Good to see you providing useful information and being such a value to the forum Care to mention what you believe was being missed?
My 2c worth on this whole thing.....unless and until it can be proven that these were AT'ed in the holder, then ebay shouldn't be butting in as they are in an approved TPGS slab, according to their own rules. The "person" (I wanted to use a stronger word but refrained....) who reported these through ebay obviously has a superiority complex and a vendetta against something. Ebay should remove them from their "position" and replace them with someone knowledgeable and unbiased.
I think there is a great opportunity for the top TPGs to have their employees participate in eBay's Coin Community Watch Group, if they are not already doing so.
<< <i>That's an ideal first line of defense, however, certain coins have been disavowed and are still sold openly, without disclosure on their market. If such coins remain on their marketplace, then it ultimately falls to the marketplace to protect their buyers. >>
If they're being sold openly, the TPGs have every opportunity to handle the issue themselves. If such coins remain on the marketplace, then clearly, the TPGs don't consider the issue significant enough to warrant any action on their part.
But eBay knows better what's good for people, right?
Good to see you providing useful information and being such a value to the forum Care to mention what you believe was being missed?
My 2c worth on this whole thing.....unless and until it can be proven that these were AT'ed in the holder, then ebay shouldn't be butting in as they are in an approved TPGS slab, according to their own rules. The "person" (I wanted to use a stronger word but refrained....) who reported these through ebay obviously has a superiority complex and a vendetta against something. Ebay should remove them from their "position" and replace them with someone knowledgeable and unbiased. >>
<< <i> My 2c worth on this whole thing.....unless and until it can be proven that these were AT'ed in the holder, then ebay shouldn't be butting in as they are in an approved TPGS slab, according to their own rules. The "person" (I wanted to use a stronger word but refrained....) who reported these through ebay obviously has a superiority complex and a vendetta against something. Ebay should remove them from their "position" and replace them with someone knowledgeable and unbiased. >>
<< <i>That's an ideal first line of defense, however, certain coins have been disavowed and are still sold openly, without disclosure on their market. If such coins remain on their marketplace, then it ultimately falls to the marketplace to protect their buyers. >>
If they're being sold openly, the TPGs have every opportunity to handle the issue themselves. If such coins remain on the marketplace, then clearly, the TPGs don't consider the issue significant enough to warrant any action on their part.
But eBay knows better what's good for people, right? >>
I think it would be good to have a solution for coins like 71765746, regardless of who offers it.
For what other items (other than coins...and maybe stamps, but who knows?!?) does eBay employ an arbitrary group of busybodies over which to police postings?
And unless the PNG is working with eBay...HA HA HA...the only thing this is going to result in is even more actually legit (and beautiful) but "maybe/possibly/concievably" AT coins getting rejected and even higher TPG grading fees...because, you know, we had better be sure about this coin, or the eBay police might raise a stink and we'll have to buy it back!
And as to why the "AT matter" isn't being systematically addressed by the TPGs is simply...like most corporations...they only want to move forward. Looking back costs both time and money. As has been stated on these forums previously, these "issues" are likely handled, very quietly, on a case by case basis...and addressed (like questionable art auctions by major auction houses). You don't hang a banner out the window saying "Attention [Name the TPG] Customers...Those Coins We Graded Between 1995-2002...We'll We'd Like to Take Another Look At Them...Just In Case"
Those eBay graders are working from Here, where they just have a consensus that ends up like this .....
...or thumbs down.
I found this little tidbit on the Roman Colliseum through wikipedia..., which reminds me of ebay, the posse, goody two shoes, and whodunnit ?
According to a reconstructed inscription found on the site, "the emperor Vespasian ordered this new amphitheatre to be erected from his general's share of the booty." This is thought to refer to the vast quantity of treasure seized by the Romans following their victory in the Great Jewish Revolt in 70 AD. The Colosseum can be thus interpreted as a great triumphal monument built in the Roman tradition of celebrating great victories,[12] placating the Roman people instead of returning soldiers. Vespasian's decision to build the Colosseum on the site of Nero's lake can also be seen as a populist gesture of returning to the people an area of the city which Nero had appropriated for his own use. In contrast to many other amphitheatres, which were located on the outskirts of a city, the Colosseum was constructed in the city centre; in effect, placing it both literally and symbolically at the heart of Rome.
<< <i>And as to why the "AT matter" isn't being systematically addressed by the TPGs is simply...like most corporations...they only want to move forward. Looking back costs both time and money. >>
If certain TPGs choose not to systematically address disavowed coins in the marketplace, the marketplace may feel the need to impose their own rules to protect their buyers.
so i'm just curious neon dreck aside , whats a good market value for a 1992 south african proof 5 cent coin and why bother paying to slab one? Krause seems to show its worth a dollar . I don't collect south african coins I'm sure someone does on here .
Am I missing something? where was the upside to getting it slabbed? Was someone shooting for an PF70?
Isn't a 1992 PR65RB 5 cent coin in a slab basically disposable? If you were trying for a PR70 and didn't get it what do you do with it?
This thread is so strange on so many levels Let's start with the 3 auctions that got cancelled The original SAM (South Africa Mint) packing for 1992 proof set (the SAM leatherette)
The majority of all 1c, 2c, and 5 coins in this set look like cancelled sale items
**It may be true that special camera and lighting skills may be need to get pics shown (much better than typical android app currently popping up on eBay)
**It may be true the asking prices are rather high
-the entire set shown can typically be found for $40 -the 1c and 2c got discontinued from production in 2002 for low value (business transactions rounded to 5c) -the 5c is set to get discontinued in 2012 for low value (business transactions rounded to 10c) the face buying power of all 3 coins listed is -> 0.08 South African Rand which is equivalent to 0.01034 US dollars
**It may be true that seller has sold some questionable coins in the past -this may be to juiced photos -this may be art toned that seller did or did not know
*just because PCGS may have slabbed some art toned in past does not matter to this discussion *just because eBay seller has sold questionable coins in past does not matter *just because typical coins worth a few dollars tops, asking hundreds for does not matter *just because eBay community watch members come to this thread justifying their actions does not matter
What matters is that a community watch group member has tabbed this seller to keep him from listing anything The coins listed are in authentic PCGS holders and are coins that look that way from original government packaging
uofa1285, you need to push this with eBay and get that community member sacked from his position if you ever expect to sell anything on eBay again with any toning
EBay has taken the advice of Albanese to only allow PCGS/NGC holders for high starting/BIN -not sure if this is just a push to only get CRAC coins or not, but does not matter, as you are following their rules
What really matters to any seller on eBay is that a community watch member can tag you as a favorite seller and cancel all of your auctions minutes after being posted and I feel that is bad
<< <i> "What really matters to any seller on eBay is that a community watch member can tag you as a favorite seller and cancel all of your auctions minutes after being posted and I feel that is bad. >>
There are two opinions on the coins in the auction:
1. PCGS graded the coin, we don't know when, but they had no problem with it.
2. Some person under the cloak of anonymity reported the coins to eBay, calling them "dreck" and "rainbow toned monstrosities", and thinks the coins are artificially toned.
