Fake eBay Redfield Listing?

uofa1285

Please report...this is a shame...

Link

DorkGirl

Redfield date? He says it is a Redfield date

Justlooking

Not sure what a Redfield "date" is supposed to be. Looks like a nice coin ... but I may be mistaken.

uofa1285

<< <i>Not sure what a Redfield "date" is supposed to be. Looks like a nice coin ... but I may be mistaken. >>



A number of problems here...the main one in my view is AT, whereas all Redfields are NT.

hockeyfan9

Looks AU cleaned retoned.

howards

<< <i>
A number of problems here...the main one in my view is AT, whereas all Redfields are NT. >>



So exposing coins to exploding peach cans is NT? I think we've got a whole new strategy for the coin docs.

uofa1285

<< <i>Looks AU cleaned retoned. >>



Yes, I see the harsh cleaning marks...of course which a true Redfield would never have...that I have ever seen anyway.

Justlooking

I do see the marks on the jaw line. What makes you say AT rather than cleaned and retoning naturally?

If it was a Redfield, there would be no reason to take it out of the Redfield holder.

uofa1285

<< <i>I do see the marks on the jaw line. What makes you say AT rather than cleaned and retoning naturally?

If it was a Redfield, there would be no reason to take it out of the Redfield holder. >>



Well, I should be clearer sorry...

You cannot accurately call a coin a Redfield UNLESS it is in a Redfield Holder or is a crossover to the big 4 grading services with the Pedigree noted. Since the premium for Redfield Pedigrees is substantial in many cases, this Keyword Spamming by the seller is in effect Fraud in our hobby. And the winner may not know the coin is not a confirmed Redfield pedigree so they may pay much more for a fraud then they would a confirmed Redfield.

Plus, the toning is off, either by AT, Cleaning and retoned, or both. This further puts the buyer of the coin, if they don't know this fact as well, into a bigger loss in the coin. Subsequently, we might lose a collector/investor in our hobby, once they try to sell the coin as bought, and do not get the money they could have expected had the coin been as advertised.

uofa1285

<< <i>

<< <i>
A number of problems here...the main one in my view is AT, whereas all Redfields are NT. >>



So exposing coins to exploding peach cans is NT? I think we've got a whole new strategy for the coin docs. >>



Unsure about the joke or sarcasm here...did that actually happen?

astrorat

I agree with keyword spamming, but not fraud. As horrible as the tactic is to call it a "Redfield date," the seller is not lying. The listing does not claim it is a coin from the Redfield hoard.

Just like sellers who claim that a coin from 1912 is a "Titanic date." It doesn't mean the coin was on the Titanic. [Yeah, I have seen a couple of those listings over the years.]

uofa1285

<< <i>I agree with keyword spamming, but not fraud. As horrible as the tactic is to call it a "Redfield date," the seller is not lying. The listing does not claim it is a coin from the Redfield hoard.

Just like sellers who claim that a coin from 1912 is a "Titanic date." It doesn't mean the coin was on the Titanic. [Yeah, I have seen a couple of those listings over the years.] >>



Then, with respect, anyone could call just about any coin a "Eliasberg" date coin in their auction listings? It's semantics, I agree but I'm sure we all agree the listing needs to poof...or what a bad precendent this could set for an unsuspecting, less knowledgable hobbiest/enthusiest.

astrorat

Yes, anyone could use it's an "Eliasberg date" to describe one of their US circulation strike coins. I understand your discomfort and I think it is wrong to use "Redfield date" to describe the coin, but it's not fraud.

As someone who follows twenty-cent pieces, I find it amusing when somebody calls an 1875-S a "rare date." It's not. First, it's not a date (it's a date and a mintmark). Second, it's the most common "date" for twenty-cent pieces. Calling an 1875-S a "rare" twenty-cent piece is incorrect and misleading. It's not fraud, just inappropriate and ignorant.

Is it fraud to refer to a Carson City dime struck in 1876 as a "centennial date?" It likely had nothing to do with celebrating the centennial other than being struck in 1876. Where is the line drawn?

lkeigwin

I agree, it is keyword spamming and against ebay rules. Seller is using the Redfield name to drive searches his way.

Reported, but I am not sure ebay acts very quickly on minor listing violations.
Lance.

