<< <i>Sure, we are both just offering our own interpretations and perspectives >>
Difference being, your interpretation and perspective results in demonstrable harm to people (the guy selling the SA coins, for example). I have yet to see any evidence provided that the coins the Star Chamber has condemned have harmed anyone.
<< <i>the time tested principle of "Caveat Emptor" (Let the Buyer Beware), must be allowed to fill in the rest of the equation. >>
That is really up to eBay to decide and that is likely a business decision on the type of marketplace they want to maintain.
With their recent policy changes, it appears that eBay is not willing to have their marketplace be dictated by "Caveat Emptor." >>
I said the rest of the equation, AFTER eBay's efforts, to be filled in with Caveat Emptor...a big difference than Caveat Emptor alone. >>
I addressed that by mentioning it may be a business decision, not just a law, rule, ethics issue as you suggested. Often times there are business reasons to do something that go beyond legal and moral requirements.
<< <i>the time tested principle of "Caveat Emptor" (Let the Buyer Beware), must be allowed to fill in the rest of the equation. >>
That is really up to eBay to decide and that is likely a business decision on the type of marketplace they want to maintain.
With their recent policy changes, it appears that eBay is not willing to have their marketplace be dictated by "Caveat Emptor." >>
I said the rest of the equation, AFTER eBay's efforts, to be filled in with Caveat Emptor...a big difference than Caveat Emptor alone. >>
I addressed that by mentioning it may be a business decision, not just a law, rule, ethics issue as you suggested. Often times there are business reasons to do something that go beyond legal and moral requirements. >>
Noted. This would be so much easier in person! lol.
<< <i>Sure, we are both just offering our own interpretations and perspectives >>
Difference being, your interpretation and perspective results in demonstrable harm to people >>
I believe a difference is that my interpretation and perspective protects buyers while yours protects sellers. I believe my interpretation is more aligned with the spirit of the rules for both eBay and the PNG.
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. ________________________________________ Outstanding!
Hard to go wrong with full disclosure.
So you will be fully disclosing who sent you the supposed message that may have tarnished another ebay members "good name"?
<< <i>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. >>
No, wrong. eBay hasn't given an opinion on the matter whatsoever.
The matter at hand, is that an anonymous group working on BEHALF of eBay have been given the power to selectively end random sales based solely on subjective opinion. You yourself have specifically stated your "opinion" on the toning of the coins in question. Lapidary2's written out opinion *can not* be considered anything but subjective. And one could argue that evidentiary evidence of the "leak" from CCW would indicate that there was even some silent dissension from within the group itself.
PCGS gave an opinion. You gave an opinion. Lapidary2 gave an opinion. eBay gave no opinion on the matter.
eBay did give certain eBay buyers and *sellers* the power to end sales of other eBay sellers (potential competitors). In this case the opinion which ended the auction cannot be considered anything other than a subjective one.
Moreover, history has shown European coin collectors have different market acceptance criteria than US collectors. When US collectors started desiring natural undipped surfaces, European collectors remained squarely in the "dip it white till it blinds me" camp. Compare a Canadian collectors opinion of an XF George V Dime to that of someone from the US. They are virtually always different. By your logic a Canadian CCW member should be able to end an auction for a coin graded by PCGS or NGC at XF when he believes it to be a VF.
Wrapping the PNG, your opinion, and Lapidary2's actions as protective blanket for buyers works for you in this instance because it fits your personal opinion of market acceptability. It doesn't work for a lot of us because we can recognize the slippery slope something like this represents regardless of our personal opinions on the coins or seller.
You believe that this incident protects the buyer. But it only does so by modifying the marketplace to one which meets your personal criteria.
Banning counterfeits is something that protects a buyer. I would even agree that limiting start prices for uncertified coins does more good than it does harm. But what happens when someone inside the CCW decides he's not going to put up with all the dipped Morgans in holders? How about all the obviously cleaned middle grade Barber halves in holders? What about all the holdered MS 70/PF 70 Ultra Cameo modern commemoratives clearly no better than their 69 brethren? The undeniably non-RD copper in RD holders? The AU 64s in MS 64 holders?
You argue for modifying the marketplace to fit your personal standards. I argue for being allowed to apply my own personal standards to the marketplace.
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. ________________________________________ Outstanding!
Hard to go wrong with full disclosure.
So you will be fully disclosing who sent you the supposed message that may have tarnished another ebay members "good name"? >>
Ah, "stairman". Aren't most all of your posts in this thread? Over a year on the board though? Kinda makes one wonder......
<< <i>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. >>
No, wrong. eBay hasn't given an opinion on the matter whatsoever.
The matter at hand, is that an anonymous group working on BEHALF of eBay have been given the power to selectively end random sales based solely on subjective opinion. You yourself have specifically stated your "opinion" on the toning of the coins in question. Lapidary2's written out opinion *can not* be considered anything but subjective. And one could argue that evidentiary evidence of the "leak" from CCW would indicate that there was even some silent dissension from within the group itself.
PCGS gave an opinion. You gave an opinion. Lapidary2 gave an opinion. eBay gave no opinion on the matter.
eBay did give certain eBay buyers and *sellers* the power to end sales of other eBay sellers (potential competitors). In this case the opinion which ended the auction cannot be considered anything other than a subjective one.
Moreover, history has shown European coin collectors have different market acceptance criteria than US collectors. When US collectors started desiring natural undipped surfaces, European collectors remained squarely in the "dip it white till it blinds me" camp. Compare a Canadian collectors opinion of an XF George V Dime to that of someone from the US. They are virtually always different. By your logic a Canadian CCW member should be able to end an auction for a coin graded by PCGS or NGC at XF when he believes it to be a VF.
Wrapping the PNG, your opinion, and Lapidary2's actions as protective blanket for buyers works for you in this instance because it fits your personal opinion of market acceptability. It doesn't work for a lot of us because we can recognize the slippery slope something like this represents regardless of our personal opinions on the coins or seller.
You believe that this incident protects the buyer. But it only does so by modifying the marketplace to one which meets your personal criteria.
Banning counterfeits is something that protects a buyer. I would even agree that limiting start prices for uncertified coins does more good than it does harm. But what happens when someone inside the CCW decides he's not going to put up with all the dipped Morgans in holders? How about all the obviously cleaned middle grade Barber halves in holders? What about all the holdered MS 70/PF 70 Ultra Cameo modern commemoratives clearly no better than their 69 brethren? The undeniably non-RD copper in RD holders? The AU 64s in MS 64 holders?
You argue for modifying the marketplace to fit your personal standards. I argue for being allowed to apply my own personal standards to the marketplace. >>
I'm not sure why you think my perspective is based on my personal standards.
I gave my opinions on 71765746 and 10940048. In one case, our host has stopped grading the coins and in the other our host has taken it off the market. In both cases, our host has reversed their previous decisions due to the discovery of coin doctoring.
Given that our host has disavowed certain coins, I have no problem saying such coins should be disclosed per eBay and PNG rules using our host's standards, not mine.