Given these two opinions, whose would you accept? PCGS's or the anonymous person? What are that person's qualifications? How do you know the anonymous person isn't the baby girl in the Jimmy Fallon Capital One ad who doesn't like cash (or anything else)?
To me, it is clear that PCGS's opinion on a coin must be accepted over the opinion of an anonymous person. If that is not the case, then why have grading services? And eBay should allow these coins to be listed and sold, UNLESS eBay wants to change their rule from "We will accept listings of all PCGS and NGC coins unless some anonymous person happens to not like them."
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<<And eBay should allow these coins to be listed and sold, UNLESS eBay wants to change their rule from "We will accept listings of all PCGS and NGC coins unless some anonymous person happens to not like them." >>
Agreed...and assuming this isn't just a one-off event and is actually the start of a trend...I would think that the Powers That Be at both major TPGs might want to have a heart-to-heart with their counterparts at eBay...before the honest coin selling natives get restless...or worse, get burned financially by suddenly having some of their "certified" inventory called into question and marked down accordingly!
"Gee...I might have to go to Stacks or Legend to sell my stuff...BECAUSE IT COULDN'T MAKE THE CUT WITH EBAY!"
Surprised that statement didn't get watchdog attention. >>
These examples are brutal as are the Franklins that Bronco posted. MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>So let me get this straight. There are clowns on ebay that believe they can determine whether a coin is AT'd from a photo that PCGS graders saw in person and determined was accetable? Sorry said clown, but there is a reason why PCGS grades millions of dollars of coins a month and you don't. If this clown is also a seller of coins I see a big conflict of interest and a possible defamation law suit especially if he is accusing you of being a coin doctor. Some of the outright fake crap you see daily on ebay and they want to police auctions by pulling coins that are in PCGS plastic. >>
I can, and have, identified occasionally a coin in a PCGS holder that is absolutely AT. PCGS's old standard was that if they weren't absolutely sure it was AT, then they would slab it. Several years back they changed their standard [as stated by HRH] to if they weren't absolutely sure it was NT then they wouldn't slab it. With a distinct change in standard, it is probable that there are coins in PCGS holders that aren't NT.
This is not to disparage PCGS, but rather to point out facts that fly in the face of the attitude that ebay simply must accept the holder >>
True, but I'm guessing you saw those coins in person and didn't make that determination from a photo. I'm all for protecting the consumer, but sometimes the consumer has to share in that responsibillity by learning themselves.
Need a Barber Half with ANACS photo certificate. If you have one for sale please PM me. Current Ebay auctions
Surprised that statement didn't get watchdog attention. >>
These examples are brutal as are the Franklins that Bronco posted. MJ >>
Okay there are exceptions to the rule. I call AT on that one, but are those PCGS graded ? Perhaps 'questionable toning" or "neat toning" or "wild", would bring the same $41.
People should be able to collect what they want without interference from "watchdogs with joysticks".
Surprised that statement didn't get watchdog attention. >>
These examples are brutal as are the Franklins that Bronco posted. MJ >>
Okay there are exceptions to the rule. I call AT on that one, but are those PCGS graded ? Perhaps 'questionable toning" or "neat toning" or "wild", would bring the same $41.
People should be able to collect what they want without interference from "watchdogs with joysticks". >>
Agree. But I was just commenting that all the coins in the links are indeed brutal imho. MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>I think there is a great opportunity for the top TPGs to have their employees participate in eBay's Coin Community Watch Group, if they are not already doing so. >>
Hopefully, you're referring to PCGS Graders since I fail to see how Shipping and Receiving, IT Support, Customer Service, and the maintenance folks are any more qualified to judge a coins condition from a photograph anymore than the "ebay police"!
Besides, PCGS never leaves the determination on the coin up to one individual., It's always a consensus of at least 3 folks.
As memntioned earlier, I guess it won't really be that long before eBay's Coin Community Watch Group starts yanking PCGS Slabbed coins that do not meet "their" specific grade expectation(s)! ( All you MS/PR70 sellers need to keep your eye on your listings! )
Isn't it strange how the "threat" of being NARU'ed is used to get the OP to comply with some unwritten policy? Such power could be the un-doing of eBay.
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.
And the more than I ponder this...and of course under the banner of increased "Buyer Protection"...the more that I'm not actually joking about the future existence of essentially an "eBay issued green bean" type sticker that will need to be added to a slab in order for it to be sold on their site.
<< <i>As memntioned earlier, I guess it won't really be that long before eBay's Coin Community Watch Group starts yanking PCGS Slabbed coins that do not meet "their" specific grade expectation(s)! >>
What about their specific price expectations? People can be harmed by overpaying for a coin, too. The market needs to be made safer for them. And in order to do so, any listing priced at- well, whatever the percentage is that the Secret eBay Watch Group people decide on over and above the "correct" retail price, I suppose- should immediately be delisted and the seller sanctioned for attempting to harm to the community and the market.
<< <i>The ebay group didn't pull all the op's slabbed listings so it is hit or miss >>
So there are arbitrary unpublished rules for listing stuff on eBay which includes review and reporting by anonymous sources and can include penalties up to suspension of the seller if these unpublished rules are not followed? Good to know!
So those 2 lincoln cents came out of the same collection/album/house ???? thats why they are so similar? They must have been submitted at the same time right?
Would the numbers on the slab reflect that? I don't know how to read the numbers or what they mean I'm just asking
<< <i>Keep the following guidelines in mind when you're listing coins and paper money:
- Include all relevant information that you know about the item, such as origin, date of issue, and condition.
- Include a clear picture of the actual item being sold—don't use only stock pictures.
- Include all information about any alterations that may have been made to the item.
- Individually identify every item listed to avoid misunderstandings about what is for sale.
- Don't list the item if you're unsure of its origin or authenticity. >>
I would read this to mean that even if a coin is slabbed by a top TPG, if it may have been altered, it is the seller's responsibility to state that, similar to the PNG Code of Ethics.
It's nice to see eBay standing behind their published policy which parallels the PNG Code of Ethics.
Include all information about any alterations that may have been made to the item.
I would read this to mean you need to list known alterations, not imagined ones.
Don't list the item if you're unsure of its origin or authenticity.
This is vague enough that you could reject just about any coin that's not in a sealed mint package as "unsure of origin".
On the other hand, vague rules are great for anonymous reporting of "violations". And since it's in the name of making the marketplace safer, it's all good.
<< <i>Include all information about any alterations that may have been made to the item. >>
I would read this to mean you need to list known alterations, not imagined ones. >>
Read it again and focus on the word "may." I would read this as 71765746 needs to be identified as AT. There's enough there that those coins should be disclosed IMO.
