Wow, what a witchhunt. This is a truly pathetic thread. I think creating a whole thread about a quote a member said in order to rake him over the coals for it is FAR worse than anything the guy did. To keep this on topic, the guy didn't do anything wrong. The coins were all in the same bin for the same price. Who cares how he stacked them? Way to take a random quote, reveal none of the context and rip the poor guy for it. Pathetic, simply pathetic.
Positive BST transactions with: too many names to list! 36 at last count.
It sounds bad, but I would still want some more info before I went around calling anyone a thief.
Punctuation can do a lot, as well. The statement:
<< "One time I was buying Mercury dimes and there were a bunch of seated dimes mixed in so I put them on the bottom of the Mercs I was stacking in piles of 10. I didn't count them at the time but when I got home I had bought nearly 60 Seated dimes for 40 cents each and included in this group was an 1885-S although it was only an AG-3, still I traded it in on a nice XF 1942/1 dime. " >>
Can read differently if punctuated differently: << "One time, I was buying Mercury dimes and there were a bunch of seated dimes mixed in, so I put them on the bottom of the Mercs I was stacking in piles of 10. I didn't count them at the time but when I got home I had bought nearly 60 Seated dimes for 40 cents each and included in this group was an 1885-S although it was only an AG-3, still I traded it in on a nice XF 1942/1 dime. " >>
I read the above one way as the buyer was buying mercs but the bin he was buying out of also had seated dimes so he decided to buy them in the same grouping (from the same bin) Dealer could have known and figured them all to be culls and only worth hassling for the price of silver content. Hence the AG-3.
Yes, it was a good date, but lesser known, I believe, than a 1901-S quarter
So, sorry to diverge from a majority in this lopsided thread, but, without more info, and intent to deceive, I will withold judgement either way. (and, putting a different type at the bottom of the pile is not necessarily attempt to deceive.....too many coin collectors are anal-retentive to the point of ordering things around (type/date/whatever). Without knowing how many mercs were purchased (we know 60 seated dimes were), we don't know how many stacks of 10 nor what the ratio in each stack was. Many dealers would also take a look at the stacks, I believe....at least, the ones around here that I have seen selling like that have. I've sat at the counter and watched people buy stacks of 90% as bullion and the dealer, while not necessarily looking at each date, did do a quick trip through the stacks to take a look.
So, yes, it can look damaging and maybe the person was doing it with the intent to deceive....but, none of us were there to see if the dealer meant to put CULL seated dimes in with mercury dimes (and, who knows the grade on those at the time...I don't think that was posted). I reserve my judgement for those that give more details.
<< <i>The coins were all in the same bin for the same price. >>
That still doesn't clear anything up. I was talking with a dealer at a show one time who had several different bins of silver coins out on his table- $4 each, $5 each, $10 each, etc. He said that after a show, it took him several hours to go through the bins and get them all sorted out because buyers would pick through the bins and then put coins back in the wrong one. Short of keeping the coins completely out of reach of his customers, is there anybody here who seriously thinks that a dealer can keep all of this straight during a show?
He was looking for Mercury's when he found Seated dimes in the same 'bin'. "Hid" them in the stacks of 10 (ended up with 60, so there must have been lots of stack to hide that many). Some would say that this constitutes that he knew that the Seated dimes were worth more, and I would not disagree. The question I would like to know is, was this because he knew they were placed in the bin by someone other than the dealer, OR did he think the dealer might change his mind on the price if he saw them? The second scenario is not totally out of the question IMO.
If the 1885-S was worn to an AG-3, who's to say the other's weren't also very low grade & the dealer knew the coins were in there?
If I was to say I picked up some P-1/AG-3 Seated dimes in a bin that had some G-VG Barbers & F-XF Mercs for just over melt would I be considered a thief? Isn't this thread based on 1 coin coming out as a key? And the 'buyer' has already come out & said he did not know of the dates until he got home.
Heck, I don't have Seated dimes, but am currently selling Barber dimes at the same price as Roosies. If someone buys them are they thieves?
If you say no because I know I'm selling them at the same price. Then I would ask, "How do you know the seller in this case did not know what he was selling?" We can presume, and becoming our own judge & jury, but that's all we're doing IMO.
What if he didn't know they were in the bin? Is the seller obligated to sell them for the marked price if another customer put them there without telling him? I wouldn't think so.
mrpotatoheadd, we can "What if...." ourselves to death. If we keep to the facts we know, and if you want to list them & conclude the member is a thief, I'm willing to hear them.
<< <i>Thanks keets....it does look pretty damning.
But we just don't know all the facts.
He was looking for Mercury's when he found Seated dimes in the same 'bin'. "Hid" them in the stacks of 10 (ended up with 60, so there must have been lots of stack to hide that many). Some would say that this constitutes that he knew that the Seated dimes were worth more, and I would not disagree. The question I would like to know is, was this because he knew they were placed in the bin by someone other than the dealer, OR did he think the dealer might change his mind on the price if he saw them? The second scenario is not totally out of the question IMO.
If the 1885-S was worn to an AG-3, who's to say the other's weren't also very low grade & the dealer knew the coins were in there?
If I was to say I picked up some P-1/AG-3 Seated dimes in a bin that had some G-VG Barbers & F-XF Mercs for just over melt would I be considered a thief? Isn't this thread based on 1 coin coming out as a key? And the 'buyer' has already come out & said he did not know of the dates until he got home.
Heck, I don't have Seated dimes, but am currently selling Barber dimes at the same price as Roosies. If someone buys them are they thieves?
If you say no because I know I'm selling them at the same price. Then I would ask, "How do you know the seller in this case did not know what he was selling?" We can presume, and becoming our own judge & jury, but that's all we're doing IMO.
What if he didn't know they were in the bin? Is the seller obligated to sell them for the marked price if another customer put them there without telling him? I wouldn't think so.
mrpotatoheadd, we can "What if...." ourselves to death. If we keep to the facts we know, and if you want to list them & conclude the member is a thief, I'm willing to hear them. >>
Isn't this thread based on 1 coin coming out as a key?
No. Its based on the fact that the buyer intentionally hid the coins among other coins because he knew the pricing wasnt the same, and thus intentionally decieved the seller by concealing those different coins.
<< <i>No. Its based on the fact that the buyer intentionally hid the coins among other coins because he knew the pricing wasnt the same, and thus intentionally decieved the seller by concealing those different coins. >>
Is that a fact or assumption? If a fact, that makes a big difference. I didn't see that spelled out as a fact in the link to the other thread you provided.
