A deal is a deal. I don't think there's any recourse for S/B. But ethics are just another part of the story. This $15K mistake will help them clean up their retailing process. You know that the guys at their Spectrum affiliate knew exactly what they could get for this coin. But one has to figure that each and every coin that goes into a package gets multiple checks along the way as to price vs. cost. Possibly, this one was entered into official inventory at the $1650 level but hard to believe the cost was also a number <$1650.
0%: The odds that the lady and her husband didn't know that the little "o" mint mark on the reverse multiplied the value of the coin several times.
1%: The odds that the lady could tell the difference between this coin and a lower graded one. I too would have loved this specific coin as well....at $1650.
This was a guy who had been around the market for decades in gem bust coinage and knew the ropes very well. He has over 3,000 fb's on Ebay. Anyone who is even casually watching gem 19th type coin values whether it be bust, barber, seated, etc. has a fair idea where type coins stand against each other. You're darn right this guy "felt" the coin was a "good" value at $1650, especially with the l'il "o" on the reverse....as it had been over a decade since any gem Barber was priced so attractively. When was the last time ANY date MS65+ Barber half cost $1650? That might had been the mid-1990's or even mid-1980's. The last time a MS65 1900-0 half was worth $1650? Probably in the mid-1970's.
Chances that S/B still owns the coin and this is just one convoluted story?
There are many stories that all of us are aware of where widowns and orphans get 10c on the dollar for high quality rare numismatic items. Once in a while the dealer is on the wrong end of this....<1% of the time. What do they say to the widow when she shows up a month or two later and found out she got 10% of the collection's value?
<< <i>Last October in my Portland PNNA show report, I wrote about something similar that happened to a dealer, but he handled it very differently:
<< <i>On Saturday, an elderly couple who have been my customers for quite a while, were looking at some coins in my case when a dealer came over to speak with them. After the dealer left, the couple told me that they had just bought a beautiful 1916-D Mercury dime in PCGS AU58FB from this dealer for over $5,000, and that the dealer came over to tell them that he had made a mistake. Apparently, the dealer also had a 1916-D Mercury dime in PCGS XF45 and when he looked at his price list, he quoted the couple the price for the XF45 rather than the AU58 (for which he had paid over $10,000).
However, the dealer didn’t ask the couple for the coin back, nor any more money, he just wanted to make sure the couple knew that the 1916-D dime they bought was worth a lot more in case they intended to resell it.
So after the dealer left, the couple told me the story and asked what I thought they should do. I said if it were me, I wouldn’t feel comfortable keeping the coin under those circumstances, and that I would probably go back to the dealer and try to work something out that was more fair to both parties. The couple said they felt the same way. So when they were finished with our transaction, the couple went back over to the dealer and offered to “undo” the deal, either giving him more money or returning the coin. However, they were even more surprised when the dealer refused both and said it was his mistake and that he wanted the couple to keep the coin, and didn’t want any additional money either. Of course, the couple was quite surprised – and told me that, even though the dealer refused to take any additional money for the coin, they still intended to send him more money when they got home.
When the couple told me this, I too was very surprised because losing more than $5,000 on a deal due to a simple mistake would cause any dealer severe heart palpitations. So when I thought about including this story in my show report, I went over to the dealer to ask if he minded me using his name. I told him it was a very heartwarming story, and that it would really show the coin community that there are truly some honest and honorable dealers amongst us. However, the dealer said he really didn’t want any notoriety, and that yes, it was a “costly” mistake, but it was his mistake and he felt good about handling it this way. >>
I recently ran into that same couple and they told me when they got home, they sent the dealer another $2,500, and the dealer sent them a very kind note thanking them for their honesty and integrity. So in spite of the fact that we may think there are too many "crooks" out there, I'd like to believe there are even more kind and honest soles that we don't even hear about. >>
this is the a great example. the dealer honored the deal...and the buyer had integrity enough to show respect for the dealer's mistake and tried to make it right.
BUT, I don't think I'd be able to sleep had I kept the coin.
I assume that the dealer is an expert in rare coins. That's why I have no problem cherrypicking varieties from them- they had the coin in their possession, they're an expert, and thus had an opportunity to examine the coin in the same way I did. They priced it based on an expert decision, and I bought it for that price.
An obvious pricing mistake is different to me, especially with a dealer whom I know can read a Graysheet and price coins correctly. Pointing the error out ensures a great relationship with the dealer.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
Someone getting screwed threads always have stamina. 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>Before the completion of the transaction the law is weighted in the merchants favor.
After the completion of the transaction the law is completely in the purchasers favor. >>
This, to me, is the mostly reasonably correct answer.
Anyone bother to look at S-B's site for terms on retail sales? There aren't any. Big mistake on their part. Ever notice the terms when purchasing from someplace like Amazon where they declare that the sale isn't a sale until the item(s) are shipped? They do it to protect themselves from pricing errors where ppl alerted from forums gang up to buy mis-priced items.
This is 100% on S-B. No policy and procedure for validating sales. No listed terms of sale. There was an offer and acceptance. Item was paid for and shipped. S-B screwed up and the guy would likely win any litigation which is why S-B offered the guy $1000. Personally, I find his actions morally repugnant but he is in the right. The law can be an ass. >>
I wanted to add, and in response to TDN's unilateral error doctrine approach, that once S-B shipped the item they were on flimsy ground asserting the elements of the unilateral error doctrine in winning a claim. To invoke that doctrine and prevail, the burden would be on S-B to prove 2 elements: 1. That enforcing the contract for sale was unconscionable, and 2. the other party had reason to know of the mistake or his fault caused the mistake. Caselaw is all over the board on that issue, so this would not be a slam dunk.
I think they'd lose on #2, imho. >>
I think you've got that wrong. I would replace your "and" with "or." Unconscionability is a separate defense defense entirely to me, and a difficult one for S-B, I would think, since they are the experts, and they made the mistake. To prove unilateral mistake, S-B must prove that (1) a mistake was made, and (2) the other party know or had reason to know of the problem.
It's time for everyone to dismount their moral high horses. The buyer of this coin does not work for Stacks/Bowers and is not under any obligation or moral duty to question Stacks/Bowers pricing structure for the coin.
How many of those who are against what the buyer did have no problem "cherrypicking" a rare die variety from a dealer? I suggest most would do it without hesitation and many have probably done it already. In fact, there are plenty of threads on this board started by collectors who brag about the rip they made. The board even has an unofficial "You Suck" Award that we routinely give to those who manage to do just that. In other words, we congratulate buyers who manage to buy a coin that is worth significantly more than the seller priced it.
Are collectors who are about to cherrypick a great coin from a dealer under an obligation to point out to the dealer that the coin is rarer than he has it priced? I mean, perhaps the dealer made a clerical error when he labeled and/or priced the coin. Right?
In order to be consistent we must either (a) laud the guy who paid S/B significantly less than what the coin was actually worth, or (b) chide everyone who buys a coin for significantly less than it's worth. Doesn't matter the reason... unknowledgable/inattentive dealer, clerical error, it doesn't matter. A rip is a rip unless fraud is involved, and I see no evidence of fraud anywhere to be found in this case if the buyer's story is factually correct in all its details.
