<< <i>As long as there are those who will pay a premium for the pretty colors sometimes left on tarnished silver, then there will be those who will try to get pretty colors to appear.
Anyone who likes the pretty colors and pays premiums for them, but also demands "strictly NT only", is bound for eventual disappointment.
If one likes the colors but doesn't care AT vs. NT, then have fun!
To each his own. >>
Bingo! The grading companies don't worry if they are AT as long as they are MA---market acceptable. >>
However, the TPGs likely worry (a bit) if the coins will become NMA (not market acceptable) in the future after they've been slabbed. >>
Kinda like Milk Spots developing on PR/MS70 SAE's? >>
To a certain degree, yes. In both cases there are business reasons to continue slabbing coins while the company continues to look for ways to better mitigate potential negative results.
I'd also add Chinese coins where our host continues to slab coins but has adjusted their guarantees accordingly.
Ah, bankerbob, I think you protest too much. Yes, we can see how you believe and I thank you for that. I often use what I learn here to know who I would buy from/sell to on ebay and/or the BST, so thank you.
All your examples are fine...if entered into with full knowledge and will. However, what you are ignoring is the deception that is often taking place and there is no "full knowledge". So, while you find it ok that people are taken advantage of, I am sorry, but I do not.
<< <i>As long as there are those who will pay a premium for the pretty colors sometimes left on tarnished silver, then there will be those who will try to get pretty colors to appear.
Anyone who likes the pretty colors and pays premiums for them, but also demands "strictly NT only", is bound for eventual disappointment.
If one likes the colors but doesn't care AT vs. NT, then have fun!
To each his own. >>
Bingo! The grading companies don't worry if they are AT as long as they are MA---market acceptable. >>
However, the TPGs likely worry (a bit) if the coins will become NMA (not market acceptable) in the future after they've been slabbed. >>
True but that's part of the cost of doing business. Part of the grading fee is insurance that the coin is properly graded and authentic. >>
You still have to manage the costs of doing business. Just saying it's a cost doesn't mean it's not a concern >>
This is true. However, the TPG's aren't about to pay a "color premium" should the color go bad on a coin while in the TPG's slab. They'll pay close to surrent market rates. They won't pay the owner of such a coin what the owner paid.
Having AT coins, or ANY coin for that matter, in TPG slabs is all about "Marketability" and "added value" based upon the consensus opinion of the TPG that the coin's grade was good at the time it was graded.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
The sort of artificial toning/doctoring I find most of a problem is the really effective type where big $$$ get made.
"Coin doctoring has been around forever in our business. One of the main reasons for the viability of the grading services was to standardize and reduce some of the subjectivity of grading and to eliminate all of the whizzed and puttied coins sold in the market. PCGS, NGC, PNG have known and know the coin doctors for decades. They are still perfecting their craft. I’ve seen many top registry sets assembled through auction or e-bay that have more doctored coins than original ones. When CAC first started, John was CACing some altered surface gold but when informed about it went on to correct it.
"Until dealers and collectors are willing to stop doing business with known doctors, they will always be around. Ticking time bombs are everywhere and PCGS & NGC fight like crazy to not have to buy back coins. I know because on the PCGS twelve biggest mistakes list, are multiple ones I fought with PCGS for months to take off the market and believe me, they love me for it. Unfortunately, I don’t expect a big penalty for known doctors. When PCGS, PNG and NGC are willing to expel and expose these doctors and a self policing policy of not doing business with them is instituted, maybe then when a real consequence is attributed to the practice will it ease.
"For decades I’ve heard the phrase “It’s in a holder” or “it’s certified isn’t it” to justify acquisition of anything slabbed. Coin grading is constantly evolving. CAC came about due to the diverse amount of coins found in just one grade point. A, B or C quality, or altered in any number of ways, or outright mistakes too." http://www.rcnh.com/app.cfm?template=news&NID=2876&Index=yes
<< <i>TPG's aren't about to pay a "color premium" should the color go bad on a coin while in the TPG's slab. They'll pay close to surrent market rates. They won't pay the owner of such a coin what the owner paid. >>
This is a good reason to support proper disclosure according to the PNG Code and eBay Policy.
<< <i>The answer is education, as it is for all areas of numismatics. You can never stop coin doctors from AT'ing coins, but if the collectors were smarter they would steer clear of them. But sadly you can't force people to learn more about what they are spending their money on. It amazes me how people will spend serious money on coins and not lift a finger to learn about what they are buying - other than to look at price guides.
Ebay has made it much easier for doctored coins to be mass-marketed to the unwary. You can't stop the supply, I think the hobby can only try to lessen the demand by making it possible for people to learn more about AT coins. >>
I agree on all counts. However, education only gets one so far. the doctors have gotten so good that it requires experience of the type that collectors rarely have the opportunity to acquire. I consider myself knowledgeable, but I know I could get fooled on colorful toning. It's one of the reasons that I steer clear of it. But for those that want to be in the mix, the OP's viewpoint is a good one...use a reputable TPG and get a CAC second opinion. Oh and While you're at it, use a reputable dealer who has spoken out on artificial toning.
<< <i>The sort of artificial toning/doctoring I find most of a problem is the really effective type where big $$$ get made.
"Coin doctoring has been around forever in our business. One of the main reasons for the viability of the grading services was to standardize and reduce some of the subjectivity of grading and to eliminate all of the whizzed and puttied coins sold in the market. PCGS, NGC, PNG have known and know the coin doctors for decades. They are still perfecting their craft. I’ve seen many top registry sets assembled through auction or e-bay that have more doctored coins than original ones. When CAC first started, John was CACing some altered surface gold but when informed about it went on to correct it.
"Until dealers and collectors are willing to stop doing business with known doctors, they will always be around. Ticking time bombs are everywhere and PCGS & NGC fight like crazy to not have to buy back coins. I know because on the PCGS twelve biggest mistakes list, are multiple ones I fought with PCGS for months to take off the market and believe me, they love me for it. Unfortunately, I don’t expect a big penalty for known doctors. When PCGS, PNG and NGC are willing to expel and expose these doctors and a self policing policy of not doing business with them is instituted, maybe then when a real consequence is attributed to the practice will it ease.
"For decades I’ve heard the phrase “It’s in a holder” or “it’s certified isn’t it” to justify acquisition of anything slabbed. Coin grading is constantly evolving. CAC came about due to the diverse amount of coins found in just one grade point. A, B or C quality, or altered in any number of ways, or outright mistakes too." http://www.rcnh.com/app.cfm?template=news&NID=2876&Index=yes >>
I do not believe it is acceptable to take advantage of anyone. Period. My point is this: Who is responsible for educating the buyer in any transaction? The BUYER is responsible! I stated that I am against ILLEGAL actions. Committing fraud is illegal. If a seller commits fraud, the seller needs to be dealt with accordingly. I am not sure where the fraud occured in the OP's example. Heck, the coin is in a PCGS holder! If it is definitely AT'ed then isn't PCGS responsible for removing it from the market as well? I agree that commiting fraud is unacceptable, but proving fraud is a tall order. People spend thousands of dollars on PCGS coins by the minute. Some of those are AT, undergraded, doctored, overgraded, and the list goes on. Most coin sellers are not PNG members so their standards don't apply. While it is unfortunate that some people make bad decisions in the marketplace on a daily basis, those mistakes don't justify the creation of another police state to prevent the transactions.