<< <i>I'm not sure why you think my perspective is based on my personal standards.
I gave my opinions on 71765746 and 10940048. In one case, our host has stopped grading the coins and in the other our host has taken it off the market. In both cases, our host has reversed their previous decisions due to the discovery of coin doctoring.
Given that our host has disavowed certain coins, I have no problem saying such coins should be disclosed per eBay and PNG rules using our host's standards, not mine. >>
So your saying this...
<< <i>I'm guessing the TPGs didn't bite on this coin from the OP.
>>
... wasn't an allusion to your opinion of the OPs graded coins which were pulled?
You do argue in defense of Lapidary2's actions because you have preexisting opinion of the coins which were pulled. And while you don't directly offer an opinion of the pulled coins, you base your argument on two examples which indeed were effectively pulled out of the market by the company that slabbed them. The OPs coins were not re-judged by the company in question and he has no moral or business requirement to disclose anything about them if he has no knowledge of anything deceptive being done to them.
<< <i>I'm not sure why you think my perspective is based on my personal standards.
I gave my opinions on 71765746 and 10940048. In one case, our host has stopped grading the coins and in the other our host has taken it off the market. In both cases, our host has reversed their previous decisions due to the discovery of coin doctoring.
Given that our host has disavowed certain coins, I have no problem saying such coins should be disclosed per eBay and PNG rules using our host's standards, not mine. >>
So your saying this...
<< <i>I'm guessing the TPGs didn't bite on this coin from the OP.
>>
... wasn't an allusion to your opinion of the OPs graded coins which were pulled?
You do argue in defense of Lapidary2's actions because you have preexisting opinion of the coins which were pulled. And while you don't directly offer an opinion of the pulled coins, you base your argument on two examples which indeed were effectively pulled out of the market by the company that slabbed them. The OPs coins were not re-judged by the company in question and he has no moral or business requirement to disclose anything about them if he has no knowledge of anything deceptive being done to them. >>
I think you need to read my posts again.
(1) I did not make any connection between 190670717298 and 18337063, 18324264 and/or 18337069.
(2) I have stated that I do not have opinions on 18337063, 18324264 and/or 18337069, pre-existing or otherwise.
(3) I have stated my discussion is not for coins 18337063, 18324264 and/or 18337069, but for the issue of whether eBay has the right to enforce the rules of their marketplace.
You seem to be looking for something that is not there.
<< <i>Not as any sleight toward you in anyway... But I believe I am seeing something that you don't want to admit is there. >>
You are mistaken. I really do not have any opinion on coins 18337063, 18324264 and/or 18337069.
My primary interest is in eBay having the flexibility to apply their rules for 71765746 and similarly disavowed coins. This is a famous coin series that is well discussed. It is also a coin series that I was interested in before I found out they were doctored which may explain my interest in this issue.
<< <i>If you don't mind, make clear for me what rule of the eBay marketplace was enforced in the OPs case? >>
I've mentioned this before but sure, here's the rule I believe is referenced by the note "These coins have been artificially toned the listing failed to disclose this."
- Include all information about any alterations that may have been made to the item.
As to whether the SA coins actually are AT or not, I have no opinion.
People have stated that eBay should not have the ability to make rules for their marketplace and that is the issue I take exception with, not the specific SA coins in question. However, I do take exception with 71765746 (320842938085) being sold undisclosed on Feb 12, 2012.
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. ________________________________________ Outstanding!
Hard to go wrong with full disclosure.
So you will be fully disclosing who sent you the supposed message that may have tarnished another ebay members "good name"? >>
The person who informed me of Lapidary2's abuse of power is not a salient point to this discussion, whereas the idents of the CCWGroup are salient.
Would you, Stairman, like to disclose if you are in the CCWGroup on eBay? Your prostestations are the loudest and most defensive of all. And as Bochiman pointed out, coupled with your outcries, your sudden interest in this particular thread is most likely no coincidence.
I sure would, ishop, like to disclose that I am not a member of the CCWGroup.
Now, ishop, can you show me where I have protested loudest?
I have not protested at all.
My outcries would be nice to read also.
You said you would like full disclosure, I agreed. If you likeI will take a look at your sales and buys and see if there is something to protest and or outcry about.
Diverting attention to the new guy probably wont work. If we're staying salient, that is.
<< <i>Not as any sleight toward you in anyway... But I believe I am seeing something that you don't want to admit is there. >>
You are mistaken. I really do not have any opinion on coins 18337063, 18324264 and/or 18337069.
My primary interest is in eBay having the flexibility to apply their rules for 71765746 and similarly disavowed coins. This is a famous coin series that is well discussed. It is also a coin series that I was interested in before I found out they were doctored.
<< <i>If you don't mind, make clear for me what rule of the eBay marketplace was enforced in the OPs case? >>
I've mentioned this before but sure, here's the rule I believe is referenced by the note "These coins have been artificially toned the listing failed to disclose this."
- Include all information about any alterations that may have been made to the item.
As to whether the coins actually are AT or not, I have no opinion.
People have stated that eBay should not have the ability to make rules for their marketplace and that is the issue I take exception with, not the specific coins in question. >>
No one, I have read here, has made the argument that eBay shouldn't have the ability to make and enforce rules for their marketplace. It is the selective interpretation and application of those rules by a body made-up of individuals which have no legal, business or financial interest with the company for whom they volunteer that I believe creates a real problem.
Bear with me... you are being patient with me and I do appreciate it. From what I've inferred through your defense of what occurred in the ops case, any of the following should be considered acceptable for ending an auction:
"This coin has been cleaned." (PCGS VF 25 Barber Half) "This coin has been dipped." (NGC MS 65 Morgan) "This coin was in a taco bell napkin." (PCGS Rainbow MS 67 ASE) "This coin is artificially worn." (PCGS P01 Ike) "This coin was lasered." (PCGS PR 64 $20 Lib)
All based on the interpretation of images and the interpretation of what should and shouldn't require disclosure. Is that correct?
<< <i>No one, I have read here, has made the argument that eBay shouldn't have the ability to make and enforce rules for their marketplace. It is the selective interpretation and application of those rules by a body made-up of individuals which have no legal, business or financial interest with the company for whom they volunteer that I believe creates a real problem. >>
I have stated I believe a better solution would be for the TPGs, PNG and ANA to work with eBay to remove disavowed coins from the marketplace. However, in the absence of that, I believe a business must do what it can to create a better buying environment. Unfortunately, this is the situation we are in because of the prevalence of coin doctoring.
Specifically, I would prefer rules that enable eBay to enforce disclosure on items like 71765746 and other coins that have been disavowed by our host. If our host disavows coins that have been lasered (such as by filing a lawsuit over the practice), and known lasered coins are identified and discussed, then I do believe that should be disclosed.
Do you believe it is acceptable to sell a top TPG slabbed coin with undisclosed lasering?
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. ________________________________________ Outstanding!