Tiny

I don't see a problem with calling the Morgan a Redfield Date. He's not saying it is a Redfield Coin or from The
Collection. There are sellers that put a Paramount red holder on there all the time and say it is from the Redfield
Hoard and either they do not know or they're trying to defraud buyers. Then there are the ones that say "Like the
Redfield Collection Holders" which there again is not a problem for me because they say "Like" and not " Is From ".

I will say that if this coin was sent in to a valid TPG it would not grade. I feel it is AT.

uofa1285

I believe the listing was killed before a successful ending...thanks forum mems for the help.

Doug

Frankcoins

<< <i>

You cannot accurately call a coin a Redfield UNLESS it is in a Redfield Holder or is a crossover to the big 4 grading services with the Pedigree noted. Since the premium for Redfield Pedigrees is substantial in many cases, this Keyword Spamming by the seller is in effect Fraud in our hobby. And the winner may not know the coin is not a confirmed Redfield pedigree so they may pay much more for a fraud then they would a confirmed Redfield.
>>



It's a Redfield DATE. There is extra market interest in these whether or not they were in Redfield HOLDERS.

From Silver Dollars & Trade Dollars of the United States - A Complete Encyclopedia by Q. David Bowers

I recall that the immense publicity given to the Redfield hoard increased the market prices of certain Morgan dollars represented in the estate, and, to a lesser extent, Peace dollars. Each month, it seemed, the bid and ask prices on the Teletype and in the Coin Dealer Newsletter would go up.

Overall the Redfield Peace dollar dates moved up with the market. The later date Morgan S-Mints carried the stigma of a Redfield date for many years with relatively slow price ap-preciation except for the 1901-S which was not a Redfield date. It was not until 1982 and 1983 that the 1890-S and 1891-S had the Redfield stigma lifted and made exceptionally rapid advances in price ...

uofa1285

<< <i>


It's a Redfield DATE. There is extra market interest in these whether or not they were in Redfield HOLDERS. >>



O.o If the date has extra maket value in or out of a Redfield holder, why mention Redfield then? Open and shut case of keyword spamming. Apparently eBay agreed as well....

howards

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>
A number of problems here...the main one in my view is AT, whereas all Redfields are NT. >>



So exposing coins to exploding peach cans is NT? I think we've got a whole new strategy for the coin docs. >>



Unsure about the joke or sarcasm here...did that actually happen? >>



Yes, that's supposedly what really happened.

Redfield on PCGS

Frankcoins

<< <i>

<< <i>


It's a Redfield DATE. There is extra market interest in these whether or not they were in Redfield HOLDERS. >>



O.o If the date has extra maket value in or out of a Redfield holder, why mention Redfield then? Open and shut case of keyword spamming. Apparently eBay agreed as well.... >>



Ebay will agree that a VAM number is a numerical grade and kill an auction if enough busybodies report it. Calling an 1887-S Morgan a Redfield date is no more improper than saying that an 1819 Large Cent was a Randall hoard date. Many of the Redfield dollars were wholesaled without being placed in any type of identifying holder. I think you owe ebay seller ladsales an apology.

uofa1285

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>


It's a Redfield DATE. There is extra market interest in these whether or not they were in Redfield HOLDERS. >>



O.o If the date has extra maket value in or out of a Redfield holder, why mention Redfield then? Open and shut case of keyword spamming. Apparently eBay agreed as well.... >>



Ebay will agree that a VAM number is a numerical grade and kill an auction if enough busybodies report it. Calling an 1887-S Morgan a Redfield date is no more improper than saying that an 1819 Large Cent was a Randall hoard date. Many of the Redfield dollars were wholesaled without being placed in any type of identifying holder. I think you owe ebay seller ladsales an apology. >>



No, I did the collecting community a favor by, at the very least, clearing up a keyword spamming listing. But if you think it will help...Frankcoins, I apologize for getting your listing poofed.

astrorat

Uh oh! You better get busy again. There are eBay sellers who are using the absurdly "fraudulent" descriptors of "Redfield era" and "Redfield toning" on coins that are absolutely, positively not holistically connected to the Great Hoarder. Time to gather the troops and do the hobby another favor.

uofa1285

<< <i>Uh oh! You better get busy again. There are eBay sellers who are using the absurdly "fraudulent" descriptors of "Redfield era" and "Redfield toning" on coins that are absolutely, positively not holistically connected to the Great Hoarder. Time to gather the troops and do the hobby another favor. >>



Alas, I am but one...perhaps the eBay coin police that were outed not so long ago will pursue this legitimate rescue of less knowledgable buyers possibly being duped by keyword spamming.