Hey, why not a "Keets" hypothetical???

keets · September 10, 2005 6:16AM

What if you had a slabbed coin, say a 1920 Pilgrim in a PCGS MS62 holder, with moderate toning and nice luster which you thought was better than the assigned grade. You aren't interested in re-submitting it or cracking it out for a direct submission, so instead you list it on eBay with pictures showing only the coin and a worded listing title and description which avoids any mention of the holder/raw but states that bidders should ask questions before bidding and returns will be granted if item is not as described. No questions are asked, the auction closes for $230 and the winner e-mails after they receive the coin wanting to return it because it's slabbed as a PCGS MS62.

Is the seller under any obligation to accept a return?? Has the seller deceived the bidders??

A similar scenario happened to me with a holdered coin and the seller not mentioning the holder, just the grade. The coin arrived and was acceptable, though I was a bit surprised. Caveat emptor, 'eh??

Al H.

Russ · September 10, 2005 6:19AM

<< Is the seller under any obligation to accept a return?? Has the seller deceived the bidders?? >>

No, and no.

Russ, NCNE

Myqqy · September 10, 2005 6:20AM

Personally, I think that sellers should list all information available regarding the coin's condition- and that includes what plastic it happens to be in. It sounds to me like deception by omission.....

relayer · September 10, 2005 6:20AM

I guess being in a PCGS slab isn't much of a selling point then

Millertime · September 10, 2005 6:21AM

<< 

<< Is the seller under any obligation to accept a return?? Has the seller deceived the bidders?? >>

No, and no.

Russ, NCNE >>

Russ - Don't you list a lost of coins without showing the holder?

Russ · September 10, 2005 6:24AM

<< << Is the seller under any obligation to accept a return?? Has the seller deceived the bidders?? >>

No, and no.

Russ, NCNE >>

Russ - Don't you list a lost of coins without showing the holder? >>

Most of my listings don't include the holder. I'd rather use the space showing the coin than the plastic. But, unlike this scenario, they all mention the grade and grading company.

Russ, NCNE

Russ · September 10, 2005 6:28AM

<< It sounds to me like deception by omission..... >>

Only of one thinks the plastic is more important than the coin. Assuming that in Keets' scenario the seller provided large clear images and accurately described the condition of the coin, the bidder has no beef.

Russ, NCNE

coinguy1 · September 10, 2005 6:33AM

<< Is the seller under any obligation to accept a return?? Has the seller deceived the bidders?? >>

Yes and yes.

It's in a PCGS holder and not "described " as such (when it would have been quite easy to have done so). In fact, it probably took some effort/action to have CONCEALED that fact. Technically, at least, that could meet "returns will be granted if item is not as described".

If the coin appeared to be better than an MS62 from the images, I think it was deceitful to have omitted the fact that a major grading company that had the coin in hand, graded it (only) MS62.

If the seller had listed a certified coin which looked worse (and not better) than the assigned grade, would he have omitted the certification then, too? I think not.

From the information presented, I can only think of selfish, deceitful reasons why the seller did what he did. Even if he was technically in the right (which I doubt) he was ethically in the wrong.

1jester · September 10, 2005 6:54AM

As usual, I agree with Coinguy.

Also, I believe that the seller should return the money, if asked, on principle. That is, it would make better business sense to me for the seller to do everything possible (within reason) to please the customer. Obviously, the seller must draw the line somewhere, but in this case, I'd refund the money.

Barry · September 10, 2005 7:09AM

No and sort of, since the TPG grade means so much to so many. If the buyer doesn't like the grade/holder, he can crack it out and have what he thought he had in the first place.

Weiss · September 10, 2005 7:29AM

I think the buyer bought the coin, and has no right to return it.

However, consider these additional hypotheticals:

What if, instead of being in PCGS, it was in an NTC slab?

Or, what if, since it was not indicated that the coin was in its PCGS slab, the buyer returns it--cracked out. Makes that PCGS slab a lot more integral to the coin than the seller might have originally thought, huh?

ddink · September 10, 2005 7:40AM

Remember when you were a kid and broke something, and your parents asked you why you didn't tell them you had broken it? I seem to recall "because you never asked if I had broken anything lately!" was not a very good response

At work, if someone gets an extension on their bill and doesn't keep it, they are eligible for a delayed payment agreement (breaks the bill up in four installments), but we can't offer it--they have to ask for a delayed payment agreement! Now how in the world are they supposed to know that it's an option if you don't offer it???! It's a stupid policy!

Ditto here; if you don't show a pic of the slab and don't mention that it's slabbed, you can't reasonably expect some buyer to email you asking "Hey, is this coin slabbed and graded lower than the picture seems to indicate?"

mozin · September 10, 2005 7:42AM

Pictures are very deceiving. I think this seller advertised the coin in a deceitful manner and the return should be accepted.

braddick · September 10, 2005 7:42AM

<< 

<< Is the seller under any obligation to accept a return?? Has the seller deceived the bidders?? >>

Yes and yes.

