@BryceM said:
I know that, and you know that, but try getting non-coin folks to understand it. Gunna be an uphill fight.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
Does ugly toning bump a coin's grade or lower it, Grasshopper?
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are ** generally uglier, but not always. **
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. **A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. ** Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
Does ugly toning bump a coin's grade or lower it, Grasshopper?
And what if the milk spots are faint and not ugly....which is the point I am making. Read all the words.
@BryceM said:
I know that, and you know that, but try getting non-coin folks to understand it. Gunna be an uphill fight.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
Eye appeal is a factor in grading. The consensus is that toning can be attractive and help (or not hinder the grade). Ugly toning can hurt the grade. Similarly, milk spots detract from the eye appeal of a coin. And for a coin to have a “perfect” grade there is no chance at all that it should be allowed to have spotting. No coin with visible spots at the time of grading will ever be in a 70 holder.
Why is there so much noise on this issue. The buyer did not get what he paid for and the seller should honor the return. Then, we should all go on with life and buy more cool coins!!
@amwldcoin said:
I don't usually disagree with you David! But I do here. The majority of sellers who use stock photos always use the best they have ever had or can find pictures of. Ebay should absolutely ban Stock Photos in the coin category! All coins are unique, unlike a pair of shoes or a blouse.
We don't disagree, Darrell. I absolutely agree with you, that stock photos are potentially fraudulent with coins, particularly with respect to graded ASEs, as we see here.
And thebigeng: this is the stuff we fuss about here!
@dpoole said:
I absolutely agree with you, that stock photos are potentially fraudulent with coins, particularly with respect to graded ASEs, as we see here.
Anyone who agrees with that is absolutely free to not buy from sellers who use stock photos. It's not like anybody is holding a gun to their head, right?
Just out of curiosity, you stated no spots but did they ever agree to no spots? Or was that just your message to the seller at check-out.
By accepting the money the seller also accepted the buyers stipulations, if the seller failed to read those requests by the buyer then that is on the seller. SNAD is the right way to go, with the understanding that you might (for sure would by many sellers here) be blocked by the seller.
I disagree. It's more like, by bidding, the buyer accepted the seller's terms and conditions, as long as they complied with EBay policies
A contract is a two-way street.
I'm an eBay seller. eBay includes a message with every offer I receive from buyers, stating something to the effect of "You agree to any terms stated by the buyer in their offer." (Slight paraphrase). So yes, the Seller must abide by those terms.
He sold the OP a spotted coin. Not an MS70 coin. That is not as described.
Grand I am going to revise my statement cause well I was ticked off that someone would sell you something so blatent. But I am going to hope that the seller will allow you to return it and it was a major mistake on the seller's part. I know I could not sell something like that as I have a few that spotted and if I ever did sell them it would be with a disclaimer that they had the spotting issue. Plus I have paid quite a bit for a few of them I think they were Proof's with special first 1000 issued which made the price jump. Hope they never spot on me and thank you for sharing as I did not know those spotted too. If I ever loose my job to where I have time to liquidate some of my graded Silver Eagles I will make sure to sell them too. But I dont think I will ever really get a day off till they carry me out of here or shut the plant down which I hope they never do.
Good luck but it sounds like your going to be able to return the item so Keep us in the loop and I am glad your going to come out whole. That was my only beef hate so see something happen to my fellow coin collector so I was a bit upset at the seller. You have a great Memorial Day!
@BryceM said:
I know that, and you know that, but try getting non-coin folks to understand it. Gunna be an uphill fight.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
@BryceM said:
I know that, and you know that, but try getting non-coin folks to understand it. Gunna be an uphill fight.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
Are we market grading or technically grading?
Well, both.
But somehow spotting is considered damage not toning.
And i'm specifically referring to very light milk spots, not the heavy ones on this thread.
If an MS70 eagle tones in the holder, even ugly toning, it doesn't void the grade guarantee and no one wants to down grade it.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are ** generally uglier, but not always. **
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. **A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. ** Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
Does ugly toning bump a coin's grade or lower it, Grasshopper?
And what if the milk spots are faint and not ugly....which is the point I am making. Read all the words.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
You then go on to describe "very faint, barely visible milky shadows" which don't sound much like spots, particularly not of the variety on the OP's coin. So what exactly was your point?
Just out of curiosity, you stated no spots but did they ever agree to no spots? Or was that just your message to the seller at check-out.
By accepting the money the seller also accepted the buyers stipulations, if the seller failed to read those requests by the buyer then that is on the seller. SNAD is the right way to go, with the understanding that you might (for sure would by many sellers here) be blocked by the seller.
I disagree. It's more like, by bidding, the buyer accepted the seller's terms and conditions, as long as they complied with EBay policies
A contract is a two-way street.
I'm an eBay seller. eBay includes a message with every offer I receive from buyers, stating something to the effect of "You agree to any terms stated by the buyer in their offer." (Slight paraphrase). So yes, the Seller must abide by those terms.
He sold the OP a spotted coin. Not an MS70 coin. That is not as described.
That’s an offer which is totally different, because the offer with its terms come to you and you actively decide whether or not to accept it. If a buyer makes an offer with no stipulations and then demands something with they’re payment, are you beholden you those new terms? Of course not. That’s what a BIN is except the buyer accepted your price instead of naming a different one.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are ** generally uglier, but not always. **
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. **A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. ** Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
Does ugly toning bump a coin's grade or lower it, Grasshopper?
And what if the milk spots are faint and not ugly....which is the point I am making. Read all the words.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
You then go on to describe "very faint, barely visible milky shadows" which don't sound much like spots, particularly not of the variety on the OP's coin. So what exactly was your point?
"very faint, barely visible milky shadows" are very light milk spots - not dark like the one on the OPs coin. Such milk spots should be no different than light toning that is not ugly or distracting. Therefore a coin with milk spots could (should?) still be MS70...unless milk spots are being viewed like scratches/damage, which appears to be the case.
And so, I ask, why is a milk spot damage when toning is not?
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are ** generally uglier, but not always. **
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. **A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. ** Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
Does ugly toning bump a coin's grade or lower it, Grasshopper?