Everyone knows the saying "Caveat Emptor"... "Let the Buyer Beware". Well, another adage equally applies to activity in the marketplace - "Diligenter Vendit"... "Let the Seller Be Careful."
My current coin collecting interests are: (1) British coins 1838-1970 in XF-AU-UNC, (2) silver type coins in XF-AU with that classic medium gray coloration and exceptional eye appeal.
My next door neighbor was looking for a new car. Saw a nice used 2009 BMW on a dealer's website for $27K. Twin turbo, low miles - books for $32K. He went down and asked to look at the car. They brought it around - and it had a $34K window tag. He asked if that was the one listed on the website for $27 - they said they didn't have one for $27. He pulled out his iPhone and brought up the ad. Same stock number as the one they brought around. He drove away in the car for the $27K price.
In this scenario, inventory was offered by a business - in the business of selling that product - and a person agreed to the item at the price offered. Seller accepted and took payment and shipped. Why do coin dealers seem to think when a customer 'buys right' they should get a 'do over'?
<< <i>I don't know if this was mentioned previously, but: They CLAIM they both "liked the coin" and yet it is on ebay ready to sell.
That statement LIE alone negates everything else they say and indicates they are LYING, probably about everything else including the dying part. >>
What makes it a lie, Barrytrot? You have never bought anything, with the intent to keep it because you liked it? Then, you turned around and sold it for some reason (maybe realizing the money could be better used elsewhere)?
I'm not condoning what was done but I sure get tired of people making their own decisions and conclusions for others based on speculation and treating it as fact.....
This seems like a clear cut clerical error. Someone entered the price into the system and missed a digit. I'm not sure about the legalities of the situation, but if it were me as the buyer, I'd acknowledge the error and return the coin because that's what I'd hope someone would do for me. I have made mistakes before and very kind customers bailed me out.
I think this is different than a cherrypick. In a cherrypick, you are using your specialized knowledge to create an advantage, and in doing so are adding value where such value did not previously exist. This is a very different situation.
Following the golden rule generally keeps me out of trouble and makes it easier to make friends (and sleep at night). Good luck to the parties involved.
First, when does title change hands? It seems to me that if they received payment and title is passed upon shipment, then SBs argument is weaker.
Second, if the tables were turned, and the collector had agreed to a deal, SB sent payment, and the collector shipped the coin but contacted SB to get out of the deal while the coin was in transit (because they figured out they sold the coin too cheaply), I wonder how SB would react.
Those two questions asked, I think the right thing to do would be to return the coin to SB.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
This reminds me of the situation involving the 25th Anniversary Silver Eagle sets where a large dealer was offering to buy them for about $400 per set before the issue date on prebuys. After the sets released emails were sent out to those who signed up to participate, who were dragging their feet in delivering, that legal action would follow if they did not ship the sets because "a deal is a deal" and I did not matter that the sets were going for significantly more at the time, at least according to the dealer.
Morals and ethics are not the strong suit of many, especially when it involves money. I could see the buyer winning this case or SB dropping it after it hits CW and NN in few weeks. I don't think it's worth all the bad press SB could get from this story. It could make national news if AP picks it up. Afterall it's the 1% against the 99ers here. (eyes roll).
<< <i>Before the completion of the transaction the law is weighted in the merchants favor.
After the completion of the transaction the law is completely in the purchasers favor. >>
This, to me, is the mostly reasonably correct answer.
Anyone bother to look at S-B's site for terms on retail sales? There aren't any. Big mistake on their part. Ever notice the terms when purchasing from someplace like Amazon where they declare that the sale isn't a sale until the item(s) are shipped? They do it to protect themselves from pricing errors where ppl alerted from forums gang up to buy mis-priced items.
This is 100% on S-B. No policy and procedure for validating sales. No listed terms of sale. There was an offer and acceptance. Item was paid for and shipped. S-B screwed up and the guy would likely win any litigation which is why S-B offered the guy $1000. Personally, I find his actions morally repugnant but he is in the right. The law can be an ass. >>
I wanted to add, and in response to TDN's unilateral error doctrine approach, that once S-B shipped the item they were on flimsy ground asserting the elements of the unilateral error doctrine in winning a claim. To invoke that doctrine and prevail, the burden would be on S-B to prove 2 elements: 1. That enforcing the contract for sale was unconscionable, and 2. the other party had reason to know of the mistake or his fault caused the mistake.
I think they'd lose on #2, imho. >>
Really? You don't think this guy looked it up in the price guide before he decided to buy it? What fantasy world are we living in where knowing a coin is priced ten cents on the dollar doesn't make one aware of a mistake???
Also, the fact they noticed their error before the package was even delivered goes a long long way IMO.
For those saying that title passes upon shipping, let's think back to the hundreds of lost in transit threads on this chatroom.
If I was S/B, I wouldn't give a crap about legalities or anything - I'd slap a lawsuit on him so fast that he'd be certain to spend $15k or more in legal fees. It's just not right to keep the coin once he's been notified it's a clerical error [and is obviously such].
I've been kind of surprised by the number of responses that used a "big company, should know better and what's 15K to them anyway?" argument as justification for the buyer keeping the coin.
<< <i>If I was S/B, I wouldn't give a crap about legalities or anything - I'd slap a lawsuit on him so fast that he'd be certain to spend $15k or more in legal fees. It's just not right to keep the coin once he's been notified it's a clerical error [and is obviously such]. >>
But as you know - what is right and what is legal are usually two different things...
<< <i>If I was S/B, I wouldn't give a crap about legalities or anything - I'd slap a lawsuit on him so fast that he'd be certain to spend $15k or more in legal fees. It's just not right to keep the coin once he's been notified it's a clerical error [and is obviously such]. >>
But as you know - what is right and what is legal are usually two different things... >>
It doesn't matter. What's right is someone not profiting off a clerical error and the way to ensure it is to make that person spend thousands on legal fees even if you lose.
Ok I just read that Ebay listing and the circumstances on how he purchased the coin, and all I have to say is who does this guy think he's fooling with that lame explanation and his twisted justification and feigning ignorance? IMO if this guy doesn't return that coin and apologize and not accept any type "reward" for doing the right thing then very bad karma will await him.
In addition, I always thought there was some kind of law where no party can profit from an obvious clerical error made by another party, and even a completed transaction of this type does not give the buyer/seller good title as far as the law was concerned?
<< <i>I've been kind of surprised by the number of responses that used a "big company, should know better and what's 15K to them anyway?" argument as justification for the buyer keeping the coin. >>
I'm not. And I'm also quite certain that most of them would be arguing the other direction if it was the collector who got shafted in a similar manner.
<< <i>For those saying that title passes upon shipping, let's think back to the hundreds of lost in transit threads on this chatroom.
If I was S/B, I wouldn't give a crap about legalities or anything - I'd slap a lawsuit on him so fast that he'd be certain to spend $15k or more in legal fees. It's just not right to keep the coin once he's been notified it's a clerical error [and is obviously such]. >>
Completion of the transaction rests in taking receipt after payment. This is why SB told the guy not to open the package.
Also, keep in mind I am strictly speaking toward who would have the most powerful argument <legally> and when.