FWIW: I have done many deals on the BST, ebay, HA, both as a buyer and a seller. I would say that no buyer of my coins ever felt taken advantage of, nor did I ever gouge an unsuspecting buyer. I truly believe that a consumer should do their homework when they make a purchase. Then they will be knowledgeable, and knowledge is power.
What we've got here is failure to communicate.....
The question is when a relatively high-end collector shares his/her coins with a real expert and is told that what he/she had thought was original toning is in fact AT or otherwise not natural, what do they do? Get really anxious and try to sell the coins? And there are "experts" who will say it is AT when they are not sure or are mistaken, what then? False info can be damaging in whatever guise. I sent a few coins to a coin "guru" who said the coins could turn in the holder any day and offered me Bluesheet prices or less. If a coin has been of a particular quality or lack of it for a long time it is unlikely to suddenly "turn" in the holder.
I have no problem with ugly toned coins being dipped, especially when they are common silver dollars. As far as I'm concerned, any of the grading services would be helping me if there was a box to check, "you can dip in acetone or EZ clean any common coin I have if it will make it more saleable". I had a nice 1917 Standing Liberty quarter I bought from Robert Charles co. raw as an MS63 FH. PCGS called it questionable toning, NCS took over as month, but it came back in an MS64+FH holder. 5156068001-001 for image look-up.
I don't think toning should affect grade period! The grade of a coin is the amount of detail left from when it was struck.
If I see a Seated dime that is XF in detail and is toned and is raw I should be able to buy it and send it in knowing that if I graded it right it will come back XF40.....not in a genie holder "questionable toning". I liked the toning or would not have bought it. And when I go to sell the coin it is my problem to find someone who also likes the toning.
<< <i>What would you have people do - go around smashing AT coins with a hammer? >>
The discussion is about disclosure so people know what they are buying. This is covered by Truth-in Advertising rules, eBay and the PNG. >>
Suppose the coin is on it's second or third owner before it actually comes up on eBay?
<< <i>
<< <i>Why concern yourself with what other people buy and sell? >>
There are both ethical / moral issues and financial issues involved. Ethically and morally, is it ok to allow collectors to be taken advantage of? The PNG Code of Ethics suggests that it is not acceptable. Additionally, there are financial considerations as undisclosed, doctored coins can reduce the value of legitimate coins.
So without proper disclosure, both collectors that are unaware lose and collectors that are aware lose financially due to the actions of doctors. >>
There's absolutely no way to protect a stupid collector from him/herself. As for "full disclosure", I'm of the opinion that it's only applicable if the original doctor selling the coin admits to ATing the coin such as the two IKE Dollars I purchased.
Other than that, full disclosure amounts to an "opinion" based on ither the seller's direct knowledge or the opinions of others thrust ipon the seller via email, PM, or some other means. Still, all are just opinions.
It is the responsibility of the collector to educate him/herself. Such education is often mixed with various results. Example, suppose a collector came across a nicely toned coin yet wanted to get the opinions of others regarding the authenticity? S/he could post pictures and if the majority of folks felt that the coin was NT, the potential buyer has opened him/herself of to some serious bidding competition. The alternative is to simply purchase the coin, then ask questions later.
We've all seen folks that come onto the boards spouting some belief which is totally unfounded and yet, they'll defend their positions endlessly. Those folks cannot and will not ever learn but through trial and error and there is no wayt you can protect them from themselves.
If folks spot a coin which they believe to be AT, they can post the "opinions" with possibly a link but to get the listing shutdown based on those "opinions" which are based solely on what could be poor photography or over juiced photo's is butting into business that is simply not theirs. Ethics, Morals or not, unless they see the coin in hand, it's all simply an opinion.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>What would you have people do - go around smashing AT coins with a hammer? >>
The discussion is about disclosure so people know what they are buying. This is covered by Truth-in Advertising rules, eBay and the PNG. >>
Suppose the coin is on it's second or third owner before it actually comes up on eBay? >>
Some coins are well known and disavowed, such as blue Indians and blue Jeffs. There's nothing wrong with letting potential buyers and the seller know that beforehand IMO.
I also don't think there's anything wrong with selling and buying such a coin, as long as there's disclosure per the PNG Code and eBay Policy.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Why concern yourself with what other people buy and sell? >>
There are both ethical / moral issues and financial issues involved. Ethically and morally, is it ok to allow collectors to be taken advantage of? The PNG Code of Ethics suggests that it is not acceptable. Additionally, there are financial considerations as undisclosed, doctored coins can reduce the value of legitimate coins.
So without proper disclosure, both collectors that are unaware lose and collectors that are aware lose financially due to the actions of doctors. >>
There's absolutely no way to protect a stupid collector from him/herself. As for "full disclosure", I'm of the opinion that it's only applicable if the original doctor selling the coin admits to ATing the coin such as the two IKE Dollars I purchased.
Other than that, full disclosure amounts to an "opinion" based on ither the seller's direct knowledge or the opinions of others thrust ipon the seller via email, PM, or some other means. Still, all are just opinions.
It is the responsibility of the collector to educate him/herself. Such education is often mixed with various results. Example, suppose a collector came across a nicely toned coin yet wanted to get the opinions of others regarding the authenticity? S/he could post pictures and if the majority of folks felt that the coin was NT, the potential buyer has opened him/herself of to some serious bidding competition. The alternative is to simply purchase the coin, then ask questions later.
We've all seen folks that come onto the boards spouting some belief which is totally unfounded and yet, they'll defend their positions endlessly. Those folks cannot and will not ever learn but through trial and error and there is no wayt you can protect them from themselves.
If folks spot a coin which they believe to be AT, they can post the "opinions" with possibly a link but to get the listing shutdown based on those "opinions" which are based solely on what could be poor photography or over juiced photo's is butting into business that is simply not theirs. Ethics, Morals or not, unless they see the coin in hand, it's all simply an opinion. >>
Sometimes it's more than an opinion based on photography, e.g. blue Indians and blue Jeffs.
I do think it would be nice for there to be disclosure on coins like this so buyers can make fully informed decisions.
Given the price attributed to toning, it does appear that omissions of a material nature may be covered under the FTC POLICY STATEMENT ON DECEPTION.
It is the seller's responsibility to follow the law, marketplace policies (e.g. eBay), and any applicable Code of Ethics (e.g. PNG).
<< <i>It's not up to you or anyone else how a person spends their money on a legal activity!!!! >>
Some sales may violate Truth-in Advertising rules and marketplace policies. The FTC POLICY STATEMENT ON DECEPTION specifically mentions omissions of a material nature.