And what if the milk spots are faint and not ugly....which is the point I am making. Read all the words.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
You then go on to describe "very faint, barely visible milky shadows" which don't sound much like spots, particularly not of the variety on the OP's coin. So what exactly was your point?
"very faint, barely visible milky shadows" are very light milk spots - not dark like the one on the OPs coin. Such milk spots should be no different than light toning that is not ugly or distracting. Therefore a coin with milk spots could (should?) still be MS70...unless milk spots are being viewed like scratches/damage, which appears to be the case.
And so, I ask, why is a milk spot damage when toning is not?
Milk spots are more like corrosion than toning.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Expecting high quality , in a sight- unseen deal with "bullion", is a train wreck waiting to happen. You take your chances.
Sort of like demanding a virgin, in a brothel.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are ** generally uglier, but not always. **
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. **A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. ** Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
Does ugly toning bump a coin's grade or lower it, Grasshopper?
And what if the milk spots are faint and not ugly....which is the point I am making. Read all the words.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
You then go on to describe "very faint, barely visible milky shadows" which don't sound much like spots, particularly not of the variety on the OP's coin. So what exactly was your point?
"very faint, barely visible milky shadows" are very light milk spots - not dark like the one on the OPs coin. Such milk spots should be no different than light toning that is not ugly or distracting. Therefore a coin with milk spots could (should?) still be MS70...unless milk spots are being viewed like scratches/damage, which appears to be the case.
And so, I ask, why is a milk spot damage when toning is not?
Milk spots are more like corrosion than toning.
They're actually inherent and all of the regulars here should expect it. Not that the buyer doesn't deserve a spot fee specimen in a "70" holder. Ah, the fallacies of "70".
FWIW, If I agree to buy an MS70 coin, even from a stock photo and open up a spotted coin such as the OP received, It's going back. I believe if you was to crack it out and resubmit raw, you're not going to get an MS70 grade. End of story.
@Tom147 said:
FWIW, If I agree to buy an MS70 coin, even from a stock photo and open up a spotted coin such as the OP received, It's going back. I believe if you was to crack it out and resubmit raw, you're not going to get an MS70 grade. End of story.
Has PCGS said somewhere that if it has even one little spot that it's not a 70 or in order to have a shot at a 70 it MUST be spot free?
The actual description for an MS 70 per PCGS states Fully struck and lustrous, " free of visual marks ". The PCGS 70 grading standard does allow for " as minted defects " as long as these flaws are minor and "do not impact the eye appeal of the coin. " Going by the standard, this is not an MS70 coin.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are ** generally uglier, but not always. **
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. **A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. ** Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
Does ugly toning bump a coin's grade or lower it, Grasshopper?
And what if the milk spots are faint and not ugly....which is the point I am making. Read all the words.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
You then go on to describe "very faint, barely visible milky shadows" which don't sound much like spots, particularly not of the variety on the OP's coin. So what exactly was your point?
"very faint, barely visible milky shadows" are very light milk spots - not dark like the one on the OPs coin. Such milk spots should be no different than light toning that is not ugly or distracting. Therefore a coin with milk spots could (should?) still be MS70...unless milk spots are being viewed like scratches/damage, which appears to be the case.
And so, I ask, why is a milk spot damage when toning is not?
physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function.
[emphasis mine]
Milk spots are damage because (virtually) no one finds them desirable. Toning may or may not be damage depending on whether or not it enhances a coin's value. I don't want to get into the (silly) argument that any visible chemical reaction to the surface of a coin is "damage". Modern grading is market grading.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are ** generally uglier, but not always. **
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. **A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. ** Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
Does ugly toning bump a coin's grade or lower it, Grasshopper?
And what if the milk spots are faint and not ugly....which is the point I am making. Read all the words.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
You then go on to describe "very faint, barely visible milky shadows" which don't sound much like spots, particularly not of the variety on the OP's coin. So what exactly was your point?
"very faint, barely visible milky shadows" are very light milk spots - not dark like the one on the OPs coin. Such milk spots should be no different than light toning that is not ugly or distracting. Therefore a coin with milk spots could (should?) still be MS70...unless milk spots are being viewed like scratches/damage, which appears to be the case.
And so, I ask, why is a milk spot damage when toning is not?
physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function.
[emphasis mine]
Milk spots are damage because (virtually) no one finds them desirable. Toning may or may not be damage depending on whether or not it enhances a coin's value. I don't want to get into the (silly) argument that any visible chemical reaction to the surface of a coin is "damage". Modern grading is market grading.
As usual, you skipped words. It says "physical harm". Milk spots are chemical in nature, not physical.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are ** generally uglier, but not always. **
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. **A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. ** Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
Does ugly toning bump a coin's grade or lower it, Grasshopper?
And what if the milk spots are faint and not ugly....which is the point I am making. Read all the words.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
You then go on to describe "very faint, barely visible milky shadows" which don't sound much like spots, particularly not of the variety on the OP's coin. So what exactly was your point?
"very faint, barely visible milky shadows" are very light milk spots - not dark like the one on the OPs coin. Such milk spots should be no different than light toning that is not ugly or distracting. Therefore a coin with milk spots could (should?) still be MS70...unless milk spots are being viewed like scratches/damage, which appears to be the case.
And so, I ask, why is a milk spot damage when toning is not?
Milk spots are more like corrosion than toning.
That is a distinction without meaning. Toning is chemical corrosion as are milk spots as are rust. It is more a question of degree than a difference in kind.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are ** generally uglier, but not always. **
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. **A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. ** Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
Does ugly toning bump a coin's grade or lower it, Grasshopper?
And what if the milk spots are faint and not ugly....which is the point I am making. Read all the words.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
You then go on to describe "very faint, barely visible milky shadows" which don't sound much like spots, particularly not of the variety on the OP's coin. So what exactly was your point?
"very faint, barely visible milky shadows" are very light milk spots - not dark like the one on the OPs coin. Such milk spots should be no different than light toning that is not ugly or distracting. Therefore a coin with milk spots could (should?) still be MS70...unless milk spots are being viewed like scratches/damage, which appears to be the case.
