Perhaps the real question that needs to be asked to determine Paul's integrity (or more accuately his lack thereof) is why the stooge knowing, stating, and being convinced the coin was a FB, would offer non-FB money simply because PCGS didn't grade it "right" the first time around?
I say it was opportunistism at its finest.
Would it be ethical to offer business strike money for a 1909-VDB Lincoln if the original owner believed it was a proof, you concurred that it was a proof, had you submit to PCGS, and PCGS subsequently "mistakenly" graded it as a business strike MS66RD first time thru?
Would it then be OK to offer $200 or so for a $50k+ coin that you thought had a great chance of being "corrected" by PCGS next time thru?
The same could apply to any of a numerous list of varieties or VAMS that PCGS got wrong first time thru.
In this case it merely happened to be an attribute (FB) that they "got wrong". No one will ever know what was in your heart and mind when you made the offer of $50 but I'd wager you STILL believed it was FB when you did so.
<< <i>Perhaps the real question that needs to be asked to determine Paul's integrity (or more accuately his lack thereof) is why the stooge knowing, stating, and being convinced the coin was a FB, would offer non-FB money simply because PCGS didn't grade it "right" the first time around?
I say it was opportunistic & "MR. Slimeball" at his finest. >>
What you've just said is one of the most idiotic things I've ever read. At no point in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this Forum is now dumber for having read it.
Thank you for trying to tear me a new one. Means I'm hitting a nerve.
Simple:
Did you believe it was FB when you offered $50 for it or not? Yes or no? And if not, what caused your original assessment to change?
Paul, your greed CLEARLY outweighs your ethics. Say (or rant) what you want but no one will believe anything different. At best you'll get people similarly as greedy (or with similar ethics) as you taking your side.
"...you knew the coin was FB and KNEW you were going to resubmit..."
Should we expect more from someone whose "idol" is Curly?
<< <i>Thank you for trying to tear me a new one. Means I'm hitting a nerve.
Simple:
Did you believe it was FB when you offered $50 for it (and if not, what caused your original assessment to change)? Yes or no? >>
If you wade through all of the "Mr. Slimeball" name calling you would have read my earlier post.
I never had a doubt that it was FB. I even got the grade right. Now knowing that, and like I said before, I did not grade the coin, PCGS did. The deal was made, and I'm suppose to compensate Jon, for digging in my own pocket, taking the time to re-submit the coin, and fortunately having PCGS get the coin right the 2nd time? Because of this I owe him Hundreds of $$$?
Again he knew that the coin was 66FB and I told him so. He hasn't mentioned this coin for a long time, but when I decide to "Do what ever I feel I would like to do with my coin" He squaks "I want money, I want the coin back, I want money, I want the coin back".
I sold an MS64 1877 trade dollar (that I'd tried once for upgrade) for $4500. Bought it back for $20,000 in the new MS65 holder from the buyer. Chit happens.
<< <i>Paul, your greed CLEARLY outweighs your ethics. Say (or rant) what you want but no one will believe anything different. At best you'll get people similarly as greedy (or with similar ethics) as you taking your side. >>
GREED ETHICS? What a master of deduction you must be. If 1/2 the people that have been given free coins from Paul were to show up in this thread, it would top 100 posts in less than an hour.
You stated that would have gladly paid me 400 for the coin if it FBed. Well it did and you knew it would and you knew it was when you paid me 50 bucks, so why won't you pay me the rest because it is FB and you stated it was FB. Just because PCGS didn't get it right the first time you want to beat me out of the true money it is worth and what you would have paid in the first place.!!!
Before I present my two cents worth, I must make clear that I have talked with Paul several times through the years, occasionally competed with him for dimes on eBay, solicited his advice about a personal matter, and have been given a couple of dimes by him. (Yes, GIVEN the dimes.) So I suspect my comments might appear biased, but they are not.
First, the title of this thread is highly inflammatory. If I were Paul, I'd probably have started a thread "dimeman is an arse" out of anger. The fact that Paul has replied in a civil tone reflects a lot. Second, when Paul offered (an above-market) $50 for the coin and dimeman accepted, the coin was then Paul's. It was his coin legally and his coin morally. Paul then choose to resubmit the coin, along with others. [Dimeman claims, without a shred of evidence, that Paul had planned all along to resubmit. Paul says otherwise. The reader can believe whomever he or she wishes to believe, but keep in mind that dimeman's assertion is simply that: dimeman's assertion.] Paul took the risk of resubmitting the coin. If the coin had come back MS65, with no FB, dimeman apparently would have been happier than when the coin came back MS66FB. Or, at the very last, I bet dimeman wouldn't have started a thread "I think I RIPPED off Stooge....what do you think?" if the coin had come back with a lower grade. And I also guess that in this case dimeman would not have offered Paul a dollar of compensation for the loss due to the lower grade. So I think I see a real asymmetry here: dimeman complains if the coin comes back with a higher grade and remains silent (I bet) if the coin comes back with a lower grade. In other words, this looks like a nifty little bet: Heads (the coin comes back lower graded) dimeman wins, tails (the coin comes back higher graded) dimeman expects Paul to offer some compensation so that dimeman wins again. Sure, I agree it might be nice that if the coin comes back higher graded, Paul could VOLUNTARILY offer dimeman some extra $$$ and it would be equally nice if the coin comes back lower graded, dimeman could VOLUNTARILY offer Paul some extra $$$. But in my way of looking at the issue, there is absolutely no need for either to do so nor for the other to expect it. And there definitely is no need to start a thread with a nasty little title when it doesn't happen. Plus, I am 110% sure that if the coin had come back with a lower grade Paul would NOT have started a thread "I think I have been RIPPED off by dimeman....what do you think?"
Finally, re Mitch's suggestion to auction the coin: I think that is presumptuous. The coin is Paul's and no pressure should be placed on him. He should be free to do with it as he wants. (Disclosure re Mitch: I admire him immensely, have in the past purchased coins from him, and have written an article for the Numismatist in which he was the major player. Even so, I think he is wrong in this suggestion.)
<< <i>Paul, your greed CLEARLY outweighs your ethics. Say (or rant) what you want but no one will believe anything different. At best you'll get people similarly as greedy (or with similar ethics) as you taking your side.
"...you knew the coin was FB and KNEW you were going to resubmit..."
Should we expect more from someone whose "idol" is Curly? >>
Find one person that has known me for > then the 5 minutes that you think you know me, and you will see that I'm not greedy by any stretch of your imagination.
And...you will have to do more then write a few lines and call me a few names to strike a nerve.
<< <i>At best you'll get people similarly as greedy (or with similar ethics) as you taking your side. >>
Are you saying that some whom have posted to this thread that may have taken my side are of greed and have less ethics? I think you will waging war with a few others you may not want to wage war with...
In Curly's defense (and to the detriment of the OP) if Paul told the seller that he wanted to buy the coin to resubmit because he "NEVER HAD A DOUBT THAT IT WAS FB" and that he believed (in fact was CONVINCED) that PCGS got it wrong the first time thru and had gotten the seller to explicitly acknowledge that if/when PCGS got it right that all benefits would accrue to Paul, then a full defensible disclosure would have been made.
You stated that would have gladly paid me 400 for the coin if it FBed. Well it did and you knew it would and you knew it was when you paid me 50 bucks, so why won't you pay me the rest because it is FB and you stated it was FB. Just because PCGS didn't get it right the first time you want to beat me out of the true money it is worth and what you would have paid in the first place.!!!
Mark: Thank you for your comments - I do want to repeat that my suggestion came AFTER I read (or thought I read) Paul was considering cracking out the coin to return it raw if the "lynch mob" came out (which to some extent it had). That said - I still like the suggestion. But, again, the suggestion is no different than any other suggestion here on the thread such as "send dimeman some money". Just my opinion.
Roger: Question for you.... putting aside your thoughts of Paul's actions....
