I think the thread is a lesson in learning which side is the right side. Kudos to the guy who sent the coin back to Stacks/Bowers. I'm happy to see they will credit, plus "reluctantly" reward you.
<< <i>What goes around, comes around. I will NEVER do business with that seller - he's a *(#^%#Q(*$^ . And I'm fairly certain he'll be sued shortly. A sale is not a sale unless there's a meeting of the minds. This was a clear clerical error on the price. >>
Maybe the coin had a big fingerprint on it, and was just clearly overgraded. Many times the stated grade appears to be a clerical error in my opinion, but in fact is not.
<< <i>What goes around, comes around. I will NEVER do business with that seller - he's a *(#^%#Q(*$^ . 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. >>
Stuff happens. Companies need to hold their employees liable for the mistakes and bad bookkeeping. It's not the customers job to say HEY, I'll give you 15k for that 1650 dollar coin. If they wanted 15k for it, they should have denied the sale and said it was a mistake and corrected it. Instead, the employee, or representative, acted on the company's behalf and sold him the coin at that price. He got a deal! And the employee or employees should be held liable for what occurred. Not the customer's fault!
Whose fault is it when an employee's till comes up short? This is like the same mistake. And the employee is liable, at least from my experience.
Just my two cents.
Oh, and my comments have nothing to do with ethics. If I were him, I'd taken the $1000.00 and moved on. But I cannot curse him for what he did. He got lucky. And the employees SHOULD be held liable for his lucky day for the "shortage on the till" >>
Well said, while it's unfortunate for whomever is responsible for putting up the ad, the company should uphold the sale and reprimand the employee. This reminds me of another thread recently that the seller mispriced his inventory and thought that the buyer should not have bought the coins. How about you people take responsibility for your mistakes, the rest of us have to in life!
Beer is Proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy -Benjamin Franklin-
Coin was received back - credit was posted to credit card for the purchase price yesterday. The $1,000 extra was mailed by Express Mail yesterday (since you can't credit more than the purchase price on the credit card).
<< <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]. >>
I hope the buyer brings a counter suit for any and all legal fees.
When is "seller's remorse" just a "clerical error"?
Coin was received back - credit was posted to credit card for the purchase price yesterday. The $1,000 extra was mailed by Express Mail yesterday (since you can't credit more than the purchase price on the credit card).
- Ian >>
Ian, since the ebay seller was nuked from the forum, I would like to tell you "thank you" for that part of the closure here. As many of us said, we were pretty sure SB would honor that deal (of the $1000 back to the ebay seller). I think that person just hasn't dealt with many of the auction houses and, given where many things stand in business with others that you don't know these days (think of many of the CW advertisers that we hear about), he was just apprehensive....it isn't easy to think one may be out the coin AND $1650 and have a problem lying in front of you.
No doubt in my mind that SB would honor the $1000, but again, thank you for closing that part of the loop for us.
Coin was received back - credit was posted to credit card for the purchase price yesterday. The $1,000 extra was mailed by Express Mail yesterday (since you can't credit more than the purchase price on the credit card).
- Ian >>
Ian, since the ebay seller was nuked from the forum, I would like to tell you "thank you" for that part of the closure here. As many of us said, we were pretty sure SB would honor that deal (of the $1000 back to the ebay seller). I think that person just hasn't dealt with many of the auction houses and, given where many things stand in business with others that you don't know these days (think of many of the CW advertisers that we hear about), he was just apprehensive....it isn't easy to think one may be out the coin AND $1650 and have a problem lying in front of you.
No doubt in my mind that SB would honor the $1000, but again, thank you for closing that part of the loop for us. >>
I didn't know he was banned, but yes, glad it's over.
<< <i>When is "seller's remorse" just a "clerical error"? >>
Seller's remorse is when the seller, after considering a completed sale, says "Well, maybe $XXX was too low for that coin." A clerical error is when the seller, after considering a completed sale, says "Waitaminute- $XXX is the wrong amount for that coin." There's a difference.