And so, I ask, why is a milk spot damage when toning is not?
Milk spots are more like corrosion than toning.
That is a distinction without meaning. Toning is chemical corrosion as are milk spots as are rust. It is more a question of degree than a difference in kind.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are ** generally uglier, but not always. **
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. **A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. ** Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
Does ugly toning bump a coin's grade or lower it, Grasshopper?
And what if the milk spots are faint and not ugly....which is the point I am making. Read all the words.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
You then go on to describe "very faint, barely visible milky shadows" which don't sound much like spots, particularly not of the variety on the OP's coin. So what exactly was your point?
"very faint, barely visible milky shadows" are very light milk spots - not dark like the one on the OPs coin. Such milk spots should be no different than light toning that is not ugly or distracting. Therefore a coin with milk spots could (should?) still be MS70...unless milk spots are being viewed like scratches/damage, which appears to be the case.
And so, I ask, why is a milk spot damage when toning is not?
physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function.
[emphasis mine]
Milk spots are damage because (virtually) no one finds them desirable. Toning may or may not be damage depending on whether or not it enhances a coin's value. I don't want to get into the (silly) argument that any visible chemical reaction to the surface of a coin is "damage". Modern grading is market grading.
As usual, you skipped words. It says "physical harm". Milk spots are chemical in nature, not physical.
As usual, you choose to play semantic games rather than admit you lost an argument. Of course, now you'll probably assert that you can perceive milk spots via ESP.
phys·i·cal
/ˈfizik(ə)l/
adjective
relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
As usual, you skipped words. It says "physical harm". Milk spots are chemical in nature, not physical.
So if I spill a chemical like acid on your face there will be no physical harm because its chemical in nature, cool. Just where did you receive your degree in chemistry from?
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are ** generally uglier, but not always. **
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. **A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. ** Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
Does ugly toning bump a coin's grade or lower it, Grasshopper?
And what if the milk spots are faint and not ugly....which is the point I am making. Read all the words.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
You then go on to describe "very faint, barely visible milky shadows" which don't sound much like spots, particularly not of the variety on the OP's coin. So what exactly was your point?
"very faint, barely visible milky shadows" are very light milk spots - not dark like the one on the OPs coin. Such milk spots should be no different than light toning that is not ugly or distracting. Therefore a coin with milk spots could (should?) still be MS70...unless milk spots are being viewed like scratches/damage, which appears to be the case.
And so, I ask, why is a milk spot damage when toning is not?
physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function.
[emphasis mine]
Milk spots are damage because (virtually) no one finds them desirable. Toning may or may not be damage depending on whether or not it enhances a coin's value. I don't want to get into the (silly) argument that any visible chemical reaction to the surface of a coin is "damage". Modern grading is market grading.
As usual, you skipped words. It says "physical harm". Milk spots are chemical in nature, not physical.
As usual, you choose to play semantic games rather than admit you lost an argument. Of course, now you'll probably assert that you can perceive milk spots via ESP.
phys·i·cal
/ˈfizik(ə)l/
adjective
relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
That is NOT what physical means in that context.
What was the argument?
Physical harm indicates some kind of physical damage (scratch etc.) in the scientific sense. No one but you, in a futile attempt to carry on yet another silly semantic debate would refer to TONING as PHYSICAL HARM (emphasis added).
Toning is chemical in nature and distinct from (in the proper context here) physical damage (scratches, whizzing, polishing, etc.) Toning and spotting should be in the same category and they ARE NOT for reasons only coindexters know.
Here is what PCGS says about spots:
Spots
Spots on gold coins, spots on copper coins, and "milk spots" on silver coins are not really part of eye appeal, but they are part of the grade and grade deductions are made similar to those made for marks or hairlines.
So, for some ungodly, unscientific, unfounded reason, the coin community considers milk spots to be physical damage while the do NOT consider toning to be the same thing. [NOTE: the potential implications to market grades for ugly toning and ugly spotting are the same.]
Here, have the last word. This is not worth my time.
As usual, you skipped words. It says "physical harm". Milk spots are chemical in nature, not physical.
So if I spill a chemical like acid on your face there will be no physical harm because its chemical in nature, cool. Just where did you receive your degree in chemistry from?
Chemicals can cause physical harm. Physical harm would be the removal of material (like my face). A clear distinction is made in the physical sciences (feel free to take a course) between physical changes and chemical changes. It is the 1st chapter in all introductory chemistry books.
So, what you are saying is that toning is the same as a scratch? They are both - to you - PHYSICAL harm caused to the surface? To a scientist, there is a difference between physical damage to a surface and chemical modification.
As usual, you skipped words. It says "physical harm". Milk spots are chemical in nature, not physical.
So if I spill a chemical like acid on your face there will be no physical harm because its chemical in nature, cool. Just where did you receive your degree in chemistry from?
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are ** generally uglier, but not always. **
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. **A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. ** Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
Does ugly toning bump a coin's grade or lower it, Grasshopper?
And what if the milk spots are faint and not ugly....which is the point I am making. Read all the words.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
You then go on to describe "very faint, barely visible milky shadows" which don't sound much like spots, particularly not of the variety on the OP's coin. So what exactly was your point?
"very faint, barely visible milky shadows" are very light milk spots - not dark like the one on the OPs coin. Such milk spots should be no different than light toning that is not ugly or distracting. Therefore a coin with milk spots could (should?) still be MS70...unless milk spots are being viewed like scratches/damage, which appears to be the case.
And so, I ask, why is a milk spot damage when toning is not?
physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function.
[emphasis mine]
Milk spots are damage because (virtually) no one finds them desirable. Toning may or may not be damage depending on whether or not it enhances a coin's value. I don't want to get into the (silly) argument that any visible chemical reaction to the surface of a coin is "damage". Modern grading is market grading.
As usual, you skipped words. It says "physical harm". Milk spots are chemical in nature, not physical.
As usual, you choose to play semantic games rather than admit you lost an argument. Of course, now you'll probably assert that you can perceive milk spots via ESP.
phys·i·cal
/ˈfizik(ə)l/
adjective
relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
That is NOT what physical means in that context.