Morally, I have nothing but contempt for the buyer and his rants.
<< <i>I've been kind of surprised by the number of responses that used a "big company, should know better and what's 15K to them anyway?" argument as justification for the buyer keeping the coin. >>
I'm not. And I'm also quite certain that most of them would be arguing the other direction if it was the collector who got shafted in a similar manner. >>
The notion that that collector just happened to get lucky is ludicrous---he had to know that the price was off by almost an order of magnitude and therefore must have been a mistake.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
<< <i>This reminds me of the situation involving the 25th Anniversary Silver Eagle sets where a large dealer was offering to buy them for about $400 per set before the issue date on prebuys. After the sets released emails were sent out to those who signed up to participate, who were dragging their feet in delivering, that legal action would follow if they did not ship the sets because "a deal is a deal" and I did not matter that the sets were going for significantly more at the time, at least according to the dealer. >>
I'd like to begin by saying this was not us, we did not threaten anyone that reneged with legal action. We did ban them as a customer and will continue to do so for anyone that enters into a transaction where no mistakes were made and fails to follow through.
I fail to see any relationship at all between the situation you mentioned above and the situation we have here. In this case the dealer made an OBVIOUS mistake. It had nothing to do with changing markets. In the case you mention, as long as the dealer spelled the terms out completely and the customer agreed the customer should follow through regardless of if the price increased dramatically, just as the dealer would have no out if the price was half.
John
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
<< <i>This reminds me of the situation involving the 25th Anniversary Silver Eagle sets where a large dealer was offering to buy them for about $400 per set before the issue date on prebuys. After the sets released emails were sent out to those who signed up to participate, who were dragging their feet in delivering, that legal action would follow if they did not ship the sets because "a deal is a deal" and I did not matter that the sets were going for significantly more at the time, at least according to the dealer. >>
I'd like to begin by saying this was not us, we did not threaten anyone that reneged with legal action. We did ban them as a customer and will continue to do so for anyone that enters into a transaction where no mistakes were made and fails to follow through.
I fail to see any relationship at all between the situation you mentioned above and the situation we have here. In this case the dealer made an OBVIOUS mistake. It had nothing to do with changing markets. In the case you mention, as long as the dealer spelled the terms out completely and the customer agreed the customer should follow through regardless of if the price increased dramatically, just as the dealer would have no out if the price was half.
John >>
John,
I did not say they were similar. Just simply that it caused me to remember that situation. About the only similarity is that it is a dealer vs collector issue with a flavor of what is right and wrong- that's all.
It's not rocket science reading what is unprofessional. The eBay seller's ad alone is lacking good judgement. Not that I have an opinion of who owns who or what belongs where, but it does make for a good gathering, here.
In my personal opinion, I'd not bid on an item with that type of advertising. It left me with unsettled thoughts.
<< <i>This reminds me of the situation involving the 25th Anniversary Silver Eagle sets where a large dealer was offering to buy them for about $400 per set before the issue date on prebuys. After the sets released emails were sent out to those who signed up to participate, who were dragging their feet in delivering, that legal action would follow if they did not ship the sets because "a deal is a deal" and I did not matter that the sets were going for significantly more at the time, at least according to the dealer. >>
I'd like to begin by saying this was not us, we did not threaten anyone that reneged with legal action. We did ban them as a customer and will continue to do so for anyone that enters into a transaction where no mistakes were made and fails to follow through.
I fail to see any relationship at all between the situation you mentioned above and the situation we have here. In this case the dealer made an OBVIOUS mistake. It had nothing to do with changing markets. In the case you mention, as long as the dealer spelled the terms out completely and the customer agreed the customer should follow through regardless of if the price increased dramatically, just as the dealer would have no out if the price was half.
John >>
John,
I did not say they were similar. Just simply that it caused me to remember that situation. About the only similarity is that it is a dealer vs collector issue with a flavor of what is right and wrong- that's all. >>
Gotcha, sorry sounded like a comparison my misinterpretation then.
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
<<< It's time for everyone to dismount their moral high horses. The buyer of this coin does not work for Stacks/Bowers and is not under any obligation or moral duty to question Stacks/Bowers pricing structure for the coin.
How many of those who are against what the buyer did have no problem "cherrypicking" a rare die variety from a dealer? I suggest most would do it without hesitation and many have probably done it already. >>>
Totally different scenario and incorrect and misleading analogy IMO. I believe the current issue (profiting from an obvious clerical error/mistake) would be similar to a cashier accidentally giving someone a $100.00 bill instead of a $1.00 bill in change after making a sale, and the person knows this, says nothing, and walks away keeping the money. Is this OK too? A transaction is a deal, right?
<< <i><<< It's time for everyone to dismount their moral high horses. The buyer of this coin does not work for Stacks/Bowers and is not under any obligation or moral duty to question Stacks/Bowers pricing structure for the coin.
How many of those who are against what the buyer did have no problem "cherrypicking" a rare die variety from a dealer? I suggest most would do it without hesitation and many have probably done it already. >>>
Totally different scenario and incorrect and misleading analogy IMO. I believe the current issue (profiting from an obvious clerical error/mistake) would be similar to a cashier accidentally giving someone a $100.00 bill instead of a $1.00 bill in change after making a sale, and the person knows this, says nothing, and walks away keeping the money. Is this OK too? A transaction is a deal, right? >>
IMO, It's more like, the customer calls and asks how much for the $100.00 bill. The seller says $10.00, they agree, payment is made and it is shipped.
<< <i><<< It's time for everyone to dismount their moral high horses. The buyer of this coin does not work for Stacks/Bowers and is not under any obligation or moral duty to question Stacks/Bowers pricing structure for the coin.
How many of those who are against what the buyer did have no problem "cherrypicking" a rare die variety from a dealer? I suggest most would do it without hesitation and many have probably done it already. >>>
Totally different scenario and incorrect and misleading analogy IMO. I believe the current issue (profiting from an obvious clerical error/mistake) would be similar to a cashier accidentally giving someone a $100.00 bill instead of a $1.00 bill in change after making a sale, and the person knows this, says nothing, and walks away keeping the money. Is this OK too? A transaction is a deal, right? >>
Your scenario is no less incorrect or less misleading. The seller did not give the buyer anything but EXACTLY what was expected and correct. Its incredibly easy to say "oh yeah , id give the coin back" when it's not any one of us in the situation,none the less its a great opportunity for those who wish to get on their high horse to claim some imaginary high ground.What i see is a lot of sour grapes actually.
<< <i>For those saying that title passes upon shipping, let's think back to the hundreds of lost in transit threads on this chatroom. >>
A fair perspective, TDN, but I doubt any of the BST transactions had a contractual agreement, and I'll wager the terms of the transaction in question was bound by one which may directly address this issue.
By way of example, I know that in my business (which has nothing to do with coins), title is transferred upon shipment, which changes the legal dynamic significantly.
<< <i>If I was S/B, I wouldn't give a crap about legalities or anything - I'd slap a lawsuit on him so fast that he'd be certain to spend $15k or more in legal fees. It's just not right to keep the coin once he's been notified it's a clerical error [and is obviously such]. >>
I agree, it's not right. That doesn't necessarily make it illegal, which was the angle I was asking us to consider.