What responsibility should Dimeman have in this for agreeing to sell a coin he knew the buyer intended to upgrade later, but yet agreed to a deal anyway? Also, Dimeman has come on threads recently attacking collectors of Eagles, moderns, etc. pointing out they were throwing their money away. He held himself out (to me at least) as someone who had intimate knowledge of dimes and, in fact, calls himself Dimeman. Now we are to believe Dimeman is clueless on dimes and another casual collector of dimes (Paul) owes him various duties? Your thoughts on this issue only please Roger?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Has nothing to do with PCGS making a mistake, by your own words you knew it was FB and you offered non FB money to a fellow forum member which in itself should lend some trust, knowing that you would resubmit for the FB designation. Anytime some one does not know the difference between a Moral obligation and legal obligation then there are no ethics. I believe most on this forum know that one person was taken advantage of. So whats the beef, just like most coin dealers would do right? I am thankful for the few who would not do this kinda thing and we have a few really honest and ethical dealers on these forums who are able to make a living without treating people like this.
If Paul told the seller that he wanted to buy the coin to resubmit because he "NEVER HAD A DOUBT THAT IT WAS FB" and that he believed (in fact was CONVINCED) that PCGS got it wrong the first time thru and had gotten the seller to explicitly acknowledge that if/when PCGS got it right that all benefits would accrue to himself, AND the seller was OK with that, then a full defensible disclosure would have been made.
Short of this, the seller was taken advantage of (IMHO).
I just can't believe someone would try to defend offering non-FB money after they have even admitted that they "NEVER HAD A DOUBT THAT IT WAS FB"
You stated that would have gladly paid me 400 for the coin if it FBed. Well it did and you knew it would and you knew it was when you paid me 50 bucks, so why won't you pay me the rest because it is FB and you stated it was FB. Just because PCGS didn't get it right the first time you want to beat me out of the true money it is worth and what you would have paid in the first place.!!! >>
Jon, I think you are not reading clearly on this either...IF, IF, IF, IF to the Billionth power....................................................IF it had received the FB the first time around I would have kept the coin, sent you $400 and you and I would be happy.
IT came back NON-FB's, you received $18.00 above the $32.00 book. Now I didn't even charge you for looking at your dimes, going through the dimes, submitting the dimes and then, here comes a good one on ya...I SENT THE COINS ALL BACK TO YOU AND I PAID THE SHIIPING WITH FULL INSURANCE TO YOU You never 1x thanked me for doing so, you just B****ed about the grades.
Dimeman needs to learn a thing or two about business transactions. HE should have MADE SURE that the terms of the sale were clear to himself and agreed to abide by them
BUT
even if/when one does, if one LATER learns that one was taken advantage of, ones own ignorance or impruudent prior actions can't legally be used against oneself.
As I'm sure you are aware, this is particularly true when a party claims fraudulent ommission, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, etc., long after a business transaction had apparently closed.
"...IF it had received the FB the first time around I would have kept the coin, sent you $400 and you and I would be happy...."
<< <i>I just can't believe someone would try to defend offering non-FB money after they have even admitted that they "NEVER HAD A DOUBT THAT IT WAS FB" >>
I was honest as I could have been and yes I told him it was indeed a FB dime BEFORE I sent them into get graded. I'm not the professional here, PCGS is the professional here and theygraded it w/o FB. That is not my fault and I'm not trying to defend my self against anything. I could have lied, I could have replaced the coin...I told him the truth before during and after. Do you not understand this???????????
<< <i>"...IF it had received the FB the first time around I would have kept the coin, sent you $400 and you and I would be happy...."
But not the second time around? >>
Ya , why not owe him after the 3rd time around or the 10th time around.
I bought a nice 1939-D MS66FB dime, from Jon about 1 year ago. Hey Jon.......I'm going to resubmit that coin and if it gets MS67FB how much $$$ do you want? How about I throw in some McDonald's gift certificates for your COMPENSATION!!!!!
What the F***
Later, Paul.
P.S. Hey Tex..... <-------There is your funny face you forgot to put in your last post!
<< <i>I am thankful for the few who would not do this kinda thing and we have a few really honest and ethical dealers on these forums who are able to make a living without treating people like this. >>
Again you imply Paul as being a dealer. Paul is not a dealer, he was asked to look at the coins and send in what was worth grading. No fee, no charge, Dimeman only used Paul to keep from paying membership fees. But, thats not the point here. He WAS TOLD THE COIN WAS A FB, did he act on this information Paul gave him? No, so being offered $50, he took it knowing the dime had failed to get the grade once. Now where is the blame for Paul getting the coin for $50.? I'll tell you where, with the owner who WOULD NOT LISTEN TO THE PERSON WHOM HE HAD ASKED FOR THE FREE SCREENING AND SUBMITTING. Did Paul know the coin was FB? Yes. Did he tell Jon the dime should be FB? Yes. Did Jon act on this information? No. Was he willing to part with it for $50. instead of going for the regrade? Yes. That proves it, Pauls a scumbag. He should have held the coin hostage and forced the owner to resubmit it.
Dan thanks...1 "Scumbag" from you is worth to me more the 100 "Slimeballs" from Tex! Just don't take my side, as you will be greedy and unethical just like me.
Paul I got hammered on here for defending Ron Guth once. And I don't even know him, never met you, but I know of your honesty. I have to go now, but you watch out for anyone with Tar, Feathers, And a rail.
I still don't get where Jon didn't think the possibilty of a resubmission would take place.
Like most 'fights' around here there is no simple answer.
So, as the title questions, "....what do you think?" 1) Paul gave his opinion on what the coins would grade. 2) Grades came in low in Paul's opinion. 3) Paul sent coins back except one he 'needed' and was sure to be FB without authorization. I have a problem with this. Because if it was just going to be a hole filler Paul would have purchased a non-FB long ago. Not that it makes a difference here, other than I have a hard time believing Paul bought it just because it filled the hole. 4) Jon recieves coins & eventually cashes the check. I see this as an acceptance of the offer for the coin, even though Jon was told that the coin was, in Paul's opinion FB. Jon saw the money instead of the potential of the coin. Sold at non-FB money because it was graded non-FB. At this point, IMO, the coin is Paul's to resubmit.
Shouldn't that be the end of the story?
If not, then what about all the FB Roosies we have purchased that were graded before the FB desination. If we resubmit & they come back FB, are we all judged by the fact of whether or not we pay the seller (if we remember) more?
Haven't we all been there in some form or another?
My story involves Graded Morgans traded for raw Morgans that I needed. Traded with a well known 'dealer' that had them listed with a grade on his website. Figured he knew how to grade, so we traded. All the Morgan's graded 1 pt less than advertised. Was I pissed, yes. But understood grades are opinions only. Held my tongue (as much as possible), and lived through it. Now I still have a relationship with the dealer & whenever I propose a trade it's with graded coins.
Sure, $200-300 is a lot to 'lose', but is it really worth tarnishing the reputation of both you & Paul?
"The root of the entire problem is insane premiums paid for arbitrarily decided microscopic differences in strike. How silly."
Interestingly, the very "premium" Dimeman seeks here for the microscopic difference in strike is not much different than the 69 vs. 70 premium for moderns Dimeman attacks as wholly unreasonable elsewhere - no?
I would add to TDN's comment that the second entire problem is collectors not studying and knowing the very series of coins they collect. I believe Dimeman did not need Paul to see a band on a Roosie dime - that was purely Dimeman not wanting to take the time to study the very series of coins he was collecting.
Last week, I met with a collector who had a set of modern 70's worth six figures (none of which I had sold him). I spent more than an hour showing him some tips on that particular series to better appreciate the difference between his 70's and 69 graded coins. He called me a couple days later to personally thank me for the time and to let me know that he was approaching his collection completely differently after the meeting. He acknowledged that he had never taken the time necessary to adequately study the very series he had socked away six figures on. The meeting was cathartic.
Dimeman - let something very positive come out of this - from this day forward make it your mission to understand Roosies and exactly what it takes or doesn't take to have a FB dime. Make it your mission to never have to rely on anyone else to determine that issue. Chalk up your $350 lesson to a very cheap cost of you gaining invaluable knowledge from this day forward.