What was the argument?
Physical harm indicates some kind of physical damage (scratch etc.) in the scientific sense. No one but you, in a futile attempt to carry on yet another silly semantic debate would refer to TONING as PHYSICAL HARM (emphasis added).
Toning is chemical in nature and distinct from (in the proper context here) physical damage (scratches, whizzing, polishing, etc.) Toning and spotting should be in the same category and they ARE NOT for reasons only coindexters know.
Here is what PCGS says about spots:
Spots
Spots on gold coins, spots on copper coins, and "milk spots" on silver coins are not really part of eye appeal, but they are part of the grade and grade deductions are made similar to those made for marks or hairlines.
So, for some ungodly, unscientific, unfounded reason, the coin community considers milk spots to be physical damage while the do NOT consider toning to be the same thing. [NOTE: the potential implications to market grades for ugly toning and ugly spotting are the same.]
Here, have the last word. This is not worth my time.
OK, to reiterate the argument for the THIRD time, milk spots are ugly and diminish the value of a coin while toning is often beautiful and enhances the value of a coin. Per the accepted definition of damage, something that enhances the value of a thing does NOT damage it. (I've already pointed out that UGLY toning DOES diminish a coin's value and can thus legitimately be called damage.)
As to your pedantic chemical/physical distinction, I assert that milk spots are the physical manifestation of a chemical reaction. Just like the charring of a piece of wood is the physical manifestation of a chemical process (fire).
@vplite99 said:
Very educational. I had no idea people were putting these bullion coins in plastic, or that gold coins had spotting problems like silver.
I see a number of graded Krugerrands on eBay, many priced "optimistically", especially WTC coins. JMHO.
I'm not sure the gold coin spotting is the same issue. I think they are referring to copper spots as opposed to the "milk spots".
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are ** generally uglier, but not always. **
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. **A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. ** Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
Does ugly toning bump a coin's grade or lower it, Grasshopper?
And what if the milk spots are faint and not ugly....which is the point I am making. Read all the words.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
You then go on to describe "very faint, barely visible milky shadows" which don't sound much like spots, particularly not of the variety on the OP's coin. So what exactly was your point?
"very faint, barely visible milky shadows" are very light milk spots - not dark like the one on the OPs coin. Such milk spots should be no different than light toning that is not ugly or distracting. Therefore a coin with milk spots could (should?) still be MS70...unless milk spots are being viewed like scratches/damage, which appears to be the case.
And so, I ask, why is a milk spot damage when toning is not?
physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function.
[emphasis mine]
Milk spots are damage because (virtually) no one finds them desirable. Toning may or may not be damage depending on whether or not it enhances a coin's value. I don't want to get into the (silly) argument that any visible chemical reaction to the surface of a coin is "damage". Modern grading is market grading.
As usual, you skipped words. It says "physical harm". Milk spots are chemical in nature, not physical.
As usual, you choose to play semantic games rather than admit you lost an argument. Of course, now you'll probably assert that you can perceive milk spots via ESP.
phys·i·cal
/ˈfizik(ə)l/
adjective
relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
That is NOT what physical means in that context.
What was the argument?
Physical harm indicates some kind of physical damage (scratch etc.) in the scientific sense. No one but you, in a futile attempt to carry on yet another silly semantic debate would refer to TONING as PHYSICAL HARM (emphasis added).
Toning is chemical in nature and distinct from (in the proper context here) physical damage (scratches, whizzing, polishing, etc.) Toning and spotting should be in the same category and they ARE NOT for reasons only coindexters know.
Here is what PCGS says about spots:
Spots
Spots on gold coins, spots on copper coins, and "milk spots" on silver coins are not really part of eye appeal, but they are part of the grade and grade deductions are made similar to those made for marks or hairlines.
So, for some ungodly, unscientific, unfounded reason, the coin community considers milk spots to be physical damage while the do NOT consider toning to be the same thing. [NOTE: the potential implications to market grades for ugly toning and ugly spotting are the same.]
Here, have the last word. This is not worth my time.
OK, to reiterate the argument for the THIRD time, milk spots are ugly and diminish the value of a coin while toning is often beautiful and enhances the value of a coin. Per the accepted definition of damage, something that enhances the value of a thing does NOT damage it. (I've already pointed out that UGLY toning DOES diminish a coin's value and can thus legitimately be called damage.)
As to your pedantic chemical/physical distinction, I assert that milk spots are the physical manifestation of a chemical reaction. Just like the charring of a piece of wood is the physical manifestation of a chemical process (fire).
Over and out.
You keep missing the point - as usual. You can reiterate for the 10th time, it doesn't change that you are talking about a completely different issue.
SPOTTING AND TONING ARE IN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES EVEN THOUGH THEY REPRESENT THE SAME KIND OF [insert your favorite word here - damage, physical harm, chemical disturbance, etc.]
IT IS WRONG WRONG WRONG to use the eye appeal argument for the toning and the spotting (even for the 3rd time) because PCGS SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT SPOTTING DOES NOT COME UNDER EYE APPEAL. See the quote above.
To my original post on this subject which you've again turned into some kind of semantic debate without addressing the issue:
Even light, barely noticeable "milk spots" are considered damage akin to scratches or hairlines. They DO NOT fall under eye appeal.
This makes no sense to me, chemically (or physically) or logically. They are both chemical modifications of the surface, yet one comes under "eye appeal" and the other under "damage".
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are ** generally uglier, but not always. **
I had a complete set of silver eagles in original holders recently. **A number of them had very faint, barely visible milky shadows in the fields. Barely noticeable without magnification in a couple cases. ** Am I to assume those coins are only 69s now? Meanwhile, I can have a rainbow toned coin grade 70? Which one has more "surface damage"?
Does ugly toning bump a coin's grade or lower it, Grasshopper?
And what if the milk spots are faint and not ugly....which is the point I am making. Read all the words.
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
You then go on to describe "very faint, barely visible milky shadows" which don't sound much like spots, particularly not of the variety on the OP's coin. So what exactly was your point?