Hard to go wrong with full disclosure.
So you will be fully disclosing who sent you the supposed message that may have tarnished another ebay members "good name"? >>
Well I never have bought a coin on Ebay ever. I don't buy anything from Ebay period. I do not like Ebay. Ebay does not like me.
As for the OP, I've cringed from time to time over his postings on the forum that have bordered on spam. I've also winced a few times at his offerings thinking they just did not look right to me. The linked images I commented on in this thread looked to be highly questionable in my humble opinion. Thus the brutal comment. One needs to draw there own conclusions and do their due diligence from there. I would never do business with the OP but that might just be me. Others should do as they want.
The EBAY Watch Group concept scares me as well.
There you have it. All typed with one hand on the Bible. 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>The EBAY Watch Group concept scares me as well. >>
It shouldn't- it's for your own good, after all. Because, you know, people are too stupid to be depended on to actually read descriptions and terms and look at sellers' feedback records before making a decision on a prospective purchase. It's like with the 1964-D fantasy dollars that eBay doesn't allow because they might confuse people... no, wait- those are okay because people are smart enough to figure out on their own just what they are.
Anyway, eBay's got your back. Unless you're buying a Rolex. Then, you're on your own.
<< <i>The EBAY Watch Group concept scares me as well. >>
It shouldn't- it's for your own good, after all. Because, you know, people are too stupid to be depended on to actually read descriptions and terms and look at sellers' feedback records before making a decision on a prospective purchase. It's like with the 1964-D fantasy dollars that eBay doesn't allow because they might confuse people... no, wait- those are okay because people are smart enough to figure out on their own just what they are.
Anyway, eBay's got your back. Unless you're buying a Rolex. Then, you're on your own. >>
I had a run in with Ebay several years ago and litigation was my only recourse. We are dead to each other. Your thinly veiled facetious reply above is well noted. Well stated sir. 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>Your thinly veiled facetious reply above is well noted. >>
"Thinly veiled"? You're far too generous- there was nothing even slightly "veiled" intended in the post.
The best thing that could happen with eBay is that they decide to prohibit all coins from the site. This would serve two purposes- first, it would open the door for someone competent in running a coin site online and two, all the people who are so worried about protecting the marketplace would have the comfort of knowing nobody would ever be cheated buying coins on eBay again.
I hit links posted by others (Who are not protesting as much as I).
I'm not sure why you want to make this thread about me.
If you like, I could fill you in on my life for the last year, and the reason I did not post after joining. I think most would rather stay on topic, but.....
<<CWG members are prohibited from publicly announcing their identities. There are at least two of them on this forum.>>
eBay informants/spies in our midst...WTF?!?
If true, I find this an extremely alarming development...a bombshell actually...and I for one will now be extremely careful about commenting on "suspect" eBay postings by others lest I unintentionally unleash a witch hunt on their items. So there...isn't self-censorship a wonderful addition to a posting/message board? Now we'll all reap the benefit of saying/knowing less because eBay is now literally monitoring our communications.
AND I also think PCGS should be alarmed that their own tool (namely this board) is essentially being used as an instrument to undermine their professional reputation in the industry.
I really can't communicate how disturbing this has become...potentially having eBay spies in our midst!
And I also think I'll be dropping a line to one of my editorial contacts at CW re this thread...as I think the validity of this new Star Chamber concept now warrents a full airing within the collector commmunity at large.
<< <i>If true, I find this an extremely alarming development...a bombshell actually...and I for one will now be extremely careful about commenting on "suspect" eBay postings by others lest I unintentionally unleash a witch hunt on their items. >>
Witch hunt?
She turned me into a newt!
Serioulsy though- how can anyone be against a group of anonymous people who are toiling endlessly (probably, I'd guess- I imagine they do get bathroom breaks) in order to make the eBay marketplace safe for bidders who refuse to use the resources available to them in order to identify sellers they can depend on.
Lol...I doubt "YIKES" was the same exclamation used by the four PCGS professional graders who just last week certified that same coin into PCGS MS65 BN...Trollalalaa
Serioulsy though- how can anyone be against a group of anonymous people who are toiling endlessly (probably, I'd guess- I imagine they do get bathroom breaks)
NO!
Now that I am leader, no more bathroom breaks.
And no more farting in there. We don't have a window and it's too cramped.
<< <i>eBay informants/spies in our midst...WTF?!? >>
<< <i>If true, I find this an extremely alarming development...a bombshell actually...and I for one will now be extremely careful about commenting on "suspect" eBay postings by others lest I unintentionally unleash a witch hunt on their items. So there...isn't self-censorship a wonderful addition to a posting/message board? >>
This is one thing you missed.
I can tell you exactly how to find out who it is. (Besides me of course)
ishops buddy that gave him the message must be in said group, and on this board.
<< <i><<CWG members are prohibited from publicly announcing their identities. There are at least two of them on this forum.>>
eBay informants/spies in our midst...WTF?!?
If true, I find this an extremely alarming development...a bombshell actually...and I for one will now be extremely careful about commenting on "suspect" eBay postings by others lest I unintentionally unleash a witch hunt on their items. So there...isn't self-censorship a wonderful addition to a posting/message board? Now we'll all reap the benefit of saying/knowing less because eBay is now literally monitoring our communications.
AND I also think PCGS should be alarmed that their own tool (namely this board) is essentially being used as an instrument to undermine their professional reputation in the industry.
I really can't communicate how disturbing this has become...potentially having eBay spies in our midst!
And I also think I'll be dropping a line to one of my editorial contacts at CW re this thread...as I think the validity of this new Star Chamber concept now warrents a full airing within the collector commmunity at large. >>
I'm not sure I understand this perspective.
There are no ebay spies in our midst. There are a few CU members who can expedite killing bad ebay auctions.
Sounds like a good idea to me. Fakes and other serious problem auctions are aired on this forum all the time and, once the CU community confirms them, many of us report the auctions. What could possibly be wrong with ebay granting influence to a knowledgable CU member? Lance.
At least eBay has a coin community watch group. Now if they'd just bid instead of "selling their services" like other outside influences in order to muscle their way in to the "grading business".
Maybe just make a rule on eBay that we can't sell PCGS graded coins with toning. That'll work better. Then no NGC coins with toning.
Then only black and white photos and the world will be a happy place.
<<There are no ebay spies in our midst. There are a few CU members who can expedite killing bad ebay auctions.>>
I beg your pardon...do you mean "Expedite the killing of bad eBay auctions...of validly graded coins in legtitimate PCGS slabs...based only on low res photos?"
<< <i>Nothing for sale on eBay. No spam for you >>
I know right?
I'm waiting for the thread to die to list new coins....well, that may take too long so I will list 612 new coins in two hours, three minutes and six seconds for everyone to see if they are AT/NT/eBayT....
<< <i><<There are no ebay spies in our midst. There are a few CU members who can expedite killing bad ebay auctions.>>
I beg your pardon...do you mean "Expedite the killing of bad eBay auctions...of validly graded coins in legtitimate PCGS slabs...based only on low res photos?"