Let's clean up the hobby and at least follow the Code of Ethics from PNG!
So this eBay watchdog team decides that the coins are AT because....why exactly? Because all coins from the 1990s should still be either full red or toned to an ugly brown?
Maybe they should have done some more research and know that the reverses (which are all toned in the PCGS slabs) were in contact with the material of the box when they were released and this this material (I do not know exactly what it is) causes coins with copper content to tone in the manner as the PCGS coins in questions were toned. It's very common to see Proof South-African coins of the early 1990s with this kind of toning, and it is fully natural.
<< <i>Read it again and focus on the word "may." I would read this as 71765746 needs to be identified as AT. There's enough there that those coins should be disclosed IMO. >>
Okay, I did. What about possible tooling or cleaning or any of the many other ways a coin can be altered? Why aren't you insisting that those possibilities be included in the description? They MAY have happened. Maybe the AT you're sure of is what's hiding them.
And while we're focusing, how about taking a look here and focus on the word "origin":
"Don't list the item if you're unsure of its origin or authenticity."
I would read this as saying unless you can document the entire history of your coin from the moment it was created at the mint to the arrival in your collection, you cannot list it for sale as you are not sure of its origin.
<< <i>Read it again and focus on the word "may." I would read this as 71765746 needs to be identified as AT. There's enough there that those coins should be disclosed IMO. >>
Okay, I did. What about possible tooling or cleaning or any of the many other ways a coin can be altered? Why aren't you insisting that those possibilities be included in the description? They MAY have happened. Maybe the AT you're sure of is what's hiding them. >>
I think it's important to have something to go on, not just a random guess. There is quite a bit of known history with 71765746 regarding AT. For another example, I think it's fine to require disclosure saying 10940048 is AT over harsh cleaning (of course, that one has been taken off the market).
I think the best solution is for the industry (TPGs , PNG, ANA) to come up with a solution to deal with all the disavowed coins in the marketplace. However, until that happens, I think a marketplace is well within it's rights to try and clean up some of these problem pieces that are floating around.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>And while we're focusing, how about taking a look here and focus on the word "origin": >>
"Don't list the item if you're unsure of its origin or authenticity." >>
I would read this as saying unless you can document the entire history of your coin from the moment it was created at the mint to the arrival in your collection, you cannot list it for sale as you are not sure of its origin. >>
I would say that you should be aware of and able to disclose where you received the coin from. That way you can point to a source if any issues arise. Usually people fronting for coin doctors may not want to disclose the immediate origin since that may be the doctor.
It looks like you've decided on the definition of the terms in eBay's policy. For everybody. Okay then- I guess discussion is closed on this subject.
<< <i>However, until that happens, I think a marketplace is well within it's rights to try and clean up some of these problem pieces that are floating around. >>
And having undisclosed rules with undefined penalties for violating them when you're "caught" by anonymous and unknown others is, of course, the way to go about doing this. How silly of me not to see the obviousness of it all.
<< <i>It looks like you've decided on the definition of the terms in eBay's policy. For everybody. Okay then- I guess discussion is closed on this subject. >>
Well, it looks like you were doing the same thing then
More realistically, eBay determines the definition of their rules just like PCGS determines the definition of their rules.
<< <i>
<< <i>However, until that happens, I think a marketplace is well within it's rights to try and clean up some of these problem pieces that are floating around. >>
And having undisclosed rules with undefined penalties for violating them when you're "caught" by anonymous and unknown others is, of course, the way to go about doing this. How silly of me not to see the obviousness of it all. >>
The rules are published and similar to the PNG Code of Ethics. Please review the quote on the previous page which you responded to earlier.
As for the penalties, the NARU penalty would only be used if the OP violated the same rule 3 times after being warned after the first. Here on the CU forums, the posting rules say you get 0 warnings, so eBay would seem quite lenient there.
<< <i>So those 2 lincoln cents came out of the same collection/album/house ???? thats why they are so similar? They must have been submitted at the same time right?
Would the numbers on the slab reflect that? I don't know how to read the numbers or what they mean I'm just asking >>
Actually, using the 2 examples you gave above in your previous post, the numbers are close enough that, yes, they were likely submitted together (along with a number of other coins). That type of toning is also something I, and I believe others, have seen naturally. I don't think it is AT. Could it be replicated AT? Perhaps. I am not an expert in ATing coins and can only go by what I know positively. However, I would not put the AT label on them just from the way they appear as, like I said, I have seen NT like that.
For clarity and objectivity's sake, I would ask Zoins, Bronco2078 and JustaCommem to disclose whether they are also members of the eBay Coin Community Watch Group.
I think it is only fair we all know your, if any, association with this group, especially since my eBay "good name" has been called to question.
Be truthful please. Shouldn't be anything to hide right? Especially since the said Watch Group is non-compensated.
Doug (Ishopcoinshows4You - eBay member for 10+ years who has paid in excess of $50,000 in eBay seller fees over that time - eBay name before my current one was UofA1285)
I am not a member of the eBay Coin Community Watch Group and did not know it existed until I read this thread. I also have not have any contact with eBay or members of the eBay Coin Community Watch Group on this subject.
However, I am concerned about coin doctoring and the damage it is doing to the hobby. I am also concerned about the number of disavowed slabs being sold on eBay without disclosure such as 71765746 which was sold on February 12, 2012.
Regarding your reputation, I have no opinion. However, I will observe that you offer coins like the one described by another poster as a "shake and bake special" for $175 to which you remarked "I thought those coins are very pretty for what they were." Please note that is not an opinion but an observation.
Regarding this thread, I think it best to stay on topic. Should you wish to discuss the other coins I have sold over time, please feel free to write me, create another thread or, of course, opine in this thread...I appreciate all points of view, even when I'm wrong, which is often apparently, being that I am divorced.
I guess I don't understand. Yes, any definite problem coins should be sold only with disclosure.
But the coins we are discussing have already been certified. In my view, in order to basically "remove" this certification, I believe that should be done either by the grading service that slabbed the coin, or a panel consisting of professionals who have examined millions of coins. I have a big problem when some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller, decides to report the coin and eBay automatically takes that person's word over that of the grading service.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>I guess I don't understand. Yes, any definite problem coins should be sold only with disclosure.
But the coins we are discussing have already been certified. In my view, in order to basically "remove" this certification, I believe that should be done either by the grading service that slabbed the coin, or a panel consisting of professionals who have examined millions of coins. I have a big problem when some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller, decides to report the coin and eBay automatically takes that person's word over that of the grading service. >>
The eBay and PNG rules for disclosure do not appear to make exceptions for certified coins. If the coins have been altered, disclosure is necessary.
As noted by TDN and previously stated by HRH, in the past, PCGS would slab coins with questionable toning. It appears eBay would like this to be disclosed.
<< <i>I guess I don't understand. Yes, any definite problem coins should be sold only with disclosure.