<< <i>Wow, what a witchhunt. This is a truly pathetic thread. I think creating a whole thread about a quote a member said in order to rake him over the coals for it is FAR worse than anything the guy did. To keep this on topic, the guy didn't do anything wrong. The coins were all in the same bin for the same price. Who cares how he stacked them? Way to take a random quote, reveal none of the context and rip the poor guy for it. Pathetic, simply pathetic. >>
Exposing the integrity (or lack of) of our fellow members is vital in this hobby. This is not a "witchhunt", nor is it some "random quote" taken out of context (the thread is linked in one of my replies here). This is about a fellow forum member of yours who admitted to deceiving another person knowingly. You think its "pathetic", I see it as important to know. Perhaps you are of the same immoral fabric as that member and wish to defend his actions because they so closely resemble your own. Whatever your reasoning, almost 2/3rds of this forum has voted that this scenario was theft. Im troubled to discover you dont think this is worth discussing. Says alot about you as well.
<< <i>No. Its based on the fact that the buyer intentionally hid the coins among other coins because he knew the pricing wasnt the same, and thus intentionally decieved the seller by concealing those different coins. >>
Is that a fact or assumption? If a fact, that makes a big difference. I didn't see that spelled out as a fact in the link to the other thread you provided. >>
Why did he go through the trouble or energy of putting the seated coins at the bottom of the merc piles if his intentions werent to "conceal" something? Then literally BRAG about how he bought close to 60 seated dimes at just 40 cents each? He CLEARLY knew that what he did was dishonest. You can play semantics games and call that an "assumption", but the sun WILL come out tomorrow, and thats just an "assumption" as well.
<< <i>Wow, what a witchhunt. This is a truly pathetic thread. I think creating a whole thread about a quote a member said in order to rake him over the coals for it is FAR worse than anything the guy did. To keep this on topic, the guy didn't do anything wrong. The coins were all in the same bin for the same price. Who cares how he stacked them? Way to take a random quote, reveal none of the context and rip the poor guy for it. Pathetic, simply pathetic. >>
Exposing the integrity (or lack of) of our fellow members is vital in this hobby. This is not a "witchhunt", nor is it some "random quote" taken out of context (the thread is linked in one of my replies here). This is about a fellow forum member of yours who admitted to deceiving another person knowingly. You think its "pathetic", I see it as important to know. Perhaps you are of the same immoral fabric as that member and wish to defend his actions because they so closely resemble your own. Whatever your reasoning, almost 2/3rds of this forum has voted that this scenario was theft. Im troubled to discover you dont think this is worth discussing. Says alot about you as well. >>
I don't see it as a lack of integrity, any more than I see going 10 miles per hour over the speed limit as such either.
<< <i>Wow, what a witchhunt. This is a truly pathetic thread. I think creating a whole thread about a quote a member said in order to rake him over the coals for it is FAR worse than anything the guy did. To keep this on topic, the guy didn't do anything wrong. The coins were all in the same bin for the same price. Who cares how he stacked them? Way to take a random quote, reveal none of the context and rip the poor guy for it. Pathetic, simply pathetic. >>
Exposing the integrity (or lack of) of our fellow members is vital in this hobby. This is not a "witchhunt", nor is it some "random quote" taken out of context (the thread is linked in one of my replies here). This is about a fellow forum member of yours who admitted to deceiving another person knowingly. You think its "pathetic", I see it as important to know. Perhaps you are of the same immoral fabric as that member and wish to defend his actions because they so closely resemble your own. Whatever your reasoning, almost 2/3rds of this forum has voted that this scenario was theft. Im troubled to discover you dont think this is worth discussing. Says alot about you as well. >>
I don't see it as a lack of integrity, any more than I see going 10 miles per hour over the speed limit as such either. >>
Hiding a totally different type of coin under a pile of more common coins to be able to purchase the lot at the bare minimum does not constitute a lack of integrity?
<< <i>No. Its based on the fact that the buyer intentionally hid the coins among other coins because he knew the pricing wasnt the same, and thus intentionally decieved the seller by concealing those different coins. >>
Is that a fact or assumption? If a fact, that makes a big difference. I didn't see that spelled out as a fact in the link to the other thread you provided. >>
Why did he go through the trouble or energy of putting the seated coins at the bottom of the merc piles if his intentions werent to "conceal" something? Then literally BRAG about how he bought close to 60 seated dimes at just 40 cents each? He CLEARLY knew that what he did was dishonest. You can play semantics games and call that an "assumption", but the sun WILL come out tomorrow, and thats just an "assumption" as well. >>
No, the sun "coming out" tomorrow is fact. Earth's revolution and all. Everything you state is likely possible but is an assumption. You are just promoting it as fact. Sure you aren't a politician wanna-be instead of a fire fighter?
<< <i>Wow, what a witchhunt. This is a truly pathetic thread. I think creating a whole thread about a quote a member said in order to rake him over the coals for it is FAR worse than anything the guy did. To keep this on topic, the guy didn't do anything wrong. The coins were all in the same bin for the same price. Who cares how he stacked them? Way to take a random quote, reveal none of the context and rip the poor guy for it. Pathetic, simply pathetic. >>
Exposing the integrity (or lack of) of our fellow members is vital in this hobby. This is not a "witchhunt", nor is it some "random quote" taken out of context (the thread is linked in one of my replies here). This is about a fellow forum member of yours who admitted to deceiving another person knowingly. You think its "pathetic", I see it as important to know. Perhaps you are of the same immoral fabric as that member and wish to defend his actions because they so closely resemble your own. Whatever your reasoning, almost 2/3rds of this forum has voted that this scenario was theft. Im troubled to discover you dont think this is worth discussing. Says alot about you as well. >>
I don't see it as a lack of integrity, any more than I see going 10 miles per hour over the speed limit as such either. >>
Hiding a totally different type of coin under a pile of more common coins to be able to purchase the lot at the bare minimum does not constitute a lack of integrity? >>
If they're in the same pricing bin, then not really. And tell me, Mr. Gecko. Are you of the highest integrity yourself? Probably not, and honestly, neither am I.
Edit: Never mind the "Mr. Gecko" part. I'll just call you Gecko.
Are you 100% certain the sun didnt blow up 6 minutes ago? We wouldnt even know for another 2 minutes if it has or not. The point is that although there is an overwhelming chance that the sun will come out tomorrow, it still is technically an assumption. Same goes for the scenario we are discussing. Based on his OWN ACCOUNT, there is an overwhelming chance that the buyer knew he was doing something wrong when he hid those coins (otherwise why put them on the bottom where they couldnt be seen easily?). However, technically its an assumption....so you got me!
"If they're in the same pricing bin, then not really. And tell me, Mr. Gecko. Are you of the highest integrity yourself? Probably not, and honestly, neither am I."