<< <i><<There are no ebay spies in our midst. There are a few CU members who can expedite killing bad ebay auctions.>>
I beg your pardon...do you mean "Expedite the killing of bad eBay auctions...of validly graded coins in legtitimate PCGS slabs...based only on low res photos?"
Come again?!? >>
A random, unfortunate mistake, that's all. Lance. >>
There are no spies. No one person can kill a auction. Misinformation is dangerous.
<< <i>Nothing for sale on eBay. No spam for you >>
I know right?
I'm waiting for the thread to die to list new coins....well, that may take too long so I will list 612 new coins in two hours, three minutes and six seconds for everyone to see if they are AT/NT/eBayT....
;p >>
<< <i>
<< <i>Nothing for sale on eBay. No spam for you >>
I know right?
I'm waiting for the thread to die to list new coins....well, that may take too long so I will list 612 new coins in two hours, three minutes and six seconds for everyone to see if they are AT/NT/eBayT....
;p >>
In reality, this is an excellent source of information for the powers that be. That's the primary reason I stir the soup here. Not for the purposes of inching along useless trivia, rather increasing awareness of some things that just seem so ... my vocabulary isn't the best. Things seem so, ... _ _ _ _ _ _ -up ? And yet, the goal is to "make it better".
We have to ask ourselves collectively where "they" draw the line. I've had more eBay items zapped for the dumbest reasons. Anyway, good thread. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts here.
I have been following this thread with interest but I have also been watching developments on eBay.
As far as the thread goes, it seems to me that a lot of posters are happy to see eBay a safer place which sounds like a good thing but when it comes to toning, they think that graders should be the last word, despite the fact that other posters have commented that graders can make mistakes.
Looking at the US site and comparing it with the UK site, a search in coins for "rainbow" produces a huge disparity in numbers and I believe it is because this is demand driven and when that is the case, there is always a risk that sellers will act unethically to satisfy the demand and when high prices are realised for a coin, not because of its condition but because of its toning, then commercial considerations override ethical ones - assuming that the seller had any in the first place.
Sellers of raw coins are now being forced by eBay to admit to any actions they have taken that affects their coins - comments have already appeared in this thread about disclosure rules - and the sellers are starting to do so. My latest search has revealed sellers admitting to the fact that they have heated their coins to achieve these colors and one seller claims that the coins are "anodized", whatever that may mean but what all this does mean is that if submitted for grading to PCGS such coins should not be graded but should receive a certificate number beginning with 91 or 94, defined as questionable color or altered surfaces.
Now, the question is, can grading companies identify coins that have been heat treated or anodized? I don't know the answer but what I suspect is that any changes occur at the molecular level and may be reflected in the electrical conductivity of the coin. I also don't know whether the grading companies have researched this matter and whether they have the ability to identify such doctored coins - for doctored is what they are! Similarly, if holders are not airtight, it is theoretically possible that a gaseous agent could tone a coin within a holder.
We now have proof that doctoring a coin can add spurious colors to its tone and there are people doing it. The question is, if you consider a cleaned coin to be tampered with, would you buy it with such information undisclosed or would you prefer proper disclosure? If so, that means the graders need to do something about this.
What have the professional bodies done about coin doctors? In my opinion, not a lot but do we require posters here to state whether they are PNG members or whether they have toned coins themselves and have a vested interest in supporting this unethical behavior? We should be discussing these matters on the facts and we each have our own opinions and if there are watch group members in this and presumably other threads who cares? Does that really invalidate their opinions? I think not but to disclose membership will devalue their opinions in the eyes of those thinking illogically, and frankly our opinions are probably driven by our own experiences, so perhaps we should all tell our complete life story here, in the interests of fairness. I find that closed groups, anonymity and even harmless secret societies always fuel the public taste for paranoia.
I may not post very often, but I follow threads here and on other boards and note that coins that are the subject of heated debate often disappear from eBay and rarely does anybody complain about the watch group reacting and dealing with such listings but the group's anonymity protects them from attack, verbal or otherwise and from external influences. Since the cancellation of a listing on eBay represents a loss of revenue to eBay - nobody in this thread seems to have noticed that - I doubt that eBay allows a member's opinions to take precedent over others without careful consideration. I noticed one person in this thread suggesting that such power, if that is what you want to call it, could lead to abuse, well of course it can and so I have no doubt that members of that group are monitored by eBay to ensure that there are no abuses and it may well be that the group is also self regulating because abuses would destroy the group's credibility as well as its effectiveness. What would eBay be like without the genuine threat of listing cancellation and actual listings being cancelled? A total free-for-all for corrupt sellers and dealers.
The original poster in this thread has told us that the coin that he sold on eBay, listing 200728632913, has been given an MS65 grade by PCGS and I for one would be very interested to hear how PCGS has confirmed that the coin was not doctored to achieve the rainbow colors. I would also like to know how PCGS determined that the coins that were the subject of the original post were not artificially toned. Of course, how a coin valued at about $1.50 can sell for $70 because of transient colors and then the buyer expect someone else to pay $250 for it is another matter.
When I buy a coin, I buy the coin, not its pretty colors and frankly, I am so concerned about the extent of doctoring, I would not buy a coin if its coloration made no sense to me. Also, on a point of principle, I would never buy from a seller who is offering a number of questionable coins. Based on the volume of multicolored toned coins on eBay, I suspect that many would disappear if the numismatic community acted in a similar fashion.
Well, this is how I see things, these are my carefully considered opinions and reflections but I'm sure there will be plenty of conspiracy theorists trying to discern my motives, where I have none - so, the dissection will follow. I do have one final opinion though and that is that the question of artificial coin toning is an important one and a potentially valuable discussion has from time to time descended into farce.
Comments
<< <i>the time tested principle of "Caveat Emptor" (Let the Buyer Beware), must be allowed to fill in the rest of the equation. >>
That is really up to eBay to decide and that is likely a business decision on the type of marketplace they want to maintain.
With their recent policy changes, it appears that eBay is not willing to have their marketplace be dictated by "Caveat Emptor."
<< <i>Sure, we are both just offering our own interpretations and perspectives
Difference being, your interpretation and perspective results in demonstrable harm to people (the guy selling the SA coins, for example). I have yet to see any evidence provided that the coins the Star Chamber has condemned have harmed anyone.
<< <i>
<< <i>the time tested principle of "Caveat Emptor" (Let the Buyer Beware), must be allowed to fill in the rest of the equation. >>
That is really up to eBay to decide and that is likely a business decision on the type of marketplace they want to maintain.
With their recent policy changes, it appears that eBay is not willing to have their marketplace be dictated by "Caveat Emptor." >>
I said the rest of the equation, AFTER eBay's efforts, to be filled in with Caveat Emptor...a big difference than Caveat Emptor alone.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>the time tested principle of "Caveat Emptor" (Let the Buyer Beware), must be allowed to fill in the rest of the equation. >>
That is really up to eBay to decide and that is likely a business decision on the type of marketplace they want to maintain.