As mentioned, eBay policy may have been violated as well. >>
With regard to the FTC Statement, I believe that addresses false or deception "advertising" for services or goods to the public. (i.e. "We'll fix any transmission for $49.95" ) I do not believe that eBay listings are considered advertising not to mention that fact that the seller may or may not know the specific history of a coin being offered.
As for eBay's policy on coin sales, again, the seller may or may not know the specific history of the piece they are selling and I know few people that would list negative "opinions" for a coin that they were selling thereby driving the final price down.
For example: What if I purchased a 1904-O Morgan that was well toned, in a PCGS MS65 slab and paid 3x market price for the coin/slab. 9 months down the road, the toning starts to change from what I remember so I decide to sell. Would anybody actually list the coin with the statement "I believe that this coin is AT because it used to look like this and now looks like this."?
The ethical thing to do, would be to return it to the TPG for resolution. If they agreed that the coin slipped through (not likely) then a certain reimbursement could possibly be expected. But, what if they don't agree? Is it "still" my moral and ethical obligation to state that I belive that the coin is AT?
"Opinions", whether on coins, politics, or religion, are just that. Nothing more than an personal opinion. Thats why we have grading companies so that we can pay them for their professional "opinions" and then move forward.
Back to the OP, "What can collectors do about folks selling blatantly AT?"
Just move on to another listing or seller and not get so strung up on what someone else is doing based upon "the collectors opinion".
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>It's not up to you or anyone else how a person spends their money on a legal activity!!!! >>
Some sales may violate Truth-in Advertising rules and marketplace policies. The FTC POLICY STATEMENT ON DECEPTION specifically mentions omissions of a material nature.
As mentioned, eBay policy may have been violated as well. >>
With regard to the FTC Statement, I believe that addresses false or deception "advertising" for services or goods to the public. (i.e. "We'll fix any transmission for $49.95" ) I do not believe that eBay listings are considered advertising not to mention that fact that the seller may or may not know the specific history of a coin being offered. >>
The fact that a seller may not know the background of what they are selling is a good reason for informing the seller before the sale is concluded. This is similar to educating a seller on a possible counterfeit. This way an uninformed seller can learn more about the piece he or she is selling and provide a more responsible sale.
<< <i>As for eBay's policy on coin sales, again, the seller may or may not know the specific history of the piece they are selling and I know few people that would list negative "opinions" for a coin that they were selling thereby driving the final price down. >>
As above, there's nothing wrong with educating and alerting the seller IMO. In many cases, the seller may be happy to know the condition of their coin and speak with the TPG regarding it.
<< <i>For example: What if I purchased a 1904-O Morgan that was well toned, in a PCGS MS65 slab and paid 3x market price for the coin/slab. 9 months down the road, the toning starts to change from what I remember so I decide to sell. Would anybody actually list the coin with the statement "I believe that this coin is AT because it used to look like this and now looks like this."? >>
I believe some more responsible owners would. For example, TDN.
<< <i>The ethical thing to do, would be to return it to the TPG for resolution. If they agreed that the coin slipped through (not likely) then a certain reimbursement could possibly be expected. But, what if they don't agree? Is it "still" my moral and ethical obligation to state that I belive that the coin is AT?
"Opinions", whether on coins, politics, or religion, are just that. Nothing more than an personal opinion. Thats why we have grading companies so that we can pay them for their professional "opinions" and then move forward. >>
As mentioned above, TPGs may not guarantee toning premiums which makes this a more important issue to understand before the sale is concluded.
<< <i>Back to the OP, "What can collectors do about folks selling blatantly AT?"
Just move on to another listing or seller and not get so strung up on what someone else is doing based upon "the collectors opinion". >>
I believe it's acceptable to inform potential buyers and the seller of the issue. It appears the PNG and eBay agree.
Coming soon, to an eBay listing near you: Full Disclosure!!!
Note to bidders: As I have not owned this coin for its entire lifetime, please be aware that any or all of the following may have occurred:
- Coin may have been washed with unknown substances. - Coin may have been exposed to unknown chemicals. - Coin may have been used as a lottery ticket scratcher. - Coin may have been involved in a purchase of merchandise used in a crime. - Coin may have been ingested by a farm animal. - Coin may have been proceeds in an illegal gambling operation. - Coin may have been abducted and returned to earth by space aliens. - Coin may have been owned by a Republican or a Democrat. - Coin may have been melted, restruck and reprocessed into its original state using unknown technology. - Coin may have been discussed on an internet chatboard, with varying opinions expressed.
The preceeding is only a sampling of things that might have happened to the coin. This list should not be considered exhaustive. I do not know for a fact that any of these things are true, but they could be.
<< <i>I may have missed it, but how do we know that 1904-O is definitely AT? >>
Guy named Alex outed himself as doing it along with some othercoins that both Sunnywood and I both thought were so good they were scary.Some holdered,some deemed genuine!
Great coins are not cheap,and cheap coins are not great!
<< <i>I may have missed it, but how do we know that 1904-O is definitely AT? >>
Guy named Alex outed himself as doing it along with some othercoins that both Sunnywood and I both thought were so good they were scary.Some holdered,some deemed genuine! >>
With all due respect my friend, that's an anecdote not proof.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>I may have missed it, but how do we know that 1904-O is definitely AT? >>
Guy named Alex outed himself as doing it along with some othercoins that both Sunnywood and I both thought were so good they were scary.Some holdered,some deemed genuine! >>
With all due respect my friend, that's an anecdote not proof. >>
With all due respect for a few dealers who isnt with us anymore,it was talked about on the old TCCS Forums,that some people had been banned from.Be it right or wrong.This story involves a few dealers who are no longer with us.All i have to say.May they rest in Peace Bill.
Great coins are not cheap,and cheap coins are not great!
i imagine a world where everyone worried about thier own decisions.... if i see someone at the ice cream stand should i tell them not to buy ice cream because it may make them fat ? may make them diabetic ? explain the risk of choking ? a brain freeze ? i understand that some poeple have good intentions and toss and turn all night wondering how many people are being "duped" into buying AT coins, but the reality of it is .... they may like AT coins. i collect counterfeits and i can no longer buy them on a popular auction site because there are people that toss and turn all night worrying about people unknowingly buying counterfeit coins. the reality is that some people actually know what they are buying and care not to have thier collecting habits censored by people with good intentions
regardless of how many posts I have, I don't consider myself an "expert" at anything
<< <i>i imagine a world where everyone worried about thier own decisions.... if i see someone at the ice cream stand should i tell them not to buy ice cream because it may make them fat ? may make them diabetic ? explain the risk of choking ? a brain freeze ? i understand that some poeple have good intentions and toss and turn all night wondering how many people are being "duped" into buying AT coins, but the reality of it is .... they may like AT coins. i collect counterfeits and i can no longer buy them on a popular auction site because there are people that toss and turn all night worrying about people unknowingly buying counterfeit coins the reality is that some people actually know what they are buying and care not to have thier collecting habits censored by people with nothing better to do. >>
Years ago, I remember seeing an ANACS holdered coin here and there at the larger shows that carried the "Artificial Toning" label And of course, the AT would be quite obvious and whatever dealer had them, they were for sale. Such coins should be used for educational purposes only and not sold. But when other coins with the same toning are certified. the point is lost in the lesson/education. I personally don't buy coins that are inconsistent with the type of toning I grew up with and are in my set. While it's just an opinion, collectors need to familiarize themself with what's acceptable toning and stay away from those coins with suspect toning. It's a remote question in what's AT or NT if you're always looking for someone to agree or disagree with you. Just because the answers appear consensus-wise, is it really AT or NT? Over the years, I believe I've done quite well with my picks/choice of coins with toning.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Heck, the coin is in a PCGS holder! If it is definitely AT'ed then isn't PCGS responsible for removing it from the market as well?
