Seller apparently disagrees with PCGS grade

rhedden

Haven't seen this selling technique before.

1865-s half dollar on eBay

lasvegasteddy

sillyness

Unknown

This content has been removed.

RYK

Yikes! It is one thing to disagree but another to deface the slab like that. Better to sell raw, IMO.

Bankerbob56

This ALWAYS makes me think the coin may be stolen..... I wouldn't touch it with a "33 and a third foot pole!"

LindeDad

He seems to like his coins more than most do......

BTW this has been seen on here before so looks like he hasn't found a fish yet.

TomB

This seller has done this with at least one other PCGS graded coin, too. This was done previously with a 1923-S SLQ, if I recall correctly. I don't know if the seller is the person defacing the slabs or a consignor.

messydesk

There were some Standing Liberty quarters a while back that got the same treatment. Some had enough of the bar code left that you could figure out the grade. This one doesn't and is basically a raw coin, since it would require being regraded to get back into a non-mutilated holder. While the grade guarantee is obviously voided by the slab being defaced, I have to wonder if the authenticity guarantee is also voided in this case, since the serial number is no longer discernable. If so, would this auction be keyword spamming and/or misrepresenting the coin as certified when no certification guarantee remains?

ziggy29

<< <i>There were some Standing Liberty quarters a while back that got the same treatment. Some had enough of the bar code left that you could figure out the grade. This one doesn't and is basically a raw coin, since it would require being regraded to get back into a non-mutilated holder. While the grade guarantee is obviously voided by the slab being defaced, I have to wonder if the authenticity guarantee is also voided in this case, since the serial number is no longer discernable. If so, would this auction be keyword spamming and/or misrepresenting the coin as certified when no certification guarantee remains? >>

The PCGS authenticity guarantee does not apply to "tampered" holders. I think this would fit that category.

Buzzybest

Interesting. I've never been to this LCS,but he's about a half hour drive from me,just north of Harry Miller of Millersmint.com. I really need to get out more to explore my neighborhood.

DennisH

I'm eager to hear what eBay has to say about this.

stealer

Seller has done this multiple times. Not just once or twice.

RB1026

Just when you think you've seen it all.......

telephoto1

Reported, and Ebay says poof.

EXOJUNKIE

"Poof" it is! The auction was pulled.

droopyd

<< <i>I wouldn't touch it with a "33 and a third foot pole!" >>



How 'bout a 39-and-a-half foot pole, Mr. Grinch?

rhedden

Whoa, I didn't mean to get the auction pulled. I just thought it was good for a chuckle. Apparently the rest of you didn't find it so amusing! Oh well, he can relist it as uncertified, which it is.

johnny9434

the item got removed or something to that effect, drats.

roadrunner

65-s half in PCGS XF40

I guess the ad was pulled before I saw it. So in following the OP's link the above coin was at the top of the page.
What caught my eye was the seller trying to convince buyers that this is a $1,000 to $1,500 coin. The logic being used is that its pop is
similar to 6 other better date/key date seated halves (50, 51, 52, 55-s, 74-cc, 86) that are worth $900-$5500. There are numerous reasons for how these 7 seated halves
are priced, one of which is there's no great financial incentive to submit 65-s halves in grades of AG-AU. I've got an 1872-s half in PCGS XF40 which has the same basic
credentials as a VF-XF 65-s. I know it's not worth anything close to $900. While I agree an XF40 1865-s is underrated in comparison, so are a lot of other dates in this series.
The price guides aren't guilty of not doing research, but more that they report what the market is actually doing. So far, no one is paying $900 for XF40 65-s or 72-s halves.

stealer

<< <i>65-s half in PCGS XF40

I guess the ad was pulled before I saw it. So in following the OP's link the above coin was at the top of the page.
What caught my eye was the seller trying to convince buyers that this is a $1,000 to $1,500 coin. The logic being used is that its pop is
similar to 6 other better date/key date seated halves (50, 51, 52, 55-s, 74-cc, 86) that are worth $900-$5500. There are numerous reasons for how these 7 seated halves
are priced, one of which is there's no great financial incentive to submit 65-s halves in grades of AG-AU. I've got an 1872-s half in PCGS XF40 which has the same basic
credentials as a VF-XF 65-s. I know it's not worth anything close to $900. While I agree an XF40 1865-s is underrated in comparison, so are a lot of other dates in this series.
The price guides aren't guilty of not doing research, but more that they report what the market is actually doing. So far, no one is paying $900 for XF40 65-s or 72-s halves. >>


Not to bash on this seller but he does consistently list coins for 2x/3x of recent auction results (from HA) and states that they are extremely rare and deserve this price bump. Yes, they are rare but clearly the market doesn't reflect those prices.

rhedden

Perhaps he will only get fair market value after eBay takes their astronomical fees out.

DoubleEagle59

I'm not siding with the seller, but don't you think dark coins do get downgraded just a bit?

Just as a technical grade, doesn't the coin grade higher than a 40?

ElmerFusterpuck

I despise that seller's pricing practice in Roadrunner's link; I ignore his listings altogether, a total waste of time. I guess others do too, those coins have been out there for quite awhile. I've gotten many of those dates for far less too. Say, I've got a pop 1 MS-61 BN ugly 1997-D Lincoln, seems like it should be the same price as an 1870-CC seated half!