Coin was received back - credit was posted to credit card for the purchase price yesterday....- Ian >>
So if this coin gets posted for $1650 again is it fair game? What are the odds? >>
If they are incompetent enough to list it again for $1650 then I say absolutely fair game. >>
Absolutely priceless , really. Condemn the guy and then chomp at the bit in speculation and hope it happens again. >>
If you were talking to me and I'm guessing you may be since it was my post that you quoted please allow me to point out a few things:
1. I did not condemn the subject of this thread and offered many counterpoints to the mob that was doing just that. The closest I got to doing that was stating several times that I would return the coin.
2. I do not hope "it happens again" and was just merely stating that if they are incompetent enough to let it happen on this coin again they need a more expensive lesson- obviously $1,000 would not have taught them enough. BTW I'd be willing to wager a whole lot that it does not happen again.
<< <i>Click the 0 bidders and you will see where the seller canceled all the active bids before ending the listing.
Interesting story. I would think though, even if he believes the firm wouldn't honor his scenario it shouldn't make a difference as to what it is he should do.
Return the coin (and, accept the 1K reward for doing so). >>
With the exception of seller joining here and getting banned, it's amazing how this went.
<< <i>i am surprised no one has brought up the following: the subject obviously wasn't returning the coin, no matter what SB was saying or doing, the conversation wasn't going anywhere in SB's favor it was then switched over to his partner who also wasn't giving up the coin because she said that she really loved it and thus wanted to keep it, that is when SB offered$1k to obviously attempt to induce her to unlove the coin, and return it. Could that be called whitemaile? Now this is purely my opinion based on what has been shared with us, I could be completely wrong given a different set of circumstances. But the $1k was not a reward, the coin wasn't lost. As MFH addressed in his story about the $150k+ coin that was mistakenly sent to him, they offered him a present after he returned it. So to answer your question of why the subject was banned I can only speculate that this was the reason but I could be wrong. BTW $1k is a tidy sum based on the probable value of $15000 and it is a huge sum based on the original outlay of $1600. I do realize it was a relatively cheap punishment for a firm like SB but it doesn't make us collectors look very good as a group imho. >>
Please let it go, my post count is getting too high.
No one has brought it because it’s a figment of your speculations… no offence intended.
I usually pay attention to what I read and nowhere do I recall “the subject” or his “partner” saying they would not return the coin…
Here is my "speculations" - "the partner" said, "I like the coin". (Meaning it’s a nice coin) Me, I like the coin too, did you? It’s called small talk, chit chat. The subject needed some time the ask opinions and get advice on how to handle the issue. The subject felt pressured and rushed by SB and wanted to be sure as to proper procedures. SB tried to bully the subject and it didn't work, they had a panicked consigner that saw their coin sell for $1650, told them they were incompetent nincompoops and wanted it returned post haste or else.
I agree with what you say about “speculating”, you could be wrong. At this point in time, what will be your gain if every “speculations” you’ve expressed is correct? What changes besides you being able to say, “See, I was right!!! None of us is ever going to know for sure and no good purpose is being served by demonizing a person based nothing but "specualtions" which, as you said, could be wrong.
“Speculating” and being wrong about banning, no big deal “Speculating” and being wrong about a subjects character, big deal.
“The subject” got $1000 because SB knew they could loose more, they got off cheap. If SB sued, “the subject” could have tied that coin up for a long time without cost. Courts go slow
..and there is a big difference between having a coin you did not buy sent to you by mistake and a coin you did buy and have inhand.
Comments
<< <i>I'm surprised no one has demanded that the 'buyer' give his 1000.00 windfall to charity. >>
I demand he give the 1000 to charity.
by the way I'd like to introduce myself , the name is Charity
<< <i>What goes around, comes around. I will NEVER do business with that seller - he's a *(#^%#Q(*$^ . 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. >>
Maybe the coin had a big fingerprint on it, and was just clearly overgraded. Many times the stated grade appears to be a clerical error in my opinion, but in fact is not.