Fly out here to S. Calif for a Long Beach show and I will personally spend an hour exchanging ideas with you on Roosies - I bet Nick will graciously give you an hour of his time as well. By the next Long Beach show, you will be an "expert" anyway on bands if you put the time in. Honestly (and with all due respect to the FB experts out there), there really isn't much to learn about whether 2 bands have a split between them that doesn't touch each side.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
No doubt that Paul was the rightful owner. The transaction was completed with Dan. Dan pretty much has no legal ground to stand on.
Pauls's ethical failure was not offering FB money for a coin he HAD NO DOUBT WAS FB and now trying to play dumb that he is not the expert and that PCGS (is) and MUST have been right the first time thru.
Unfortunately this argument doesn't hold water since Paul sent it in again presumably (apparently IN the slab to guarantee at least the grade didn't go below 66) under mechanical error or designation review. How else could it have only cost him "$10" (isn't desig. rev. $15?) to do so.
Paul simply (at best) didn't have the integrity to offer an amount based on his unequivocal belief that the coin was FB or at worst offered an amount that he knew was not enough given his belief that THERE WAS NO DOUBT IT WAS FB (in his mind).
I would have to consider both Paul and Jon as having knowledge in the series they collect. Jon ask Paul for his opinion about his Roosevelt dimes, a series Paul knows far more about then Jon. Paul gave his opinion with out compensation and in good faith. When the 57P came back with out the FB designation I'm sure Paul felt at some point in time the coin could receive the designation. It may have taken 10 submissions and 2 years to get it, all at Paul's expense. This is the risk to reward ratio when purchasing a coin on the cusp. Paul offered Jon a very fair price for the coin and Jon had the option to decline. Paul owns the coin and owns the right to do anything he wants with it.
With that out of the way lets flip this around a little. We have 2 board members helping each other out with their collections. Paul is submitting some coins for his buddy Jon. Jon over reacts a little because the grades are not what Paul thought they should be. One friend tries to help compensate the other by offering to buy one of he coins. The other friend even though upset wants to help out his buddy so he sells him the coin, each friend knowing that the value of the coin would be a lot higher if PCGS had just added those 2 little letters on the holder "FB". Paul has a much better knowledge of knowing the process with submitting coins to PCGS then Jon. By the luck of the draw PCGS decides to add those 2 letters on the coins FIRST trip back to PCGS. Legally and by all rights this is Paul's coin. I don't believe Paul has any further obligation to Jon unless he feels he does. This is Paul's decision to make and only Paul's.
We as board members all come from different back grounds and different beliefs. Have different opinions and define our morals and ethics differently. I don't believe Paul is wrong and I don't believe Jon is wrong. They both just see it differently. We can all post what we would have done, or what Paul should have done or should not have done. I think our obligation here is to not point fingers or call each other names. but, to give Jon and Paul our opinion and maybe what a couple other friends may have done in this situation. Either way I would not think any less of Paul or Jon no matter what the end result is.
If I was asked what I would do in this situation (and by the way I recently was in this almost exact situation) I would say, PM me and I'll tell you. One thing I can tell you is don't go off PCGS price for the value of this coin.
P.S. Dan, I didn't know about the pops suddenly rising so high on the 05D 67FB you bought from me. But, Since I value your friendship so much I will be sending you a little something in the mail to help make up for it.
Gentleman, may I share an experience I just had with Nick Cascio, it's very similar.
Resently I sent eight MS67 Roosies to NGC for the "star" designation. One of the coins came back without the star. Yes, I made 7 of 8 in star. This one coin I believe was deserving of the star, however I sold the coin to Nick along with several others knowing it had star potential. Nick, when attending the just completed Long Beach show submitted the coin for the star. Guess what, the coin failed to make the star.
But, it did come back Full Torch!
It was not submitted for FT, just the star. Being the date that is was the FT really increased it's value. I than saw the coin posted on Nick's eBay site with a price that far exceeded what I sold it for. I sent Nick an e-mail to say congratutions. I was not upset at what could be perceived as being "hosed". I sold the coin at a fair price for it's grade and the resulting FT designation was Nick's luck. I say luck because the coin is/was not FT quality. These things happen and it could have happened for me had I kept the coin and resubmitted it myself.
Here's the great part of the story:
Prior to my e-mail to Nick (and knowing what transpired) he had placed a check in the mail to me. For what amount I have no idea as it has not yet arrived. Frankly, I don't care what the amount is...that's not important.
However, the gesture is unmeasureable.
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." Will Rogers
First off, what a hatchet job. Dimeman sold the coin and what a bitter attack on Paul over such a trivial matter. My experience with Dimeman has been quite poor. He proclaims himself the sole decider as to what coins are pretty and which ones suck, he has repeatedly attacked PCGS since he claims to be an expert grader. With that I say that Dimeman was stupid to not use his superior grading ability to grade the coin BEFORE the sale. Why not have it graded yourself? Can't afford the $49.95 Silver membership? Looks like it would have been a good investment.
I have had great deals and I have had pretty bad deals but each and every time I did it was my decision to do so, educated or not, especially when this involves dealers that make their living off of the value spread in the buy versus the sale. Come on Dimeman, are you that ignorant? I think Paul's conduct wad ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and for anyone to challange that simply shows their lack of reality, and that obviously includes dimeman.
Paul, please remember that this is the same guy who thinks the $20 Gold Eagles are beautiful but the Bullion Eagles are UGLY even though the obverse is the same. Obviously he has some personal issues that are bleeding over into this vile hate. In fact I'm suprised he would even worry about such an "ugly" modern coin such as a Roosie in the first place.
If it's the money Dimejerk then I'll send you the $300 just to shut your piehole. Send me you address via PM and I'll cover your ignorant perceived "losses". Putz!
Great story lablover, but do you think Nick would have sent you anything if you had created a thread stating "I think I have been RIPPED off by Nick...what do you think?"
<< <i>Great story lablover, but do you think Nick would have sent you anything if you had created a thread stating "I think I have been RIPPED off by Nick...what do you think?" >>
I'll never know because I never air my laundry in public. Second, Nick is a friend and that's more important than money!
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." Will Rogers
<< <i>First off, what a hatchet job. Dimeman sold the coin and what a bitter attack on Paul over such a trivial matter. My experience with Dimeman has been quite poor. He proclaims himself the sole decider as to what coins are pretty and which ones suck, he has repeatedly attacked PCGS since he claims to be an expert grader. With that I say that Dimeman was stupid to not use his superior grading ability to grade the coin BEFORE the sale. Why not have it graded yourself? Can't afford the $49.95 Silver membership? Looks like it would have been a good investment.
I have had great deals and I have had pretty bad deals but each and every time I did it was my decision to do so, educated or not, especially when this involves dealers that make their living off of the value spread in the buy versus the sale. Come on Dimeman, are you that ignorant? I think Paul's conduct wad ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and for anyone to challange that simply shows their lack of reality, and that obviously includes dimeman.
Paul, please remember that this is the same guy who thinks the $20 Gold Eagles are beautiful and the Bullion Eagles are UGLY even though the obverse is the same. Obviously he has some personal issues that are bleeding over into this vile hate. In fact I'm suprised he would even woryy about such an "ugly" modern coin such as a Roosie in the first place.
If it's the money Dimejerk then I'll send you the $300 just to shut your piehole. Send me you address via PM and I'll cover your ignorant perceived "losses". Putz! >>
Who in the HELL is this A$$ Wipe?..... This is not needed at all.
<< <i>First off, what a hatchet job. Dimeman sold the coin and what a bitter attack on Paul over such a trivial matter. My experience with Dimeman has been quite poor. He proclaims himself the sole decider as to what coins are pretty and which ones suck, he has repeatedly attacked PCGS since he claims to be an expert grader. With that I say that Dimeman was stupid to not use his superior grading ability to grade the coin BEFORE the sale. Why not have it graded yourself? Can't afford the $49.95 Silver membership? Looks like it would have been a good investment.
