has "nothing to do" with toned coins, I think the examples provide a good illustration: you yourself have said concealing material facts which negatively impacts market value is fraud.
Using your criteria, and given the broad definition of fraud, the Kennedy half referenced in this message is indeed a fraud.
ah, but isn't the "market value" determined by the bidders?.
this coin was "worth", at the end of the auction, exactly (not more and not less) the amount of money it sold for.
edit: and the bidders almost certainly knew the coin was artificially toned, and didn't care.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
One of the most famous legal cases in the coin collecting hobby actually supports my point fully. 1883 NO CENTS Liberty nickels were gold plated and passed off as $5 gold coins by Josh Tatum, a deaf man who was later put on trial for defrauding merchants. Being deaf and not able to speak, he never made any representation of the coin's value or asked for change. He was found not guilty and released.
Furthermore, this auction doesn't fit the California statute at all. This seller is not committing any act (read ACTION) to deceive. He is simply selling an object. Your claim that putting an item up for sale in itself can be an act to deceive is wrong and not supported by law.
Baley is absolutely right. The market is independent of anyone's opinion on what value should be.
<< <i> Need I remind you that in the 1960's, it was toned coins that were not marketable?? It's an art market and subject to whim. >>
I still have my pet rock I picked up at Lost City in Tennessee back when I was 12. You mean its possible that the market on Toned coins could make them worth just as much as my pet rock? I was hoping to become a millionaire on the sale of that pet rock. Good thing I don't have any toned coins I'd hate to "invest" in them only to see them wind up as "sentimentally valued" only, like "Sedi" my pet rock.
USMC Veteran 1981-1992
Cold War Veteran
It's truly funny, no make that truly sad, that people in this day and age are so wrapped up in their own little world that they refuse to try and teach someone else the correct or accepted way of doing things.
If gototoningcoins put the coin in the oven, or gave it a once-over with a blowtorch, and then lists it for auction absent disclosure, he is doing a lot more than "simply selling an object." We're talking about more than "simply selling."
has NO intent to deceive
Right -- which is why this seller (i) has changed identities more times than Larry King has changed wives, (ii) keeps bidders private, and (iii) keeps feedback private. I don't know how you can conclude "no intent to deceive" -- the evidence points to the contrary.
Your claim that putting an item up for sale in itself can be an act to deceive is wrong and not supported by law.
But that is not my claim, nor was it anyone else's claim in this discussion. In fact it grossly misrepresents the position.
Putting a coin in a cardboard holder and storing it for 20 years is EXACTLY the same act as cooking it in an oven for 15 minutes. You're all hung up on time instead of what's actually being done to the coin. Should we hold anyone storing a coin for 20 years and not protecting it from the atmosphere accountable for fraud too? I keep going back to the same points and you keep ignoring them.
At the absolute worst, it's a case of buyer beware. At best it's a guy who's discovered that people like to buy his pretty coins and sells them on ebay. There is absolutely NO FRAUD being committed here and since you so vehemently disagree with me, I suggest you call an attorney and ask him.
Right -- which is why this seller (i) has changed identities more times than Larry King has changed wives, (ii) keeps bidders private, and (iii) keeps feedback private. I don't know how you can conclude "no intent to deceive" -- the evidence points to the contrary.
Everything you've said here is non-sequitur to the issue of fraud. I find it MUCH more likely that this guy is being repeatedly harassed by toned coin elitists who think they own the only valid definition of "toned coin" and try to destroy anyone who disagrees. If you think I'm wrong, check out the vicious and unprovoked attacks on ME for having the nerve to say that white lusterous coins are better. Thread.
USMC Veteran 1981-1992
Cold War Veteran
It's truly funny, no make that truly sad, that people in this day and age are so wrapped up in their own little world that they refuse to try and teach someone else the correct or accepted way of doing things.
Now how could a person "present" a coin as a $5 gold piece, yet make no "representation" about the coin's value?
But even more fundamentally, this gold-plated nickel case you're talking about is a trial, not a pretrial motion or appellate opinion, right? Well, the fact that the case even WENT to trial undercuts your argument, for if there were no legal foundation for the fraud charge, it would have been thrown out on a motion to dismiss or similar pretrial motion. Obviously the legal basis for the charge had some merit, hence the court allowed it to proceed.
So the case goes to trial and either the jury or the judge declares "not guilty," as you say. Fine, Tatum is acquitted because, well, who knows why? I fail to see how a factual finding in this particular case supports you at all (and really, without an opinion, who can say why he got off? Perhaps the jury or judge felt sorry for him. That's why trials have zero precedental value.)