Ah-No--Coins can be toned inside the holder as proven by a member here. I think that may be the case here. The seller says that he will re-submit it if it does not sell----Total BULL. He knows it won't re-holder.
This is a case of caveat emptor. If the buyer doesn't know what he is buying then it is his loss. Or maybe the buyer just likes it no matter how it was toned. Who is to say what any coin is worth? Guides are just that-guides. Some may be accurate and some not. Value is in the eye of the beholder (buyer).
If smoeone wants to overpay for something the rest of us have no say--IT'S THEIR MONEY. If smoeone wants to gamble their money away at a casino we have no say--IT'S THEIR MONEY. If smoeone wants to buy a new car we have no say--IT'S THEIR MONEY. I do not care what other people do with THEIR money. I do what I want with my money and I don't care what anyone else's opinion is.
As for opinions- isn't grading just an opinion also? Some grading opinions are more highly valued than others. Even grades by TPG's are just opinions.
When I purchase a coin (or anything for that matter) the only opinion that counts is mine.
<< <i>i imagine a world where everyone worried about thier own decisions.... if i see someone at the ice cream stand should i tell them not to buy ice cream because it may make them fat ? may make them diabetic ? explain the risk of choking ? a brain freeze ? i understand that some poeple have good intentions and toss and turn all night wondering how many people are being "duped" into buying AT coins, but the reality of it is .... they may like AT coins. i collect counterfeits and i can no longer buy them on a popular auction site because there are people that toss and turn all night worrying about people unknowingly buying counterfeit coins. the reality is that some people actually know what they are buying and care not to have thier collecting habits censored by people with good intentions >>
i give this presentation a pr70dcam...it's just that good of a presentation piece the same crowd i'm in too...
everything in life is but merely on loan to us by our appreciation....lose your appreciation and see
i honestly commend those that want to improve the hobby, but why not teach a class or something more constructive ? trying to censor what other people do is just not the answer.
regardless of how many posts I have, I don't consider myself an "expert" at anything
Regarding those who want to blame the victims who buy problem coins in and out of holders, they do not know what they are talking about. I am reminded when I did a show where I let a "dealer" look through my case and found later that I was missing several gold coins; the show manager said it was my own fault. You can push the personal responsibility thing too far. I don't know anyone in a local club, even the coin shop owner, who are expert graders, they all buy and sell cleaned, whizzed and other problem coins. Heck, I have a 1798 large cent bought last week that I will try to run in their auction next week that is at best a PR1 around cost, some will probably think it is a great deal. No, the education curve in collectibles is endless. Grading well is talent, and some have it, most don't.
Warren Mills made some good points in the interview I posted on this thread. I don't agree with him that all coins with problems need to be so noted on the holders. PCGS does right by net grading, when the minor problem is market acceptable.
What can collectors do about folks selling blatantly AT
For me, the same thing I do about folks selling counterfeit Fendi handbags, Rolex watches, and Iphones... ignore them.
(of course, I don't make trade in real handbags, watches, or phones, so have no issue. In fact, if the fake bags, watches, or phones had exactly the same deep gold, neon pinks, electric blues as the "real" ones, maybe I or even an "expert" couldn't even tell the difference, sometimes, if the fake is really good, and some of my "real" stuff might in fact be fake, too, and I never even knew because they were so plausible, even though they appeared recently, way after Fendi and Rolex stopped making that kind of product)
to be clear im not "blaming" anyone, i believe people that are willing to spend 10x what a coin is worth just because it is tarnished, should be well aware of the possibility that someone painted those wild colors on a coin that probably would never look like that if someone hadnt. "you can only push personal responsibility so far" ???? i say it isnt pushed NEARLY far enough. there is an adjective for people that spend money foolishly, but the word isnt "victim" i propose there be a "victim's compensation fund" where anyone that cares to can contribute to a fund that will cover the losses of a "victim" that was duped into buying AT'd coins. if we get about 20 people to contribute about $1000 a week, that should get the ball rolling... now who has thier checkbook handy?
regardless of how many posts I have, I don't consider myself an "expert" at anything
Pat, at this point in the thread, I'm very interested in the fate of this 1904-O Morgan, vis-a-vis PCGS's opinion or actions. But I can't glean any further info from the rest of the posts.
What's the status of this coin? Has a determination been made? Has PCGS even been informed of these opinions from the peanut gallery? Or is this just another trial by forum jury without PCGS weighing in beyond their original slabbing and grading?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
As long as the significant problem is indicated by the seller, no problem. The area where most would agree would be areas of fraud, defined as:
"Webster-Merriam: 1 a: deceit, trickery; specifically: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick".
Theft is any guise is morally and legally wrong. Theft by fraud or deceit, or what is called "constructive fraud", are also unjustifiable. Even the best dealers and collectors I know get tricked occasionally.
<< <i>As long as the significant problem is indicated by the seller, no problem. The area where most would agree would be areas of fraud, defined as:
"Webster-Merriam: 1 a: deceit, trickery; specifically: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick".
Theft is any guise is morally and legally wrong. Theft by fraud or deceit, or what is called "constructive fraud", are also unjustifiable. Even the best dealers and collectors I know get tricked occasionally. >>
The seller was unaware that he bought an AT coin,and still is unless he read the thread.He might have been the last to know.
Great coins are not cheap,and cheap coins are not great!
I must say that imo that Morgan looks a bit too wild to be natural... but I'm still trying to understand the supposed proof that this coin is AT... correct me if I am missing something but all I'm seeing here is that evidently, someone who's now deceased (and -no offense- can't corroborate or deny anything) told someone else that another guy confessed to doing it. That's the textbook definition of hearsay IMO; I think the only reasonably certain way to settle the issue would be a resubmission... but then, if it tanks on the resub, the inevitable argument would then ensue over whether PCGS actually thought it AT or whether they were practicing CYOA... so perhaps it's a no-win. As was posited earlier in the thread, perhaps the buyer just liked the color. At any rate, we cannot and imo, should not promote the idea of saving people from themselves; as a popular comedian likes to remind us-you can't fix stupid. The best we can do is try to educate would be buyers and try to combat known fraudsters.