Let me be crystal clear, lest you or anyone else get the wrong idea -- I think the buyer should return the coin to SB.
That doesn't change the question asked, however, which I think is a valid consideration when judging this transaction from a legal rather than ethical perspective....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Here's my take on this so far considering we have only one side of the story.
1. The buyer should return the coin and take the $1,000.
2. Comparing this to a cherrypick is not a good comparison. That is is situation where there potential value has not been recognized by anyone yet and therefore is "undiscovered value" that the dealer has not paid for when acquiring. I highly doubt SB has less than $1650 in this coin.
3. SB should tread carefully here and not come off as the "bully". They did make a mistake and it would be very easy for them to come off as the adult kicking a kid out of the way to pick up a dime. Even though the buyer should do the honorable thing and return the coin SB can easily come off as the rich dude kicking the little guy and it could be a PR nightmare if handled incorrectly. SB is not without blame here. They should have a system of checks in place that does not allow this to happen. There was failure on several levels here and there is no excuse.
<< <i><<< It's time for everyone to dismount their moral high horses. The buyer of this coin does not work for Stacks/Bowers and is not under any obligation or moral duty to question Stacks/Bowers pricing structure for the coin.
How many of those who are against what the buyer did have no problem "cherrypicking" a rare die variety from a dealer? I suggest most would do it without hesitation and many have probably done it already. >>>
Totally different scenario and incorrect and misleading analogy IMO. I believe the current issue (profiting from an obvious clerical error/mistake) would be similar to a cashier accidentally giving someone a $100.00 bill instead of a $1.00 bill in change after making a sale, and the person knows this, says nothing, and walks away keeping the money. Is this OK too? A transaction is a deal, right? >>
IMO, It's more like, the customer calls and buys a $100 bill he can tell was mislisted at $10, a clerk processes the transaction without really knowing what the value is and it is shipped. Clerk's supervisor then realizes the list price was supposed to be $100 and that a different clerk left off a zero, calls the buyer and says I can't go through with this deal as a mistake was made. Buyer refuses to return the package unopened as requested because he knows he got a rip. >>
<< <i><<< It's time for everyone to dismount their moral high horses. The buyer of this coin does not work for Stacks/Bowers and is not under any obligation or moral duty to question Stacks/Bowers pricing structure for the coin.
How many of those who are against what the buyer did have no problem "cherrypicking" a rare die variety from a dealer? I suggest most would do it without hesitation and many have probably done it already. >>>
Totally different scenario and incorrect and misleading analogy IMO. I believe the current issue (profiting from an obvious clerical error/mistake) would be similar to a cashier accidentally giving someone a $100.00 bill instead of a $1.00 bill in change after making a sale, and the person knows this, says nothing, and walks away keeping the money. Is this OK too? A transaction is a deal, right? >>
Your scenario is no less incorrect or less misleading. The seller did not give the buyer anything but EXACTLY what was expected and correct. Its incredibly easy to say "oh yeah , id give the coin back" when it's not any one of us in the situation,none the less its a great opportunity for those who wish to get on their high horse to claim some imaginary high ground.What i see is a lot of sour grapes actually. >>
I would indeed give the coin back. No question in my mind. It is indeed easy to say so and know it's true - when one has integrity.
<< <i><<< It's time for everyone to dismount their moral high horses. The buyer of this coin does not work for Stacks/Bowers and is not under any obligation or moral duty to question Stacks/Bowers pricing structure for the coin.
How many of those who are against what the buyer did have no problem "cherrypicking" a rare die variety from a dealer? I suggest most would do it without hesitation and many have probably done it already. >>>
Totally different scenario and incorrect and misleading analogy IMO. I believe the current issue (profiting from an obvious clerical error/mistake) would be similar to a cashier accidentally giving someone a $100.00 bill instead of a $1.00 bill in change after making a sale, and the person knows this, says nothing, and walks away keeping the money. Is this OK too? A transaction is a deal, right? >>
Your scenario is no less incorrect or less misleading. The seller did not give the buyer anything but EXACTLY what was expected and correct. Its incredibly easy to say "oh yeah , id give the coin back" when it's not any one of us in the situation,none the less its a great opportunity for those who wish to get on their high horse to claim some imaginary high ground.What i see is a lot of sour grapes actually. >>
I would indeed give the coin back. No question in my mind. It is indeed easy to say so and know it's true - when one has integrity. >>
That would be your decision to make , only you know what you would or would not do , personally i havnt said anywhere what the buyer should do or shouldnt do , like others im more interested in the legal side of it.My argument has always been slanted to whats the legal situation , not the moral one.
<< <i>Easy to speak of integrity when you're independently wealthy. Try doing that when you're broke.
This is just an example of capitalism working in favor of the little guy and not the big guy. Hold your employees responsible for their mistakes (Write him up, fire him, depends on the value of the employee, I suppose) and protect your public image would be my advice to SB here. >>
Bullcrap. Integrity is independent of one's station in life.
<< <i>Easy to speak of integrity when you're independently wealthy. Try doing that when you're broke.
This is just an example of capitalism working in favor of the little guy and not the big guy. Hold your employees responsible for their mistakes (Write him up, fire him, depends on the value of the employee, I suppose) and protect your public image would be my advice to SB here. >>
Bullcrap. Integrity is independent of one's station in life. >>
Statistics would indicate otherwise.The current recession for example , why then is the crime rate increasing ?
<< <i>The guy should return the coin and take the $1,000 for his trouble. That being said SB should do a better job with control over their pricing. I'm sure someone will chime in with "mistakes happen" but there was failure at several points if it was priced wrong and still shipped after the guy called them on the price. There's no excuse for it getting out the door. Since it did, their system needs work. If what the guy wrote is true I'm not so sure he was aware of the pricing error. He's an old timer and dying-ever think he bought it because he liked it and didn't bother checking book? That is completely plausible on a sub $2K purchase by a dying man. >>
He said hes been collecting for a long time, who doesn't check prices especially when buying from a coin series not familier with as he said he wasn't into barber. I mean come on, he said he put together a set of bust dimes that pretty advance collecting to not check prices and don't get me wrong he could of thought score what a price for that, but once contact was made he knew it was a mistake. >>
I prefaced it before and will again here: "If his story is to be believed as written"-- dying people sometimes do things differently. It is entirely possible he bought the coin because it made him smile. Think about it, if you have 6 months to live are you 100% certain you're going to check the book value when spending $1500? I can honestly say I may not. I pour over values now when making purchases in order to determine if I'm getting a good deal or not and to determine how far and how long I may be buried in that coin. In his shoes I may not. >>
If I was dying in six months, buying coins would not be on my agenda.