I have had great deals and I have had pretty bad deals but each and every time I did it was my decision to do so, educated or not, especially when this involves dealers that make their living off of the value spread in the buy versus the sale. Come on Dimeman, are you that ignorant? I think Paul's conduct wad ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and for anyone to challange that simply shows their lack of reality, and that obviously includes dimeman.
Paul, please remember that this is the same guy who thinks the $20 Gold Eagles are beautiful and the Bullion Eagles are UGLY even though the obverse is the same. Obviously he has some personal issues that are bleeding over into this vile hate. In fact I'm suprised he would even woryy about such an "ugly" modern coin such as a Roosie in the first place.
If it's the money Dimejerk then I'll send you the $300 just to shut your piehole. Send me you address via PM and I'll cover your ignorant perceived "losses". Putz! >>
Who in the HELL is this A$$ Wipe?..... This is not needed at all. >>
Screw you jerk, this THREAD was not needed. Another Putz!
<< <i>First off, what a hatchet job. Dimeman sold the coin and what a bitter attack on Paul over such a trivial matter. My experience with Dimeman has been quite poor. He proclaims himself the sole decider as to what coins are pretty and which ones suck, he has repeatedly attacked PCGS since he claims to be an expert grader. With that I say that Dimeman was stupid to not use his superior grading ability to grade the coin BEFORE the sale. Why not have it graded yourself? Can't afford the $49.95 Silver membership? Looks like it would have been a good investment.
I have had great deals and I have had pretty bad deals but each and every time I did it was my decision to do so, educated or not, especially when this involves dealers that make their living off of the value spread in the buy versus the sale. Come on Dimeman, are you that ignorant? I think Paul's conduct wad ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and for anyone to challange that simply shows their lack of reality, and that obviously includes dimeman.
Paul, please remember that this is the same guy who thinks the $20 Gold Eagles are beautiful and the Bullion Eagles are UGLY even though the obverse is the same. Obviously he has some personal issues that are bleeding over into this vile hate. In fact I'm suprised he would even woryy about such an "ugly" modern coin such as a Roosie in the first place.
If it's the money Dimejerk then I'll send you the $300 just to shut your piehole. Send me you address via PM and I'll cover your ignorant perceived "losses". Putz! >>
Who in the HELL is this A$$ Wipe?..... This is not needed at all. >>
Screw you jerk, this THREAD was not needed. Another Putz! >>
BITE ME you POS!!! What are you some DIP$HIT that hit the boards last year to flip moderns.
You know it's not like I had the coin in a 66 holder and sold it and then the new owner sent it in and got the FB. I sent the coins to Paul because he loves Roosies and I thought I could sell him some of these.
My case here is not who owns the coin....Paul does! My complaint is that he knew the coin was FB (I never looked at the coin) and said he would pay $400 for it if it was FB, which he knew it was. He got a great deal at my expence and that is my complaint.
As far as attacking him on the boards, I had several PM's with him before I went to the boards. He said go ahead that he would not do anything about it. So I went to the boards to see what other people thought.
Griv, ole buddy your spew is not needed here. I never did attack you personnaly and wish you could do the same.
And for those who question my dime knowledge.....No I don't get into Roosies much, but do collect them in my complete set. As for Mercs and Barbers and Seated I have studied and looked at and know as much about all of them as anyone out there!
<< <i>As far as attacking him on the boards, I had several PM's with him before I went to the boards. He said go ahead that he would not do anything about it. So I went to the boards to see what other people thought. >>
So for $300 in "perceived" and understandable loss based on the circumstances you are comfortable with attacking a friend/colleague over a non-issue in which circumstances cost you $300 in value. This at the same time declaring modern coins trash and declaring PCGS grades DON’T matter. Obviously they do!
<< <i>And for those who question my dime knowledge.....No I don't get into Roosies much, but do collect them in my complete set. As for Mercs and Barbers and Seated I have studied and looked at and know as much about all of them as anyone out there! >>
Sure, so basically you “collect” them to make money. And so you screwed up and lost an opportunity to make more money than you thought. And so why is this a PCGS Set Registry thread issue? Because you don’t bother to learn the coins you are trying to sell to others? You owe Stooge a big, SORRY, I’M A JERK AND I HOPE WE CAN STILL BE FRIENDS.
My complaint is that he knew the coin was FB (I never looked at the coin) and said he would pay $400 for it if it was FB, which he knew it was. He got a great deal at my expence and that is my complaint
So, lets look at that statement.........
My complaint is that he knew the coin was FB (I never looked at the coin) Yup, that's a given. Never disputed.
said he would pay $400 for it if it was FB Here's the sticky point. Was it "if the coin ever became FB", or was it if the coin came back from PCGS as FB on that submission? Maybe you thought that if Paul sent the coin in on a resubmission & it came back FB he would still be obligated to pay the extra $350?
He got a great deal at my expence and that is my complaint Yup, he did. Happens all the time. Usually buyers get a 'You Suck' & are patted on the back for buying coins that upgrade, or have a designation added (FSB, FB, FBL, etc). Or if they purchase a coin at a (lot) lower price than it's true value, they boast how they 'RIPPED' a coin. But that's usually based on the grade of the coin at the time of the sale.
I would guess that your contention is that if the coin ever made FB Paul would be on the hook for the $400 (or another $350). Not sure I would make that presumption.
IT came back NON-FB's, you received $18.00 above the $32.00 book. Now I didn't even charge you for looking at your dimes, going through the dimes, submitting the dimes and then, here comes a good one on ya...I SENT THE COINS ALL BACK TO YOU AND I PAID THE SHIIPING WITH FULL INSURANCE TO YOU You never 1x thanked me for doing so, you just B****ed about the grades.
You paid shipping? How about thanking Dimeman for blowing $200 on slab fees (lol).
This is all quite laughable. Everyone rants here to buy the coin not the plastic. Here is a Roosy expert buying on the plastic (to his advantage of course) he knows quite otherwise the coin is misattributed (note: not misgraded, just mis-attributed as non-FT).
What Stooge also seems to forget is that nice coins don't always sell as a step function. For coins that are borderline the next grade, huge premiums are often added. Like how about a 1945 Merc dime in non-FB MS65 (but has 95% FB). Such a coin might sell for hundreds more than the garden variety flat band $15 1945. Similarly I'd expect a 95+% FT 1957 dime to sell for a lot more than $50. In fact with color I'd expect an expert like Stooge to be able to find a buyer for that coin (as a non-FT) in the $100+ range. Buying it for $20-$30 over garden variety quality is hardly a premium imo, esp if Stooge felt it was a no-brainer FT. We see PQ coins bring 50-100% premiums all the time, in the lower grade plastic. This is not something new. This was a FT coin per Stooge, that's what really counts.....the coin....not the plastic after a 5-10 second scan.
Please, send me all your nice raw coins after PCGS grading and let me cherry pick them for a 10-20% premium. After all, I'd be paying you more than the listed retail prices. You should be happy to get the extra money (lol). There are probably some dealers who make a great living just buying other dealers TPG newps. What a racket.
In summary, if anyone believes that all coins get the right grade on the first submission they are sorely mistaken. The fact that dimeman's coin was graded 2 diff ways still says it's up in the air as to what it is. But as it sits now, it's a 66FT worth $450 to the owner. Send it in a 3rd time if you want to know what that the real consensus is. I know...it stinks that we have to submit coins 3 to 5 times to really know what the average (accurate) grade is.
<< <i>P.S. Dan, I didn't know about the pops suddenly rising so high on the 05D 67FB you bought from me. But, Since I value your friendship so much I will be sending you a little something in the mail to help make up for it. >>
Nick please don't think you owe me anything concerning our transaction on the 05-D. You had it for sale, I wanted it for a friend and paid a fair price for it.