"very faint, barely visible milky shadows" are very light milk spots - not dark like the one on the OPs coin. Such milk spots should be no different than light toning that is not ugly or distracting. Therefore a coin with milk spots could (should?) still be MS70...unless milk spots are being viewed like scratches/damage, which appears to be the case.
And so, I ask, why is a milk spot damage when toning is not?
physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function.
[emphasis mine]
Milk spots are damage because (virtually) no one finds them desirable. Toning may or may not be damage depending on whether or not it enhances a coin's value. I don't want to get into the (silly) argument that any visible chemical reaction to the surface of a coin is "damage". Modern grading is market grading.
As usual, you skipped words. It says "physical harm". Milk spots are chemical in nature, not physical.
As usual, you choose to play semantic games rather than admit you lost an argument. Of course, now you'll probably assert that you can perceive milk spots via ESP.
phys·i·cal
/ˈfizik(ə)l/
adjective
relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
That is NOT what physical means in that context.
What was the argument?
Physical harm indicates some kind of physical damage (scratch etc.) in the scientific sense. No one but you, in a futile attempt to carry on yet another silly semantic debate would refer to TONING as PHYSICAL HARM (emphasis added).
Toning is chemical in nature and distinct from (in the proper context here) physical damage (scratches, whizzing, polishing, etc.) Toning and spotting should be in the same category and they ARE NOT for reasons only coindexters know.
Here is what PCGS says about spots:
Spots
Spots on gold coins, spots on copper coins, and "milk spots" on silver coins are not really part of eye appeal, but they are part of the grade and grade deductions are made similar to those made for marks or hairlines.
So, for some ungodly, unscientific, unfounded reason, the coin community considers milk spots to be physical damage while the do NOT consider toning to be the same thing. [NOTE: the potential implications to market grades for ugly toning and ugly spotting are the same.]
Here, have the last word. This is not worth my time.
OK, to reiterate the argument for the THIRD time, milk spots are ugly and diminish the value of a coin while toning is often beautiful and enhances the value of a coin. Per the accepted definition of damage, something that enhances the value of a thing does NOT damage it. (I've already pointed out that UGLY toning DOES diminish a coin's value and can thus legitimately be called damage.)
As to your pedantic chemical/physical distinction, I assert that milk spots are the physical manifestation of a chemical reaction. Just like the charring of a piece of wood is the physical manifestation of a chemical process (fire).
Over and out.
You keep missing the point - as usual. You can reiterate for the 10th time, it doesn't change that you are talking about a completely different issue.
SPOTTING AND TONING ARE IN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES EVEN THOUGH THEY REPRESENT THE SAME KIND OF [insert your favorite word here - damage, physical harm, chemical disturbance, etc.]
IT IS WRONG WRONG WRONG to use the eye appeal argument for the toning and the spotting (even for the 3rd time) because PCGS SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT SPOTTING DOES NOT COME UNDER EYE APPEAL. See the quote above.
To my original post on this subject which you've again turned into some kind of semantic debate without addressing the issue:
Even light, barely noticeable "milk spots" are considered damage akin to scratches or hairlines. They DO NOT fall under eye appeal.
This makes no sense to me, chemically (or physically) or logically. They are both chemical modifications of the surface, yet one comes under "eye appeal" and the other under "damage".
And now for the rest of the story.
I ordered a PCGS MS70 coin, what I originally received was not an MS70 coin. When a coin turns in the holder it is no longer an MS70 no matter what the label says and we all know that. Comparing the spots on the coin in my 1st post is like comparing a Sirlion Steak to a rice cake cookie ,,,, while both may be eatible the rice cake is clearly not the same as a Sirlion Steak, I would would expect to get a Sirlion Steak when I ordered and paid for a Sirlion Steak and not a Rice Cake.
Some of you argued that:
1 - Your tough luck,,,,, you bought from a stock photo,,,,, You deserve what you got,,,that is a crap argument.
2 - Selling an PCGS MS70 common silver bullion coin using a stock photo is perfectly fine to use as long as the coin sent is of the same quality as the stock photo. All big sellers use stock photos on these kind of items all the time. Bulk sellers aren't going to take a 100 photos on a 100 coins that are all the same. You can argue no 2 coins are the same but on a MS70 that doesn't hold much weight. An MS70 isn't necessiarly a perfect coin but it shows no hits or problems under a certain magnification level, I believe that is a 6X loop. Spots, finger prints or haze can develop after grading and unless you photo that coin when selling it and advertise it as such that is "Bait and switch" as far as I am concerned.
3 - Some argued,,,,, it's just spotted,,,,, no different than toning,,,, well that is a crap argument as well. If you advertise a coin with a photo of a BLAST WHITE COIN it is not OK to send a toned coin no matter how attractive you (the seller) thinks it is unless you OK it with the buyer. Some people like toning some don't. I like some types of toning but not others,,,, If you want to pay for a PREMIUM Coin and get a piece of crap PM me and I will hook you up,,,,,, I have a guy who can assist you and charge you an arm and a leg while doing it.
4 - Some people said I changed the terms of sale by putting a note saying no spots finger prints or haze,,,,, that is a crap statement as well, I wasn't changing the terms I was just confirming the terms the seller already was offering.
5 - Some people just want to find stupid little arguments that make no sense to the average person, you know who you are,
6 - People and companies make mistakes and that is what happened here. The original coin was dated 2018 and a 1st Day of Issue. That makes it 2 yrs old or more so plenty time for it to have changed in the holder. I called the seller and spoke to them and they told me that one of their numismatists inspects all coins as they acquire them. This coin was 2 years old and developed the spots after the fact.
7 - I beleive the coin was in a box labeled 2018 MS70 Krugerrand's and the shipping people pulled it and packed it and sent it. I also believe that the shipping people could have very well looked at the coin and missed the spots because when I first opened the package I looked at the coin and thought it passed inspection until later that evening when logging it into my inventory at my desk and under my lights. Straight on the spots were easy to miss and I missed them but when tilted they jump out at you.