But the coins we are discussing have already been certified. In my view, in order to basically "remove" this certification, I believe that should be done either by the grading service that slabbed the coin, or a panel consisting of professionals who have examined millions of coins. I have a big problem when some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller, decides to report the coin and eBay automatically takes that person's word over that of the grading service. >>
The eBay and PNG rules for disclosure do not appear to make exceptions for certified coins. If the coins have been altered, disclosure is necessary. >>
I understand that. What I don't understand is that these coins have been identified as "altered" by ,as I said above,
<< <i> some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller. >>
Exactly what makes some anonymous person's opinion more relevant than that offered by the grading service that slabbed the coin?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>I guess I don't understand. Yes, any definite problem coins should be sold only with disclosure.
But the coins we are discussing have already been certified. In my view, in order to basically "remove" this certification, I believe that should be done either by the grading service that slabbed the coin, or a panel consisting of professionals who have examined millions of coins. I have a big problem when some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller, decides to report the coin and eBay automatically takes that person's word over that of the grading service. >>
The eBay and PNG rules for disclosure do not appear to make exceptions for certified coins. If the coins have been altered, disclosure is necessary.
As noted by TDN and previously stated by HRH, in the past, PCGS would slab coins with questionable toning. It appears eBay would like this to be disclosed. >>
Zoins, with the 3 South African coins, you believe something should've been disclosed about being altered? What was altered on them? Or is it just your opinion that they were altered?
Need a Barber Half with ANACS photo certificate. If you have one for sale please PM me. Current Ebay auctions
<< <i>I understand that. What I don't understand is that these coins have been identified as "altered" by ,as I said above,
<< <i> some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller. >>
Exactly what makes some anonymous person's opinion more relevant than that offered by the grading service that slabbed the coin? >>
Because some people on a message board and some anonymous watchdogs say so, of course.
<< <i>I guess I don't understand. Yes, any definite problem coins should be sold only with disclosure.
But the coins we are discussing have already been certified. In my view, in order to basically "remove" this certification, I believe that should be done either by the grading service that slabbed the coin, or a panel consisting of professionals who have examined millions of coins. I have a big problem when some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller, decides to report the coin and eBay automatically takes that person's word over that of the grading service. >>
The eBay and PNG rules for disclosure do not appear to make exceptions for certified coins. If the coins have been altered, disclosure is necessary. >>
I understand that. What I don't understand is that these coins have been identified as "altered" by ,as I said above,
<< <i> some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller. >>
Exactly what makes some anonymous person's opinion more relevant than that offered by the grading service that slabbed the coin? >>
I have no contact with eBay on this subject and I am not familiar with how the Coin Community Watch Group works so I am unaware of how eBay determines the qualifications of the group's members.
I will say that I believe a better solution would be for the TPGs, PNG and ANA to work with eBay on identifying disavowed slabs in their marketplace. However, absent that, eBay still has a responsibility to protect their buyers.
<< <i>I guess I don't understand. Yes, any definite problem coins should be sold only with disclosure.
But the coins we are discussing have already been certified. In my view, in order to basically "remove" this certification, I believe that should be done either by the grading service that slabbed the coin, or a panel consisting of professionals who have examined millions of coins. I have a big problem when some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller, decides to report the coin and eBay automatically takes that person's word over that of the grading service. >>
The eBay and PNG rules for disclosure do not appear to make exceptions for certified coins. If the coins have been altered, disclosure is necessary.
As noted by TDN and previously stated by HRH, in the past, PCGS would slab coins with questionable toning. It appears eBay would like this to be disclosed. >>
Zoins, with the 3 South African coins, you believe something should've been disclosed about being altered? What was altered on them? Or is it just your opinion that they were altered? >>
I currently have no opinion on 18337063, 18324264 and/or 18337069. I am responding to the issue of whether eBay should be allowed to enforce the published rules of their marketplace which appears to be a central issue of the OP.
"I am responding to the issue of whether eBay should be allowed to enforce the published rules of their marketplace as I define them which appears to be a central issue of the OP."
<< <i>"I am responding to the issue of whether eBay should be allowed to enforce the published rules of their marketplace as I define them which appears to be a central issue of the OP."
Fixed it for you. >>
Sure, we are both just offering our own interpretations and perspectives
I've mentioned this earlier, eBay will make the rules for their marketplace and PCGS will make the rules for their forums. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe either of us are in a position to make rules for either.
Shutting down these auctions was a mistake, as I said earlier. eBay is not introducing a new policy or changing an existing one.
Community Watch Group members report problem auctions to ebay the same way any one does. The difference is their reports bypass red tape and are treated as opinions from experts who have been pre-qualified for their knowledge and experience. eBay terminates auctions involving deception, when reported by members of the CWG, with little or no further review. (Technical listing violations are another matter.)
What we have here is a renegade, pompous CWG member who has decided he knows more about AT from photos and a sellers' history than PCGS does from in-hand inspections. And he is abusing his privilege. If it were my show I'd give him a swift butt kick out the door.
I am not sure how or if OP will be taken care of but I sure hope ebay neuters this lunatic.
I do not disagree that there are AT coins in PCGS and NGC holders. But those are matters to be resolved by owners and TPGs, not by ebay or its CWG members. Lance.
<< <i> I will say that I believe a better solution would be for the TPGs, PNG and ANA to work with eBay on identifying disavowed slabs in their marketplace. However, absent that, eBay still has a responsibility to protect their buyers. >>
My thoughts are that eBay is doing fine on any Due Diligence it is subject to by law, rule, ethic or otherwise, with its current (as of May 1, 2012) system of checks and balances, both on the selling and buying ends of coin transactions.
Beyond that, the time tested principle of "Caveat Emptor" (Let the Buyer Beware), must be allowed to fill in the rest of the equation.
<< <i>Shutting down these auctions was a mistake, as I said earlier. eBay is not introducing a new policy or changing an existing one.
Community Watch Group members report problem auctions to ebay the same way any one does. The difference is their reports bypass red tape and are treated as opinions from experts who have been pre-qualified for their knowledge and experience. eBay terminates auctions involving deception, when reported by members of the CWG, with little or no further review. (Technical listing violations are another matter.)
What we have here is a renegade, pompous CWG member who has decided he knows more about AT from photos and a sellers' history than PCGS does from in-hand inspections. And he is abusing his privilege. If it were my show I'd give him a swift butt kick out the door.
I am not sure how or if OP will be taken care of but I sure hope ebay neuters this lunatic.
I do not disagree that there are AT coins in PCGS and NGC holders. But those are matters to be resolved by owners and TPGs, not by ebay or its CWG members. Lance. >>
Comments
<< <i>I guess you missed two things. >>
Good to see you providing useful information and being such a value to the forum
Care to mention what you believe was being missed?