The buyer knew exactly what was going on and was hoping for a bargain. Claims he never liked barbers, then all of sudden he falls in love with one? UH-No. He fell in love with the bargain price, did some homework and decided to buy it. No problem there.(Also, If he fell in love with it, why would he want to turn it over immediately?). If the deal becomes a sale when he opens the package then he could probably just keep it, as is proven by the reward offer. True that someone's job may be held in the balance if he does not return it. Personally I would have just returned it and asked for $100 for my trouble and not taken a $1000 to keep in good status with the company. Relationships are important in this hobby and word travels swiftly. JMO-Bob
First, the eBayer is obviously educated about coins, values, and auctions. If he has enough of a clue to list a coin on eBay, he has enough sense to know he can look up values all over the net. If he did just one little cursory search, he would see that this date/mm/grade has not traded for less than $10k in the last decade. He knew exactly what he was doing when he purchased the coin, and that StacksBowers did not intend to sell the coin at a mere $1,650. There was no "meeting of the minds."
Ask yourself this ... if you saw a brand new $100,000 Mercedes S-Class advertized in the paper for $10,000, what would you think?
Stack'sBowers wins.
TDN is right -- integrity is independent of station in life. I have seen wealthy and poor with no integrity.
<< <i>What goes around, comes around. I will NEVER do business with that seller - he's a *(#^%#Q(*$^ . And I'm fairly certain he'll be sued shortly. A sale is not a sale unless there's a meeting of the minds. This was a clear clerical error on the price. >>
I fully agree. There is no deal unless there is a meeting of the minds. --Jerry
Comments
You know that the guys at their Spectrum affiliate knew exactly what they could get for this coin. But one has to figure that each and every coin that goes into a package gets
multiple checks along the way as to price vs. cost. Possibly, this one was entered into official inventory at the $1650 level but hard to believe the cost was also a number <$1650.
0%: The odds that the lady and her husband didn't know that the little "o" mint mark on the reverse multiplied the value of the coin several times.
1%: The odds that the lady could tell the difference between this coin and a lower graded one. I too would have loved this specific coin as well....at $1650.
This was a guy who had been around the market for decades in gem bust coinage and knew the ropes very well. He has over 3,000 fb's on Ebay.
Anyone who is even casually watching gem 19th type coin values whether it be bust, barber, seated, etc. has a fair idea where type coins stand against each other.
You're darn right this guy "felt" the coin was a "good" value at $1650, especially with the l'il "o" on the reverse....as it had been over a decade since any gem Barber was
priced so attractively. When was the last time ANY date MS65+ Barber half cost $1650? That might had been the mid-1990's or even mid-1980's. The last time a
MS65 1900-0 half was worth $1650? Probably in the mid-1970's.
Chances that S/B still owns the coin and this is just one convoluted story?
There are many stories that all of us are aware of where widowns and orphans get 10c on the dollar for high quality rare numismatic items. Once in a while the dealer is on the wrong
end of this....<1% of the time. What do they say to the widow when she shows up a month or two later and found out she got 10% of the collection's value?
<< <i>Last October in my Portland PNNA show report, I wrote about something similar that happened to a dealer, but he handled it very differently:
<< <i>On Saturday, an elderly couple who have been my customers for quite a while, were looking at some coins in my case when a dealer came over to speak with them. After the dealer left, the couple told me that they had just bought a beautiful 1916-D Mercury dime in PCGS AU58FB from this dealer for over $5,000, and that the dealer came over to tell them that he had made a mistake. Apparently, the dealer also had a 1916-D Mercury dime in PCGS XF45 and when he looked at his price list, he quoted the couple the price for the XF45 rather than the AU58 (for which he had paid over $10,000).
However, the dealer didn’t ask the couple for the coin back, nor any more money, he just wanted to make sure the couple knew that the 1916-D dime they bought was worth a lot more in case they intended to resell it.
So after the dealer left, the couple told me the story and asked what I thought they should do. I said if it were me, I wouldn’t feel comfortable keeping the coin under those circumstances, and that I would probably go back to the dealer and try to work something out that was more fair to both parties. The couple said they felt the same way. So when they were finished with our transaction, the couple went back over to the dealer and offered to “undo” the deal, either giving him more money or returning the coin. However, they were even more surprised when the dealer refused both and said it was his mistake and that he wanted the couple to keep the coin, and didn’t want any additional money either. Of course, the couple was quite surprised – and told me that, even though the dealer refused to take any additional money for the coin, they still intended to send him more money when they got home.
When the couple told me this, I too was very surprised because losing more than $5,000 on a deal due to a simple mistake would cause any dealer severe heart palpitations. So when I thought about including this story in my show report, I went over to the dealer to ask if he minded me using his name. I told him it was a very heartwarming story, and that it would really show the coin community that there are truly some honest and honorable dealers amongst us. However, the dealer said he really didn’t want any notoriety, and that yes, it was a “costly” mistake, but it was his mistake and he felt good about handling it this way. >>
I recently ran into that same couple and they told me when they got home, they sent the dealer another $2,500, and the dealer sent them a very kind note thanking them for their honesty and integrity. So in spite of the fact that we may think there are too many "crooks" out there, I'd like to believe there are even more kind and honest soles that we don't even hear about. >>
this is the a great example. the dealer honored the deal...and the buyer had integrity enough to show respect for the dealer's mistake and tried to make it right.
BUT, I don't think I'd be able to sleep had I kept the coin.
I assume that the dealer is an expert in rare coins. That's why I have no problem cherrypicking varieties from them- they had the coin in their possession, they're an expert, and thus had an opportunity to examine the coin in the same way I did. They priced it based on an expert decision, and I bought it for that price.
An obvious pricing mistake is different to me, especially with a dealer whom I know can read a Graysheet and price coins correctly. Pointing the error out ensures a great relationship with the dealer.
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>
<< <i>Before the completion of the transaction the law is weighted in the merchants favor.
After the completion of the transaction the law is completely in the purchasers favor. >>
This, to me, is the mostly reasonably correct answer.
Anyone bother to look at S-B's site for terms on retail sales? There aren't any. Big mistake on their part. Ever notice the terms when purchasing from someplace like Amazon where they declare that the sale isn't a sale until the item(s) are shipped? They do it to protect themselves from pricing errors where ppl alerted from forums gang up to buy mis-priced items.
This is 100% on S-B. No policy and procedure for validating sales. No listed terms of sale. There was an offer and acceptance. Item was paid for and shipped. S-B screwed up and the guy would likely win any litigation which is why S-B offered the guy $1000. Personally, I find his actions morally repugnant but he is in the right. The law can be an ass. >>
I wanted to add, and in response to TDN's unilateral error doctrine approach, that once S-B shipped the item they were on flimsy ground asserting the elements of the unilateral error doctrine in winning a claim. To invoke that doctrine and prevail, the burden would be on S-B to prove 2 elements:
1. That enforcing the contract for sale was unconscionable, and 2. the other party had reason to know of the mistake or his fault caused the mistake. Caselaw is all over the board on that issue, so this would not be a slam dunk.
I think they'd lose on #2, imho. >>
I think you've got that wrong. I would replace your "and" with "or." Unconscionability is a separate defense defense entirely to me, and a difficult one for S-B, I would think, since they are the experts, and they made the mistake. To prove unilateral mistake, S-B must prove that (1) a mistake was made, and (2) the other party know or had reason to know of the problem.
Tom
How many of those who are against what the buyer did have no problem "cherrypicking" a rare die variety from a dealer? I suggest most would do it without hesitation and many have probably done it already. In fact, there are plenty of threads on this board started by collectors who brag about the rip they made. The board even has an unofficial "You Suck" Award that we routinely give to those who manage to do just that. In other words, we congratulate buyers who manage to buy a coin that is worth significantly more than the seller priced it.