Then why did he hide them Mike, if he was doing nothing wrong? If he bought mercs and seated dimes side by side for the same price and randomly stacked them, no foul. But to "pick out as many as he could find", and then "place them on the bottom of merc dime stacks" demonstrates that he clearly knew what he was doing. Also, notice what that thread was all about? It is about "ripping" people for coins at obnoxiously low prices. Theres your "context". This guy knowingly "ripped" the seller, but not in the way we look at a rip. He actually went above and beyond that by essentially hiding these coins from view, and thats simply theft.
If I sell a fellow board member a common date Morgan in PCGS MS64, say an 1884 P - and I accidently send them an 1884 S - I'd like to think that the recipient would let me know. Ethics and morals, not just in word but deed, are the foundation upon which a reputation is built.
Were I to feel justified in hiding coins in a deal, regardless of venue, I would not only violate the ethical rules to which I live by, I would threaten my reputation. Some folks just don't seem to hold their own reputation in very high regard.
For those who have read Carnegies' "How to Win Friends and Influence People", think about the story of the one-cent pat of butter...
Despite what we see and read about in Washington (and elsewhere) every single day, ethics are never situational.
I haven't stopped laughing since I started reading this thread. What a bunch of "holier than thou" hypocrites!!!!!!
There's not one of you that would have walked away from that deal. They were clearly labelled, the owner willingly took the customer's money and now those of you who are "pure" find that to be a problem???
He might have thought the dealer would try to renege on the deal if he saw them. If they legitimately came out of the 40 cent bin, I see nothing wrong.
<< <i>I haven't stopped laughing since I started reading this thread. What a bunch of "holier than thou" hypocrites!!!!!!
There's not one of you that would have walked away from that deal. They were clearly labelled, the owner willingly took the customer's money and now those of you who are "pure" find that to be a problem???
What a joke!!!! >>
Assumes facts not in evidence.
I don't judge too harshly others' actions, and I'm not very "holy" - but I do have my own set of standards; I'm sure that they are not for everyone.
<< <i>"If they're in the same pricing bin, then not really. And tell me, Mr. Gecko. Are you of the highest integrity yourself? Probably not, and honestly, neither am I."
Then why did he hide them Mike, if he was doing nothing wrong? If he bought mercs and seated dimes side by side for the same price and randomly stacked them, no foul. But to "pick out as many as he could find", and then "place them on the bottom of merc dime stacks" demonstrates that he clearly knew what he was doing. Also, notice what that thread was all about? It is about "ripping" people for coins at obnoxiously low prices. Theres your "context". This guy knowingly "ripped" the seller, but not in the way we look at a rip. He actually went above and beyond that by essentially hiding these coins from view, and thats simply theft. >>
Like i said before, the dealer has every right to check what the customer has bought, and if he didn't, then it's probably the dealer's fault. especially if the two different types are in the same bin.
<< <i>"If they're in the same pricing bin, then not really. And tell me, Mr. Gecko. Are you of the highest integrity yourself? Probably not, and honestly, neither am I."
Then why did he hide them Mike, if he was doing nothing wrong? If he bought mercs and seated dimes side by side for the same price and randomly stacked them, no foul. But to "pick out as many as he could find", and then "place them on the bottom of merc dime stacks" demonstrates that he clearly knew what he was doing. Also, notice what that thread was all about? It is about "ripping" people for coins at obnoxiously low prices. Theres your "context". This guy knowingly "ripped" the seller, but not in the way we look at a rip. He actually went above and beyond that by essentially hiding these coins from view, and thats simply theft. >>
Like i said before, the dealer has every right to check what the customer has bought, and if he didn't, then it's probably the dealer's fault. especially if the two different types are in the same bin. >>
On that point I agree to an extent. Sad but true human reality, that laziness is not rewarded.
<< <i>I haven't stopped laughing since I started reading this thread. What a bunch of "holier than thou" hypocrites!!!!!!
There's not one of you that would have walked away from that deal. >>
I'm certainly not "hoiler than thou" (or anybody else here, for that matter), and there's no doubt I have just as many flaws as most people do, but taking advantage of someone's mistake (either for not keeping track what coins were in the bin, or in the piles of coins I was buying) is not one of them. I have in the past alerted dealers several times when I've found coins which were obviously mismarked instead of just keeping my mouth shut and making the deal, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
If you (in general- not directed at any specific individual) don't have a problem with scoring a windfall due to another person's error, that's your business, I suppose, but I'll keep doing things my way, just the same.
<< <i>I haven't stopped laughing since I started reading this thread. What a bunch of "holier than thou" hypocrites!!!!!!
There's not one of you that would have walked away from that deal. >>
I'm certainly not "hoiler than thou" (or anybody else here, for that matter), and there's no doubt I have just as many flaws as most people do, but taking advantage of someone's mistake (either for not keeping track what coins were in the bin, or in the piles of coins I was buying) is not one of them. I have in the past alerted dealers several times when I've found coins which were obviously mismarked instead of just keeping my mouth shut and making the deal, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
If you (in general- not directed at any specific individual) don't have a problem with scoring a windfall due to another person's error, that's your business, I suppose, but I'll keep doing things my way, just the same. >>
<< <i>Wow, what a witchhunt. This is a truly pathetic thread. I think creating a whole thread about a quote a member said in order to rake him over the coals for it is FAR worse than anything the guy did. To keep this on topic, the guy didn't do anything wrong. The coins were all in the same bin for the same price. Who cares how he stacked them? Way to take a random quote, reveal none of the context and rip the poor guy for it. Pathetic, simply pathetic. >>
Exposing the integrity (or lack of) of our fellow members is vital in this hobby. This is not a "witchhunt", nor is it some "random quote" taken out of context (the thread is linked in one of my replies here). This is about a fellow forum member of yours who admitted to deceiving another person knowingly. You think its "pathetic", I see it as important to know. Perhaps you are of the same immoral fabric as that member and wish to defend his actions because they so closely resemble your own. Whatever your reasoning, almost 2/3rds of this forum has voted that this scenario was theft. Im troubled to discover you dont think this is worth discussing. Says alot about you as well. >>
I don't see it as a lack of integrity, any more than I see going 10 miles per hour over the speed limit as such either. >>
Hiding a totally different type of coin under a pile of more common coins to be able to purchase the lot at the bare minimum does not constitute a lack of integrity? >>
It's all relative. Now, back to my speeding analogy. What if I said I had a radar detector? What would you think?
Edit: Furthermore, I think both in some sense show a lack of integrity, but both to me are harmless enough that I don't give a hoot.