With their recent policy changes, it appears that eBay is not willing to have their marketplace be dictated by "Caveat Emptor." >>
I said the rest of the equation, AFTER eBay's efforts, to be filled in with Caveat Emptor...a big difference than Caveat Emptor alone. >>
I addressed that by mentioning it may be a business decision, not just a law, rule, ethics issue as you suggested. Often times there are business reasons to do something that go beyond legal and moral requirements.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>the time tested principle of "Caveat Emptor" (Let the Buyer Beware), must be allowed to fill in the rest of the equation. >>
That is really up to eBay to decide and that is likely a business decision on the type of marketplace they want to maintain.
With their recent policy changes, it appears that eBay is not willing to have their marketplace be dictated by "Caveat Emptor." >>
I said the rest of the equation, AFTER eBay's efforts, to be filled in with Caveat Emptor...a big difference than Caveat Emptor alone. >>
I addressed that by mentioning it may be a business decision, not just a law, rule, ethics issue as you suggested. Often times there are business reasons to do something that go beyond legal and moral requirements. >>
Noted.
<< <i>
<< <i>Sure, we are both just offering our own interpretations and perspectives
Difference being, your interpretation and perspective results in demonstrable harm to people >>
I believe a difference is that my interpretation and perspective protects buyers while yours protects sellers. I believe my interpretation is more aligned with the spirit of the rules for both eBay and the PNG.
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.
________________________________________
Outstanding!
Hard to go wrong with full disclosure.
So you will be fully disclosing who sent you the supposed message that may have tarnished another ebay members "good name"?
<< <i>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. >>
No, wrong. eBay hasn't given an opinion on the matter whatsoever.
The matter at hand, is that an anonymous group working on BEHALF of eBay have been given the power to selectively end random sales based solely on subjective opinion. You yourself have specifically stated your "opinion" on the toning of the coins in question. Lapidary2's written out opinion *can not* be considered anything but subjective. And one could argue that evidentiary evidence of the "leak" from CCW would indicate that there was even some silent dissension from within the group itself.
PCGS gave an opinion.
You gave an opinion.
Lapidary2 gave an opinion.
eBay gave no opinion on the matter.
eBay did give certain eBay buyers and *sellers* the power to end sales of other eBay sellers (potential competitors). In this case the opinion which ended the auction cannot be considered anything other than a subjective one.
Moreover, history has shown European coin collectors have different market acceptance criteria than US collectors. When US collectors started desiring natural undipped surfaces, European collectors remained squarely in the "dip it white till it blinds me" camp. Compare a Canadian collectors opinion of an XF George V Dime to that of someone from the US. They are virtually always different. By your logic a Canadian CCW member should be able to end an auction for a coin graded by PCGS or NGC at XF when he believes it to be a VF.
Wrapping the PNG, your opinion, and Lapidary2's actions as protective blanket for buyers works for you in this instance because it fits your personal opinion of market acceptability. It doesn't work for a lot of us because we can recognize the slippery slope something like this represents regardless of our personal opinions on the coins or seller.
You believe that this incident protects the buyer. But it only does so by modifying the marketplace to one which meets your personal criteria.
Banning counterfeits is something that protects a buyer. I would even agree that limiting start prices for uncertified coins does more good than it does harm. But what happens when someone inside the CCW decides he's not going to put up with all the dipped Morgans in holders? How about all the obviously cleaned middle grade Barber halves in holders? What about all the holdered MS 70/PF 70 Ultra Cameo modern commemoratives clearly no better than their 69 brethren? The undeniably non-RD copper in RD holders? The AU 64s in MS 64 holders?
You argue for modifying the marketplace to fit your personal standards. I argue for being allowed to apply my own personal standards to the marketplace.
<< <i>"Methinks thou doth protest too much?"
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.
________________________________________
Outstanding!
Hard to go wrong with full disclosure.
So you will be fully disclosing who sent you the supposed message that may have tarnished another ebay members "good name"? >>
Ah, "stairman". Aren't most all of your posts in this thread? Over a year on the board though? Kinda makes one wonder......
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>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. >>
No, wrong. eBay hasn't given an opinion on the matter whatsoever.
The matter at hand, is that an anonymous group working on BEHALF of eBay have been given the power to selectively end random sales based solely on subjective opinion. You yourself have specifically stated your "opinion" on the toning of the coins in question. Lapidary2's written out opinion *can not* be considered anything but subjective. And one could argue that evidentiary evidence of the "leak" from CCW would indicate that there was even some silent dissension from within the group itself.
PCGS gave an opinion.
You gave an opinion.
Lapidary2 gave an opinion.
eBay gave no opinion on the matter.
eBay did give certain eBay buyers and *sellers* the power to end sales of other eBay sellers (potential competitors). In this case the opinion which ended the auction cannot be considered anything other than a subjective one.
Moreover, history has shown European coin collectors have different market acceptance criteria than US collectors. When US collectors started desiring natural undipped surfaces, European collectors remained squarely in the "dip it white till it blinds me" camp. Compare a Canadian collectors opinion of an XF George V Dime to that of someone from the US. They are virtually always different. By your logic a Canadian CCW member should be able to end an auction for a coin graded by PCGS or NGC at XF when he believes it to be a VF.
Wrapping the PNG, your opinion, and Lapidary2's actions as protective blanket for buyers works for you in this instance because it fits your personal opinion of market acceptability. It doesn't work for a lot of us because we can recognize the slippery slope something like this represents regardless of our personal opinions on the coins or seller.
You believe that this incident protects the buyer. But it only does so by modifying the marketplace to one which meets your personal criteria.
Banning counterfeits is something that protects a buyer. I would even agree that limiting start prices for uncertified coins does more good than it does harm. But what happens when someone inside the CCW decides he's not going to put up with all the dipped Morgans in holders? How about all the obviously cleaned middle grade Barber halves in holders? What about all the holdered MS 70/PF 70 Ultra Cameo modern commemoratives clearly no better than their 69 brethren? The undeniably non-RD copper in RD holders? The AU 64s in MS 64 holders?
You argue for modifying the marketplace to fit your personal standards. I argue for being allowed to apply my own personal standards to the marketplace. >>
I'm not sure why you think my perspective is based on my personal standards.
I gave my opinions on 71765746 and 10940048. In one case, our host has stopped grading the coins and in the other our host has taken it off the market. In both cases, our host has reversed their previous decisions due to the discovery of coin doctoring.
Given that our host has disavowed certain coins, I have no problem saying such coins should be disclosed per eBay and PNG rules using our host's standards, not mine.
Don't be shy. What's your point?
I would like to appologize to the board for my mistake.
Two posts were answering questions, so I guess I was set up by those knowing the rules better than I.
I have read the rules but could not find the ratio. Any help would be appreciated.
Thank you.
