Just received my 1st negative Coin Sale feedback. Ebay Auction.
Fairlaneman
Posts: 10,424 ✭✭✭✭✭
Was I being deceptive when I posted this auction? If you think I was it certainly was not intentional. Check out the auction and the Feedback that the buyer left for me. Please comment.
.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/264515349071?ssPageName=STRK:MESOX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1561.l2649
Ken
0
Comments
I can see their point. You say look at pictures and the coins in the key slots are reverse up. So it would be logical to assume they coins in the slots are what they appear to be. Had you not said see pictures and left it at mostly 1961 /1962, I don't think there would have been a problem. How much work would it have been to put the coins in the album obverse up?
Some do not take the time to read.
IMO
Based upon your description you should call CS because the neg comment is negated by your description.
Or, I think there is a way to formally request the buyer to change their feedback after some agreement is met.
It is a little deceptive. People don't read all the words and having a bunch of coins with the dates hidden does let one believe they are in the right holes.
Did you offer to take the coins back?
You could try offering him a $20 refund and ask him to reconsider the feedback. Not as a quid pro quo, but as 2 separate things.
Yea I think I would have the coins upright and also marked out the wrong dates and marked in the correct ones. A lot of people use the ebay app on mobile devices and its about impossible to see the dates on the coins. Besides, ebay makes the buyers contact the seller before feedback can be left. Was there no communication so you could make it right?
My Original Song Written to my late wife-"Plus other original music by me"
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8A11CC8CC6093D80
https://n1m.com/bobbysmith1
The buyer messaged me 3 times with his displeasure and each time I offered to take the coins back. It looks like he is keeping the coins.
As far as the coins being in with the reverse up it was because originally the album was filled completely with the Roosevelts and Mercury Dimes that I had intentions to see if they would tone up. All of the coins were put into the album about a year ago. I should have taken the coins out of the album but I thought it would be nice for a buyer to get the album also.
Ken
Enter the buyers Ebay name into Toolhaus and see if he makes a habit of this. If not, then he just needs to learn how to read. When I saw your listing I knew right away that the coins were all dated '61 - '62.
Wisdom has been chasing you but, you've always been faster
Call CS.
No. That’s not deceptive All any one has to do is read the description, which says it all.
Also, The buyer thinks “key date” holes were filled with common dates? Give me a break.
I look at feedback like this and have no issues buying from the seller.
"The coins in the album are not the same as the dates below the coin. Most of the coins probably are dated 1961 or 1962."
It was the fact that you knew. Put the reverse side up and made the buyer believed there was a chance?
And I try not to be rude. But there was a discussion about
Scam on eBay American Eagle One Ounce Silver Enhanced Reverse Proof
It was took down by ebay. But the seller did clearly stated "this is a printed piece of paper" in the description.
It is simply impossible to do eBay forever without running into a crank seller or a crank buyer.
My observation and experience is that people get negatives on the most inexpensive and trivial things, not the big things. Perhaps sellers are more careful with the big things, but the small transactions may be more important to the mind of the low-end and newbie buyer. So I treat those sales very carefully too.
1 or 2 negatives in the last 12 months rarely turns me off when considering making a purchase, but I myself tend to buy from well-known Numismatic professionals or large coin companies.
So don't kill yourself. So what if you are no longer an 'eBay virgin'.
Not deceptive IMO but unnecessarily unclear, Worth contacting CS, but If it were me I would have omitted the album and listed the dates and mm's. Simple, clear. (No offense - been there.)
It's not deceptive at all, as long as you have a Grade 6 education.
READ!!
The seller states most of the dimes are 1961 and 1962.
Use your brain and common sense people.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
I dont think it is deceptive. I would have a statement that says coins were placed in folder indescriminately or it would not have taken long to say 15 of these are from the 60's or whatever. He paid a reasonable price on 27 BU roosies in an album...
The buyer, to me, loses my "caring" once this goes past you saying he is disappointed and you attempt to make it right.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
I read it,I understood it-no deception.
First Message from buyer.
.
John
I stated right in the auction that the coins in the slots do not match the dates of the slots. Also I said most of the coins were probably 1961 or 62.
All that does not matter though. If you do not want the coins send them back to me and I will issue you a refund for the coins and the initial postage fee.
I do not see where anything was deceptive at all in the auction.
Sorry you are not happy.
Ken
johnarn38:
I should have read the description more closely rather than depend upon your photos with all of the better date slots filled with common date coins.
It is really deceptive to show photo of an album with depicting better coin slots filled with common dates. I went back and saw after I started looking closely at the album today after it arrived and saw for THE FIRST TIME that they were mostly 61 and 62 dates in the better date slots.
Why in the World would you put common dates in semi-key date slots like the 1949 and 1951-S and now SPECIFICALLY call out that these coins were not in the right slot.