I don't see it as a lack of integrity, any more than I see going 10 miles per hour over the speed limit as such either. >>
Hiding a totally different type of coin under a pile of more common coins to be able to purchase the lot at the bare minimum does not constitute a lack of integrity? >>
It's all relative. Now, back to my speeding analogy. What if I said I had a radar detector? What would you think?
well if you had a radar detector, then you knew it was wrong, so I say cut off both left and right foot. if you didn't have a radar detector, then just cut off one foot (your choice) only if this is your first offense. (otherwise hanged by the neck until you turn blue).
There aren't enough facts here to make a clear judgment. Arguably the buyer was entitled to assume the dealer intended to sell them for 40 cents each. (We don't even know when this happened - if it was 25 years ago maybe they were worth around that?). If there were lots of them in the bucket, that suggests they didn't just get mixed in there by accident. On the other hand, the buyer pretty clearly seemed to believe they were worth more than 40 cents, otherwise why "hide" them under the Mercs?
But -- like it or not, a part of this hobby involves getting something from others for less than its value. The people hunting for VAMs, searching through half dollar rolls from the bank for silver, buying coins with the idea of cracking them out for an upgrade.... that all involves using superior knowledge to take advantage of someone with less knowledge.
What he's done strikes me as clearly worse, as it involves deception, but it's a matter of degree, not of kind.
It's easy to throw stones. Some of the outrage on here is laughable. How many of us, if a cashier handed you a silver quarter in change, would tell them they'd made a mistake? Do you think the cashier would've given you the coin if she knew it's true value?
I don't condone his behavior, but let's not be sanctimonious here.
"Men who had never shown any ability to make or increase fortunes for themselves abounded in brilliant plans for creating and increasing wealth for the country at large." Fiat Money Inflation in France, Andrew Dickson White (1912)
On another note: I still remember buying my first silver dollar at a coin shop. It was a 1880-S BU for $1.25, but before I bought it I asked the dealer why I should pay 25 cents over face since I could go to the bank and get a silver dollar for a 1.00. He said because his was BU and the banks were not. so my question is did I get ripped off?
I was going to something in between "unethical" and "nothing wrong", but unfortunately no "grey area" option was available
I don't believe the buyer's act of hiding the seated dimes under the mercs was actually an intention to do wrong as many of you are insinuating. My understanding here is that the seller was offering any and all silver dimes for 40 cents apiece, regardless of type. Thus, hypothetically, the buyer could have have done the exact opposite here -- i.e. stack all the seated dimes on top and hide the mercs -- and he would have paid the exact same price of 40 cents apiece regardless... right? In other words, the same amount of money would have changed hands no matter how the coins were stacked.
Which begs the question: if he's not really the "evil wrongdoer" that he's been portrayed to be, then what was his reason for stacking the coins the way he did? My guess is, the guy knew he was getting a sweet deal, and he wanted to protect his booty -- not from the seller -- but from other onlookers who may potentially spot the treasure and try to get in on the action themselves. He didn't want to draw too much attention to the coins. I believe he rationalized his chosen method of stacking as a way of protecting his find; a way of ensuring he kept all the "good stuff" for himself without any competition from others.
A little greedy perhaps? Yeah, I guess you could say that. But unless my interpretation of the events here is totally off-base, I really don't think this crosses the line of "unethical" or "stealing" by any stretch of the imagination.
Since many of the learned members here have a religious side to them and I absolutely respect that, I will swear the following on my mothers grave. (she passed away a week ago) There is NOT ONE person on these boards who has never taken advantage of a situation in their life that didn't benefit them. You didn't have to become wealthey, just that you may not have "exposed" all the facts. No laws needed to have be broken nor any commandments fractured. I will go to my maker safe in the knowledge that no-one on here can claim saint-hood and have never taken advantage of any situation.
Your denial, boys and girls, is the definition of "hypocracy"
<< <i>No. Its based on the fact that the buyer intentionally hid the coins among other coins because he knew the pricing wasnt the same, and thus intentionally decieved the seller by concealing those different coins. >>
Is that a fact or assumption? If a fact, that makes a big difference. I didn't see that spelled out as a fact in the link to the other thread you provided. >>
That's an assumption. It really depends on how the dimes were displayed. If they were all in a box marked "40 cents each" or if the seller said "all the dimes in this box are 40 cents each" then there is no problem. Gecko seems to be assuming the seller said "all the Mercury dimes are 40 cents each" and that is not clear at all. Not enough evidence to burn at the stake, at least yet.
<< <i>yeah, theft all right. he knew what he was doing(acted with malice and forethought) and is the sort i'd avoid if i knew who he was. please PM his ID so i know to never transact anything with him. >>
<< <i>I see it as important to know. Perhaps you are of the same immoral fabric as that member and wish to defend his actions because they so closely resemble your own. Whatever your reasoning, almost 2/3rds of this forum has voted that this scenario was theft. Im troubled to discover you dont think this is worth discussing. Says alot about you as well. >>
Yes, it does say something about me. It says that I don't overreact to a situation in which I don't know the facts. It says that I don't pubically abuse people based on a quote that I don't know anything about. Most of all, Gecko, this thread further proves what all these forum members already know: your posts are full of hate, conjecture and twisted facts to meet your own sick agenda. Get help, sir, you need it.
Positive BST transactions with: too many names to list! 36 at last count.
Based upon the quote alone it is theft by deception. And it does not surprise me that 15 members here voted that he did nothing wrong. There are a lot of sleazy people on this forum. Beware!
I cannot judge the person based on hearsay, but one question is : Did he overpay for the rest of the "junk" ? Or did he underpay for the whole lot and if silver went up fifty percent that day did he strike it rich and did he squash the person by the nature of his behavior or was that person happy with the deal he paid for ? So many questions , so many scenarios.
Theft, pure and simple. He concealed what would have been determined to be higher priced articles and only paid the lesser price. Forethought, intent, theivery. Anyone who thinks it is not, is obviously equating it to deeds they have done in the past and are trying to rationalize their illicit behavior. Cheers, RickO
<< <i>would have been determined to be higher priced articles and only paid the lesser price. >>
Based on....? The coins were all in the same bin marked at the same price. It is making a rather large assumption to think that the seller would have increased the price of the junk silver that he already priced by putting the coins in the bin. The 85-S was an AG3...as long as we're making assumptions, perhaps all the Seated Dimes were slick AGs which is why they were in a junk silver bin in the first place.
Positive BST transactions with: too many names to list! 36 at last count.