<< <i>I must say that imo that Morgan looks a bit too wild to be natural... but I'm still trying to understand the supposed proof that this coin is AT... correct me if I am missing something but all I'm seeing here is that evidently, someone who's now deceased (and -no offense- can't corroborate or deny anything) told someone else that another guy confessed to doing it. That's the textbook definition of hearsay IMO; I think the only reasonably certain way to settle the issue would be a resubmission... but then, if it tanks on the resub, the inevitable argument would then ensue over whether PCGS actually thought it AT or whether they were practicing CYOA... so perhaps it's a no-win. As was posited earlier in the thread, perhaps the buyer just liked the color. At any rate, we cannot and imo, should not promote the idea of saving people from themselves; as a popular comedian likes to remind us-you can't fix stupid. The best we can do is try to educate would be buyers and try to combat known fraudsters. >>
I agree this is currently hearsay; however, it is attributed to the former owner of the coin and a well-known collector so I do think PCGS review and Secure Plus would be desirable. If PCGS did confirm this now that this coin is well-known, there may be some talk as you suggest; however, they have disavowed other pieces in the past. Of course, in the past, there appears to have been much more evidence so providing more material before a review may also be desirable, though we have the sniffer now so that can add to the determination.
Examining the allegations would go a long way to helping educate buyers and combating known fraudsters so I do think this coin should be investigated and reviewed by our host.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>As long as there are those who will pay a premium for the pretty colors sometimes left on tarnished silver, then there will be those who will try to get pretty colors to appear.
Anyone who likes the pretty colors and pays premiums for them, but also demands "strictly NT only", is bound for eventual disappointment.
If one likes the colors but doesn't care AT vs. NT, then have fun!
To each his own. >>
Bingo! The grading companies don't worry if they are AT as long as they are MA---market acceptable. >>
However, the TPGs likely worry (a bit) if the coins will become NMA (not market acceptable) in the future after they've been slabbed. >>
Kinda like Milk Spots developing on PR/MS70 SAE's? >>
To a certain degree, yes. In both cases there are business reasons to continue slabbing coins while the company continues to look for ways to better mitigate potential negative results.
I'd also add Chinese coins where our host continues to slab coins but has adjusted their guarantees accordingly.
Yes, we can see how you believe and I thank you for that.
I often use what I learn here to know who I would buy from/sell to on ebay and/or the BST, so thank you.
All your examples are fine...if entered into with full knowledge and will. However, what you are ignoring is the deception that is often taking place and there is no "full knowledge".
So, while you find it ok that people are taken advantage of, I am sorry, but I do not.
Have a good day
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>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>As long as there are those who will pay a premium for the pretty colors sometimes left on tarnished silver, then there will be those who will try to get pretty colors to appear.
Anyone who likes the pretty colors and pays premiums for them, but also demands "strictly NT only", is bound for eventual disappointment.
If one likes the colors but doesn't care AT vs. NT, then have fun!
To each his own. >>
Bingo! The grading companies don't worry if they are AT as long as they are MA---market acceptable. >>
However, the TPGs likely worry (a bit) if the coins will become NMA (not market acceptable) in the future after they've been slabbed. >>
True but that's part of the cost of doing business. Part of the grading fee is insurance that the coin is properly graded and authentic. >>
You still have to manage the costs of doing business. Just saying it's a cost doesn't mean it's not a concern
This is true. However, the TPG's aren't about to pay a "color premium" should the color go bad on a coin while in the TPG's slab. They'll pay close to surrent market rates. They won't pay the owner of such a coin what the owner paid.
Having AT coins, or ANY coin for that matter, in TPG slabs is all about "Marketability" and "added value" based upon the consensus opinion of the TPG that the coin's grade was good at the time it was graded.
The name is LEE!
"Coin doctoring has been around forever in our business. One of the main reasons for the viability of the grading services was to standardize and reduce some of the subjectivity of grading and to eliminate all of the whizzed and puttied coins sold in the market. PCGS, NGC, PNG have known and know the coin doctors for decades. They are still perfecting their craft. I’ve seen many top registry sets assembled through auction or e-bay that have more doctored coins than original ones. When CAC first started, John was CACing some altered surface gold but when informed about it went on to correct it.
"Until dealers and collectors are willing to stop doing business with known doctors, they will always be around. Ticking time bombs are everywhere and PCGS & NGC fight like crazy to not have to buy back coins. I know because on the PCGS twelve biggest mistakes list, are multiple ones I fought with PCGS for months to take off the market and believe me, they love me for it. Unfortunately, I don’t expect a big penalty for known doctors. When PCGS, PNG and NGC are willing to expel and expose these doctors and a self policing policy of not doing business with them is instituted, maybe then when a real consequence is attributed to the practice will it ease.
"For decades I’ve heard the phrase “It’s in a holder” or “it’s certified isn’t it” to justify acquisition of anything slabbed. Coin grading is constantly evolving. CAC came about due to the diverse amount of coins found in just one grade point. A, B or C quality, or altered in any number of ways, or outright mistakes too."
http://www.rcnh.com/app.cfm?template=news&NID=2876&Index=yes
<< <i>TPG's aren't about to pay a "color premium" should the color go bad on a coin while in the TPG's slab. They'll pay close to surrent market rates. They won't pay the owner of such a coin what the owner paid. >>
This is a good reason to support proper disclosure according to the PNG Code and eBay Policy.
<< <i>The answer is education, as it is for all areas of numismatics. You can never stop coin doctors from AT'ing coins, but if the collectors were smarter they would steer clear of them. But sadly you can't force people to learn more about what they are spending their money on. It amazes me how people will spend serious money on coins and not lift a finger to learn about what they are buying - other than to look at price guides.
Ebay has made it much easier for doctored coins to be mass-marketed to the unwary. You can't stop the supply, I think the hobby can only try to lessen the demand by making it possible for people to learn more about AT coins. >>
I agree on all counts. However, education only gets one so far. the doctors have gotten so good that it requires experience of the type that collectors rarely have the opportunity to acquire. I consider myself knowledgeable, but I know I could get fooled on colorful toning. It's one of the reasons that I steer clear of it. But for those that want to be in the mix, the OP's viewpoint is a good one...use a reputable TPG and get a CAC second opinion. Oh and While you're at it, use a reputable dealer who has spoken out on artificial toning.
Tom
<< <i>The sort of artificial toning/doctoring I find most of a problem is the really effective type where big $$$ get made.
"Coin doctoring has been around forever in our business. One of the main reasons for the viability of the grading services was to standardize and reduce some of the subjectivity of grading and to eliminate all of the whizzed and puttied coins sold in the market. PCGS, NGC, PNG have known and know the coin doctors for decades. They are still perfecting their craft. I’ve seen many top registry sets assembled through auction or e-bay that have more doctored coins than original ones. When CAC first started, John was CACing some altered surface gold but when informed about it went on to correct it.