My 2c worth on this whole thing.....unless and until it can be proven that these were AT'ed in the holder, then ebay shouldn't be butting in as they are in an approved TPGS slab, according to their own rules.
The "person" (I wanted to use a stronger word but refrained....) who reported these through ebay obviously has a superiority complex and a vendetta against something. Ebay should remove them from their "position" and replace them with someone knowledgeable and unbiased.
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>That's an ideal first line of defense, however, certain coins have been disavowed and are still sold openly, without disclosure on their market. If such coins remain on their marketplace, then it ultimately falls to the marketplace to protect their buyers. >>
If they're being sold openly, the TPGs have every opportunity to handle the issue themselves. If such coins remain on the marketplace, then clearly, the TPGs don't consider the issue significant enough to warrant any action on their part.
But eBay knows better what's good for people, right?
<< <i>
<< <i>I guess you missed two things. >>
Good to see you providing useful information and being such a value to the forum
Care to mention what you believe was being missed?
My 2c worth on this whole thing.....unless and until it can be proven that these were AT'ed in the holder, then ebay shouldn't be butting in as they are in an approved TPGS slab, according to their own rules.
The "person" (I wanted to use a stronger word but refrained....) who reported these through ebay obviously has a superiority complex and a vendetta against something. Ebay should remove them from their "position" and replace them with someone knowledgeable and unbiased. >>
<< <i>
My 2c worth on this whole thing.....unless and until it can be proven that these were AT'ed in the holder, then ebay shouldn't be butting in as they are in an approved TPGS slab, according to their own rules.
The "person" (I wanted to use a stronger word but refrained....) who reported these through ebay obviously has a superiority complex and a vendetta against something. Ebay should remove them from their "position" and replace them with someone knowledgeable and unbiased. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>That's an ideal first line of defense, however, certain coins have been disavowed and are still sold openly, without disclosure on their market. If such coins remain on their marketplace, then it ultimately falls to the marketplace to protect their buyers. >>
If they're being sold openly, the TPGs have every opportunity to handle the issue themselves. If such coins remain on the marketplace, then clearly, the TPGs don't consider the issue significant enough to warrant any action on their part.
But eBay knows better what's good for people, right? >>
I think it would be good to have a solution for coins like 71765746, regardless of who offers it.
For what other items (other than coins...and maybe stamps, but who knows?!?) does eBay employ an arbitrary group of busybodies over which to police postings?
And unless the PNG is working with eBay...HA HA HA...the only thing this is going to result in is even more actually legit (and beautiful) but "maybe/possibly/concievably" AT coins getting rejected and even higher TPG grading fees...because, you know, we had better be sure about this coin, or the eBay police might raise a stink and we'll have to buy it back!
And as to why the "AT matter" isn't being systematically addressed by the TPGs is simply...like most corporations...they only want to move forward. Looking back costs both time and money. As has been stated on these forums previously, these "issues" are likely handled, very quietly, on a case by case basis...and addressed (like questionable art auctions by major auction houses). You don't hang a banner out the window saying "Attention [Name the TPG] Customers...Those Coins We Graded Between 1995-2002...We'll We'd Like to Take Another Look At Them...Just In Case"
...or thumbs down.
I found this little tidbit on the Roman Colliseum through wikipedia..., which reminds me of ebay, the posse, goody two shoes, and whodunnit ?
According to a reconstructed inscription found on the site, "the emperor Vespasian ordered this new amphitheatre to be erected from his general's share of the booty." This is thought to refer to the vast quantity of treasure seized by the Romans following their victory in the Great Jewish Revolt in 70 AD. The Colosseum can be thus interpreted as a great triumphal monument built in the Roman tradition of celebrating great victories,[12] placating the Roman people instead of returning soldiers. Vespasian's decision to build the Colosseum on the site of Nero's lake can also be seen as a populist gesture of returning to the people an area of the city which Nero had appropriated for his own use. In contrast to many other amphitheatres, which were located on the outskirts of a city, the Colosseum was constructed in the city centre; in effect, placing it both literally and symbolically at the heart of Rome.
Remember: When in Rome ?
Ebay is no different.
<< <i>And as to why the "AT matter" isn't being systematically addressed by the TPGs is simply...like most corporations...they only want to move forward. Looking back costs both time and money. >>
If certain TPGs choose not to systematically address disavowed coins in the marketplace, the marketplace may feel the need to impose their own rules to protect their buyers.
Am I missing something? where was the upside to getting it slabbed? Was someone shooting for an PF70?
Isn't a 1992 PR65RB 5 cent coin in a slab basically disposable? If you were trying for a PR70 and didn't get it what do you do with it?
Let's start with the 3 auctions that got cancelled
The original SAM (South Africa Mint) packing for 1992 proof set (the SAM leatherette)
Then talk about coins and composition in this set
1c, 2c, 5c - copper plated steel
10c, 20c, 50c - bronze plated steel
1 Rand, 2 Rand - nickel plated copper
The majority of all 1c, 2c, and 5 coins in this set look like cancelled sale items
**It may be true that special camera and lighting skills may be need to get pics shown
(much better than typical android app currently popping up on eBay)
**It may be true the asking prices are rather high
-the entire set shown can typically be found for $40
-the 1c and 2c got discontinued from production in 2002 for low value (business transactions rounded to 5c)
-the 5c is set to get discontinued in 2012 for low value (business transactions rounded to 10c)
the face buying power of all 3 coins listed is -> 0.08 South African Rand which is equivalent to 0.01034 US dollars
**It may be true that seller has sold some questionable coins in the past
-this may be to juiced photos
-this may be art toned that seller did or did not know
*just because PCGS may have slabbed some art toned in past does not matter to this discussion
*just because eBay seller has sold questionable coins in past does not matter
*just because typical coins worth a few dollars tops, asking hundreds for does not matter
*just because eBay community watch members come to this thread justifying their actions does not matter
What matters is that a community watch group member has tabbed this seller to keep him from listing anything
The coins listed are in authentic PCGS holders and are coins that look that way from original government packaging
uofa1285, you need to push this with eBay and get that community member sacked from his position if you ever expect to sell anything on eBay again with any toning
EBay has taken the advice of Albanese to only allow PCGS/NGC holders for high starting/BIN
-not sure if this is just a push to only get CRAC coins or not, but does not matter, as you are following their rules
What really matters to any seller on eBay is that a community watch member can tag you as a favorite seller and cancel all of your auctions minutes after being posted
and I feel that is bad
<< <i> "What really matters to any seller on eBay is that a community watch member can tag you as a favorite seller and cancel all of your auctions minutes after being posted and I feel that is bad. >>
There are two opinions on the coins in the auction:
1. PCGS graded the coin, we don't know when, but they had no problem with it.
2. Some person under the cloak of anonymity reported the coins to eBay, calling them "dreck" and "rainbow toned monstrosities", and thinks the coins are artificially toned.