Are collectors who are about to cherrypick a great coin from a dealer under an obligation to point out to the dealer that the coin is rarer than he has it priced? I mean, perhaps the dealer made a clerical error when he labeled and/or priced the coin. Right?
In order to be consistent we must either (a) laud the guy who paid S/B significantly less than what the coin was actually worth, or (b) chide everyone who buys a coin for significantly less than it's worth. Doesn't matter the reason... unknowledgable/inattentive dealer, clerical error, it doesn't matter. A rip is a rip unless fraud is involved, and I see no evidence of fraud anywhere to be found in this case if the buyer's story is factually correct in all its details.
Everyone knows the saying "Caveat Emptor"... "Let the Buyer Beware". Well, another adage equally applies to activity in the marketplace - "Diligenter Vendit"... "Let the Seller Be Careful."
In this scenario, inventory was offered by a business - in the business of selling that product - and a person agreed to the item at the price offered. Seller accepted and took payment and shipped. Why do coin dealers seem to think when a customer 'buys right' they should get a 'do over'?
<< <i>Someone getting screwed threads always have stamina. MJ >>
Tis true, tis true!
<< <i>I don't know if this was mentioned previously, but: They CLAIM they both "liked the coin" and yet it is on ebay ready to sell.
That statement LIE alone negates everything else they say and indicates they are LYING, probably about everything else including the dying part. >>
What makes it a lie, Barrytrot?
You have never bought anything, with the intent to keep it because you liked it? Then, you turned around and sold it for some reason (maybe realizing the money could be better used elsewhere)?
I'm not condoning what was done but I sure get tired of people making their own decisions and conclusions for others based on speculation and treating it as fact.....
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>It's time for everyone to dismount their moral high horses. >>
i can't, i'm up too high! ;-)
I think this is different than a cherrypick. In a cherrypick, you are using your specialized knowledge to create an advantage, and in doing so are adding value where such value did not previously exist. This is a very different situation.
Following the golden rule generally keeps me out of trouble and makes it easier to make friends (and sleep at night). Good luck to the parties involved.
Please visit my website Millcitynumismatics.com
First, when does title change hands? It seems to me that if they received payment and title is passed upon shipment, then SBs argument is weaker.
Second, if the tables were turned, and the collector had agreed to a deal, SB sent payment, and the collector shipped the coin but contacted SB to get out of the deal while the coin was in transit (because they figured out they sold the coin too cheaply), I wonder how SB would react.
Those two questions asked, I think the right thing to do would be to return the coin to SB.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Before the completion of the transaction the law is weighted in the merchants favor.
After the completion of the transaction the law is completely in the purchasers favor. >>
This, to me, is the mostly reasonably correct answer.
Anyone bother to look at S-B's site for terms on retail sales? There aren't any. Big mistake on their part. Ever notice the terms when purchasing from someplace like Amazon where they declare that the sale isn't a sale until the item(s) are shipped? They do it to protect themselves from pricing errors where ppl alerted from forums gang up to buy mis-priced items.
This is 100% on S-B. No policy and procedure for validating sales. No listed terms of sale. There was an offer and acceptance. Item was paid for and shipped. S-B screwed up and the guy would likely win any litigation which is why S-B offered the guy $1000. Personally, I find his actions morally repugnant but he is in the right. The law can be an ass. >>
I wanted to add, and in response to TDN's unilateral error doctrine approach, that once S-B shipped the item they were on flimsy ground asserting the elements of the unilateral error doctrine in winning a claim. To invoke that doctrine and prevail, the burden would be on S-B to prove 2 elements:
1. That enforcing the contract for sale was unconscionable, and 2. the other party had reason to know of the mistake or his fault caused the mistake.
I think they'd lose on #2, imho. >>
Really? You don't think this guy looked it up in the price guide before he decided to buy it? What fantasy world are we living in where knowing a coin is priced ten cents on the dollar doesn't make one aware of a mistake???
Also, the fact they noticed their error before the package was even delivered goes a long long way IMO.
If I was S/B, I wouldn't give a crap about legalities or anything - I'd slap a lawsuit on him so fast that he'd be certain to spend $15k or more in legal fees. It's just not right to keep the coin once he's been notified it's a clerical error [and is obviously such].
<< <i>If I was S/B, I wouldn't give a crap about legalities or anything - I'd slap a lawsuit on him so fast that he'd be certain to spend $15k or more in legal fees. It's just not right to keep the coin once he's been notified it's a clerical error [and is obviously such]. >>
But as you know - what is right and what is legal are usually two different things...
<< <i>
<< <i>If I was S/B, I wouldn't give a crap about legalities or anything - I'd slap a lawsuit on him so fast that he'd be certain to spend $15k or more in legal fees. It's just not right to keep the coin once he's been notified it's a clerical error [and is obviously such]. >>
But as you know - what is right and what is legal are usually two different things... >>
It doesn't matter. What's right is someone not profiting off a clerical error and the way to ensure it is to make that person spend thousands on legal fees even if you lose.
In addition, I always thought there was some kind of law where no party can profit from an obvious clerical error made by another party, and even a completed transaction of this type does not give the buyer/seller good title as far as the law was concerned?
<< <i>I've been kind of surprised by the number of responses that used a "big company, should know better and what's 15K to them anyway?" argument as justification for the buyer keeping the coin. >>
I'm not. And I'm also quite certain that most of them would be arguing the other direction if it was the collector who got shafted in a similar manner.
<< <i>For those saying that title passes upon shipping, let's think back to the hundreds of lost in transit threads on this chatroom.
If I was S/B, I wouldn't give a crap about legalities or anything - I'd slap a lawsuit on him so fast that he'd be certain to spend $15k or more in legal fees. It's just not right to keep the coin once he's been notified it's a clerical error [and is obviously such]. >>
Completion of the transaction rests in taking receipt after payment. This is why SB told the guy not to open the package.
Also, keep in mind I am strictly speaking toward who would have the most powerful argument <legally> and when.
Morally, I have nothing but contempt for the buyer and his rants.
<< <i>
<< <i>I've been kind of surprised by the number of responses that used a "big company, should know better and what's 15K to them anyway?" argument as justification for the buyer keeping the coin. >>
I'm not. And I'm also quite certain that most of them would be arguing the other direction if it was the collector who got shafted in a similar manner. >>
The notion that that collector just happened to get lucky is ludicrous---he had to know that the price was off by almost an order of magnitude and therefore must have been a mistake.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>This reminds me of the situation involving the 25th Anniversary Silver Eagle sets where a large dealer was offering to buy them for about $400 per set before the issue date on prebuys. After the sets released emails were sent out to those who signed up to participate, who were dragging their feet in delivering, that legal action would follow if they did not ship the sets because "a deal is a deal" and I did not matter that the sets were going for significantly more at the time, at least according to the dealer. >>
I'd like to begin by saying this was not us, we did not threaten anyone that reneged with legal action. We did ban them as a customer and will continue to do so for anyone that enters into a transaction where no mistakes were made and fails to follow through.