"Until dealers and collectors are willing to stop doing business with known doctors, they will always be around. Ticking time bombs are everywhere and PCGS & NGC fight like crazy to not have to buy back coins. I know because on the PCGS twelve biggest mistakes list, are multiple ones I fought with PCGS for months to take off the market and believe me, they love me for it. Unfortunately, I don’t expect a big penalty for known doctors. When PCGS, PNG and NGC are willing to expel and expose these doctors and a self policing policy of not doing business with them is instituted, maybe then when a real consequence is attributed to the practice will it ease.
"For decades I’ve heard the phrase “It’s in a holder” or “it’s certified isn’t it” to justify acquisition of anything slabbed. Coin grading is constantly evolving. CAC came about due to the diverse amount of coins found in just one grade point. A, B or C quality, or altered in any number of ways, or outright mistakes too."
http://www.rcnh.com/app.cfm?template=news&NID=2876&Index=yes >>
Linkified.
Thanks for posting the link to Rare Coins of New Hampshire's Crystal Ball Survey. Good reading.
I do not believe it is acceptable to take advantage of anyone. Period. My point is this: Who is responsible for educating the buyer in any transaction? The BUYER is responsible! I stated that I am against ILLEGAL actions. Committing fraud is illegal. If a seller commits fraud, the seller needs to be dealt with accordingly. I am not sure where the fraud occured in the OP's example. Heck, the coin is in a PCGS holder! If it is definitely AT'ed then isn't PCGS responsible for removing it from the market as well? I agree that commiting fraud is unacceptable, but proving fraud is a tall order. People spend thousands of dollars on PCGS coins by the minute. Some of those are AT, undergraded, doctored, overgraded, and the list goes on. Most coin sellers are not PNG members so their standards don't apply. While it is unfortunate that some people make bad decisions in the marketplace on a daily basis, those mistakes don't justify the creation of another police state to prevent the transactions.
FWIW: I have done many deals on the BST, ebay, HA, both as a buyer and a seller. I would say that no buyer of my coins ever felt taken advantage of, nor did I ever gouge an unsuspecting buyer. I truly believe that a consumer should do their homework when they make a purchase. Then they will be knowledgeable, and knowledge is power.
Successful BST xactions w/PCcoins, Drunner, Manofcoins, Rampage, docg, Poppee, RobKool, and MichealDixon.
I have no problem with ugly toned coins being dipped, especially when they are common silver dollars. As far as I'm concerned, any of the grading services would be helping me if there was a box to check, "you can dip in acetone or EZ clean any common coin I have if it will make it more saleable". I had a nice 1917 Standing Liberty quarter I bought from Robert Charles co. raw as an MS63 FH. PCGS called it questionable toning, NCS took over as month, but it came back in an MS64+FH holder. 5156068001-001 for image look-up.
I don't think toning should affect grade period! The grade of a coin is the amount of detail left from when it was struck.
If I see a Seated dime that is XF in detail and is toned and is raw I should be able to buy it and send it in knowing that if I graded it right it will come back XF40.....not in a genie holder "questionable toning". I liked the toning or would not have bought it. And when I go to sell the coin it is my problem to find someone who also likes the toning.
If the coin is XF. It is what it is ........ XF!
<< <i>
<< <i>What would you have people do - go around smashing AT coins with a hammer? >>
The discussion is about disclosure so people know what they are buying. This is covered by Truth-in Advertising rules, eBay and the PNG. >>
Suppose the coin is on it's second or third owner before it actually comes up on eBay?
<< <i>
<< <i>Why concern yourself with what other people buy and sell? >>
There are both ethical / moral issues and financial issues involved. Ethically and morally, is it ok to allow collectors to be taken advantage of? The PNG Code of Ethics suggests that it is not acceptable. Additionally, there are financial considerations as undisclosed, doctored coins can reduce the value of legitimate coins.
So without proper disclosure, both collectors that are unaware lose and collectors that are aware lose financially due to the actions of doctors. >>
There's absolutely no way to protect a stupid collector from him/herself. As for "full disclosure", I'm of the opinion that it's only applicable if the original doctor selling the coin admits to ATing the coin such as the two IKE Dollars I purchased.
Other than that, full disclosure amounts to an "opinion" based on ither the seller's direct knowledge or the opinions of others thrust ipon the seller via email, PM, or some other means. Still, all are just opinions.
It is the responsibility of the collector to educate him/herself. Such education is often mixed with various results.
Example, suppose a collector came across a nicely toned coin yet wanted to get the opinions of others regarding the authenticity?
S/he could post pictures and if the majority of folks felt that the coin was NT, the potential buyer has opened him/herself of to some serious bidding competition.
The alternative is to simply purchase the coin, then ask questions later.
We've all seen folks that come onto the boards spouting some belief which is totally unfounded and yet, they'll defend their positions endlessly. Those folks cannot and will not ever learn but through trial and error and there is no wayt you can protect them from themselves.
If folks spot a coin which they believe to be AT, they can post the "opinions" with possibly a link but to get the listing shutdown based on those "opinions" which are based solely on what could be poor photography or over juiced photo's is butting into business that is simply not theirs. Ethics, Morals or not, unless they see the coin in hand, it's all simply an opinion.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What would you have people do - go around smashing AT coins with a hammer? >>
The discussion is about disclosure so people know what they are buying. This is covered by Truth-in Advertising rules, eBay and the PNG. >>
Suppose the coin is on it's second or third owner before it actually comes up on eBay? >>
Some coins are well known and disavowed, such as blue Indians and blue Jeffs. There's nothing wrong with letting potential buyers and the seller know that beforehand IMO.
I also don't think there's anything wrong with selling and buying such a coin, as long as there's disclosure per the PNG Code and eBay Policy.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Why concern yourself with what other people buy and sell? >>
There are both ethical / moral issues and financial issues involved. Ethically and morally, is it ok to allow collectors to be taken advantage of? The PNG Code of Ethics suggests that it is not acceptable. Additionally, there are financial considerations as undisclosed, doctored coins can reduce the value of legitimate coins.
So without proper disclosure, both collectors that are unaware lose and collectors that are aware lose financially due to the actions of doctors. >>
There's absolutely no way to protect a stupid collector from him/herself. As for "full disclosure", I'm of the opinion that it's only applicable if the original doctor selling the coin admits to ATing the coin such as the two IKE Dollars I purchased.
Other than that, full disclosure amounts to an "opinion" based on ither the seller's direct knowledge or the opinions of others thrust ipon the seller via email, PM, or some other means. Still, all are just opinions.
It is the responsibility of the collector to educate him/herself. Such education is often mixed with various results.
Example, suppose a collector came across a nicely toned coin yet wanted to get the opinions of others regarding the authenticity?
S/he could post pictures and if the majority of folks felt that the coin was NT, the potential buyer has opened him/herself of to some serious bidding competition.
The alternative is to simply purchase the coin, then ask questions later.