<< <i>I'm not sure why you think my perspective is based on my personal standards.
I gave my opinions on 71765746 and 10940048. In one case, our host has stopped grading the coins and in the other our host has taken it off the market. In both cases, our host has reversed their previous decisions due to the discovery of coin doctoring.
Given that our host has disavowed certain coins, I have no problem saying such coins should be disclosed per eBay and PNG rules using our host's standards, not mine. >>
So your saying this...
<< <i>I'm guessing the TPGs didn't bite on this coin from the OP.
... wasn't an allusion to your opinion of the OPs graded coins which were pulled?
You do argue in defense of Lapidary2's actions because you have preexisting opinion of the coins which were pulled. And while you don't directly offer an opinion of the pulled coins, you base your argument on two examples which indeed were effectively pulled out of the market by the company that slabbed them. The OPs coins were not re-judged by the company in question and he has no moral or business requirement to disclose anything about them if he has no knowledge of anything deceptive being done to them.
Lance.
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm not sure why you think my perspective is based on my personal standards.
I gave my opinions on 71765746 and 10940048. In one case, our host has stopped grading the coins and in the other our host has taken it off the market. In both cases, our host has reversed their previous decisions due to the discovery of coin doctoring.
Given that our host has disavowed certain coins, I have no problem saying such coins should be disclosed per eBay and PNG rules using our host's standards, not mine. >>
So your saying this...
<< <i>I'm guessing the TPGs didn't bite on this coin from the OP.
... wasn't an allusion to your opinion of the OPs graded coins which were pulled?
You do argue in defense of Lapidary2's actions because you have preexisting opinion of the coins which were pulled. And while you don't directly offer an opinion of the pulled coins, you base your argument on two examples which indeed were effectively pulled out of the market by the company that slabbed them. The OPs coins were not re-judged by the company in question and he has no moral or business requirement to disclose anything about them if he has no knowledge of anything deceptive being done to them. >>
I think you need to read my posts again.
(1) I did not make any connection between 190670717298 and 18337063, 18324264 and/or 18337069.
(2) I have stated that I do not have opinions on 18337063, 18324264 and/or 18337069, pre-existing or otherwise.
(3) I have stated my discussion is not for coins 18337063, 18324264 and/or 18337069, but for the issue of whether eBay has the right to enforce the rules of their marketplace.
You seem to be looking for something that is not there.
If you don't mind, make clear for me what rule of the eBay marketplace was enforced in the OPs case?
<< <i>Not as any sleight toward you in anyway... But I believe I am seeing something that you don't want to admit is there. >>
You are mistaken. I really do not have any opinion on coins 18337063, 18324264 and/or 18337069.
My primary interest is in eBay having the flexibility to apply their rules for 71765746 and similarly disavowed coins. This is a famous coin series that is well discussed. It is also a coin series that I was interested in before I found out they were doctored which may explain my interest in this issue.
<< <i>If you don't mind, make clear for me what rule of the eBay marketplace was enforced in the OPs case? >>
I've mentioned this before but sure, here's the rule I believe is referenced by the note "These coins have been artificially toned the listing failed to disclose this."
- Include all information about any alterations that may have been made to the item.
As to whether the SA coins actually are AT or not, I have no opinion.
People have stated that eBay should not have the ability to make rules for their marketplace and that is the issue I take exception with, not the specific SA coins in question. However, I do take exception with 71765746 (320842938085) being sold undisclosed on Feb 12, 2012.
<< <i>"Methinks thou doth protest too much?"
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.
________________________________________
Outstanding!
Hard to go wrong with full disclosure.
So you will be fully disclosing who sent you the supposed message that may have tarnished another ebay members "good name"? >>
The person who informed me of Lapidary2's abuse of power is not a salient point to this discussion, whereas the idents of the CCWGroup are salient.
Would you, Stairman, like to disclose if you are in the CCWGroup on eBay? Your prostestations are the loudest and most defensive of all. And as Bochiman pointed out, coupled with your outcries, your sudden interest in this particular thread is most likely no coincidence.
Now, ishop, can you show me where I have protested loudest?
I have not protested at all.
My outcries would be nice to read also.
You said you would like full disclosure, I agreed. If you likeI will take a look at your sales and buys and see if there is something to protest and or outcry about.
Diverting attention to the new guy probably wont work. If we're staying salient, that is.
<< <i>
<< <i>Not as any sleight toward you in anyway... But I believe I am seeing something that you don't want to admit is there. >>
You are mistaken. I really do not have any opinion on coins 18337063, 18324264 and/or 18337069.
My primary interest is in eBay having the flexibility to apply their rules for 71765746 and similarly disavowed coins. This is a famous coin series that is well discussed. It is also a coin series that I was interested in before I found out they were doctored.
<< <i>If you don't mind, make clear for me what rule of the eBay marketplace was enforced in the OPs case? >>
I've mentioned this before but sure, here's the rule I believe is referenced by the note "These coins have been artificially toned the listing failed to disclose this."
- Include all information about any alterations that may have been made to the item.
As to whether the coins actually are AT or not, I have no opinion.
People have stated that eBay should not have the ability to make rules for their marketplace and that is the issue I take exception with, not the specific coins in question. >>
No one, I have read here, has made the argument that eBay shouldn't have the ability to make and enforce rules for their marketplace. It is the selective interpretation and application of those rules by a body made-up of individuals which have no legal, business or financial interest with the company for whom they volunteer that I believe creates a real problem.
Bear with me... you are being patient with me and I do appreciate it. From what I've inferred through your defense of what occurred in the ops case, any of the following should be considered acceptable for ending an auction:
"This coin has been cleaned." (PCGS VF 25 Barber Half)
"This coin has been dipped." (NGC MS 65 Morgan)
"This coin was in a taco bell napkin." (PCGS Rainbow MS 67 ASE)
"This coin is artificially worn." (PCGS P01 Ike)
"This coin was lasered." (PCGS PR 64 $20 Lib)
All based on the interpretation of images and the interpretation of what should and shouldn't require disclosure. Is that correct?
<< <i>No one, I have read here, has made the argument that eBay shouldn't have the ability to make and enforce rules for their marketplace. It is the selective interpretation and application of those rules by a body made-up of individuals which have no legal, business or financial interest with the company for whom they volunteer that I believe creates a real problem. >>
I have stated I believe a better solution would be for the TPGs, PNG and ANA to work with eBay to remove disavowed coins from the marketplace. However, in the absence of that, I believe a business must do what it can to create a better buying environment. Unfortunately, this is the situation we are in because of the prevalence of coin doctoring.
Specifically, I would prefer rules that enable eBay to enforce disclosure on items like 71765746 and other coins that have been disavowed by our host. If our host disavows coins that have been lasered (such as by filing a lawsuit over the practice), and known lasered coins are identified and discussed, then I do believe that should be disclosed.
Do you believe it is acceptable to sell a top TPG slabbed coin with undisclosed lasering?
<< <i>"Methinks thou doth protest too much?"