It is PATENTLY RIDICULOUS to advertise coins in this manner with only a slight mention in the body of the description that they were mostly 61/2.
NO WHERE in the description do you state that the better coins are NOT IN THE ALBUM even though the photos show those coin slots filled.
REALLY DECEPTIVE and it cause me to substantially overbid on this coins. I strongly resent what you have done.
John H. Arnold, Ph.D.
.
Second Message from buyer.
.
John
If you think I am a crook just send the stuff back. I have been on Ebay since 2001 and obviously with the 100% Feedback I am not what you think I am. That album originally was filled with Merc Dimes and Roosevelts. Never was it being filled as a set. I was just selling some nice uncirculated silver to get rid of it.
AGAIN. If you are not happy send the coins back and I will refund you.
Ken
johnarn38:
The mere FACT that you did not indicate which slots were filled with the wrong dates is VERY DECEPTIVE. The 1949 slot has a 1961 in it. That is 1.00 dollar coin in a 19.00 slot. The was a 1962 in the 1951-S slot. That is a 1.00 coin in a 13.00 coin slot. Those two coins alone 2.00 in slots that should have had coins valued at 32.00 (average roll bid).
Do you really believe that not indicating in the description that two of the key/semi-key slots is not DECEPTIVE.
I had no idea that those two slots were not filled with the correct coins and had no reason to believe otherwise since you did not mention it. I ended up paying over 40.00 for about 27.00 in coin silver.
Third message from buyer.
.
John
Are you trying to get my goat?
Last time before I get Ebay into this. Send them back.
I will not take anymore verbal abuse from you.
Ken
johnarn38:
The mere fact that you say it was originally filled with Mercury Dimes and you were just trying to get rid of some nice Roosevelts proves my contention. Plus the fact that you consciously and deliberately FILLED the key and semi-key slots with common date coins and failed to mention that FACT in your description further demonstrates that contention. Since you have been on eBay that long you HAVE TO KNOW that eBay considers the Photos attending an auction to be an INTEGRAL part of the description. You also must know that most folks rely on the visuals presented by the photos to be prima facia evidence of what is being auctioned.
I saw the 1949. 1951S and several other better date slots filled with coins and there was no explanation in the description that these slots/holes were filled with common date coins. I assumed that the correct coins were there because YOU DID NOT SPECIFICALLY EXCEPT them.
That is the very DEFINITION of DECEPTION. It is called DECEPTION by OMISSION! You knew precisely what you were doing and why you were doing it.
Ken
Not deceptive.. some idiots just can't read! That's a lot of feedback for some moron to screw up over a $40 item..
As already said, it is a tad deceptive IF the idiot buyer doesn't read the description.
In this case he/she should have simply returned them per your offer. I would have paid shipping both ways.
Since it doesn't look like a return is in the works, call CS and try to get the neg removed.
Lastly, don't let the neg bug you (even though I know it does.) We all run into idiots once in a while.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
Yes, but he is a PhD
Dear god. Does everybody need someone to hold their hand for everything?
First message says it all. "Ph.D.". He's saying he's smarter than you.
My War Nickels https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/nickels/jefferson-nickels-specialty-sets/jefferson-nickels-fs-basic-war-set-circulation-strikes-1942-1945/publishedset/94452
Very deceptive....because people don't always read. Should have just taken them out of the album and sold as a lot of silver dimes with dates and mm's listed in description. Forget the album, it just confused the buyers/lookers.
bob
I knew exactly what you were selling from the listing. That guy does himself no favors advertising he has a PhD and now I think less of whatever school he went to.
To be deceptive, I think there would have to be the intent to deceive. That is not evident in the description given. Maybe just not the best way to present what you have for sale.
My War Nickels https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/nickels/jefferson-nickels-specialty-sets/jefferson-nickels-fs-basic-war-set-circulation-strikes-1942-1945/publishedset/94452
Ken you clearly stated that the coins were not as marked by print under hole and you clearly stated that most were 61's and 62's. Any body that is not an idiot would see this as silver bullion and bid accordingly. The guy is just a a$$hole!
.
I find the situation unfortunate as you explained the situation plus he got a super deal.
I would suggest (for next time):
Organization is key.
Make sure they can see each coin obv and reverse and be able to easily count them. A statement “you will get exactly the items pictured”. Helps
He got a good deal at $1.67 each- Redbook is $3 in ms 63 and $5 MS65.
In looking at estates - I have to quickly evaluate how many, what is total bullion wt / BV. Are they worn slick, decent circ, or ms. Any better dates. What is blue book...
The way I would have listed this auction is: LOT of 27 silver dimes - $2.70 face - mostly 61 & 62's complimentary album pictured is included as a bonus. (take a picture of the album w/o the coins)
Idk, I think negative feedback should be reserved for obvious calculated deceit, scammers, and people who back out of sales. I don't take leaving negs lightly, and I think anyone who would do so at a whim is a piece of...work.