We've all seen folks that come onto the boards spouting some belief which is totally unfounded and yet, they'll defend their positions endlessly. Those folks cannot and will not ever learn but through trial and error and there is no wayt you can protect them from themselves.
If folks spot a coin which they believe to be AT, they can post the "opinions" with possibly a link but to get the listing shutdown based on those "opinions" which are based solely on what could be poor photography or over juiced photo's is butting into business that is simply not theirs. Ethics, Morals or not, unless they see the coin in hand, it's all simply an opinion. >>
Sometimes it's more than an opinion based on photography, e.g. blue Indians and blue Jeffs.
I do think it would be nice for there to be disclosure on coins like this so buyers can make fully informed decisions.
Given the price attributed to toning, it does appear that omissions of a material nature may be covered under the FTC POLICY STATEMENT ON DECEPTION.
It is the seller's responsibility to follow the law, marketplace policies (e.g. eBay), and any applicable Code of Ethics (e.g. PNG).
<< <i>
<< <i>It's not up to you or anyone else how a person spends their money on a legal activity!!!! >>
Some sales may violate Truth-in Advertising rules and marketplace policies. The FTC POLICY STATEMENT ON DECEPTION specifically mentions omissions of a material nature.
As mentioned, eBay policy may have been violated as well. >>
With regard to the FTC Statement, I believe that addresses false or deception "advertising" for services or goods to the public. (i.e. "We'll fix any transmission for $49.95" ) I do not believe that eBay listings are considered advertising not to mention that fact that the seller may or may not know the specific history of a coin being offered.
As for eBay's policy on coin sales, again, the seller may or may not know the specific history of the piece they are selling and I know few people that would list negative "opinions" for a coin that they were selling thereby driving the final price down.
For example: What if I purchased a 1904-O Morgan that was well toned, in a PCGS MS65 slab and paid 3x market price for the coin/slab.
9 months down the road, the toning starts to change from what I remember so I decide to sell.
Would anybody actually list the coin with the statement "I believe that this coin is AT because it used to look like this and now looks like this."?
The ethical thing to do, would be to return it to the TPG for resolution. If they agreed that the coin slipped through (not likely) then a certain reimbursement could possibly be expected. But, what if they don't agree? Is it "still" my moral and ethical obligation to state that I belive that the coin is AT?
"Opinions", whether on coins, politics, or religion, are just that. Nothing more than an personal opinion. Thats why we have grading companies so that we can pay them for their professional "opinions" and then move forward.
Back to the OP, "What can collectors do about folks selling blatantly AT?"
Just move on to another listing or seller and not get so strung up on what someone else is doing based upon "the collectors opinion".
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
Nuff said >>
Was this coin put out by the Bewitching Liberation of Ultimate Rainbows. Better know as BLUR.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It's not up to you or anyone else how a person spends their money on a legal activity!!!! >>
Some sales may violate Truth-in Advertising rules and marketplace policies. The FTC POLICY STATEMENT ON DECEPTION specifically mentions omissions of a material nature.
As mentioned, eBay policy may have been violated as well. >>
With regard to the FTC Statement, I believe that addresses false or deception "advertising" for services or goods to the public. (i.e. "We'll fix any transmission for $49.95" ) I do not believe that eBay listings are considered advertising not to mention that fact that the seller may or may not know the specific history of a coin being offered. >>
eBay has been very involved with the FTC on issues of "fraud, deception and misuse".
The fact that a seller may not know the background of what they are selling is a good reason for informing the seller before the sale is concluded. This is similar to educating a seller on a possible counterfeit. This way an uninformed seller can learn more about the piece he or she is selling and provide a more responsible sale.
<< <i>As for eBay's policy on coin sales, again, the seller may or may not know the specific history of the piece they are selling and I know few people that would list negative "opinions" for a coin that they were selling thereby driving the final price down. >>
As above, there's nothing wrong with educating and alerting the seller IMO. In many cases, the seller may be happy to know the condition of their coin and speak with the TPG regarding it.
<< <i>For example: What if I purchased a 1904-O Morgan that was well toned, in a PCGS MS65 slab and paid 3x market price for the coin/slab.
9 months down the road, the toning starts to change from what I remember so I decide to sell.
Would anybody actually list the coin with the statement "I believe that this coin is AT because it used to look like this and now looks like this."? >>
I believe some more responsible owners would. For example, TDN.
<< <i>The ethical thing to do, would be to return it to the TPG for resolution. If they agreed that the coin slipped through (not likely) then a certain reimbursement could possibly be expected. But, what if they don't agree? Is it "still" my moral and ethical obligation to state that I belive that the coin is AT?
"Opinions", whether on coins, politics, or religion, are just that. Nothing more than an personal opinion. Thats why we have grading companies so that we can pay them for their professional "opinions" and then move forward. >>
As mentioned above, TPGs may not guarantee toning premiums which makes this a more important issue to understand before the sale is concluded.
<< <i>Back to the OP, "What can collectors do about folks selling blatantly AT?"
Just move on to another listing or seller and not get so strung up on what someone else is doing based upon "the collectors opinion". >>
I believe it's acceptable to inform potential buyers and the seller of the issue. It appears the PNG and eBay agree.
Note to bidders: As I have not owned this coin for its entire lifetime, please be aware that any or all of the following may have occurred:
- Coin may have been washed with unknown substances.
- Coin may have been exposed to unknown chemicals.
- Coin may have been used as a lottery ticket scratcher.
- Coin may have been involved in a purchase of merchandise used in a crime.
- Coin may have been ingested by a farm animal.
- Coin may have been proceeds in an illegal gambling operation.
- Coin may have been abducted and returned to earth by space aliens.
- Coin may have been owned by a Republican or a Democrat.
- Coin may have been melted, restruck and reprocessed into its original state using unknown technology.
- Coin may have been discussed on an internet chatboard, with varying opinions expressed.
The preceeding is only a sampling of things that might have happened to the coin. This list should not be considered exhaustive. I do not know for a fact that any of these things are true, but they could be.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>I may have missed it, but how do we know that 1904-O is definitely AT? >>
Guy named Alex outed himself as doing it along with some othercoins that both Sunnywood and I both thought were so good they were scary.Some holdered,some deemed genuine!
<< <i>
<< <i>I may have missed it, but how do we know that 1904-O is definitely AT? >>
Guy named Alex outed himself as doing it along with some othercoins that both Sunnywood and I both thought were so good they were scary.Some holdered,some deemed genuine! >>
With all due respect my friend, that's an anecdote not proof.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I may have missed it, but how do we know that 1904-O is definitely AT? >>
Guy named Alex outed himself as doing it along with some othercoins that both Sunnywood and I both thought were so good they were scary.Some holdered,some deemed genuine! >>
With all due respect my friend, that's an anecdote not proof. >>
With all due respect for a few dealers who isnt with us anymore,it was talked about on the old TCCS Forums,that some people had been banned from.Be it right or wrong.This story involves a few dealers who are no longer with us.All i have to say.May they rest in Peace Bill.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Nuff said >>
Was this coin put out by the Bewitching Liberation of Ultimate Rainbows. Better know as BLUR. >>
I have no idea. I see them weekly being sold on ebay and I thank goodness they can't afford to destroy the nicest coins.