8 - My question in my original post was asking on advice to make sure I listed the return properly so as not to give an easy out for refusing a return as the seller clearly states "NO RETURNS" in his selling terms. I was and am OK with that as long as what I receive is what was offered for sale,,,,,, the OP coin clearly fell short in that respect. I have bought many coins from the seller and was always pleased with them and had no reason to believe this time would be any different. But when I clicked on the return options they were different then I remembered them,,, that is why I was asking for advise.
9 - I was always of the belief that the seller would make it right and they did. I just wanted to select the proper return option due to the no returns policy because eBay WILL hold to the letter of the sale and deny a return if you don't word it properly. That was the advice that I asked for,,,,, not if the coin was still an MS70 because anyone who has eye's can see it clearly is not.
10 - I still will not name the seller as that was never the point,,,,, I don't believe that they post here,,,, at least under their company name. It was not any of the TOP Modern Sellers here that I know the names or "Handles" of and I know most of them.
11 - When purchasing the coin I didn't even notice or read the following statement in the sellers description because it wasn't necessary. I know how stock photos work.
12 - This was in his statement "The coin pictured is only a representation of the coin you will receive, not the exact coin (serial numbers will vary)" That is how most stock photos work and I had no reason to believe this one would be any different as I said previously I have purchased many coins from them via stock photos.
13 - So to end this thread I will do so by posting photos of the coin I received today.
The seller never gave me any grief and was quite polite and apologetic for sending the coin I received. They sent me a post paid return label and I incurred no additional cost due to this return.
14 - It should be very obviously that I am quite upset with some of the lame comments made in this thread. This USED to be a place where MOST people didn't feel the need to put down or rip apart everything that they get a chance to. I was here during "The Wild Wild West" days and in some aspects it is as bad now as it was then.
And for the record I paid $55 +/- for the coin. That is about my limit on MS70 Silver Bullion until when or if the spotting problem is ever fixed. I chose to collect these Silver Krugerrands because they are a new issue that started in 2017. I buy an MS69 & a MS70 or 2 each year and so far I have ZERO spots before this coin. I collected Silver Eagles back in the day and when I started having to replace coins every year when putting them in an albulm for my boys I dumped all of them, I had alot of money wrapped up in a PCGS graded set and didn't want to risk losing my butt on them. Back in the day the Key Date Silver Eagles were $400-$500 coins. Luckily the ones I had that spotted were the common date low cost coins and I sold them as such and took my lumps on them. I thought I would give the Krugerrand a try.
The seller's sale was a BIN and this is the total description:
2018 South Africa Silver Krugerrand 1oz PCGS MS70 FDOI Flag Label.
Photos show a no problem coin and description states nothing to imply that they are selling anything less,
No statement such as "some coins may have spots" or I would never have bought from such a description.
Glad you were made hole by the seller. I think you responded perfectly to the rest of the forum members.
I am going to share with you some of my purchased coins like yours of this year in a PM. Again very happy both you and the seller found a good final outcome.
If the buyer (OP) treated the seller about the same way he is communicating with some of the members here, then "couldn't have happened to a better person" meme comes to mind.
Comments
Does ugly toning bump a coin's grade or lower it, Grasshopper?
And what if the milk spots are faint and not ugly....which is the point I am making. Read all the words.
Eye appeal is a factor in grading. The consensus is that toning can be attractive and help (or not hinder the grade). Ugly toning can hurt the grade. Similarly, milk spots detract from the eye appeal of a coin. And for a coin to have a “perfect” grade there is no chance at all that it should be allowed to have spotting. No coin with visible spots at the time of grading will ever be in a 70 holder.
Why is there so much noise on this issue. The buyer did not get what he paid for and the seller should honor the return. Then, we should all go on with life and buy more cool coins!!
We don't disagree, Darrell. I absolutely agree with you, that stock photos are potentially fraudulent with coins, particularly with respect to graded ASEs, as we see here.
And thebigeng: this is the stuff we fuss about here!
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
Anyone who agrees with that is absolutely free to not buy from sellers who use stock photos. It's not like anybody is holding a gun to their head, right?
A contract is a two-way street.
I'm an eBay seller. eBay includes a message with every offer I receive from buyers, stating something to the effect of "You agree to any terms stated by the buyer in their offer." (Slight paraphrase). So yes, the Seller must abide by those terms.
He sold the OP a spotted coin. Not an MS70 coin. That is not as described.
Grand I am going to revise my statement cause well I was ticked off that someone would sell you something so blatent. But I am going to hope that the seller will allow you to return it and it was a major mistake on the seller's part. I know I could not sell something like that as I have a few that spotted and if I ever did sell them it would be with a disclaimer that they had the spotting issue. Plus I have paid quite a bit for a few of them I think they were Proof's with special first 1000 issued which made the price jump. Hope they never spot on me and thank you for sharing as I did not know those spotted too. If I ever loose my job to where I have time to liquidate some of my graded Silver Eagles I will make sure to sell them too. But I dont think I will ever really get a day off till they carry me out of here or shut the plant down which I hope they never do.
Good luck but it sounds like your going to be able to return the item so Keep us in the loop and I am glad your going to come out whole. That was my only beef hate so see something happen to my fellow coin collector so I was a bit upset at the seller. You have a great Memorial Day!
Are we market grading or technically grading?
Well, both.
But somehow spotting is considered damage not toning.
And i'm specifically referring to very light milk spots, not the heavy ones on this thread.
If an MS70 eagle tones in the holder, even ugly toning, it doesn't void the grade guarantee and no one wants to down grade it.
Why the difference?
@jmlanzaf said:
Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that spotting should change the grade, and I'm a coin person. LOL. Why are milk spots worse than toning? I mean, they are generally uglier, but not always.
You then go on to describe "very faint, barely visible milky shadows" which don't sound much like spots, particularly not of the variety on the OP's coin. So what exactly was your point?
One of the few cases where the coin changes after the initial grade. Spotting ruins eye appeal. Be happy it only costs you a point.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
It doesn't matter if it goes from MS70 to MS69 or even to VF30. Nobody's going to buy it for anything above melt anyhow.
same if it stays at MS70.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
That’s an offer which is totally different, because the offer with its terms come to you and you actively decide whether or not to accept it. If a buyer makes an offer with no stipulations and then demands something with they’re payment, are you beholden you those new terms? Of course not. That’s what a BIN is except the buyer accepted your price instead of naming a different one.