I fail to see any relationship at all between the situation you mentioned above and the situation we have here. In this case the dealer made an OBVIOUS mistake. It had nothing to do with changing markets. In the case you mention, as long as the dealer spelled the terms out completely and the customer agreed the customer should follow through regardless of if the price increased dramatically, just as the dealer would have no out if the price was half.
John
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
<< <i>
<< <i>This reminds me of the situation involving the 25th Anniversary Silver Eagle sets where a large dealer was offering to buy them for about $400 per set before the issue date on prebuys. After the sets released emails were sent out to those who signed up to participate, who were dragging their feet in delivering, that legal action would follow if they did not ship the sets because "a deal is a deal" and I did not matter that the sets were going for significantly more at the time, at least according to the dealer. >>
I'd like to begin by saying this was not us, we did not threaten anyone that reneged with legal action. We did ban them as a customer and will continue to do so for anyone that enters into a transaction where no mistakes were made and fails to follow through.
I fail to see any relationship at all between the situation you mentioned above and the situation we have here. In this case the dealer made an OBVIOUS mistake. It had nothing to do with changing markets. In the case you mention, as long as the dealer spelled the terms out completely and the customer agreed the customer should follow through regardless of if the price increased dramatically, just as the dealer would have no out if the price was half.
John >>
John,
I did not say they were similar. Just simply that it caused me to remember that situation. About the only similarity is that it is a dealer vs collector issue with a flavor of what is right and wrong- that's all.
In my personal opinion, I'd not bid on an item with that type of advertising. It left me with unsettled thoughts.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>This reminds me of the situation involving the 25th Anniversary Silver Eagle sets where a large dealer was offering to buy them for about $400 per set before the issue date on prebuys. After the sets released emails were sent out to those who signed up to participate, who were dragging their feet in delivering, that legal action would follow if they did not ship the sets because "a deal is a deal" and I did not matter that the sets were going for significantly more at the time, at least according to the dealer. >>
I'd like to begin by saying this was not us, we did not threaten anyone that reneged with legal action. We did ban them as a customer and will continue to do so for anyone that enters into a transaction where no mistakes were made and fails to follow through.
I fail to see any relationship at all between the situation you mentioned above and the situation we have here. In this case the dealer made an OBVIOUS mistake. It had nothing to do with changing markets. In the case you mention, as long as the dealer spelled the terms out completely and the customer agreed the customer should follow through regardless of if the price increased dramatically, just as the dealer would have no out if the price was half.
John >>
John,
I did not say they were similar. Just simply that it caused me to remember that situation. About the only similarity is that it is a dealer vs collector issue with a flavor of what is right and wrong- that's all. >>
Gotcha, sorry sounded like a comparison my misinterpretation then.
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
How many of those who are against what the buyer did have no problem "cherrypicking" a rare die variety from a dealer? I suggest most would do it without hesitation and many have probably done it already. >>>
Totally different scenario and incorrect and misleading analogy IMO. I believe the current issue (profiting from an obvious clerical error/mistake) would be similar to a cashier accidentally giving someone a $100.00 bill instead of a $1.00 bill in change after making a sale, and the person knows this, says nothing, and walks away keeping the money. Is this OK too? A transaction is a deal, right?
<< <i><<< It's time for everyone to dismount their moral high horses. The buyer of this coin does not work for Stacks/Bowers and is not under any obligation or moral duty to question Stacks/Bowers pricing structure for the coin.
How many of those who are against what the buyer did have no problem "cherrypicking" a rare die variety from a dealer? I suggest most would do it without hesitation and many have probably done it already. >>>
Totally different scenario and incorrect and misleading analogy IMO. I believe the current issue (profiting from an obvious clerical error/mistake) would be similar to a cashier accidentally giving someone a $100.00 bill instead of a $1.00 bill in change after making a sale, and the person knows this, says nothing, and walks away keeping the money. Is this OK too? A transaction is a deal, right? >>
IMO, It's more like, the customer calls and asks how much for the $100.00 bill. The seller says $10.00, they agree, payment is made and it is shipped.
<< <i><<< It's time for everyone to dismount their moral high horses. The buyer of this coin does not work for Stacks/Bowers and is not under any obligation or moral duty to question Stacks/Bowers pricing structure for the coin.
How many of those who are against what the buyer did have no problem "cherrypicking" a rare die variety from a dealer? I suggest most would do it without hesitation and many have probably done it already. >>>
Totally different scenario and incorrect and misleading analogy IMO. I believe the current issue (profiting from an obvious clerical error/mistake) would be similar to a cashier accidentally giving someone a $100.00 bill instead of a $1.00 bill in change after making a sale, and the person knows this, says nothing, and walks away keeping the money. Is this OK too? A transaction is a deal, right? >>
Your scenario is no less incorrect or less misleading. The seller did not give the buyer anything but EXACTLY what was expected and correct. Its incredibly easy to say "oh yeah , id give the coin back" when it's not any one of us in the situation,none the less its a great opportunity for those who wish to get on their high horse to claim some imaginary high ground.What i see is a lot of sour grapes actually.
<< <i>For those saying that title passes upon shipping, let's think back to the hundreds of lost in transit threads on this chatroom. >>
A fair perspective, TDN, but I doubt any of the BST transactions had a contractual agreement, and I'll wager the terms of the transaction in question was bound by one which may directly address this issue.
By way of example, I know that in my business (which has nothing to do with coins), title is transferred upon shipment, which changes the legal dynamic significantly.
<< <i>If I was S/B, I wouldn't give a crap about legalities or anything - I'd slap a lawsuit on him so fast that he'd be certain to spend $15k or more in legal fees. It's just not right to keep the coin once he's been notified it's a clerical error [and is obviously such]. >>
I agree, it's not right. That doesn't necessarily make it illegal, which was the angle I was asking us to consider.
Let me be crystal clear, lest you or anyone else get the wrong idea -- I think the buyer should return the coin to SB.
That doesn't change the question asked, however, which I think is a valid consideration when judging this transaction from a legal rather than ethical perspective....Mike
1. The buyer should return the coin and take the $1,000.
2. Comparing this to a cherrypick is not a good comparison. That is is situation where there potential value has not been recognized by anyone yet and therefore is "undiscovered value" that the dealer has not paid for when acquiring. I highly doubt SB has less than $1650 in this coin.
3. SB should tread carefully here and not come off as the "bully". They did make a mistake and it would be very easy for them to come off as the adult kicking a kid out of the way to pick up a dime. Even though the buyer should do the honorable thing and return the coin SB can easily come off as the rich dude kicking the little guy and it could be a PR nightmare if handled incorrectly. SB is not without blame here. They should have a system of checks in place that does not allow this to happen. There was failure on several levels here and there is no excuse.
Edited to remove extra word.
<< <i>
<< <i><<< It's time for everyone to dismount their moral high horses. The buyer of this coin does not work for Stacks/Bowers and is not under any obligation or moral duty to question Stacks/Bowers pricing structure for the coin.