It isn't in your power, nor mine, to know the future pops of coins we buy or sell. When we made our deal, the pops were right on at 2/0. You owe me no apologies nor compensation. Paul was just using that as an example, but he didn't get that idea from anything I said or feel. Besides, I sold the other 05-D to Lincolns Rule a few days before buying yours. Same deal, same price, I didn't know the pops were going up when he bought mine. The pops have still not changed in the pop report, and it's been a month since I sold mine. The only way I know it's going up is from Paul noticing the change of pops in his registry set. So we are straight, simple as that...
I do agree that this is not the correct Forum to bring this up.
DIMEMAN, We all, in one way or another, Have had these experiances before. one thing that seperates you and the rest is bringing it public.
I personally have sold coins to Forum members, thinking I was helping them with their sets. Not more than a week later they are flipping them for financial gain. Am I upset? SURE Did I get hosed? NO Did I PM them for the differance? NO
These things I learn from and make me a little more sharper. I have lossed some trust in a few members for this reason but I have moved on.
Comments
I say it was opportunistism at its finest.
Would it be ethical to offer business strike money for a 1909-VDB Lincoln if the original owner believed it was a proof, you concurred that it was a proof, had you submit to PCGS, and PCGS subsequently "mistakenly" graded it as a business strike MS66RD first time thru?
Would it then be OK to offer $200 or so for a $50k+ coin that you thought had a great chance of being "corrected" by PCGS next time thru?
The same could apply to any of a numerous list of varieties or VAMS that PCGS got wrong first time thru.
In this case it merely happened to be an attribute (FB) that they "got wrong". No one will ever know what was in your heart and mind when you made the offer of $50 but I'd wager you STILL believed it was FB when you did so.
<< <i>Perhaps the real question that needs to be asked to determine Paul's integrity (or more accuately his lack thereof) is why the stooge knowing, stating, and being convinced the coin was a FB, would offer non-FB money simply because PCGS didn't grade it "right" the first time around?
I say it was opportunistic & "MR. Slimeball" at his finest. >>
What you've just said is one of the most idiotic things I've ever read. At no point in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this Forum is now dumber for having read it.
Later, Paul.
Later, Paul.
Simple:
Did you believe it was FB when you offered $50 for it or not? Yes or no? And if not, what caused your original assessment to change?
Paul, your greed CLEARLY outweighs your ethics. Say (or rant) what you want but no one will believe anything different. At best you'll get people similarly as greedy (or with similar ethics) as you taking your side.
"...you knew the coin was FB and KNEW you were going to resubmit..."
Should we expect more from someone whose "idol" is Curly?
<< <i>Thank you for trying to tear me a new one. Means I'm hitting a nerve.
Simple:
Did you believe it was FB when you offered $50 for it (and if not, what caused your original assessment to change)? Yes or no? >>
If you wade through all of the "Mr. Slimeball" name calling you would have read my earlier post.
I never had a doubt that it was FB. I even got the grade right. Now knowing that, and like I said before, I did not grade the coin, PCGS did. The deal was made, and I'm suppose to compensate Jon, for digging in my own pocket, taking the time to re-submit the coin, and fortunately having PCGS get the coin right the 2nd time? Because of this I owe him Hundreds of $$$?
Again he knew that the coin was 66FB and I told him so. He hasn't mentioned this coin for a long time, but when I decide to "Do what ever I feel I would like to do with my coin" He squaks "I want money, I want the coin back, I want money, I want the coin back".
I'm a Slimeball huh?
WOW!
Later, Paul.
Later, Paul.
Don't get me started on how I felt I was screwed the same way, but with old cars.
Indeed, you feel as though you were ripped off. But alas, you were not.
"...I never had a doubt that it was FB...."
So, WHY OFFER NON-FB MONEY?!
<< <i>Paul, your greed CLEARLY outweighs your ethics. Say (or rant) what you want but no one will believe anything different. At best you'll get people similarly as greedy (or with similar ethics) as you taking your side. >>
GREED ETHICS? What a master of deduction you must be.
If 1/2 the people that have been given free coins from Paul were to show up in this thread, it would top 100 posts in less than an hour.
You stated that would have gladly paid me 400 for the coin if it FBed. Well it did and you knew it would and you knew it was when you paid me 50 bucks, so why won't you pay me the rest because it is FB and you stated it was FB. Just because PCGS didn't get it right the first time you want to beat me out of the true money it is worth and what you would have paid in the first place.!!!
First, the title of this thread is highly inflammatory. If I were Paul, I'd probably have started a thread "dimeman is an arse" out of anger. The fact that Paul has replied in a civil tone reflects a lot. Second, when Paul offered (an above-market) $50 for the coin and dimeman accepted, the coin was then Paul's. It was his coin legally and his coin morally. Paul then choose to resubmit the coin, along with others. [Dimeman claims, without a shred of evidence, that Paul had planned all along to resubmit. Paul says otherwise. The reader can believe whomever he or she wishes to believe, but keep in mind that dimeman's assertion is simply that: dimeman's assertion.] Paul took the risk of resubmitting the coin. If the coin had come back MS65, with no FB, dimeman apparently would have been happier than when the coin came back MS66FB. Or, at the very last, I bet dimeman wouldn't have started a thread "I think I RIPPED off Stooge....what do you think?" if the coin had come back with a lower grade. And I also guess that in this case dimeman would not have offered Paul a dollar of compensation for the loss due to the lower grade. So I think I see a real asymmetry here: dimeman complains if the coin comes back with a higher grade and remains silent (I bet) if the coin comes back with a lower grade. In other words, this looks like a nifty little bet: Heads (the coin comes back lower graded) dimeman wins, tails (the coin comes back higher graded) dimeman expects Paul to offer some compensation so that dimeman wins again. Sure, I agree it might be nice that if the coin comes back higher graded, Paul could VOLUNTARILY offer dimeman some extra $$$ and it would be equally nice if the coin comes back lower graded, dimeman could VOLUNTARILY offer Paul some extra $$$. But in my way of looking at the issue, there is absolutely no need for either to do so nor for the other to expect it. And there definitely is no need to start a thread with a nasty little title when it doesn't happen. Plus, I am 110% sure that if the coin had come back with a lower grade Paul would NOT have started a thread "I think I have been RIPPED off by dimeman....what do you think?"
Finally, re Mitch's suggestion to auction the coin: I think that is presumptuous. The coin is Paul's and no pressure should be placed on him. He should be free to do with it as he wants. (Disclosure re Mitch: I admire him immensely, have in the past purchased coins from him, and have written an article for the Numismatist in which he was the major player. Even so, I think he is wrong in this suggestion.)
<< <i>Paul, your greed CLEARLY outweighs your ethics. Say (or rant) what you want but no one will believe anything different. At best you'll get people similarly as greedy (or with similar ethics) as you taking your side.
"...you knew the coin was FB and KNEW you were going to resubmit..."
Should we expect more from someone whose "idol" is Curly?
Find one person that has known me for > then the 5 minutes that you think you know me, and you will see that I'm not greedy by any stretch of your imagination.
And...you will have to do more then write a few lines and call me a few names to strike a nerve.
<< <i>At best you'll get people similarly as greedy (or with similar ethics) as you taking your side. >>
Are you saying that some whom have posted to this thread that may have taken my side are of greed and have less ethics? I think you will waging war with a few others you may not want to wage war with...
Later, Paul.
Later, Paul.
WHY DID YOU OFFER NON-FB MONEY?
Still no answer.
<< <i>If he is so ethical, WHY DID HE OFFER NON-FB MONEY? >>
Because the coin graded MS66...where you not listening?
geez Man get it right.
Later, Paul.
Later, Paul.
"...I never had a doubt that it was FB...."
SO, WHY DID YOU OFFER NON-FB MONEY?
In Curly's defense (and to the detriment of the OP) if Paul told the seller that he wanted to buy the coin to resubmit because he "NEVER HAD A DOUBT THAT IT WAS FB" and that he believed (in fact was CONVINCED) that PCGS got it wrong the first time thru and had gotten the seller to explicitly acknowledge that if/when PCGS got it right that all benefits would accrue to Paul, then a full defensible disclosure would have been made.