How do I change my vote as it appears that the seated coins were mixed in with the mercury coins all selling for .40 cents each. Kinda weird but no theft IMO.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Theft, pure and simple. He concealed what would have been determined to be higher priced articles and only paid the lesser price. Forethought, intent, theivery. Anyone who thinks it is not, is obviously equating it to deeds they have done in the past and are trying to rationalize their illicit behavior. Cheers, RickO >>
So everyone that cherry picks a coin that is worth more than the dealer's marked price must be a thief? You're kidding, right?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
I was writing a pretty long reply, when it really sank in that this is all based on opinions. I try not to 'fight' when it comes to opinions, rarely does anyone win.
Opinions are not facts. Presumptions are not facts.
So, I'd like to know, for those members that have 'convicted' him 2 things.
Is this member being a 'thief' an opinion? And do you think, knowing just the facts we know, that a conviction would hold up in a court of law? ........and if you say yes, why? (Please no presumptions in the reason, just facts)
Comments
To keep this on topic, the guy didn't do anything wrong. The coins were all in the same bin for the same price. Who cares how he stacked them? Way to take a random quote, reveal none of the context and rip the poor guy for it. Pathetic, simply pathetic.
Punctuation can do a lot, as well. The statement:
<< "One time I was buying Mercury dimes and there were a bunch of seated dimes mixed in so I put them on the bottom of the Mercs I was stacking in piles of 10. I didn't count them at the time but when I got home I had bought nearly 60 Seated dimes for 40 cents each and included in this group was an 1885-S although it was only an AG-3, still I traded it in on a nice XF 1942/1 dime. " >>
Can read differently if punctuated differently:
<< "One time, I was buying Mercury dimes and there were a bunch of seated dimes mixed in, so I put them on the bottom of the Mercs I was stacking in piles of 10. I didn't count them at the time but when I got home I had bought nearly 60 Seated dimes for 40 cents each and included in this group was an 1885-S although it was only an AG-3, still I traded it in on a nice XF 1942/1 dime. " >>
I read the above one way as the buyer was buying mercs but the bin he was buying out of also had seated dimes so he decided to buy them in the same grouping (from the same bin)
Dealer could have known and figured them all to be culls and only worth hassling for the price of silver content. Hence the AG-3.
Yes, it was a good date, but lesser known, I believe, than a 1901-S quarter
So, sorry to diverge from a majority in this lopsided thread, but, without more info, and intent to deceive, I will withold judgement either way.
(and, putting a different type at the bottom of the pile is not necessarily attempt to deceive.....too many coin collectors are anal-retentive to the point of ordering things around (type/date/whatever). Without knowing how many mercs were purchased (we know 60 seated dimes were), we don't know how many stacks of 10 nor what the ratio in each stack was.
Many dealers would also take a look at the stacks, I believe....at least, the ones around here that I have seen selling like that have. I've sat at the counter and watched people buy stacks of 90% as bullion and the dealer, while not necessarily looking at each date, did do a quick trip through the stacks to take a look.
So, yes, it can look damaging and maybe the person was doing it with the intent to deceive....but, none of us were there to see if the dealer meant to put CULL seated dimes in with mercury dimes (and, who knows the grade on those at the time...I don't think that was posted). I reserve my judgement for those that give more details.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>The coins were all in the same bin for the same price. >>
That still doesn't clear anything up. I was talking with a dealer at a show one time who had several different bins of silver coins out on his table- $4 each, $5 each, $10 each, etc. He said that after a show, it took him several hours to go through the bins and get them all sorted out because buyers would pick through the bins and then put coins back in the wrong one. Short of keeping the coins completely out of reach of his customers, is there anybody here who seriously thinks that a dealer can keep all of this straight during a show?
But we just don't know all the facts.
He was looking for Mercury's when he found Seated dimes in the same 'bin'.
"Hid" them in the stacks of 10 (ended up with 60, so there must have been lots of stack to hide that many).
Some would say that this constitutes that he knew that the Seated dimes were worth more, and I would not disagree.
The question I would like to know is, was this because he knew they were placed in the bin by someone other than the dealer, OR did he think the dealer might change his mind on the price if he saw them?
The second scenario is not totally out of the question IMO.
If the 1885-S was worn to an AG-3, who's to say the other's weren't also very low grade & the dealer knew the coins were in there?
If I was to say I picked up some P-1/AG-3 Seated dimes in a bin that had some G-VG Barbers & F-XF Mercs for just over melt would I be considered a thief?
Isn't this thread based on 1 coin coming out as a key?
And the 'buyer' has already come out & said he did not know of the dates until he got home.
Heck, I don't have Seated dimes, but am currently selling Barber dimes at the same price as Roosies.
If someone buys them are they thieves?
If you say no because I know I'm selling them at the same price.
Then I would ask, "How do you know the seller in this case did not know what he was selling?"
We can presume, and becoming our own judge & jury, but that's all we're doing IMO.
___________________________________________________________
ADDED:
What if he didn't know they were in the bin? Is the seller obligated to sell them for the marked price if another customer put them there without telling him? I wouldn't think so.
mrpotatoheadd, we can "What if...." ourselves to death.
If we keep to the facts we know, and if you want to list them & conclude the member is a thief, I'm willing to hear them.
<< <i>Thanks keets....it does look pretty damning.
But we just don't know all the facts.
He was looking for Mercury's when he found Seated dimes in the same 'bin'.
"Hid" them in the stacks of 10 (ended up with 60, so there must have been lots of stack to hide that many).
Some would say that this constitutes that he knew that the Seated dimes were worth more, and I would not disagree.
The question I would like to know is, was this because he knew they were placed in the bin by someone other than the dealer, OR did he think the dealer might change his mind on the price if he saw them?
The second scenario is not totally out of the question IMO.
If the 1885-S was worn to an AG-3, who's to say the other's weren't also very low grade & the dealer knew the coins were in there?
If I was to say I picked up some P-1/AG-3 Seated dimes in a bin that had some G-VG Barbers & F-XF Mercs for just over melt would I be considered a thief?
Isn't this thread based on 1 coin coming out as a key?
And the 'buyer' has already come out & said he did not know of the dates until he got home.
Heck, I don't have Seated dimes, but am currently selling Barber dimes at the same price as Roosies.
If someone buys them are they thieves?
If you say no because I know I'm selling them at the same price.
Then I would ask, "How do you know the seller in this case did not know what he was selling?"
We can presume, and becoming our own judge & jury, but that's all we're doing IMO.
___________________________________________________________
ADDED:
What if he didn't know they were in the bin? Is the seller obligated to sell them for the marked price if another customer put them there without telling him? I wouldn't think so.
mrpotatoheadd, we can "What if...." ourselves to death.