A deaf man who can't speak gold plates a nickel and pays for a small purchase without saying a word. The merchant gives him change as if it was a $5 gold coin. This case is so famous in the coin industry I can't believe you haven't heard it. He's accused of fraud, brought to trial, and judged not guilty BECAUSE HE MADE NO FALSE REPRESENTATION WHEN PASSING THE COIN. In spite of your attempt to show otherwise, fraud is not possible without false representation. Even in cases where legally required disclosures are not provided, it's STILL not criminal fraud in any state.
Interesting attempt to discredit a very famous coin case by blaming the jury. lol
And, I would argue that withholding the truth is the ultimate peversion of same, an element of fraud according to Webster's.
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)
By the way, are you going to appologize for trying to pin that auction on me?
If a newspaper or TV news broadcast withholds information, they are not perverting the truth?
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)
I understand English quite well, it's your explanation that is lacking.
This case is so famous in the coin industry I can't believe you haven't heard it.
IWOG, I've heard a passing reference to the "Racketeer Nickel," but no, I'm not versed in the particulars of the case. I guess that makes you better that the rest of us.
In spite of your attempt to show otherwise, fraud is not possible without false representation. Even in cases where legally required disclosures are not provided, it's STILL not criminal fraud in any state.
First, did you even read what I wrote about the California statute and other state statutes? You most certainly can have fraud absent an affirmative "false representation" -- the statutes say exactly that, indeed define fraud by stating it is, among other things, omitting material facts.
Now, nice attempt to belatedly add the word "criminal" to the discussion. Previously we were talking about fraud in the common, or civil law, sense. But if you think you can't have a criminal fraud conviction for concealing material facts, you are badly mistaken. So you are incorrect on both counts.
Interesting attempt to discredit a very famous coin case by blaming the jury.
Seriously, I have no idea what you're talking about, "discrediting" the case or "blaming" the jury. What I am discrediting is your reliance on a 120-year old jury trial -- which as you know has zero precedental value -- to justify your demonstrably false claim there can be no fraud by ommission. It just isn't so, and the language of statutes themselves soundly refute your assertion.
This auction cannot be considered fraud in any state in the US on legal grounds, and it cannot be considered fraud on common sense grounds either. You STILL haven't told me the difference between someone intentionally toning a coin over 20 years and someone intentionally toning a coin over 20 minutes, and you never will.
I was responding to your claim, "Fraud by non-disclosure is a fictional term created by people who have no idea what fraud means." In my view, that is not a valid legal argument.
Will you at least concede this was error, or perhaps a bit too hasty? As for a citation, here is California's section 1572(3), defining "actual fraud" as, among other things, "The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact."
If you can concede fraud by "non-disclosure," or omission, or concealment, etc. does indeed exist, then we can discuss the auction.
Now answer my question.
I just did. What in the heck do you think "suppression" of a "fact" is? That's omission, concealment, non-disclosure, or any other term of art you desire. You're not going to play this nonsensical word game where you want a statute that says exactly, "non-disclosure," are you?
I can tell you...
it's 10,684,780 minutes
edit: oh, and sometimes the resulting appearance of the longer-taking toned coin is more desireable,
to experienced collectors (all else being equal; usually a fast toned coin looks fake to the trained eye).
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Covering rust with paint is suppressing a fact, removing the word "copy" from a coin is suppressing a fact, removing a oil refinery from a photograph of your house with photoshop is suppressing a fact. Leaving out how a coin was toned, where it was stored, or who the coin's mommy was IS NOT SUPPRESSING A FACT. This is not fraud, once again I implore you to seek the advice of an attorney because you don't seem to want to listen to me.
Now answer my question. (last chance)
The "legal meaning" of suppressing a fact? I understand the "meaning" because I can read English -- and because I can read the statute, just as you can.
I tire of your patronizing comments, most especially because you won't admit you are so demonstrably wrong when you said, as a general matter, "Fraud by non-disclosure is a fictional term created by people who have no idea what fraud means." The statement is total nonsense -- I've given you a statute and examples that irrefutably disprove your comment -- and you should at least have the temerity to say you spoke too soon, responded too hastily, however you wish to say it.
Instead, you respond with this gibberish about not "understanding" the "legal meaning" of "suppressing a fact" -- whatever the hell that means (read: "legal meaning" is a meritless retort). More to the point, you've adopted a nonsensical, condescending tone because you will not admit you were wrong and are too immature to concede a point even a 1L would readily understand.
Accordingly, I am finished with this discussion. (And I'm surprised a purported lawyer has never heard of fraud by omission -- exceedingly common in everyday practice -- and am even more surprised at the disingenuous effort to argue such a cause of action does not exist. Seriously, just concede the general point, because you're wrong.)