"A dog breaks your heart only one time and that is when they pass on". Unknown
<< <i>i imagine a world where everyone worried about thier own decisions.... if i see someone at the ice cream stand should i tell them not to buy ice cream because it may make them fat ? may make them diabetic ? explain the risk of choking ? a brain freeze ? i understand that some poeple have good intentions and toss and turn all night wondering how many people are being "duped" into buying AT coins, but the reality of it is .... they may like AT coins. i collect counterfeits and i can no longer buy them on a popular auction site because there are people that toss and turn all night worrying about people unknowingly buying counterfeit coins the reality is that some people actually know what they are buying and care not to have thier collecting habits censored by people with nothing better to do. >>
I personally don't buy coins that are inconsistent with the type of toning I grew up with and are in my set.
While it's just an opinion, collectors need to familiarize themself with what's acceptable toning and stay away from those coins with suspect toning. It's a remote question in what's AT or NT if you're always looking for someone to agree or disagree with you. Just because the answers appear consensus-wise, is it really AT or NT? Over the years, I believe I've done quite well with my picks/choice of coins with toning.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Heck, the coin is in a PCGS holder! If it is definitely AT'ed then isn't PCGS responsible for removing it from the market as well?
Ah-No--Coins can be toned inside the holder as proven by a member here. I think that may be the case here. The seller says that he will re-submit it if it does not sell----Total BULL. He knows it won't re-holder.
This is a case of caveat emptor. If the buyer doesn't know what he is buying then it is his loss. Or maybe the buyer just likes it no matter how it was toned. Who is to say what any coin is worth? Guides are just that-guides. Some may be accurate and some not. Value is in the eye of the beholder (buyer).
If smoeone wants to overpay for something the rest of us have no say--IT'S THEIR MONEY. If smoeone wants to gamble their money away at a casino we have no say--IT'S THEIR MONEY. If smoeone wants to buy a new car we have no say--IT'S THEIR MONEY. I do not care what other people do with THEIR money. I do what I want with my money and I don't care what anyone else's opinion is.
As for opinions- isn't grading just an opinion also? Some grading opinions are more highly valued than others. Even grades by TPG's are just opinions.
When I purchase a coin (or anything for that matter) the only opinion that counts is mine.
Bob
<< <i>i imagine a world where everyone worried about thier own decisions.... if i see someone at the ice cream stand should i tell them not to buy ice cream because it may make them fat ? may make them diabetic ? explain the risk of choking ? a brain freeze ? i understand that some poeple have good intentions and toss and turn all night wondering how many people are being "duped" into buying AT coins, but the reality of it is .... they may like AT coins. i collect counterfeits and i can no longer buy them on a popular auction site because there are people that toss and turn all night worrying about people unknowingly buying counterfeit coins. the reality is that some people actually know what they are buying and care not to have thier collecting habits censored by people with good intentions >>
i give this presentation a pr70dcam...it's just that good of a presentation piece
the same crowd i'm in too...
Warren Mills made some good points in the interview I posted on this thread. I don't agree with him that all coins with problems need to be so noted on the holders. PCGS does right by net grading, when the minor problem is market acceptable.
Of course we don't......
People are not responsible for anything anymore!
Successful BST xactions w/PCcoins, Drunner, Manofcoins, Rampage, docg, Poppee, RobKool, and MichealDixon.
<< <i>People are not responsible for anything anymore! >>
I don't agree. It used to be more this way but now the PNG and others are starting to be more responsible on doctoring. It's a good change IMO.
For me, the same thing I do about folks selling counterfeit Fendi handbags, Rolex watches, and Iphones... ignore them.
(of course, I don't make trade in real handbags, watches, or phones, so have no issue. In fact, if the fake bags, watches, or phones had exactly the same deep gold, neon pinks, electric blues as the "real" ones, maybe I or even an "expert" couldn't even tell the difference, sometimes, if the fake is really good, and some of my "real" stuff might in fact be fake, too, and I never even knew because they were so plausible, even though they appeared recently, way after Fendi and Rolex stopped making that kind of product)
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Closed May 25th at $3,500.
Sold again (must have been returned by the first buyer).
Edited to fix my links >>
Pat, at this point in the thread, I'm very interested in the fate of this 1904-O Morgan, vis-a-vis PCGS's opinion or actions. But I can't glean any further info from the rest of the posts.
What's the status of this coin? Has a determination been made? Has PCGS even been informed of these opinions from the peanut gallery? Or is this just another trial by forum jury without PCGS weighing in beyond their original slabbing and grading?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>I'm very interested in the fate of this 1904-O Morgan, vis-a-vis PCGS's opinion or actions. >>
I'm very interested as well. It would be good to have it reviewed by PCGS in light of the allegations.
"Webster-Merriam: 1 a: deceit, trickery; specifically: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick".
Theft is any guise is morally and legally wrong. Theft by fraud or deceit, or what is called "constructive fraud", are also unjustifiable. Even the best dealers and collectors I know get tricked occasionally.
<< <i>As long as the significant problem is indicated by the seller, no problem. The area where most would agree would be areas of fraud, defined as:
"Webster-Merriam: 1 a: deceit, trickery; specifically: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick".
Theft is any guise is morally and legally wrong. Theft by fraud or deceit, or what is called "constructive fraud", are also unjustifiable. Even the best dealers and collectors I know get tricked occasionally. >>
The seller was unaware that he bought an AT coin,and still is unless he read the thread.He might have been the last to know.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>I must say that imo that Morgan looks a bit too wild to be natural... but I'm still trying to understand the supposed proof that this coin is AT... correct me if I am missing something but all I'm seeing here is that evidently, someone who's now deceased (and -no offense- can't corroborate or deny anything) told someone else that another guy confessed to doing it. That's the textbook definition of hearsay IMO; I think the only reasonably certain way to settle the issue would be a resubmission... but then, if it tanks on the resub, the inevitable argument would then ensue over whether PCGS actually thought it AT or whether they were practicing CYOA... so perhaps it's a no-win. As was posited earlier in the thread, perhaps the buyer just liked the color. At any rate, we cannot and imo, should not promote the idea of saving people from themselves; as a popular comedian likes to remind us-you can't fix stupid. The best we can do is try to educate would be buyers and try to combat known fraudsters. >>
I agree this is currently hearsay; however, it is attributed to the former owner of the coin and a well-known collector so I do think PCGS review and Secure Plus would be desirable. If PCGS did confirm this now that this coin is well-known, there may be some talk as you suggest; however, they have disavowed other pieces in the past. Of course, in the past, there appears to have been much more evidence so providing more material before a review may also be desirable, though we have the sniffer now so that can add to the determination.
Examining the allegations would go a long way to helping educate buyers and combating known fraudsters so I do think this coin should be investigated and reviewed by our host.