If we keep to the facts we know, and if you want to list them & conclude the member is a thief, I'm willing to hear them. >>
Isn't this thread based on 1 coin coming out as a key?
No. Its based on the fact that the buyer intentionally hid the coins among other coins because he knew the pricing wasnt the same, and thus intentionally decieved the seller by concealing those different coins.
<< <i>No. Its based on the fact that the buyer intentionally hid the coins among other coins because he knew the pricing wasnt the same, and thus intentionally decieved the seller by concealing those different coins. >>
Is that a fact or assumption? If a fact, that makes a big difference. I didn't see that spelled out as a fact in the link to the other thread you provided.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>Wow, what a witchhunt. This is a truly pathetic thread. I think creating a whole thread about a quote a member said in order to rake him over the coals for it is FAR worse than anything the guy did.
To keep this on topic, the guy didn't do anything wrong. The coins were all in the same bin for the same price. Who cares how he stacked them? Way to take a random quote, reveal none of the context and rip the poor guy for it. Pathetic, simply pathetic. >>
Exposing the integrity (or lack of) of our fellow members is vital in this hobby. This is not a "witchhunt", nor is it some "random quote" taken out of context (the thread is linked in one of my replies here). This is about a fellow forum member of yours who admitted to deceiving another person knowingly. You think its "pathetic", I see it as important to know. Perhaps you are of the same immoral fabric as that member and wish to defend his actions because they so closely resemble your own. Whatever your reasoning, almost 2/3rds of this forum has voted that this scenario was theft. Im troubled to discover you dont think this is worth discussing. Says alot about you as well.
<< <i>
<< <i>No. Its based on the fact that the buyer intentionally hid the coins among other coins because he knew the pricing wasnt the same, and thus intentionally decieved the seller by concealing those different coins. >>
Is that a fact or assumption? If a fact, that makes a big difference. I didn't see that spelled out as a fact in the link to the other thread you provided. >>
Why did he go through the trouble or energy of putting the seated coins at the bottom of the merc piles if his intentions werent to "conceal" something? Then literally BRAG about how he bought close to 60 seated dimes at just 40 cents each? He CLEARLY knew that what he did was dishonest. You can play semantics games and call that an "assumption", but the sun WILL come out tomorrow, and thats just an "assumption" as well.
<< <i>
<< <i>Wow, what a witchhunt. This is a truly pathetic thread. I think creating a whole thread about a quote a member said in order to rake him over the coals for it is FAR worse than anything the guy did.
To keep this on topic, the guy didn't do anything wrong. The coins were all in the same bin for the same price. Who cares how he stacked them? Way to take a random quote, reveal none of the context and rip the poor guy for it. Pathetic, simply pathetic. >>
Exposing the integrity (or lack of) of our fellow members is vital in this hobby. This is not a "witchhunt", nor is it some "random quote" taken out of context (the thread is linked in one of my replies here). This is about a fellow forum member of yours who admitted to deceiving another person knowingly. You think its "pathetic", I see it as important to know. Perhaps you are of the same immoral fabric as that member and wish to defend his actions because they so closely resemble your own. Whatever your reasoning, almost 2/3rds of this forum has voted that this scenario was theft. Im troubled to discover you dont think this is worth discussing. Says alot about you as well. >>
I don't see it as a lack of integrity, any more than I see going 10 miles per hour over the speed limit as such either.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Wow, what a witchhunt. This is a truly pathetic thread. I think creating a whole thread about a quote a member said in order to rake him over the coals for it is FAR worse than anything the guy did.
To keep this on topic, the guy didn't do anything wrong. The coins were all in the same bin for the same price. Who cares how he stacked them? Way to take a random quote, reveal none of the context and rip the poor guy for it. Pathetic, simply pathetic. >>
Exposing the integrity (or lack of) of our fellow members is vital in this hobby. This is not a "witchhunt", nor is it some "random quote" taken out of context (the thread is linked in one of my replies here). This is about a fellow forum member of yours who admitted to deceiving another person knowingly. You think its "pathetic", I see it as important to know. Perhaps you are of the same immoral fabric as that member and wish to defend his actions because they so closely resemble your own. Whatever your reasoning, almost 2/3rds of this forum has voted that this scenario was theft. Im troubled to discover you dont think this is worth discussing. Says alot about you as well. >>
I don't see it as a lack of integrity, any more than I see going 10 miles per hour over the speed limit as such either. >>
Hiding a totally different type of coin under a pile of more common coins to be able to purchase the lot at the bare minimum does not constitute a lack of integrity?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>No. Its based on the fact that the buyer intentionally hid the coins among other coins because he knew the pricing wasnt the same, and thus intentionally decieved the seller by concealing those different coins. >>
Is that a fact or assumption? If a fact, that makes a big difference. I didn't see that spelled out as a fact in the link to the other thread you provided. >>
Why did he go through the trouble or energy of putting the seated coins at the bottom of the merc piles if his intentions werent to "conceal" something? Then literally BRAG about how he bought close to 60 seated dimes at just 40 cents each? He CLEARLY knew that what he did was dishonest. You can play semantics games and call that an "assumption", but the sun WILL come out tomorrow, and thats just an "assumption" as well. >>
No, the sun "coming out" tomorrow is fact. Earth's revolution and all.
Everything you state is likely possible but is an assumption. You are just promoting it as fact. Sure you aren't a politician wanna-be instead of a fire fighter?
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Wow, what a witchhunt. This is a truly pathetic thread. I think creating a whole thread about a quote a member said in order to rake him over the coals for it is FAR worse than anything the guy did.
To keep this on topic, the guy didn't do anything wrong. The coins were all in the same bin for the same price. Who cares how he stacked them? Way to take a random quote, reveal none of the context and rip the poor guy for it. Pathetic, simply pathetic. >>
Exposing the integrity (or lack of) of our fellow members is vital in this hobby. This is not a "witchhunt", nor is it some "random quote" taken out of context (the thread is linked in one of my replies here). This is about a fellow forum member of yours who admitted to deceiving another person knowingly. You think its "pathetic", I see it as important to know. Perhaps you are of the same immoral fabric as that member and wish to defend his actions because they so closely resemble your own. Whatever your reasoning, almost 2/3rds of this forum has voted that this scenario was theft. Im troubled to discover you dont think this is worth discussing. Says alot about you as well. >>
I don't see it as a lack of integrity, any more than I see going 10 miles per hour over the speed limit as such either. >>
Hiding a totally different type of coin under a pile of more common coins to be able to purchase the lot at the bare minimum does not constitute a lack of integrity? >>
If they're in the same pricing bin, then not really. And tell me, Mr. Gecko. Are you of the highest integrity yourself? Probably not, and honestly, neither am I.