You stated that would have gladly paid me 400 for the coin if it FBed. Well it did and you knew it would and you knew it was when you paid me 50 bucks, so why won't you pay me the rest because it is FB and you stated it was FB. Just because PCGS didn't get it right the first time you want to beat me out of the true money it is worth and what you would have paid in the first place.!!!
Roger: Question for you.... putting aside your thoughts of Paul's actions....
What responsibility should Dimeman have in this for agreeing to sell a coin he knew the buyer intended to upgrade later, but yet agreed to a deal anyway? Also, Dimeman has come on threads recently attacking collectors of Eagles, moderns, etc. pointing out they were throwing their money away. He held himself out (to me at least) as someone who had intimate knowledge of dimes and, in fact, calls himself Dimeman. Now we are to believe Dimeman is clueless on dimes and another casual collector of dimes (Paul) owes him various duties? Your thoughts on this issue only please Roger?
Wondercoin
<< <i>Who care what PCGS graded it the first time around when they got it wrong? >>
So if I find a nice 1957 MS66 you are in the market for one of these at $450 Tex? I'll find one "I think" will get the FB and you can re-submit it!
<< <i>SO, WHY DID YOU OFFER NON-FB MONEY? >>
Because again it was originally in a MS66 holder?
Man you are just not catching on huh Tex?
Later, Paul.
Later, Paul.
AL
If Paul told the seller that he wanted to buy the coin to resubmit because he "NEVER HAD A DOUBT THAT IT WAS FB" and that he believed (in fact was CONVINCED) that PCGS got it wrong the first time thru and had gotten the seller to explicitly acknowledge that if/when PCGS got it right that all benefits would accrue to himself, AND the seller was OK with that, then a full defensible disclosure would have been made.
Short of this, the seller was taken advantage of (IMHO).
I just can't believe someone would try to defend offering non-FB money after they have even admitted that they "NEVER HAD A DOUBT THAT IT WAS FB"
<< <i>Again Paul,
You stated that would have gladly paid me 400 for the coin if it FBed. Well it did and you knew it would and you knew it was when you paid me 50 bucks, so why won't you pay me the rest because it is FB and you stated it was FB. Just because PCGS didn't get it right the first time you want to beat me out of the true money it is worth and what you would have paid in the first place.!!! >>
Jon, I think you are not reading clearly on this either...IF, IF, IF, IF to the Billionth power....................................................IF it had received the FB the first time around I would have kept the coin, sent you $400 and you and I would be happy.
IT came back NON-FB's, you received $18.00 above the $32.00 book. Now I didn't even charge you for looking at your dimes, going through the dimes, submitting the dimes and then, here comes a good one on ya...I SENT THE COINS ALL BACK TO YOU AND I PAID THE SHIIPING WITH FULL INSURANCE TO YOU You never 1x thanked me for doing so, you just B****ed about the grades.
Later, Paul.
Later, Paul.
BUT
even if/when one does, if one LATER learns that one was taken advantage of, ones own ignorance or impruudent prior actions can't legally be used against oneself.
As I'm sure you are aware, this is particularly true when a party claims fraudulent ommission, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, etc., long after a business transaction had apparently closed.
"...IF it had received the FB the first time around I would have kept the coin, sent you $400 and you and I would be happy...."
But not the second time around?
No doubt.
Wondercoin.
<< <i>I just can't believe someone would try to defend offering non-FB money after they have even admitted that they "NEVER HAD A DOUBT THAT IT WAS FB" >>
I was honest as I could have been and yes I told him it was indeed a FB dime BEFORE I sent them into get graded. I'm not the professional here, PCGS is the professional here and theygraded it w/o FB. That is not my fault and I'm not trying to defend my self against anything. I could have lied, I could have replaced the coin...I told him the truth before during and after. Do you not understand this???????????
Later, Paul.
Later, Paul.
<< <i>"...IF it had received the FB the first time around I would have kept the coin, sent you $400 and you and I would be happy...."
But not the second time around?
Ya
I bought a nice 1939-D MS66FB dime, from Jon about 1 year ago. Hey Jon.......I'm going to resubmit that coin and if it gets MS67FB how much $$$ do you want? How about I throw in some McDonald's gift certificates for your COMPENSATION!!!!!
What the F***
Later, Paul.
P.S. Hey Tex.....
Later, Paul.
<< <i>I am thankful for the few who would not do this kinda thing and we have a few really honest and ethical dealers on these forums who are able to make a living without treating people like this. >>
Again you imply Paul as being a dealer. Paul is not a dealer, he was asked to look at the coins and send in what was worth grading. No fee, no charge, Dimeman only used Paul to keep from paying membership fees. But, thats not the point here. He WAS TOLD THE COIN WAS A FB, did he act on this information Paul gave him? No, so being offered $50, he took it knowing the dime had failed to get the grade once.
Now where is the blame for Paul getting the coin for $50.? I'll tell you where, with the owner who WOULD NOT LISTEN TO THE PERSON WHOM HE HAD ASKED FOR THE FREE SCREENING AND SUBMITTING.
Did Paul know the coin was FB? Yes. Did he tell Jon the dime should be FB? Yes. Did Jon act on this information? No. Was he willing to part with it for $50. instead of going for the regrade? Yes.
That proves it, Pauls a scumbag. He should have held the coin hostage and forced the owner to resubmit it.
<< <i>That proves it, Pauls a scumbag. >>
Dan thanks...1 "Scumbag" from you is worth to me more the 100 "Slimeballs" from Tex! Just don't take my side, as you will be greedy and unethical just like me.
Later, Paul.
Later, Paul.
I have to go now, but you watch out for anyone with Tar, Feathers, And a rail.
Like most 'fights' around here there is no simple answer.
So, as the title questions, "....what do you think?"
1) Paul gave his opinion on what the coins would grade.
2) Grades came in low in Paul's opinion.
3) Paul sent coins back except one he 'needed' and was sure to be FB without authorization.
I have a problem with this. Because if it was just going to be a hole filler Paul would have purchased a non-FB long ago.
Not that it makes a difference here, other than I have a hard time believing Paul bought it just because it filled the hole.
4) Jon recieves coins & eventually cashes the check.
I see this as an acceptance of the offer for the coin, even though Jon was told that the coin was, in Paul's opinion FB.
Jon saw the money instead of the potential of the coin. Sold at non-FB money because it was graded non-FB.
At this point, IMO, the coin is Paul's to resubmit.
Shouldn't that be the end of the story?
If not, then what about all the FB Roosies we have purchased that were graded before the FB desination.
If we resubmit & they come back FB, are we all judged by the fact of whether or not we pay the seller (if we remember) more?
Haven't we all been there in some form or another?
My story involves Graded Morgans traded for raw Morgans that I needed. Traded with a well known 'dealer' that had them listed with a grade on his website.
Figured he knew how to grade, so we traded. All the Morgan's graded 1 pt less than advertised.
Was I pissed, yes. But understood grades are opinions only. Held my tongue (as much as possible), and lived through it.
Now I still have a relationship with the dealer & whenever I propose a trade it's with graded coins.
Sure, $200-300 is a lot to 'lose', but is it really worth tarnishing the reputation of both you & Paul?
Interestingly, the very "premium" Dimeman seeks here for the microscopic difference in strike is not much different than the 69 vs. 70 premium for moderns Dimeman attacks as wholly unreasonable elsewhere - no?
I would add to TDN's comment that the second entire problem is collectors not studying and knowing the very series of coins they collect. I believe Dimeman did not need Paul to see a band on a Roosie dime - that was purely Dimeman not wanting to take the time to study the very series of coins he was collecting.