Given these two opinions, whose would you accept? PCGS's or the anonymous person? What are that person's qualifications? How do you know the anonymous person isn't the baby girl in the Jimmy Fallon Capital One ad who doesn't like cash (or anything else)?
To me, it is clear that PCGS's opinion on a coin must be accepted over the opinion of an anonymous person.
If that is not the case, then why have grading services?
And eBay should allow these coins to be listed and sold, UNLESS eBay wants to change their rule from "We will accept listings of all PCGS and NGC coins unless some anonymous person happens to not like them."
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Agreed...and assuming this isn't just a one-off event and is actually the start of a trend...I would think that the Powers That Be at both major TPGs might want to have a heart-to-heart with their counterparts at eBay...before the honest coin selling natives get restless...or worse, get burned financially by suddenly having some of their "certified" inventory called into question and marked down accordingly!
"Gee...I might have to go to Stacks or Legend to sell my stuff...BECAUSE IT COULDN'T MAKE THE CUT WITH EBAY!"
Talk about an upside down world!
<< <i>
<< <i>ebays watchdogs aren't looking so bad
need more oil in your fry pan >>
See our other NT Rainbow Toned Coins now!
Surprised that statement didn't get watchdog attention. >>
These examples are brutal as are the Franklins that Bronco posted. MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>So let me get this straight. There are clowns on ebay that believe they can determine whether a coin is AT'd from a photo that PCGS graders saw in person and determined was accetable? Sorry said clown, but there is a reason why PCGS grades millions of dollars of coins a month and you don't. If this clown is also a seller of coins I see a big conflict of interest and a possible defamation law suit especially if he is accusing you of being a coin doctor. Some of the outright fake crap you see daily on ebay and they want to police auctions by pulling coins that are in PCGS plastic. >>
I can, and have, identified occasionally a coin in a PCGS holder that is absolutely AT. PCGS's old standard was that if they weren't absolutely sure it was AT, then they would slab it. Several years back they changed their standard [as stated by HRH] to if they weren't absolutely sure it was NT then they wouldn't slab it. With a distinct change in standard, it is probable that there are coins in PCGS holders that aren't NT.
This is not to disparage PCGS, but rather to point out facts that fly in the face of the attitude that ebay simply must accept the holder >>
True, but I'm guessing you saw those coins in person and didn't make that determination from a photo. I'm all for protecting the consumer, but sometimes the consumer has to share in that responsibillity by learning themselves.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>ebays watchdogs aren't looking so bad
need more oil in your fry pan >>
See our other NT Rainbow Toned Coins now!
Surprised that statement didn't get watchdog attention. >>
These examples are brutal as are the Franklins that Bronco posted. MJ >>
Okay there are exceptions to the rule. I call AT on that one, but are those PCGS graded ?
Perhaps 'questionable toning" or "neat toning" or "wild", would bring the same $41.
People should be able to collect what they want without interference from "watchdogs with joysticks".
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>ebays watchdogs aren't looking so bad
need more oil in your fry pan >>
See our other NT Rainbow Toned Coins now!
Surprised that statement didn't get watchdog attention. >>
These examples are brutal as are the Franklins that Bronco posted. MJ >>
Okay there are exceptions to the rule. I call AT on that one, but are those PCGS graded ?
Perhaps 'questionable toning" or "neat toning" or "wild", would bring the same $41.
People should be able to collect what they want without interference from "watchdogs with joysticks". >>
Agree. But I was just commenting that all the coins in the links are indeed brutal imho. MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>I think there is a great opportunity for the top TPGs to have their employees participate in eBay's Coin Community Watch Group, if they are not already doing so. >>
Hopefully, you're referring to PCGS Graders since I fail to see how Shipping and Receiving, IT Support, Customer Service, and the maintenance folks are any more qualified to judge a coins condition from a photograph anymore than the "ebay police"!
Besides, PCGS never leaves the determination on the coin up to one individual., It's always a consensus of at least 3 folks.
As memntioned earlier, I guess it won't really be that long before eBay's Coin Community Watch Group starts yanking PCGS Slabbed coins that do not meet "their" specific grade expectation(s)! ( All you MS/PR70 sellers need to keep your eye on your listings!
Isn't it strange how the "threat" of being NARU'ed is used to get the OP to comply with some unwritten policy? Such power could be the un-doing of eBay.
The name is LEE!
Anything to pump up that bottom line!
<< <i>As memntioned earlier, I guess it won't really be that long before eBay's Coin Community Watch Group starts yanking PCGS Slabbed coins that do not meet "their" specific grade expectation(s)! >>
What about their specific price expectations? People can be harmed by overpaying for a coin, too. The market needs to be made safer for them. And in order to do so, any listing priced at- well, whatever the percentage is that the Secret eBay Watch Group people decide on over and above the "correct" retail price, I suppose- should immediately be delisted and the seller sanctioned for attempting to harm to the community and the market.
The ebay group didn't pull all the op's slabbed listings so it is hit or miss
edgy Abe
abe again
<< <i>The ebay group didn't pull all the op's slabbed listings so it is hit or miss >>
So there are arbitrary unpublished rules for listing stuff on eBay which includes review and reporting by anonymous sources and can include penalties up to suspension of the seller if these unpublished rules are not followed? Good to know!
So those 2 lincoln cents came out of the same collection/album/house ???? thats why they are so similar? They must have been submitted at the same time right?
Would the numbers on the slab reflect that? I don't know how to read the numbers or what they mean I'm just asking
<< <i>Keep the following guidelines in mind when you're listing coins and paper money:
- Include all relevant information that you know about the item, such as origin, date of issue, and condition.
- Include a clear picture of the actual item being sold—don't use only stock pictures.
- Include all information about any alterations that may have been made to the item.
- Individually identify every item listed to avoid misunderstandings about what is for sale.
- Don't list the item if you're unsure of its origin or authenticity. >>
I would read this to mean that even if a coin is slabbed by a top TPG, if it may have been altered, it is the seller's responsibility to state that, similar to the PNG Code of Ethics.
It's nice to see eBay standing behind their published policy which parallels the PNG Code of Ethics.
I would read this to mean you need to list known alterations, not imagined ones.
Don't list the item if you're unsure of its origin or authenticity.
This is vague enough that you could reject just about any coin that's not in a sealed mint package as "unsure of origin".
On the other hand, vague rules are great for anonymous reporting of "violations". And since it's in the name of making the marketplace safer, it's all good.
<< <i>
<< <i>Include all information about any alterations that may have been made to the item. >>
I would read this to mean you need to list known alterations, not imagined ones. >>
Read it again and focus on the word "may." I would read this as 71765746 needs to be identified as AT. There's enough there that those coins should be disclosed IMO.
Let's clean up the hobby and at least follow the Code of Ethics from PNG!