"very faint, barely visible milky shadows" are very light milk spots - not dark like the one on the OPs coin. Such milk spots should be no different than light toning that is not ugly or distracting. Therefore a coin with milk spots could (should?) still be MS70...unless milk spots are being viewed like scratches/damage, which appears to be the case.
And so, I ask, why is a milk spot damage when toning is not?
Milk spots are more like corrosion than toning.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Spot on!!
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
Expecting high quality , in a sight- unseen deal with "bullion", is a train wreck waiting to happen. You take your chances.
Sort of like demanding a virgin, in a brothel.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
They're actually inherent and all of the regulars here should expect it. Not that the buyer doesn't deserve a spot fee specimen in a "70" holder. Ah, the fallacies of "70".
We've been down this path for years.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
FWIW, If I agree to buy an MS70 coin, even from a stock photo and open up a spotted coin such as the OP received, It's going back. I believe if you was to crack it out and resubmit raw, you're not going to get an MS70 grade. End of story.
Has PCGS said somewhere that if it has even one little spot that it's not a 70 or in order to have a shot at a 70 it MUST be spot free?
Nope. I'll put it another way. Would you be happy if you bought this as an MS70 ?
PCGS does say " free of visual marks "
The actual description for an MS 70 per PCGS states Fully struck and lustrous, " free of visual marks ". The PCGS 70 grading standard does allow for " as minted defects " as long as these flaws are minor and "do not impact the eye appeal of the coin. " Going by the standard, this is not an MS70 coin.
dam·age
/ˈdamij/
noun
noun: damage; plural noun: damages
physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function.
[emphasis mine]
Milk spots are damage because (virtually) no one finds them desirable. Toning may or may not be damage depending on whether or not it enhances a coin's value. I don't want to get into the (silly) argument that any visible chemical reaction to the surface of a coin is "damage". Modern grading is market grading.
As usual, you skipped words. It says "physical harm". Milk spots are chemical in nature, not physical.
That is a distinction without meaning. Toning is chemical corrosion as are milk spots as are rust. It is more a question of degree than a difference in kind.
LOL Toning, spots, and rust are corrosion! It is all caused by oxidation.
As usual, you choose to play semantic games rather than admit you lost an argument. Of course, now you'll probably assert that you can perceive milk spots via ESP.
phys·i·cal
/ˈfizik(ə)l/
adjective
relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
So if I spill a chemical like acid on your face there will be no physical harm because its chemical in nature, cool. Just where did you receive your degree in chemistry from?
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Toning is chemical in nature and distinct from (in the proper context here) physical damage (scratches, whizzing, polishing, etc.) Toning and spotting should be in the same category and they ARE NOT for reasons only coindexters know.
Here is what PCGS says about spots:
Spots
Spots on gold coins, spots on copper coins, and "milk spots" on silver coins are not really part of eye appeal, but they are part of the grade and grade deductions are made similar to those made for marks or hairlines.
So, for some ungodly, unscientific, unfounded reason, the coin community considers milk spots to be physical damage while the do NOT consider toning to be the same thing. [NOTE: the potential implications to market grades for ugly toning and ugly spotting are the same.]
Here, have the last word. This is not worth my time.
Chemicals can cause physical harm. Physical harm would be the removal of material (like my face). A clear distinction is made in the physical sciences (feel free to take a course) between physical changes and chemical changes. It is the 1st chapter in all introductory chemistry books.
So, what you are saying is that toning is the same as a scratch? They are both - to you - PHYSICAL harm caused to the surface? To a scientist, there is a difference between physical damage to a surface and chemical modification.
Where did you go to school?
Simple question: Is toning physical damage?
http:https://thoughtco.com/physical-and-chemical-changes-examples-608338//
Very educational. I had no idea people were putting these bullion coins in plastic, or that gold coins had spotting problems like silver.
I see a number of graded Krugerrands on eBay, many priced "optimistically", especially WTC coins. JMHO.
OK, to reiterate the argument for the THIRD time, milk spots are ugly and diminish the value of a coin while toning is often beautiful and enhances the value of a coin. Per the accepted definition of damage, something that enhances the value of a thing does NOT damage it. (I've already pointed out that UGLY toning DOES diminish a coin's value and can thus legitimately be called damage.)
As to your pedantic chemical/physical distinction, I assert that milk spots are the physical manifestation of a chemical reaction. Just like the charring of a piece of wood is the physical manifestation of a chemical process (fire).
Over and out.
buying from stock photos is a gamble as you never know what you can get
best price coin sale link below (READ CAREFULLY)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/oqym2YtcS7ZAZ73D6
One would think so, but this topic comes up regularly here.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
@grandam hey, are you sure those are white spots?
Now I’m not so sure they are. (I kid)
I'm not sure the gold coin spotting is the same issue. I think they are referring to copper spots as opposed to the "milk spots".
You keep missing the point - as usual. You can reiterate for the 10th time, it doesn't change that you are talking about a completely different issue.
SPOTTING AND TONING ARE IN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES EVEN THOUGH THEY REPRESENT THE SAME KIND OF [insert your favorite word here - damage, physical harm, chemical disturbance, etc.]
IT IS WRONG WRONG WRONG to use the eye appeal argument for the toning and the spotting (even for the 3rd time) because PCGS SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT SPOTTING DOES NOT COME UNDER EYE APPEAL. See the quote above.
To my original post on this subject which you've again turned into some kind of semantic debate without addressing the issue:
Even light, barely noticeable "milk spots" are considered damage akin to scratches or hairlines. They DO NOT fall under eye appeal.
This makes no sense to me, chemically (or physically) or logically. They are both chemical modifications of the surface, yet one comes under "eye appeal" and the other under "damage".
Shame on me for taking the bait...
In the words of the late, great @Insider2..
CLICK!