Last week, I met with a collector who had a set of modern 70's worth six figures (none of which I had sold him). I spent more than an hour showing him some tips on that particular series to better appreciate the difference between his 70's and 69 graded coins. He called me a couple days later to personally thank me for the time and to let me know that he was approaching his collection completely differently after the meeting. He acknowledged that he had never taken the time necessary to adequately study the very series he had socked away six figures on. The meeting was cathartic.
Dimeman - let something very positive come out of this - from this day forward make it your mission to understand Roosies and exactly what it takes or doesn't take to have a FB dime. Make it your mission to never have to rely on anyone else to determine that issue. Chalk up your $350 lesson to a very cheap cost of you gaining invaluable knowledge from this day forward.
Fly out here to S. Calif for a Long Beach show and I will personally spend an hour exchanging ideas with you on Roosies - I bet Nick will graciously give you an hour of his time as well. By the next Long Beach show, you will be an "expert" anyway on bands if you put the time in. Honestly (and with all due respect to the FB experts out there), there really isn't much to learn about whether 2 bands have a split between them that doesn't touch each side.
Wondercoin
Pauls's ethical failure was not offering FB money for a coin he HAD NO DOUBT WAS FB and now trying to play dumb that he is not the expert and that PCGS (is) and MUST have been right the first time thru.
Unfortunately this argument doesn't hold water since Paul sent it in again presumably (apparently IN the slab to guarantee at least the grade didn't go below 66) under mechanical error or designation review. How else could it have only cost him "$10" (isn't desig. rev. $15?) to do so.
Paul simply (at best) didn't have the integrity to offer an amount based on his unequivocal belief that the coin was FB or at worst offered an amount that he knew was not enough given his belief that THERE WAS NO DOUBT IT WAS FB (in his mind).
Jon ask Paul for his opinion about his Roosevelt dimes, a series Paul knows far more
about then Jon. Paul gave his opinion with out compensation and in good faith. When
the 57P came back with out the FB designation I'm sure Paul felt at some point in time
the coin could receive the designation. It may have taken 10 submissions and 2 years
to get it, all at Paul's expense. This is the risk to reward ratio when purchasing a coin
on the cusp. Paul offered Jon a very fair price for the coin and Jon had the option to
decline. Paul owns the coin and owns the right to do anything he wants with it.
With that out of the way lets flip this around a little. We have 2 board members helping
each other out with their collections. Paul is submitting some coins for his buddy Jon.
Jon over reacts a little because the grades are not what Paul thought they should be.
One friend tries to help compensate the other by offering to buy one of he coins. The
other friend even though upset wants to help out his buddy so he sells him the coin,
each friend knowing that the value of the coin would be a lot higher if PCGS had just
added those 2 little letters on the holder "FB". Paul has a much better knowledge
of knowing the process with submitting coins to PCGS then Jon. By the luck of the
draw PCGS decides to add those 2 letters on the coins FIRST trip back to PCGS.
Legally and by all rights this is Paul's coin. I don't believe Paul has any further obligation
to Jon unless he feels he does. This is Paul's decision to make and only Paul's.
We as board members all come from different back grounds and different beliefs.
Have different opinions and define our morals and ethics differently. I don't believe
Paul is wrong and I don't believe Jon is wrong. They both just see it differently. We
can all post what we would have done, or what Paul should have done or should not
have done. I think our obligation here is to not point fingers or call each other names.
but, to give Jon and Paul our opinion and maybe what a couple other friends may
have done in this situation. Either way I would not think any less of Paul or Jon no
matter what the end result is.
If I was asked what I would do in this situation (and by the way I recently was in this
almost exact situation) I would say, PM me and I'll tell you. One thing I can tell you
is don't go off PCGS price for the value of this coin.
P.S. Dan, I didn't know about the pops suddenly rising so high on the 05D 67FB
you bought from me. But, Since I value your friendship so much I will be sending
you a little something in the mail to help make up for it.
Resently I sent eight MS67 Roosies to NGC for the "star" designation. One of the coins came back without the star. Yes, I made 7 of 8 in star. This one coin I believe was deserving of the star, however I sold the coin to Nick along with several others knowing it had star potential. Nick, when attending the just completed Long Beach show submitted the coin for the star. Guess what, the coin failed to make the star.
But, it did come back Full Torch!
It was not submitted for FT, just the star. Being the date that is was the FT really increased it's value. I than saw the coin posted on Nick's eBay site with a price that far exceeded what I sold it for. I sent Nick an e-mail to say congratutions. I was not upset at what could be perceived as being "hosed". I sold the coin at a fair price for it's grade and the resulting FT designation was Nick's luck. I say luck because the coin is/was not FT quality. These things happen and it could have happened for me had I kept the coin and resubmitted it myself.
Here's the great part of the story:
Prior to my e-mail to Nick (and knowing what transpired) he had placed a check in the mail to me. For what amount I have no idea as it has not yet arrived. Frankly, I don't care what the amount is...that's not important.
However, the gesture is unmeasureable.
<< <i>He should have held the coin hostage and forced the owner to resubmit it. >>
Now thats Funny and a possible answer to this whole mess.
Ken
I have had great deals and I have had pretty bad deals but each and every time I did it was my decision to do so, educated or not, especially when this involves dealers that make their living off of the value spread in the buy versus the sale. Come on Dimeman, are you that ignorant? I think Paul's conduct wad ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and for anyone to challange that simply shows their lack of reality, and that obviously includes dimeman.
Paul, please remember that this is the same guy who thinks the $20 Gold Eagles are beautiful but the Bullion Eagles are UGLY even though the obverse is the same. Obviously he has some personal issues that are bleeding over into this vile hate. In fact I'm suprised he would even worry about such an "ugly" modern coin such as a Roosie in the first place.
If it's the money Dimejerk then I'll send you the $300 just to shut your piehole. Send me you address via PM and I'll cover your ignorant perceived "losses". Putz!
<< <i>Great story lablover, but do you think Nick would have sent you anything if you had created a thread stating "I think I have been RIPPED off by Nick...what do you think?" >>
I'll never know because I never air my laundry in public. Second, Nick is a friend and that's more important than money!
<< <i>First off, what a hatchet job. Dimeman sold the coin and what a bitter attack on Paul over such a trivial matter. My experience with Dimeman has been quite poor. He proclaims himself the sole decider as to what coins are pretty and which ones suck, he has repeatedly attacked PCGS since he claims to be an expert grader. With that I say that Dimeman was stupid to not use his superior grading ability to grade the coin BEFORE the sale. Why not have it graded yourself? Can't afford the $49.95 Silver membership? Looks like it would have been a good investment.
I have had great deals and I have had pretty bad deals but each and every time I did it was my decision to do so, educated or not, especially when this involves dealers that make their living off of the value spread in the buy versus the sale. Come on Dimeman, are you that ignorant? I think Paul's conduct wad ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and for anyone to challange that simply shows their lack of reality, and that obviously includes dimeman.
Paul, please remember that this is the same guy who thinks the $20 Gold Eagles are beautiful and the Bullion Eagles are UGLY even though the obverse is the same. Obviously he has some personal issues that are bleeding over into this vile hate. In fact I'm suprised he would even woryy about such an "ugly" modern coin such as a Roosie in the first place.
If it's the money Dimejerk then I'll send you the $300 just to shut your piehole. Send me you address via PM and I'll cover your ignorant perceived "losses". Putz! >>
Who in the HELL is this A$$ Wipe?.....
<< <i>
<< <i>First off, what a hatchet job. Dimeman sold the coin and what a bitter attack on Paul over such a trivial matter. My experience with Dimeman has been quite poor. He proclaims himself the sole decider as to what coins are pretty and which ones suck, he has repeatedly attacked PCGS since he claims to be an expert grader. With that I say that Dimeman was stupid to not use his superior grading ability to grade the coin BEFORE the sale. Why not have it graded yourself? Can't afford the $49.95 Silver membership? Looks like it would have been a good investment.