How many of those who are against what the buyer did have no problem "cherrypicking" a rare die variety from a dealer? I suggest most would do it without hesitation and many have probably done it already. >>>
Totally different scenario and incorrect and misleading analogy IMO. I believe the current issue (profiting from an obvious clerical error/mistake) would be similar to a cashier accidentally giving someone a $100.00 bill instead of a $1.00 bill in change after making a sale, and the person knows this, says nothing, and walks away keeping the money. Is this OK too? A transaction is a deal, right? >>
IMO, It's more like, the customer calls and buys a $100 bill he can tell was mislisted at $10, a clerk processes the transaction without really knowing what the value is and it is shipped. Clerk's supervisor then realizes the list price was supposed to be $100 and that a different clerk left off a zero, calls the buyer and says I can't go through with this deal as a mistake was made. Buyer refuses to return the package unopened as requested because he knows he got a rip. >>
Fixed it for you
<< <i>
<< <i><<< It's time for everyone to dismount their moral high horses. The buyer of this coin does not work for Stacks/Bowers and is not under any obligation or moral duty to question Stacks/Bowers pricing structure for the coin.
How many of those who are against what the buyer did have no problem "cherrypicking" a rare die variety from a dealer? I suggest most would do it without hesitation and many have probably done it already. >>>
Totally different scenario and incorrect and misleading analogy IMO. I believe the current issue (profiting from an obvious clerical error/mistake) would be similar to a cashier accidentally giving someone a $100.00 bill instead of a $1.00 bill in change after making a sale, and the person knows this, says nothing, and walks away keeping the money. Is this OK too? A transaction is a deal, right? >>
Your scenario is no less incorrect or less misleading. The seller did not give the buyer anything but EXACTLY what was expected and correct. Its incredibly easy to say "oh yeah , id give the coin back" when it's not any one of us in the situation,none the less its a great opportunity for those who wish to get on their high horse to claim some imaginary high ground.What i see is a lot of sour grapes actually. >>
I would indeed give the coin back. No question in my mind. It is indeed easy to say so and know it's true - when one has integrity.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i><<< It's time for everyone to dismount their moral high horses. The buyer of this coin does not work for Stacks/Bowers and is not under any obligation or moral duty to question Stacks/Bowers pricing structure for the coin.
How many of those who are against what the buyer did have no problem "cherrypicking" a rare die variety from a dealer? I suggest most would do it without hesitation and many have probably done it already. >>>
Totally different scenario and incorrect and misleading analogy IMO. I believe the current issue (profiting from an obvious clerical error/mistake) would be similar to a cashier accidentally giving someone a $100.00 bill instead of a $1.00 bill in change after making a sale, and the person knows this, says nothing, and walks away keeping the money. Is this OK too? A transaction is a deal, right? >>
Your scenario is no less incorrect or less misleading. The seller did not give the buyer anything but EXACTLY what was expected and correct. Its incredibly easy to say "oh yeah , id give the coin back" when it's not any one of us in the situation,none the less its a great opportunity for those who wish to get on their high horse to claim some imaginary high ground.What i see is a lot of sour grapes actually. >>
I would indeed give the coin back. No question in my mind. It is indeed easy to say so and know it's true - when one has integrity. >>
That would be your decision to make , only you know what you would or would not do , personally i havnt said anywhere what the buyer should do or shouldnt do , like others im more interested in the legal side of it.My argument has always been slanted to whats the legal situation , not the moral one.
<< <i>Easy to speak of integrity when you're independently wealthy. Try doing that when you're broke.
This is just an example of capitalism working in favor of the little guy and not the big guy.
Bullcrap. Integrity is independent of one's station in life.
<< <i>
<< <i>Easy to speak of integrity when you're independently wealthy. Try doing that when you're broke.
This is just an example of capitalism working in favor of the little guy and not the big guy.
Bullcrap. Integrity is independent of one's station in life. >>
Statistics would indicate otherwise.The current recession for example , why then is the crime rate increasing ?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The guy should return the coin and take the $1,000 for his trouble. That being said SB should do a better job with control over their pricing. I'm sure someone will chime in with "mistakes happen" but there was failure at several points if it was priced wrong and still shipped after the guy called them on the price. There's no excuse for it getting out the door. Since it did, their system needs work. If what the guy wrote is true I'm not so sure he was aware of the pricing error. He's an old timer and dying-ever think he bought it because he liked it and didn't bother checking book? That is completely plausible on a sub $2K purchase by a dying man. >>
He said hes been collecting for a long time, who doesn't check prices especially when buying from a coin series not familier with as he said he wasn't into barber. I mean come on, he said he put together a set of bust dimes that pretty advance collecting to not check prices and don't get me wrong he could of thought score what a price for that, but once contact was made he knew it was a mistake. >>
I prefaced it before and will again here: "If his story is to be believed as written"-- dying people sometimes do things differently. It is entirely possible he bought the coin because it made him smile. Think about it, if you have 6 months to live are you 100% certain you're going to check the book value when spending $1500? I can honestly say I may not. I pour over values now when making purchases in order to determine if I'm getting a good deal or not and to determine how far and how long I may be buried in that coin. In his shoes I may not. >>
If I was dying in six months, buying coins would not be on my agenda.
The buyer knew exactly what was going on and was hoping for a bargain. Claims he never liked barbers, then all of sudden he falls in love with one? UH-No. He fell in love with the bargain price, did some homework and decided to buy it. No problem there.(Also, If he fell in love with it, why would he want to turn it over immediately?). If the deal becomes a sale when he opens the package then he could probably just keep it, as is proven by the reward offer. True that someone's job may be held in the balance if he does not return it. Personally I would have just returned it and asked for $100 for my trouble and not taken a $1000 to keep in good status with the company. Relationships are important in this hobby and word travels swiftly. JMO-Bob
This is just an example of capitalism working in favor of the little guy and not the big guy. >>>
You have a very interesting interpretation of the word 'capitalism'. I guess many peoples definition of certain words all depends on their net worth?
a fierce debate based solely on some neon red text in a canceled auction listing
We don't know the seller there was no sale that we can see on ebay. A fine story in the listing doesn't equal a sale
Was the coin listed on stacks? I don't deal with them , can someone who does say whether its possible to look?
First, the eBayer is obviously educated about coins, values, and auctions. If he has enough of a clue to list a coin on eBay, he has enough sense to know he can look up values all over the net. If he did just one little cursory search, he would see that this date/mm/grade has not traded for less than $10k in the last decade. He knew exactly what he was doing when he purchased the coin, and that StacksBowers did not intend to sell the coin at a mere $1,650. There was no "meeting of the minds."
Ask yourself this ... if you saw a brand new $100,000 Mercedes S-Class advertized in the paper for $10,000, what would you think?
Stack'sBowers wins.
TDN is right -- integrity is independent of station in life. I have seen wealthy and poor with no integrity.
<< <i>What goes around, comes around. I will NEVER do business with that seller - he's a *(#^%#Q(*$^ . And I'm fairly certain he'll be sued shortly. A sale is not a sale unless there's a meeting of the minds. This was a clear clerical error on the price. >>
I fully agree. There is no deal unless there is a meeting of the minds. --Jerry
<< <i>If I were on a jury here, I would say that Stacks Bowers is out of luck. >>
Legal thing to do and right thing to do not always same.