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
It's in the title: "Mostly 1961/1962 I believe"
So I think this is abit egregious by the buyer. Nice set of dimes, buyer should be pleased.
Best, SH
You clearly indicated that these were mostly common date 61's and 62's. They were bullion, that is all. I'd call CS and tell them to review. This is BS.
Anyone who has to put PhD after their name loses credibility with me in an instant.
Many of the PhD's I worked with were brilliant - but ONLY in their area of expertise. On any other topic they were average at best.
My favorite PhD's main claim to fame was tracking sea turtles in the Caribbean. Imagine that, spending taxpayer funded grant money tracking turtles. He could talk for days about turtles, but didn't know much about anything else. Last I knew he was still living at home in his 30's when not out tracking.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
John H. Arnold, Ph.D.
Claims to have a Ph.D but he can't read?
DECEPTIVE! DATES TURNED AWAY, CAN'T BE SEEN. COMMON DATES IN KEY DATE SLOTS.
Like there's actually key dates on this series
My guess is that if a forum member had been the buyer and the Ebay seller were an unknown, there would be numerous accusations of willful deceit on the part of the seller.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I have found that the most upset buyers are those that thought that they were getting a "rip". Happened to me with a 99c item (cost me more to ship). They want to go on and on and argue because they refuse to admit to themselves that they were simply careless, greedy and/or stupid. Interesting that the buyer in this case, based on the winning bid, was the only fool in the game. Had there been at least two....
I think its pretty even that I goofed up and that the buyer is a piece of work. You see it some other way?
Ken
Not really. It’s just that (understandably) sentiment tends to differ, depending upon whether posters know one of the parties to such transactions.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
IMO, you should not post the correspondence for us to read, that is between you and the buyer, and maybe the CS rep at ebay.
You both F'd up. Learning experience. Life goes on.
Collector, occasional seller
In cases like this there is either deceit or not and in this case there was NOT. Just an ignorant buyer trying to make trouble. If I was the Ebay person reviewing is I would reverse the neg and give it to the buyer.
Op asked the public for opinions. So we all analyzing the cause in different ways. But rest assured. There won't be any bad intention.
The bidder clearly failed to read the description. That's his fault. You stated that it was heavy in 1961 and 1962 dated coins, so it was obviously not meant to have been a complete set. If the ignorant buyer refuses to budge, contact Customer Service. If they can't fix it, you may have to suck it up and let it go, as distasteful as that may be.
I see the point from the buyer about the pics, however you stated what they were in the title and description and I don't think you were being deceptive. I think that I would have posted a pic of the dimes separate from the album and stated that the holder came with the dimes because I know that a lot of people seem to forget how to read and merely just go by pics.
I'm a little OCD. I would have listed the date/mm of every dime. And I would have showed obverse images or removed the coins from the album.
Nevertheless, the buyer is a moron. He didn't read the auction title. He didn't read the description. He should be mad at himself, not the seller. He should have sheepishly asked to return it, calling himself an idiot for being so careless.
Lance.
No disrespect, but you set yourself up with this one. The picture could lead a potential buyer to believe that the coins are placed in the correct spots. Why would you sell the set like that?
To be fair to the buyer this is what I see when I click on description link when using the mobile app.
I had occasion to contact CS some years ago on a similar matter. Their position at that time was that they did not require buyers to read titles or item descriptions.
FWIW...
Numerous examples on these boards where posters here side with the unknown party over the known thread maker here so your suggestions are inconsistent with what has happened in these boards..........
It is not an outright lie, but it IS deceptive.
It shows coins without the dates visible and states that "most" are 1961 and 1962. It could easily have stated what the actual dates were. I'm not sure what the point of showing a picture of the reverse of a coin without the obverse. Personally, I would never even bid on such an auction - nor would most of the people on this board. This is the board where EVERY BLURRY PICTURE is believed to be fraudulent. People are siding with the OP out of familiarity. If you see just the back of a coin in a listing, don't you assume there must be a problem with the face?
"Deceptive" doesn't mean dishonest. But it would have been much clearer to simply state what dates were there.
I disagree. It sometimes happens, but there is a tendency to side with members of the pack.
For what it's worth, we all get one occasionally. I had one last year. It really annoyed me, because it was for a transaction that NEVER HAPPENED!
Someone bought a coin in an auction. He then sent me an email asking if I could ship a different coin for free. He never said he had already bought one. I always combine shipping to one flat rate. But with 100 auctions ending, I didn't recognize the buyer. I responded that the coin had to ship package rate and that $3 barely covered the postage.
The buyer bought and paid for the first coin which shipped immediately and he received. Then he left me a feedback saying I was rude to him in my response!!! I contacted him and explained that I thought he just wanted free shipping and not combined shipping and that I hadn't thought my response rude. He said I was rude and deserved to suffer the consequences.
Meh...I moved on.