I have had great deals and I have had pretty bad deals but each and every time I did it was my decision to do so, educated or not, especially when this involves dealers that make their living off of the value spread in the buy versus the sale. Come on Dimeman, are you that ignorant? I think Paul's conduct wad ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and for anyone to challange that simply shows their lack of reality, and that obviously includes dimeman.
Paul, please remember that this is the same guy who thinks the $20 Gold Eagles are beautiful and the Bullion Eagles are UGLY even though the obverse is the same. Obviously he has some personal issues that are bleeding over into this vile hate. In fact I'm suprised he would even woryy about such an "ugly" modern coin such as a Roosie in the first place.
If it's the money Dimejerk then I'll send you the $300 just to shut your piehole. Send me you address via PM and I'll cover your ignorant perceived "losses". Putz! >>
Who in the HELL is this A$$ Wipe?.....
Screw you jerk, this THREAD was not needed. Another Putz!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>First off, what a hatchet job. Dimeman sold the coin and what a bitter attack on Paul over such a trivial matter. My experience with Dimeman has been quite poor. He proclaims himself the sole decider as to what coins are pretty and which ones suck, he has repeatedly attacked PCGS since he claims to be an expert grader. With that I say that Dimeman was stupid to not use his superior grading ability to grade the coin BEFORE the sale. Why not have it graded yourself? Can't afford the $49.95 Silver membership? Looks like it would have been a good investment.
I have had great deals and I have had pretty bad deals but each and every time I did it was my decision to do so, educated or not, especially when this involves dealers that make their living off of the value spread in the buy versus the sale. Come on Dimeman, are you that ignorant? I think Paul's conduct wad ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and for anyone to challange that simply shows their lack of reality, and that obviously includes dimeman.
Paul, please remember that this is the same guy who thinks the $20 Gold Eagles are beautiful and the Bullion Eagles are UGLY even though the obverse is the same. Obviously he has some personal issues that are bleeding over into this vile hate. In fact I'm suprised he would even woryy about such an "ugly" modern coin such as a Roosie in the first place.
If it's the money Dimejerk then I'll send you the $300 just to shut your piehole. Send me you address via PM and I'll cover your ignorant perceived "losses". Putz! >>
Who in the HELL is this A$$ Wipe?.....
Screw you jerk, this THREAD was not needed. Another Putz! >>
BITE ME you POS!!! What are you some DIP$HIT that hit the boards last year to flip moderns.
Ken
My case here is not who owns the coin....Paul does! My complaint is that he knew the coin was FB (I never looked at the coin) and said he would pay $400 for it if it was FB, which he knew it was. He got a great deal at my expence and that is my complaint.
As far as attacking him on the boards, I had several PM's with him before I went to the boards. He said go ahead that he would not do anything about it. So I went to the boards to see what other people thought.
Griv, ole buddy your spew is not needed here. I never did attack you personnaly and wish you could do the same.
And for those who question my dime knowledge.....No I don't get into Roosies much, but do collect them in my complete set. As for Mercs and Barbers and Seated I have studied and looked at and know as much about all of them as anyone out there!
<< <i>As far as attacking him on the boards, I had several PM's with him before I went to the boards. He said go ahead that he would not do anything about it. So I went to the boards to see what other people thought. >>
So for $300 in "perceived" and understandable loss based on the circumstances you are comfortable with attacking a friend/colleague over a non-issue in which circumstances cost you $300 in value. This at the same time declaring modern coins trash and declaring PCGS grades DON’T matter. Obviously they do!
<< <i>And for those who question my dime knowledge.....No I don't get into Roosies much, but do collect them in my complete set. As for Mercs and Barbers and Seated I have studied and looked at and know as much about all of them as anyone out there! >>
Sure, so basically you “collect” them to make money. And so you screwed up and lost an opportunity to make more money than you thought. And so why is this a PCGS Set Registry thread issue? Because you don’t bother to learn the coins you are trying to sell to others? You owe Stooge a big, SORRY, I’M A JERK AND I HOPE WE CAN STILL BE FRIENDS.
So, lets look at that statement.........
My complaint is that he knew the coin was FB (I never looked at the coin)
Yup, that's a given. Never disputed.
said he would pay $400 for it if it was FB
Here's the sticky point. Was it "if the coin ever became FB", or was it if the coin came back from PCGS as FB on that submission?
Maybe you thought that if Paul sent the coin in on a resubmission & it came back FB he would still be obligated to pay the extra $350?
He got a great deal at my expence and that is my complaint
Yup, he did.
Happens all the time.
Usually buyers get a 'You Suck' & are patted on the back for buying coins that upgrade, or have a designation added (FSB, FB, FBL, etc).
Or if they purchase a coin at a (lot) lower price than it's true value, they boast how they 'RIPPED' a coin. But that's usually based on the grade of the coin at the time of the sale.
I would guess that your contention is that if the coin ever made FB Paul would be on the hook for the $400 (or another $350).
Not sure I would make that presumption.
You paid shipping? How about thanking Dimeman for blowing $200 on slab fees (lol).
This is all quite laughable. Everyone rants here to buy the coin not the plastic. Here is a Roosy expert buying on the plastic (to his advantage of course) he knows quite otherwise the coin is misattributed (note: not misgraded, just mis-attributed as non-FT).
What Stooge also seems to forget is that nice coins don't always sell as a step function. For coins that are borderline the next grade, huge premiums are often added. Like how about a 1945 Merc dime in non-FB MS65 (but has 95% FB). Such a coin might sell for hundreds more than the garden variety flat band $15 1945. Similarly I'd expect a 95+% FT 1957 dime to sell for a lot more than $50. In fact with color I'd expect an expert like Stooge to be able to find a buyer for that coin (as a non-FT) in the $100+ range. Buying it for $20-$30 over garden variety quality is hardly a premium imo, esp if Stooge felt it was a no-brainer FT. We see PQ coins bring 50-100% premiums all the time, in the lower grade plastic. This is not something new. This was a FT coin per Stooge, that's what really counts.....the coin....not the plastic after a 5-10 second scan.
Please, send me all your nice raw coins after PCGS grading and let me cherry pick them for a 10-20% premium. After all, I'd be paying you more than the listed retail prices. You should be happy to get the extra money (lol). There are probably some dealers who make a great living just buying other dealers TPG newps. What a racket.
In summary, if anyone believes that all coins get the right grade on the first submission they are sorely mistaken. The fact that dimeman's coin was graded 2 diff ways still says it's up in the air as to what it is. But as it sits now, it's a 66FT worth $450 to the owner. Send it in a 3rd time if you want to know what that the real consensus is. I know...it stinks that we have to submit coins 3 to 5 times to really know what the average (accurate) grade is.
roadrunner
<< <i>P.S. Dan, I didn't know about the pops suddenly rising so high on the 05D 67FB you bought from me. But, Since I value your friendship so much I will be sending you a little something in the mail to help make up for it. >>
Nick please don't think you owe me anything concerning our transaction on the 05-D. You had it for sale, I wanted it for a friend and paid a fair price for it.
It isn't in your power, nor mine, to know the future pops of coins we buy or sell.
When we made our deal, the pops were right on at 2/0. You owe me no apologies nor compensation.
Paul was just using that as an example, but he didn't get that idea from anything I said or feel.
Besides, I sold the other 05-D to Lincolns Rule a few days before buying yours. Same deal, same price, I didn't know the pops were going up when he bought mine. The pops have still not changed in the pop report, and it's been a month since I sold mine.
The only way I know it's going up is from Paul noticing the change of pops in his registry set.
So we are straight, simple as that...
I do agree that this is not the correct Forum to bring this up.
DIMEMAN, We all, in one way or another, Have had these experiances before.
one thing that seperates you and the rest is bringing it public.
I personally have sold coins to Forum members, thinking I was helping them with their sets.
Not more than a week later they are flipping them for financial gain.
Am I upset? SURE
Did I get hosed? NO
Did I PM them for the differance? NO
These things I learn from and make me a little more sharper. I have lossed some trust
in a few members for this reason but I have moved on.
Cant we all just get along?
Edited to add: I couldn't resist