Options
Have you ever seen an auction description that says...
Gazes
Posts: 2,315 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have seen auction descriptions that point out flaws about nicks, scratches , strike, etc. However, im not sure i have seen a negative comment about color or originality. Certainly have seen positive comments about a coin being original but not the flip side. Have others seen negative comments in an auction description regarding color or orginality ? And if not, why the taboo on that weakness and not others that one sees described in auction descriptions?
0
Comments
Have you ever seen a used car salesman that tells you he put heavy weight motor oil in the crankcase?
My point is that sometimes (not all) they will mention negativity except regarding originality. Why is that subject taboo?
Or sawdust in the tranny?
An auction house is there to sell. You can't sell saying any negs. Calling a coin not original kills the potential price it will receive. What consignor wants to see that? I think that is also the reason these internet auction co have no descriptions-they offer the worst coins
Nicks, scratches, engravings, rim damage, harsh hairlines, etc. are all there for the world to see, anyone who examines the coin will be able to appreciate that, and obviously should be disclosed by an honest seller/auction house.
Originality is a much more difficult concept, and there is not uniform agreement on how indeed one might define this. I don't think all collectors can agree on whether a coin meets the criteria for "original." A coin that is 200 years old has had a lot of time for things to happen, and storage conditions are almost never ideal for what a modern curator would consider appropriate for a valuable artifact.
I don't think I'm alone when I say I have philosophical problems with the widespread use of the term "original." Especially since many (?most) coins are nice enough to collect but probably not "original" due to issues with wear, storage, friction, contact with other coins, contact with reactive substances, the presence of skin oils related to handling and fingerprints, dirt, etc. I seem to recall the term "wholesome" in vogue about 10 years ago, but I haven't seen it used as much these days; I think it conveys the intended message a little better though.
Yes. But then the problem is referred to as "not distracting, etc."
If there is a mark, there clearly is a mark, hard to avoid it. What is original and who is the keeper of the definition? All of those monster toned bust halves, are they original?
I think they could say, “light cleaning in the past but market acceptable and retoning nicely” but why do that when the coin is in a straight graded holder already and there is more money to be made by praising merits vs citing flaws.
Latin American Collection
Yes, I've seen an auctioneer go overboard expressing his opinions about cleaning. Usually he's right but he both misses a few and will call some coins cleaned when they were not.
Most just leave that determination to buyers.
I agree. But my favorite dealers do just that. I have read it a hundred times from Dave Kahn, Sheridan Downey, Andy Skrabalak, and a few more.
They raise suspicions but leave it to the buyer to decide. These are dealers I return to again and again.
Lance.
https://ebay.com/sch/m.html?_odkw=&_ssn=amwldcoin&hash=item44123c4961%3Ag%3ALYYAAOSwq9lZhgxD&item=292363716961&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2046732.m570.l1313.TR12.TRC2.A0.H0.Xcleaned.TRS0&_nkw=cleaned&_sacat=0
Declaring negatives goes against all sales principles.... Some good sales efforts may quietly indicate some minor issue(s) to give the air of honesty. However, declaring major negatives simply requires a low sell price to move junk - or dreck, as some are fond of saying. Recouping some funds is better than a total loss. That being said, for those coins with issues that may be overlooked, do not expect the seller to trumpet the fault. Simply not good sales practice. Cheers, RickO
Don’t bid on expensive coins sight unseen. Pictures are pictures and are difficult to interpret. Auction descriptions in general aren’t overly helpful either.
Alas, an auction is set up to maximize the selling price and thus to increase the sellers profits. Pointing out negative attributes only serves to decrease the hammer price.
I certainly understand that but I wonder if there is not a market for "accurate descriptions"---the good , the bad and the ugly. In other words, never pointing out the negative has made most people on these boards suspect of any coin they do not see in hand. Certainly impacts the bidding at auction since one can not always be there or have someone they trust view a coin. If an auction house had such a reputation that one could trust their descriptions might it not in the end increase bidding activity, loyalty, etc?
You're probably correct. I've actually seen a few eBay auctions where the seller points out the negatives just for the sake of minimizing returns. Personally, I respect such sellers and tend to trust their descriptions. Otherwise, I assume the seller or auction house isn't being totally forthcoming and thus I study images with extreme scrutiny.
The last coin I sold on ebay, a 1915-D MS65RD Lincoln, had signs of a fingerprint on the reverse. I made sure to note it in the description. I've sold hundreds of coins on ebay since 1998 and have never had a return, a neg, or even a neutral rating.
Maybe I've lost some money along the way. But I figure if you're straight about what you sell it is better in the long run.
Lance.
Yes I have and I appreciate the honesty. This would be a seller I would happily return to, to look over they’re inventory. What a breath of fresh air
I've referred to questionable color. I've even called out coins for having artificial color.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.