Edit: Never mind the "Mr. Gecko" part. I'll just call you Gecko.
<< <i>Need more information. Were the coins pulled from a bucket of junk silver dimes with a sign "40 cents each"? >>
Then it would not be...
Although why the need to "Hide" then?
Need more complete info.
Gardnerville, NV
=========================
Our Website -->Innovation, Native & Presidential Dollar Errors, Lincoln Cents and more
Check it out --> Our eBay Auctions
Then why did he hide them Mike, if he was doing nothing wrong? If he bought mercs and seated dimes side by side for the same price and randomly stacked them, no foul. But to "pick out as many as he could find", and then "place them on the bottom of merc dime stacks" demonstrates that he clearly knew what he was doing. Also, notice what that thread was all about? It is about "ripping" people for coins at obnoxiously low prices. Theres your "context". This guy knowingly "ripped" the seller, but not in the way we look at a rip. He actually went above and beyond that by essentially hiding these coins from view, and thats simply theft.
Were I to feel justified in hiding coins in a deal, regardless of venue, I would not only violate the ethical rules to which I live by, I would threaten my reputation. Some folks just don't seem to hold their own reputation in very high regard.
For those who have read Carnegies' "How to Win Friends and Influence People", think about the story of the one-cent pat of butter...
Despite what we see and read about in Washington (and elsewhere) every single day, ethics are never situational.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
There's not one of you that would have walked away from that deal. They were clearly labelled, the owner willingly took the customer's money and now those of you who are "pure" find that to be a problem???
What a joke!!!!
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
He might have thought the dealer would try to renege on the deal if he saw them. If they legitimately came out of the 40 cent bin, I see nothing wrong.
<< <i>I haven't stopped laughing since I started reading this thread. What a bunch of "holier than thou" hypocrites!!!!!!
There's not one of you that would have walked away from that deal. They were clearly labelled, the owner willingly took the customer's money and now those of you who are "pure" find that to be a problem???
What a joke!!!! >>
Assumes facts not in evidence.
I don't judge too harshly others' actions, and I'm not very "holy" - but I do have my own set of standards; I'm sure that they are not for everyone.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>"If they're in the same pricing bin, then not really. And tell me, Mr. Gecko. Are you of the highest integrity yourself? Probably not, and honestly, neither am I."
Then why did he hide them Mike, if he was doing nothing wrong? If he bought mercs and seated dimes side by side for the same price and randomly stacked them, no foul. But to "pick out as many as he could find", and then "place them on the bottom of merc dime stacks" demonstrates that he clearly knew what he was doing. Also, notice what that thread was all about? It is about "ripping" people for coins at obnoxiously low prices. Theres your "context". This guy knowingly "ripped" the seller, but not in the way we look at a rip. He actually went above and beyond that by essentially hiding these coins from view, and thats simply theft. >>
Like i said before, the dealer has every right to check what the customer has bought, and if he didn't, then it's probably the dealer's fault. especially if the two different types are in the same bin.
<< <i>
<< <i>"If they're in the same pricing bin, then not really. And tell me, Mr. Gecko. Are you of the highest integrity yourself? Probably not, and honestly, neither am I."
Then why did he hide them Mike, if he was doing nothing wrong? If he bought mercs and seated dimes side by side for the same price and randomly stacked them, no foul. But to "pick out as many as he could find", and then "place them on the bottom of merc dime stacks" demonstrates that he clearly knew what he was doing. Also, notice what that thread was all about? It is about "ripping" people for coins at obnoxiously low prices. Theres your "context". This guy knowingly "ripped" the seller, but not in the way we look at a rip. He actually went above and beyond that by essentially hiding these coins from view, and thats simply theft. >>
Like i said before, the dealer has every right to check what the customer has bought, and if he didn't, then it's probably the dealer's fault. especially if the two different types are in the same bin. >>
On that point I agree to an extent. Sad but true human reality, that laziness is not rewarded.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>I haven't stopped laughing since I started reading this thread. What a bunch of "holier than thou" hypocrites!!!!!!
There's not one of you that would have walked away from that deal. >>
I'm certainly not "hoiler than thou" (or anybody else here, for that matter), and there's no doubt I have just as many flaws as most people do, but taking advantage of someone's mistake (either for not keeping track what coins were in the bin, or in the piles of coins I was buying) is not one of them. I have in the past alerted dealers several times when I've found coins which were obviously mismarked instead of just keeping my mouth shut and making the deal, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
If you (in general- not directed at any specific individual) don't have a problem with scoring a windfall due to another person's error, that's your business, I suppose, but I'll keep doing things my way, just the same.
<< <i>
<< <i>I haven't stopped laughing since I started reading this thread. What a bunch of "holier than thou" hypocrites!!!!!!
There's not one of you that would have walked away from that deal. >>
I'm certainly not "hoiler than thou" (or anybody else here, for that matter), and there's no doubt I have just as many flaws as most people do, but taking advantage of someone's mistake (either for not keeping track what coins were in the bin, or in the piles of coins I was buying) is not one of them. I have in the past alerted dealers several times when I've found coins which were obviously mismarked instead of just keeping my mouth shut and making the deal, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
If you (in general- not directed at any specific individual) don't have a problem with scoring a windfall due to another person's error, that's your business, I suppose, but I'll keep doing things my way, just the same. >>
Yes, of course. I believe every word
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Wow, what a witchhunt. This is a truly pathetic thread. I think creating a whole thread about a quote a member said in order to rake him over the coals for it is FAR worse than anything the guy did.
To keep this on topic, the guy didn't do anything wrong. The coins were all in the same bin for the same price. Who cares how he stacked them? Way to take a random quote, reveal none of the context and rip the poor guy for it. Pathetic, simply pathetic. >>
Exposing the integrity (or lack of) of our fellow members is vital in this hobby. This is not a "witchhunt", nor is it some "random quote" taken out of context (the thread is linked in one of my replies here). This is about a fellow forum member of yours who admitted to deceiving another person knowingly. You think its "pathetic", I see it as important to know. Perhaps you are of the same immoral fabric as that member and wish to defend his actions because they so closely resemble your own. Whatever your reasoning, almost 2/3rds of this forum has voted that this scenario was theft. Im troubled to discover you dont think this is worth discussing. Says alot about you as well. >>
I don't see it as a lack of integrity, any more than I see going 10 miles per hour over the speed limit as such either. >>
Hiding a totally different type of coin under a pile of more common coins to be able to purchase the lot at the bare minimum does not constitute a lack of integrity? >>
It's all relative. Now, back to my speeding analogy. What if I said I had a radar detector? What would you think?