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
Stuff happens. Companies need to hold their employees liable for the mistakes and bad bookkeeping. It's not the customers job to say HEY, I'll give you 15k for that 1650 dollar coin. If they wanted 15k for it, they should have denied the sale and said it was a mistake and corrected it. Instead, the employee, or representative, acted on the company's behalf and sold him the coin at that price. He got a deal! And the employee or employees should be held liable for what occurred. Not the customer's fault!
Whose fault is it when an employee's till comes up short? This is like the same mistake. And the employee is liable, at least from my experience.
Just my two cents.
Oh, and my comments have nothing to do with ethics. If I were him, I'd taken the $1000.00 and moved on. But I cannot curse him for what he did. He got lucky. And the employees SHOULD be held liable for his lucky day for the "shortage on the till" >>
He responded, told me he's been bammed.
Coin was received back - credit was posted to credit card for the purchase price yesterday. The $1,000 extra was mailed by Express Mail yesterday (since you can't credit more than the purchase price on the credit card).
- Ian
Owner/Founder GreatCollections
GreatCollections Coin Auctions - Certified Coin Auctions Every Week - Rare Coins & Coin Values
<< <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]. >>
I hope the buyer brings a counter suit for any and all legal fees.
When is "seller's remorse" just a "clerical error"?
<< <i>Just heard from Stack's/Bowers.
Coin was received back - credit was posted to credit card for the purchase price yesterday....- Ian >>
So if this coin gets posted for $1650 again is it fair game? What are the odds?
<< <i>Just heard from Stack's/Bowers.
Coin was received back - credit was posted to credit card for the purchase price yesterday. The $1,000 extra was mailed by Express Mail yesterday (since you can't credit more than the purchase price on the credit card).
- Ian >>
Ian, since the ebay seller was nuked from the forum, I would like to tell you "thank you" for that part of the closure here.
As many of us said, we were pretty sure SB would honor that deal (of the $1000 back to the ebay seller). I think that person just hasn't dealt with many of the auction houses and, given where many things stand in business with others that you don't know these days (think of many of the CW advertisers that we hear about), he was just apprehensive....it isn't easy to think one may be out the coin AND $1650 and have a problem lying in front of you.
No doubt in my mind that SB would honor the $1000, but again, thank you for closing that part of the loop for us.
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>Just heard from Stack's/Bowers.
Coin was received back - credit was posted to credit card for the purchase price yesterday....- Ian >>
So if this coin gets posted for $1650 again is it fair game? What are the odds?
If they are incompetent enough to list it again for $1650 then I say absolutely fair game.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Just heard from Stack's/Bowers.
Coin was received back - credit was posted to credit card for the purchase price yesterday....- Ian >>
So if this coin gets posted for $1650 again is it fair game? What are the odds?
If they are incompetent enough to list it again for $1650 then I say absolutely fair game. >>
Absolutely priceless , really. Condemn the guy and then chomp at the bit in speculation and hope it happens again.
<< <i>
<< <i>Just heard from Stack's/Bowers.
Coin was received back - credit was posted to credit card for the purchase price yesterday. The $1,000 extra was mailed by Express Mail yesterday (since you can't credit more than the purchase price on the credit card).
- Ian >>
Ian, since the ebay seller was nuked from the forum, I would like to tell you "thank you" for that part of the closure here.
As many of us said, we were pretty sure SB would honor that deal (of the $1000 back to the ebay seller). I think that person just hasn't dealt with many of the auction houses and, given where many things stand in business with others that you don't know these days (think of many of the CW advertisers that we hear about), he was just apprehensive....it isn't easy to think one may be out the coin AND $1650 and have a problem lying in front of you.
No doubt in my mind that SB would honor the $1000, but again, thank you for closing that part of the loop for us. >>
I didn't know he was banned, but yes, glad it's over.
- Ian
Owner/Founder GreatCollections
GreatCollections Coin Auctions - Certified Coin Auctions Every Week - Rare Coins & Coin Values
<< <i>When is "seller's remorse" just a "clerical error"?
Seller's remorse is when the seller, after considering a completed sale, says "Well, maybe $XXX was too low for that coin." A clerical error is when the seller, after considering a completed sale, says "Waitaminute- $XXX is the wrong amount for that coin." There's a difference.