Maybe they should have done some more research and know that the reverses (which are all toned in the PCGS slabs) were in contact with the material of the box when they were released and this this material (I do not know exactly what it is) causes coins with copper content to tone in the manner as the PCGS coins in questions were toned. It's very common to see Proof South-African coins of the early 1990s with this kind of toning, and it is fully natural.
Dennis
Like VOC Numismatics on facebook
<< <i>Read it again and focus on the word "may." I would read this as 71765746 needs to be identified as AT. There's enough there that those coins should be disclosed IMO. >>
Okay, I did. What about possible tooling or cleaning or any of the many other ways a coin can be altered? Why aren't you insisting that those possibilities be included in the description? They MAY have happened. Maybe the AT you're sure of is what's hiding them.
And while we're focusing, how about taking a look here and focus on the word "origin":
"Don't list the item if you're unsure of its origin or authenticity."
I would read this as saying unless you can document the entire history of your coin from the moment it was created at the mint to the arrival in your collection, you cannot list it for sale as you are not sure of its origin.
<< <i>
<< <i>Read it again and focus on the word "may." I would read this as 71765746 needs to be identified as AT. There's enough there that those coins should be disclosed IMO. >>
Okay, I did. What about possible tooling or cleaning or any of the many other ways a coin can be altered? Why aren't you insisting that those possibilities be included in the description? They MAY have happened. Maybe the AT you're sure of is what's hiding them. >>
I think it's important to have something to go on, not just a random guess. There is quite a bit of known history with 71765746 regarding AT. For another example, I think it's fine to require disclosure saying 10940048 is AT over harsh cleaning (of course, that one has been taken off the market).
I think the best solution is for the industry (TPGs , PNG, ANA) to come up with a solution to deal with all the disavowed coins in the marketplace. However, until that happens, I think a marketplace is well within it's rights to try and clean up some of these problem pieces that are floating around.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>And while we're focusing, how about taking a look here and focus on the word "origin": >>
"Don't list the item if you're unsure of its origin or authenticity." >>
I would read this as saying unless you can document the entire history of your coin from the moment it was created at the mint to the arrival in your collection, you cannot list it for sale as you are not sure of its origin. >>
I would say that you should be aware of and able to disclose where you received the coin from. That way you can point to a source if any issues arise. Usually people fronting for coin doctors may not want to disclose the immediate origin since that may be the doctor.
<< <i>However, until that happens, I think a marketplace is well within it's rights to try and clean up some of these problem pieces that are floating around. >>
And having undisclosed rules with undefined penalties for violating them when you're "caught" by anonymous and unknown others is, of course, the way to go about doing this. How silly of me not to see the obviousness of it all.
<< <i>It looks like you've decided on the definition of the terms in eBay's policy. For everybody. Okay then- I guess discussion is closed on this subject. >>
Well, it looks like you were doing the same thing then
More realistically, eBay determines the definition of their rules just like PCGS determines the definition of their rules.
<< <i>
<< <i>However, until that happens, I think a marketplace is well within it's rights to try and clean up some of these problem pieces that are floating around. >>
And having undisclosed rules with undefined penalties for violating them when you're "caught" by anonymous and unknown others is, of course, the way to go about doing this. How silly of me not to see the obviousness of it all. >>
The rules are published and similar to the PNG Code of Ethics. Please review the quote on the previous page which you responded to earlier.
As for the penalties, the NARU penalty would only be used if the OP violated the same rule 3 times after being warned after the first. Here on the CU forums, the posting rules say you get 0 warnings, so eBay would seem quite lenient there.
<< <i>So those 2 lincoln cents came out of the same collection/album/house ???? thats why they are so similar? They must have been submitted at the same time right?
Would the numbers on the slab reflect that? I don't know how to read the numbers or what they mean I'm just asking >>
Actually, using the 2 examples you gave above in your previous post, the numbers are close enough that, yes, they were likely submitted together (along with a number of other coins).
That type of toning is also something I, and I believe others, have seen naturally. I don't think it is AT. Could it be replicated AT? Perhaps. I am not an expert in ATing coins and can only go by what I know positively. However, I would not put the AT label on them just from the way they appear as, like I said, I have seen NT like that.
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>Well, it looks like you were doing the same thing then
No, I was just using your approach to see how consistent you would be.
<< <i>More realistically, eBay determines the definition of their rules just like PCGS determines the definition of their rules. >>
What rules? The ones where PCGS/NGC are approved TPGs except when they're apparently (based on recent events) not? Got a link to those rules?
Here are some coins. Which ones are AT and which are NT? How do you know?
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, it looks like you were doing the same thing then
No, I was just using your approach to see how consistent you would be. >>
I'm just offering my interpretation. If you didn't understand that, I'm not sure what else to say.
<< <i>
<< <i>More realistically, eBay determines the definition of their rules just like PCGS determines the definition of their rules. >>
What rules? The ones where PCGS/NGC are approved TPGs except when they're apparently (based on recent events) not? Got a link to those rules? >>
I'll help you out. This is the one you responded to earlier:
- Include all information about any alterations that may have been made to the item.
Is that not clear enough?
I don't have an opinion on the Voyager dollars you posted. I've already offered my opinion on 71765746 and 10940048.
For clarity and objectivity's sake, I would ask Zoins, Bronco2078 and JustaCommem to disclose whether they are also members of the eBay Coin Community Watch Group.
I think it is only fair we all know your, if any, association with this group, especially since my eBay "good name" has been called to question.
Be truthful please. Shouldn't be anything to hide right? Especially since the said Watch Group is non-compensated.
Doug
(Ishopcoinshows4You - eBay member for 10+ years who has paid in excess of $50,000 in eBay seller fees over that time - eBay name before my current one was UofA1285)
However, I am concerned about coin doctoring and the damage it is doing to the hobby. I am also concerned about the number of disavowed slabs being sold on eBay without disclosure such as 71765746 which was sold on February 12, 2012.
Regarding your reputation, I have no opinion. However, I will observe that you offer coins like the one described by another poster as a "shake and bake special" for $175 to which you remarked "I thought those coins are very pretty for what they were." Please note that is not an opinion but an observation.
Regarding this thread, I think it best to stay on topic. Should you wish to discuss the other coins I have sold over time, please feel free to write me, create another thread or, of course, opine in this thread...I appreciate all points of view, even when I'm wrong, which is often apparently, being that I am divorced.
Doug
But the coins we are discussing have already been certified. In my view, in order to basically "remove" this certification, I believe that should be done either by the grading service that slabbed the coin, or a panel consisting of professionals who have examined millions of coins. I have a big problem when some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller, decides to report the coin and eBay automatically takes that person's word over that of the grading service.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>I guess I don't understand. Yes, any definite problem coins should be sold only with disclosure.
But the coins we are discussing have already been certified. In my view, in order to basically "remove" this certification, I believe that should be done either by the grading service that slabbed the coin, or a panel consisting of professionals who have examined millions of coins. I have a big problem when some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller, decides to report the coin and eBay automatically takes that person's word over that of the grading service. >>
The eBay and PNG rules for disclosure do not appear to make exceptions for certified coins. If the coins have been altered, disclosure is necessary.