Edit: Furthermore, I think both in some sense show a lack of integrity, but both to me are harmless enough that I don't give a hoot.
<< <i>Yes, of course. I believe every word >>
Well, that's a relief. I don't know how I'd find the strength to carry on otherwise.
Hiding a totally different type of coin under a pile of more common coins to be able to purchase the lot at the bare minimum does not constitute a lack of integrity? >>
It's all relative. Now, back to my speeding analogy. What if I said I had a radar detector? What would you think?
well if you had a radar detector, then you knew it was wrong, so I say cut off both left and right foot.
if you didn't have a radar detector, then just cut off one foot (your choice) only if this is your first offense. (otherwise hanged by the neck until you turn blue).
<< <i>well if you had a radar detector, then you knew it was wrong, so I say cut off both left and right foot. >>
Willful infringement is usually triple damages, not double.
But -- like it or not, a part of this hobby involves getting something from others for less than its value. The people hunting for VAMs, searching through half dollar rolls from the bank for silver, buying coins with the idea of cracking them out for an upgrade.... that all involves using superior knowledge to take advantage of someone with less knowledge.
What he's done strikes me as clearly worse, as it involves deception, but it's a matter of degree, not of kind.
It's easy to throw stones. Some of the outrage on here is laughable. How many of us, if a cashier handed you a silver quarter in change, would tell them they'd made a mistake? Do you think the cashier would've given you the coin if she knew it's true value?
I don't condone his behavior, but let's not be sanctimonious here.
He said because his was BU and the banks were not. so my question is did I get ripped off?
I don't believe the buyer's act of hiding the seated dimes under the mercs was actually an intention to do wrong as many of you are insinuating. My understanding here is that the seller was offering any and all silver dimes for 40 cents apiece, regardless of type. Thus, hypothetically, the buyer could have have done the exact opposite here -- i.e. stack all the seated dimes on top and hide the mercs -- and he would have paid the exact same price of 40 cents apiece regardless... right? In other words, the same amount of money would have changed hands no matter how the coins were stacked.
Which begs the question: if he's not really the "evil wrongdoer" that he's been portrayed to be, then what was his reason for stacking the coins the way he did? My guess is, the guy knew he was getting a sweet deal, and he wanted to protect his booty -- not from the seller -- but from other onlookers who may potentially spot the treasure and try to get in on the action themselves. He didn't want to draw too much attention to the coins. I believe he rationalized his chosen method of stacking as a way of protecting his find; a way of ensuring he kept all the "good stuff" for himself without any competition from others.
A little greedy perhaps? Yeah, I guess you could say that. But unless my interpretation of the events here is totally off-base, I really don't think this crosses the line of "unethical" or "stealing" by any stretch of the imagination.
No laws needed to have be broken nor any commandments fractured. I will go to my maker safe in the knowledge that no-one on here can claim saint-hood and have never taken advantage of any situation.
Your denial, boys and girls, is the definition of "hypocracy"
<< <i>yawn >>
An increditably and insightful comment. Much more than I had anticipated!!
<< They were mixed in with the Mercury dimes priced at 40 cents each >>
As such, if this is in fact True, this cannot be considered theft. Think about it.
The statement, << They were mixed in with the Mercury dimes priced at 40 cents each >>
DOES cast this in a completely different light. If they were indeed marked 40 cents each, like the Mercs,
in no way did the buyer do anything wrong, now did he? He paid the asking price, plain & simple.
If anyone is at fault here it's the coin merchant that apparently wasn't paying attention!
JMHO - FWIW!
<< <i>
<< <i>No. Its based on the fact that the buyer intentionally hid the coins among other coins because he knew the pricing wasnt the same, and thus intentionally decieved the seller by concealing those different coins. >>
Is that a fact or assumption? If a fact, that makes a big difference. I didn't see that spelled out as a fact in the link to the other thread you provided. >>
That's an assumption. It really depends on how the dimes were displayed. If they were all in a box marked "40 cents each" or if the seller said "all the dimes in this box are 40 cents each" then there is no problem. Gecko seems to be assuming the seller said "all the Mercury dimes are 40 cents each" and that is not clear at all. Not enough evidence to burn at the stake, at least yet.
<< <i>yeah, theft all right. he knew what he was doing(acted with malice and forethought) and is the sort i'd avoid if i knew who he was. please PM his ID so i know to never transact anything with him. >>
Pot. Kettle. Black.
<< <i>yawn >>
Agree. This subject has been beaten to death. Give it a rest, guys.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>I see it as important to know. Perhaps you are of the same immoral fabric as that member and wish to defend his actions because they so closely resemble your own. Whatever your reasoning, almost 2/3rds of this forum has voted that this scenario was theft. Im troubled to discover you dont think this is worth discussing. Says alot about you as well. >>
Yes, it does say something about me. It says that I don't overreact to a situation in which I don't know the facts. It says that I don't pubically abuse people based on a quote that I don't know anything about. Most of all, Gecko, this thread further proves what all these forum members already know: your posts are full of hate, conjecture and twisted facts to meet your own sick agenda. Get help, sir, you need it.
I cannot judge the person based on hearsay, but one question is : Did he overpay for the rest of the "junk" ?
Or did he underpay for the whole lot and if silver went up fifty percent that day did he strike it rich and did he squash the person by the nature of his behavior or was that person happy with the deal he paid for ?
So many questions , so many scenarios.
<< <i>would have been determined to be higher priced articles and only paid the lesser price. >>
Based on....? The coins were all in the same bin marked at the same price. It is making a rather large assumption to think that the seller would have increased the price of the junk silver that he already priced by putting the coins in the bin. The 85-S was an AG3...as long as we're making assumptions, perhaps all the Seated Dimes were slick AGs which is why they were in a junk silver bin in the first place.
How do I change my vote as it appears that the seated coins were mixed in with the mercury coins all selling for .40 cents each. Kinda weird but no theft IMO.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Theft, pure and simple. He concealed what would have been determined to be higher priced articles and only paid the lesser price. Forethought, intent, theivery. Anyone who thinks it is not, is obviously equating it to deeds they have done in the past and are trying to rationalize their illicit behavior. Cheers, RickO >>
So everyone that cherry picks a coin that is worth more than the dealer's marked price must be a thief? You're kidding, right?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
I try not to 'fight' when it comes to opinions, rarely does anyone win.
Opinions are not facts.
Presumptions are not facts.
So, I'd like to know, for those members that have 'convicted' him 2 things.
Is this member being a 'thief' an opinion?
And do you think, knowing just the facts we know, that a conviction would hold up in a court of law?
........and if you say yes, why? (Please no presumptions in the reason, just facts)