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.
________________________________________
Outstanding!
Hard to go wrong with full disclosure.
So you will be fully disclosing who sent you the supposed message that may have tarnished another ebay members "good name"? >>
Well I never have bought a coin on Ebay ever. I don't buy anything from Ebay period. I do not like Ebay. Ebay does not like me.
As for the OP, I've cringed from time to time over his postings on the forum that have bordered on spam. I've also winced a few times at his offerings thinking they just did not look right to me. The linked images I commented on in this thread looked to be highly questionable in my humble opinion. Thus the brutal comment. One needs to draw there own conclusions and do their due diligence from there. I would never do business with the OP but that might just be me. Others should do as they want.
The EBAY Watch Group concept scares me as well.
There you have it. All typed with one hand on the Bible. 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>The EBAY Watch Group concept scares me as well. >>
It shouldn't- it's for your own good, after all. Because, you know, people are too stupid to be depended on to actually read descriptions and terms and look at sellers' feedback records before making a decision on a prospective purchase. It's like with the 1964-D fantasy dollars that eBay doesn't allow because they might confuse people... no, wait- those are okay because people are smart enough to figure out on their own just what they are.
Anyway, eBay's got your back. Unless you're buying a Rolex. Then, you're on your own.
<< <i> If you likeI will take a look at your sales and buys and see if there is something to protest and or outcry about.
>>
I believe you already have...Here is a cut and paste from your only other posting last year...things that make you go "hmmmm".
Friday April 22, 2011 4:51 PM
"...Some of us are working hard to make buying on ebay a good, safe experience. A little help is nice. That starts with feedback. JMHO"
Edited: Friday April 22, 2011 at 4:53 PM by stairman
<< <i>
<< <i>The EBAY Watch Group concept scares me as well. >>
It shouldn't- it's for your own good, after all. Because, you know, people are too stupid to be depended on to actually read descriptions and terms and look at sellers' feedback records before making a decision on a prospective purchase. It's like with the 1964-D fantasy dollars that eBay doesn't allow because they might confuse people... no, wait- those are okay because people are smart enough to figure out on their own just what they are.
Anyway, eBay's got your back. Unless you're buying a Rolex. Then, you're on your own. >>
I had a run in with Ebay several years ago and litigation was my only recourse. We are dead to each other. Your thinly veiled facetious reply above is well noted
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>Your thinly veiled facetious reply above is well noted
"Thinly veiled"? You're far too generous- there was nothing even slightly "veiled" intended in the post.
The best thing that could happen with eBay is that they decide to prohibit all coins from the site. This would serve two purposes- first, it would open the door for someone competent in running a coin site online and two, all the people who are so worried about protecting the marketplace would have the comfort of knowing nobody would ever be cheated buying coins on eBay again.
I hit links posted by others (Who are not protesting as much as I).
I'm not sure why you want to make this thread about me.
If you like, I could fill you in on my life for the last year, and the reason I did not post after joining. I think most would rather stay on topic, but.....
>>
I believe you already have...Here is a cut and paste from your only other posting last year...things that make you go "hmmmm".
Friday April 22, 2011 4:51 PM
"...Some of us are working hard to make buying on ebay a good, safe experience. A little help is nice. That starts with feedback. JMHO"
Edited: Friday April 22, 2011 at 4:53 PM by stairman
Ok,
We will make it about me.
So what you are implying is that I am in the CCWG, correct.
Then you are in fact calling me a liar, correct?
I've never been the target of a witch hunt before!!!
Doug
This one's pretty!!!
YIKES
I don't work for ebay.
Doug
______________________________________
Dang it. It was just starting to get fun.
Alright, I'm gonna head over to ebay and see what I can find out about my new group!
eBay informants/spies in our midst...WTF?!?
If true, I find this an extremely alarming development...a bombshell actually...and I for one will now be extremely careful about commenting on "suspect" eBay postings by others lest I unintentionally unleash a witch hunt on their items. So there...isn't self-censorship a wonderful addition to a posting/message board? Now we'll all reap the benefit of saying/knowing less because eBay is now literally monitoring our communications.
AND I also think PCGS should be alarmed that their own tool (namely this board) is essentially being used as an instrument to undermine their professional reputation in the industry.
I really can't communicate how disturbing this has become...potentially having eBay spies in our midst!
And I also think I'll be dropping a line to one of my editorial contacts at CW re this thread...as I think the validity of this new Star Chamber concept now warrents a full airing within the collector commmunity at large.
<< <i>If true, I find this an extremely alarming development...a bombshell actually...and I for one will now be extremely careful about commenting on "suspect" eBay postings by others lest I unintentionally unleash a witch hunt on their items. >>
Witch hunt?
She turned me into a newt!
Serioulsy though- how can anyone be against a group of anonymous people who are toiling endlessly (probably, I'd guess- I imagine they do get bathroom breaks) in order to make the eBay marketplace safe for bidders who refuse to use the resources available to them in order to identify sellers they can depend on.
What's not to like?
<< <i>EEEWWWWWWW,
This one's pretty!!!
YIKES >>
Lol...I doubt "YIKES" was the same exclamation used by the four PCGS professional graders who just last week certified that same coin into PCGS MS65 BN...Trollalalaa
I need to know my rank in the group.
NO!
Now that I am leader, no more bathroom breaks.
And no more farting in there. We don't have a window and it's too cramped.
<< <i>eBay informants/spies in our midst...WTF?!? >>
<< <i>If true, I find this an extremely alarming development...a bombshell actually...and I for one will now be extremely careful about commenting on "suspect" eBay postings by others lest I unintentionally unleash a witch hunt on their items. So there...isn't self-censorship a wonderful addition to a posting/message board? >>
This is one thing you missed.
I can tell you exactly how to find out who it is. (Besides me of course)
ishops buddy that gave him the message must be in said group, and on this board.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i><<CWG members are prohibited from publicly announcing their identities. There are at least two of them on this forum.>>
eBay informants/spies in our midst...WTF?!?
If true, I find this an extremely alarming development...a bombshell actually...and I for one will now be extremely careful about commenting on "suspect" eBay postings by others lest I unintentionally unleash a witch hunt on their items. So there...isn't self-censorship a wonderful addition to a posting/message board? Now we'll all reap the benefit of saying/knowing less because eBay is now literally monitoring our communications.
AND I also think PCGS should be alarmed that their own tool (namely this board) is essentially being used as an instrument to undermine their professional reputation in the industry.
I really can't communicate how disturbing this has become...potentially having eBay spies in our midst!
And I also think I'll be dropping a line to one of my editorial contacts at CW re this thread...as I think the validity of this new Star Chamber concept now warrents a full airing within the collector commmunity at large. >>
I'm not sure I understand this perspective.
There are no ebay spies in our midst. There are a few CU members who can expedite killing bad ebay auctions.
Sounds like a good idea to me. Fakes and other serious problem auctions are aired on this forum all the time and, once the CU community confirms them, many of us report the auctions. What could possibly be wrong with ebay granting influence to a knowledgable CU member?