As noted by TDN and previously stated by HRH, in the past, PCGS would slab coins with questionable toning. It appears eBay would like this to be disclosed.
<< <i>
<< <i>I guess I don't understand. Yes, any definite problem coins should be sold only with disclosure.
But the coins we are discussing have already been certified. In my view, in order to basically "remove" this certification, I believe that should be done either by the grading service that slabbed the coin, or a panel consisting of professionals who have examined millions of coins. I have a big problem when some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller, decides to report the coin and eBay automatically takes that person's word over that of the grading service. >>
The eBay and PNG rules for disclosure do not appear to make exceptions for certified coins. If the coins have been altered, disclosure is necessary. >>
I understand that. What I don't understand is that these coins have been identified as "altered" by ,as I said above,
<< <i> some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller. >>
Exactly what makes some anonymous person's opinion more relevant than that offered by the grading service that slabbed the coin?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>
<< <i>I guess I don't understand. Yes, any definite problem coins should be sold only with disclosure.
But the coins we are discussing have already been certified. In my view, in order to basically "remove" this certification, I believe that should be done either by the grading service that slabbed the coin, or a panel consisting of professionals who have examined millions of coins. I have a big problem when some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller, decides to report the coin and eBay automatically takes that person's word over that of the grading service. >>
The eBay and PNG rules for disclosure do not appear to make exceptions for certified coins. If the coins have been altered, disclosure is necessary.
As noted by TDN and previously stated by HRH, in the past, PCGS would slab coins with questionable toning. It appears eBay would like this to be disclosed. >>
Zoins, with the 3 South African coins, you believe something should've been disclosed about being altered? What was altered on them? Or is it just your opinion that they were altered?
<< <i>I understand that. What I don't understand is that these coins have been identified as "altered" by ,as I said above,
<< <i> some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller. >>
Exactly what makes some anonymous person's opinion more relevant than that offered by the grading service that slabbed the coin? >>
Because some people on a message board and some anonymous watchdogs say so, of course.
What more do you want? Actual evidence?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I guess I don't understand. Yes, any definite problem coins should be sold only with disclosure.
But the coins we are discussing have already been certified. In my view, in order to basically "remove" this certification, I believe that should be done either by the grading service that slabbed the coin, or a panel consisting of professionals who have examined millions of coins. I have a big problem when some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller, decides to report the coin and eBay automatically takes that person's word over that of the grading service. >>
The eBay and PNG rules for disclosure do not appear to make exceptions for certified coins. If the coins have been altered, disclosure is necessary. >>
I understand that. What I don't understand is that these coins have been identified as "altered" by ,as I said above,
<< <i> some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller. >>
Exactly what makes some anonymous person's opinion more relevant than that offered by the grading service that slabbed the coin? >>
I have no contact with eBay on this subject and I am not familiar with how the Coin Community Watch Group works so I am unaware of how eBay determines the qualifications of the group's members.
I will say that I believe a better solution would be for the TPGs, PNG and ANA to work with eBay on identifying disavowed slabs in their marketplace. However, absent that, eBay still has a responsibility to protect their buyers.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I guess I don't understand. Yes, any definite problem coins should be sold only with disclosure.
But the coins we are discussing have already been certified. In my view, in order to basically "remove" this certification, I believe that should be done either by the grading service that slabbed the coin, or a panel consisting of professionals who have examined millions of coins. I have a big problem when some anonymous person, whose credentials we do not know, who has not seen the coin in person, and who could have an axe to grind against the seller, decides to report the coin and eBay automatically takes that person's word over that of the grading service. >>
The eBay and PNG rules for disclosure do not appear to make exceptions for certified coins. If the coins have been altered, disclosure is necessary.
As noted by TDN and previously stated by HRH, in the past, PCGS would slab coins with questionable toning. It appears eBay would like this to be disclosed. >>
Zoins, with the 3 South African coins, you believe something should've been disclosed about being altered? What was altered on them? Or is it just your opinion that they were altered? >>
I currently have no opinion on 18337063, 18324264 and/or 18337069. I am responding to the issue of whether eBay should be allowed to enforce the published rules of their marketplace which appears to be a central issue of the OP.
Fixed it for you.
<< <i>"I am responding to the issue of whether eBay should be allowed to enforce the published rules of their marketplace as I define them which appears to be a central issue of the OP."
Fixed it for you.
Sure, we are both just offering our own interpretations and perspectives
I've mentioned this earlier, eBay will make the rules for their marketplace and PCGS will make the rules for their forums. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe either of us are in a position to make rules for either.
Community Watch Group members report problem auctions to ebay the same way any one does. The difference is their reports bypass red tape and are treated as opinions from experts who have been pre-qualified for their knowledge and experience. eBay terminates auctions involving deception, when reported by members of the CWG, with little or no further review. (Technical listing violations are another matter.)
What we have here is a renegade, pompous CWG member who has decided he knows more about AT from photos and a sellers' history than PCGS does from in-hand inspections. And he is abusing his privilege. If it were my show I'd give him a swift butt kick out the door.
I am not sure how or if OP will be taken care of but I sure hope ebay neuters this lunatic.
I do not disagree that there are AT coins in PCGS and NGC holders. But those are matters to be resolved by owners and TPGs, not by ebay or its CWG members.
Lance.
<< <i>
I will say that I believe a better solution would be for the TPGs, PNG and ANA to work with eBay on identifying disavowed slabs in their marketplace. However, absent that, eBay still has a responsibility to protect their buyers. >>
My thoughts are that eBay is doing fine on any Due Diligence it is subject to by law, rule, ethic or otherwise, with its current (as of May 1, 2012) system of checks and balances, both on the selling and buying ends of coin transactions.
Beyond that, the time tested principle of "Caveat Emptor" (Let the Buyer Beware), must be allowed to fill in the rest of the equation.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Doug
<< <i>Shutting down these auctions was a mistake, as I said earlier. eBay is not introducing a new policy or changing an existing one.
Community Watch Group members report problem auctions to ebay the same way any one does. The difference is their reports bypass red tape and are treated as opinions from experts who have been pre-qualified for their knowledge and experience. eBay terminates auctions involving deception, when reported by members of the CWG, with little or no further review. (Technical listing violations are another matter.)
What we have here is a renegade, pompous CWG member who has decided he knows more about AT from photos and a sellers' history than PCGS does from in-hand inspections. And he is abusing his privilege. If it were my show I'd give him a swift butt kick out the door.
I am not sure how or if OP will be taken care of but I sure hope ebay neuters this lunatic.
I do not disagree that there are AT coins in PCGS and NGC holders. But those are matters to be resolved by owners and TPGs, not by ebay or its CWG members.
Lance. >>