AFAIK, milk spots are pretty much permanent whereas toning is usually fairly trivial to remove.
(Apologies to all of those who wish this thread would die already...)
I think some people just like to argue, while hiding behind their keyboard.
Helps to get the post count total number up.
As Paul Harvey would say,,,,,,,
And now for the rest of the story.
I ordered a PCGS MS70 coin, what I originally received was not an MS70 coin. When a coin turns in the holder it is no longer an MS70 no matter what the label says and we all know that. Comparing the spots on the coin in my 1st post is like comparing a Sirlion Steak to a rice cake cookie ,,,, while both may be eatible the rice cake is clearly not the same as a Sirlion Steak, I would would expect to get a Sirlion Steak when I ordered and paid for a Sirlion Steak and not a Rice Cake.
Some of you argued that:
1 - Your tough luck,,,,, you bought from a stock photo,,,,, You deserve what you got,,,that is a crap argument.
2 - Selling an PCGS MS70 common silver bullion coin using a stock photo is perfectly fine to use as long as the coin sent is of the same quality as the stock photo. All big sellers use stock photos on these kind of items all the time. Bulk sellers aren't going to take a 100 photos on a 100 coins that are all the same. You can argue no 2 coins are the same but on a MS70 that doesn't hold much weight. An MS70 isn't necessiarly a perfect coin but it shows no hits or problems under a certain magnification level, I believe that is a 6X loop. Spots, finger prints or haze can develop after grading and unless you photo that coin when selling it and advertise it as such that is "Bait and switch" as far as I am concerned.
3 - Some argued,,,,, it's just spotted,,,,, no different than toning,,,, well that is a crap argument as well. If you advertise a coin with a photo of a BLAST WHITE COIN it is not OK to send a toned coin no matter how attractive you (the seller) thinks it is unless you OK it with the buyer. Some people like toning some don't. I like some types of toning but not others,,,, If you want to pay for a PREMIUM Coin and get a piece of crap PM me and I will hook you up,,,,,, I have a guy who can assist you and charge you an arm and a leg while doing it.
4 - Some people said I changed the terms of sale by putting a note saying no spots finger prints or haze,,,,, that is a crap statement as well, I wasn't changing the terms I was just confirming the terms the seller already was offering.
5 - Some people just want to find stupid little arguments that make no sense to the average person, you know who you are,
6 - People and companies make mistakes and that is what happened here. The original coin was dated 2018 and a 1st Day of Issue. That makes it 2 yrs old or more so plenty time for it to have changed in the holder. I called the seller and spoke to them and they told me that one of their numismatists inspects all coins as they acquire them. This coin was 2 years old and developed the spots after the fact.
7 - I beleive the coin was in a box labeled 2018 MS70 Krugerrand's and the shipping people pulled it and packed it and sent it. I also believe that the shipping people could have very well looked at the coin and missed the spots because when I first opened the package I looked at the coin and thought it passed inspection until later that evening when logging it into my inventory at my desk and under my lights. Straight on the spots were easy to miss and I missed them but when tilted they jump out at you.
8 - My question in my original post was asking on advice to make sure I listed the return properly so as not to give an easy out for refusing a return as the seller clearly states "NO RETURNS" in his selling terms. I was and am OK with that as long as what I receive is what was offered for sale,,,,,, the OP coin clearly fell short in that respect. I have bought many coins from the seller and was always pleased with them and had no reason to believe this time would be any different. But when I clicked on the return options they were different then I remembered them,,, that is why I was asking for advise.
9 - I was always of the belief that the seller would make it right and they did. I just wanted to select the proper return option due to the no returns policy because eBay WILL hold to the letter of the sale and deny a return if you don't word it properly. That was the advice that I asked for,,,,, not if the coin was still an MS70 because anyone who has eye's can see it clearly is not.
10 - I still will not name the seller as that was never the point,,,,, I don't believe that they post here,,,, at least under their company name. It was not any of the TOP Modern Sellers here that I know the names or "Handles" of and I know most of them.
11 - When purchasing the coin I didn't even notice or read the following statement in the sellers description because it wasn't necessary. I know how stock photos work.
12 - This was in his statement "The coin pictured is only a representation of the coin you will receive, not the exact coin (serial numbers will vary)" That is how most stock photos work and I had no reason to believe this one would be any different as I said previously I have purchased many coins from them via stock photos.
13 - So to end this thread I will do so by posting photos of the coin I received today.
The seller never gave me any grief and was quite polite and apologetic for sending the coin I received. They sent me a post paid return label and I incurred no additional cost due to this return.
14 - It should be very obviously that I am quite upset with some of the lame comments made in this thread. This USED to be a place where MOST people didn't feel the need to put down or rip apart everything that they get a chance to. I was here during "The Wild Wild West" days and in some aspects it is as bad now as it was then.
And for the record I paid $55 +/- for the coin. That is about my limit on MS70 Silver Bullion until when or if the spotting problem is ever fixed. I chose to collect these Silver Krugerrands because they are a new issue that started in 2017. I buy an MS69 & a MS70 or 2 each year and so far I have ZERO spots before this coin. I collected Silver Eagles back in the day and when I started having to replace coins every year when putting them in an albulm for my boys I dumped all of them, I had alot of money wrapped up in a PCGS graded set and didn't want to risk losing my butt on them. Back in the day the Key Date Silver Eagles were $400-$500 coins. Luckily the ones I had that spotted were the common date low cost coins and I sold them as such and took my lumps on them. I thought I would give the Krugerrand a try.
The seller's sale was a BIN and this is the total description:
2018 South Africa Silver Krugerrand 1oz PCGS MS70 FDOI Flag Label.
Photos show a no problem coin and description states nothing to imply that they are selling anything less,
No statement such as "some coins may have spots" or I would never have bought from such a description.
TL;DR
Glad you were made hole by the seller. I think you responded perfectly to the rest of the forum members.
I am going to share with you some of my purchased coins like yours of this year in a PM. Again very happy both you and the seller found a good final outcome.
If the buyer (OP) treated the seller about the same way he is communicating with some of the members here, then "couldn't have happened to a better person" meme comes to mind.