Lance.
Maybe just make a rule on eBay that we can't sell PCGS graded coins with toning. That'll work better. Then no NGC coins with toning.
Then only black and white photos and the world will be a happy place.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
I beg your pardon...do you mean "Expedite the killing of bad eBay auctions...of validly graded coins in legtitimate PCGS slabs...based only on low res photos?"
Come again?!?
<< <i>Nothing for sale on eBay. No spam for you
I know right?
I'm waiting for the thread to die to list new coins....well, that may take too long so I will list 612 new coins in two hours, three minutes and six seconds for everyone to see if they are AT/NT/eBayT....
;p
<< <i><<There are no ebay spies in our midst. There are a few CU members who can expedite killing bad ebay auctions.>>
I beg your pardon...do you mean "Expedite the killing of bad eBay auctions...of validly graded coins in legtitimate PCGS slabs...based only on low res photos?"
Come again?!? >>
A random, unfortunate mistake, that's all.
Lance.
<< <i>
<< <i><<There are no ebay spies in our midst. There are a few CU members who can expedite killing bad ebay auctions.>>
I beg your pardon...do you mean "Expedite the killing of bad eBay auctions...of validly graded coins in legtitimate PCGS slabs...based only on low res photos?"
Come again?!? >>
A random, unfortunate mistake, that's all.
Lance. >>
There are no spies. No one person can kill a auction. Misinformation is dangerous.
<< <i>
<< <i>Nothing for sale on eBay. No spam for you
I know right?
I'm waiting for the thread to die to list new coins....well, that may take too long so I will list 612 new coins in two hours, three minutes and six seconds for everyone to see if they are AT/NT/eBayT....
;p >>
<< <i>
<< <i>Nothing for sale on eBay. No spam for you
I know right?
I'm waiting for the thread to die to list new coins....well, that may take too long so I will list 612 new coins in two hours, three minutes and six seconds for everyone to see if they are AT/NT/eBayT....
;p >>
In reality, this is an excellent source of information for the powers that be. That's the primary reason I stir the soup here. Not for the purposes of inching along useless trivia, rather increasing awareness of some things that just seem so ... my vocabulary isn't the best. Things seem so, ... _ _ _ _ _ _ -up ? And yet, the goal is to "make it better".
We have to ask ourselves collectively where "they" draw the line. I've had more eBay items zapped for the dumbest reasons. Anyway, good thread. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts here.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
As far as the thread goes, it seems to me that a lot of posters are happy to see eBay a safer place which sounds like a good thing but when it comes to toning, they think that graders should be the last word, despite the fact that other posters have commented that graders can make mistakes.
Looking at the US site and comparing it with the UK site, a search in coins for "rainbow" produces a huge disparity in numbers and I believe it is because this is demand driven and when that is the case, there is always a risk that sellers will act unethically to satisfy the demand and when high prices are realised for a coin, not because of its condition but because of its toning, then commercial considerations override ethical ones - assuming that the seller had any in the first place.
Sellers of raw coins are now being forced by eBay to admit to any actions they have taken that affects their coins - comments have already appeared in this thread about disclosure rules - and the sellers are starting to do so. My latest search has revealed sellers admitting to the fact that they have heated their coins to achieve these colors and one seller claims that the coins are "anodized", whatever that may mean but what all this does mean is that if submitted for grading to PCGS such coins should not be graded but should receive a certificate number beginning with 91 or 94, defined as questionable color or altered surfaces.
Now, the question is, can grading companies identify coins that have been heat treated or anodized? I don't know the answer but what I suspect is that any changes occur at the molecular level and may be reflected in the electrical conductivity of the coin. I also don't know whether the grading companies have researched this matter and whether they have the ability to identify such doctored coins - for doctored is what they are! Similarly, if holders are not airtight, it is theoretically possible that a gaseous agent could tone a coin within a holder.
We now have proof that doctoring a coin can add spurious colors to its tone and there are people doing it. The question is, if you consider a cleaned coin to be tampered with, would you buy it with such information undisclosed or would you prefer proper disclosure? If so, that means the graders need to do something about this.
What have the professional bodies done about coin doctors? In my opinion, not a lot but do we require posters here to state whether they are PNG members or whether they have toned coins themselves and have a vested interest in supporting this unethical behavior? We should be discussing these matters on the facts and we each have our own opinions and if there are watch group members in this and presumably other threads who cares? Does that really invalidate their opinions? I think not but to disclose membership will devalue their opinions in the eyes of those thinking illogically, and frankly our opinions are probably driven by our own experiences, so perhaps we should all tell our complete life story here, in the interests of fairness. I find that closed groups, anonymity and even harmless secret societies always fuel the public taste for paranoia.
I may not post very often, but I follow threads here and on other boards and note that coins that are the subject of heated debate often disappear from eBay and rarely does anybody complain about the watch group reacting and dealing with such listings but the group's anonymity protects them from attack, verbal or otherwise and from external influences. Since the cancellation of a listing on eBay represents a loss of revenue to eBay - nobody in this thread seems to have noticed that - I doubt that eBay allows a member's opinions to take precedent over others without careful consideration. I noticed one person in this thread suggesting that such power, if that is what you want to call it, could lead to abuse, well of course it can and so I have no doubt that members of that group are monitored by eBay to ensure that there are no abuses and it may well be that the group is also self regulating because abuses would destroy the group's credibility as well as its effectiveness. What would eBay be like without the genuine threat of listing cancellation and actual listings being cancelled? A total free-for-all for corrupt sellers and dealers.
The original poster in this thread has told us that the coin that he sold on eBay, listing 200728632913, has been given an MS65 grade by PCGS and I for one would be very interested to hear how PCGS has confirmed that the coin was not doctored to achieve the rainbow colors. I would also like to know how PCGS determined that the coins that were the subject of the original post were not artificially toned. Of course, how a coin valued at about $1.50 can sell for $70 because of transient colors and then the buyer expect someone else to pay $250 for it is another matter.
When I buy a coin, I buy the coin, not its pretty colors and frankly, I am so concerned about the extent of doctoring, I would not buy a coin if its coloration made no sense to me. Also, on a point of principle, I would never buy from a seller who is offering a number of questionable coins. Based on the volume of multicolored toned coins on eBay, I suspect that many would disappear if the numismatic community acted in a similar fashion.
Well, this is how I see things, these are my carefully considered opinions and reflections but I'm sure there will be plenty of conspiracy theorists trying to discern my motives, where I have none - so, the dissection will follow. I do have one final opinion though and that is that the question of artificial coin toning is an important one and a potentially valuable discussion has from time to time descended into farce.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
"Similarly, if holders are not airtight, it is theoretically possible that a gaseous agent could tone a coin within a holder."
This was the only point I was originally trying to make.
I kept reading," well it's in a slab, the slabber saw it in hand, blah, blah, blah"
Could've happened after.
Great post becareful.