And yes, I know- people shouldn't make mistakes.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Just heard from Stack's/Bowers.
Coin was received back - credit was posted to credit card for the purchase price yesterday....- Ian >>
So if this coin gets posted for $1650 again is it fair game? What are the odds?
If they are incompetent enough to list it again for $1650 then I say absolutely fair game. >>
Absolutely priceless , really. Condemn the guy and then chomp at the bit in speculation and hope it happens again. >>
If you were talking to me and I'm guessing you may be since it was my post that you quoted please allow me to point out a few things:
1. I did not condemn the subject of this thread and offered many counterpoints to the mob that was doing just that. The closest I got to doing that was stating several times that I would return the coin.
2. I do not hope "it happens again" and was just merely stating that if they are incompetent enough to let it happen on this coin again they need a more expensive lesson- obviously $1,000 would not have taught them enough. BTW I'd be willing to wager a whole lot that it does not happen again.
Got it correct now?
<< <i>Click the 0 bidders and you will see where the seller canceled all the active bids before ending the listing.
Interesting story. I would think though, even if he believes the firm wouldn't honor his scenario it shouldn't make a difference as to what it is he should do.
Return the coin (and, accept the 1K reward for doing so). >>
With the exception of seller joining here and getting banned, it's amazing how this went.
Lance.
<< <i>i am surprised no one has brought up the following:
the subject obviously wasn't returning the coin, no matter what SB was saying or doing, the conversation wasn't going anywhere in SB's favor it was then switched over to his partner who also wasn't giving up the coin because she said that she really loved it and thus wanted to keep it, that is when SB offered$1k to obviously attempt to induce her to unlove the coin, and return it. Could that be called whitemaile? Now this is purely my opinion based on what has been shared with us, I could be completely wrong given a different set of circumstances. But the $1k was not a reward, the coin wasn't lost. As MFH addressed in his story about the $150k+ coin that was mistakenly sent to him, they offered him a present after he returned it. So to answer your question of why the subject was banned I can only speculate that this was the reason but I could be wrong. BTW $1k is a tidy sum based on the probable value of $15000 and it is a huge sum based on the original outlay of $1600. I do realize it was a relatively cheap punishment for a firm like SB but it doesn't make us collectors look very good as a group imho. >>
Please let it go, my post count is getting too high.
No one has brought it because it’s a figment of your speculations… no offence intended.
I usually pay attention to what I read and nowhere do I recall “the subject” or his “partner” saying they would not return the coin…
Here is my "speculations" - "the partner" said, "I like the coin". (Meaning it’s a nice coin) Me, I like the coin too, did you? It’s called small talk, chit chat.
The subject needed some time the ask opinions and get advice on how to handle the issue. The subject felt pressured and rushed by SB and wanted to be sure as to proper procedures. SB tried to bully the subject and it didn't work, they had a panicked consigner that saw their coin sell for $1650, told them they were incompetent nincompoops and wanted it returned post haste or else.
I agree with what you say about “speculating”, you could be wrong.
At this point in time, what will be your gain if every “speculations” you’ve expressed is correct? What changes besides you being able to say, “See, I was right!!! None of us is ever going to know for sure and no good purpose is being served by demonizing a person based nothing but "specualtions" which, as you said, could be wrong.
“Speculating” and being wrong about banning, no big deal
“Speculating” and being wrong about a subjects character, big deal.
“The subject” got $1000 because SB knew they could loose more, they got off cheap. If SB sued, “the subject” could have tied that coin up for a long time without cost. Courts go slow
..and there is a big difference between having a coin you did not buy sent to you by mistake and a coin you did buy and have inhand.
.....imho.
<< <i>SB tried to bully the subject and it didn't work, they had a panicked consigner that saw their coin sell for $1650 >>
With all due respect, is the above fact or speculation?
<< <i>
<< <i>SB tried to bully the subject and it didn't work, they had a panicked consigner that saw their coin sell for $1650 >>
With all due respect, is the above fact or speculation? >>
I would guess speculation. This sounds like a coin bought out of their inventory.
<< <i>Here is my "speculations" >>