It's in a PCGS holder and not "described " as such (when it would have been quite easy to have done so). In fact, it probably took some effort/action to have CONCEALED that fact. Technically, at least, that could meet "returns will be granted if item is not as described".

If the coin appeared to be better than an MS62 from the images, I think it was deceitful to have omitted the fact that a major grading company that had the coin in hand, graded it (only) MS62.

If the seller had listed a certified coin which looked worse (and not better) than the assigned grade, would he have omitted the certification then, too? I think not.

From the information presented, I can only think of selfish, deceitful reasons why the seller did what he did. Even if he was technically in the right (which I doubt) he was ethically in the wrong. >>

I've got to go with Mark on this one for the reasons I've highlighted in his post.

anablep · September 10, 2005 8:21AM

While I agree with the mantra "buy the coin and not the holder," I think when we're talking about ebay, it helps to have as much information about a coin as one possibly can if one is making an informed, educated purchase. One should not bid on such a coin if there was any doubt at all when looking at the pictures. Then again, the seller protects himself by stating explicitly that questions should be asked. Shame on the buyer for not being informed and proactive in his/her purchase. Learn the hard way and be better prepared next time...

Weiss · September 10, 2005 8:37AM

What if it were in an NCS slab?

CalGold · September 10, 2005 8:48AM

I usually agree with Mark, but this time I do not. What if the seller cracked the coin out and sold it raw? Would he have an obligation to disclose that it once was in a 62 holder? What if it were raw and the seller bought it as a 62 from a dealer who is known as a world class grader, would he have to disclose the grade at which he purchased it?

Now what if the seller resubmitted it before he sold it and it came back in a 64 holder, would he have to disclose that it was upgraded from a 62? If that were the case, every dealer would have to list the grading history of every coin in his inventory.

Having said the foregoing, the question really boils down to whether the coin graded 62 because of some defect that was hidden by the photo so that the picture was deceptive. I recall Russ doing some really good threads showing how a heavily hairlined proof can look like a flawless gem at the proper angle.

CG

keets · September 10, 2005 11:16PM

some varied responses as i expected, what baffles me most is that in the example the seller is castigated for not disclosing some information, while it can be rightfully claimed that any sale, online or at a show and in-hand, falls short of the full disclosure expected by some. i find these responses very telling:

I think that sellers should list all information available regarding the coin's condition---common practice seems to not agree. in-hand, it is up to the buyer to assess the coin, make a judgement and ask questions, then buy or pass. online the seller will generally provide an accurate pictured depiction with a worded description and answer questions via e-mail, all done in the auction scenario.

What if the seller cracked the coin out and sold it raw? Would he have an obligation to disclose that it once was in a 62 holder?---very, very good question. i doubt anyone can say yes and provide a reasonable defense as to why.

If the seller had listed a certified coin which looked worse (and not better) than the assigned grade, would he have omitted the certification then, too? I think not.---i'm certain that coins are listed for sale which look worse/better than the pictiures and that oftentimes the descriptions are biased and the pictures listed to the coin's advantage grade-wise. how often have you seen "the coin looks better than the picture" in a listing?? how many times have you bought a coin that looked worse in-hand than the pictured coin?? if an accurate picture is shown and a worded descrip[tion of the coin offered, how much farther should a seller go???

Also, I believe that the seller should return the money, if asked, on principle.---oh, yeah??? the buyer bid on a coin and not a holder.

1jester · September 11, 2005 3:53AM

<< I usually agree with Mark, but this time I do not. What if the seller cracked the coin out and sold it raw? Would he have an obligation to disclose that it once was in a 62 holder? What if it were raw and the seller bought it as a 62 from a dealer who is known as a world class grader, would he have to disclose the grade at which he purchased it?

Now what if the seller resubmitted it before he sold it and it came back in a 64 holder, would he have to disclose that it was upgraded from a 62? If that were the case, every dealer would have to list the grading history of every coin in his inventory.

Having said the foregoing, the question really boils down to whether the coin graded 62 because of some defect that was hidden by the photo so that the picture was deceptive. I recall Russ doing some really good threads showing how a heavily hairlined proof can look like a flawless gem at the proper angle.

CG >>

I thought about the scenario in which the seller cracks out the coin and sells it raw, and I still stand by my assertion that in an ideal world, the seller would disclose this fact. Not disclosing this fact is lying. Lying is the attempt to deceive someone. So why try to hide that fact? Why do so many people try to twist and turn and cover up and justify, etc? Why do so many people think it's OK to lie?

Now, if he'd cracked it out and sent it in and it came back a 64, would he still be obligated to say it had sat in a 62 holder at one time? I don't believe he has that duty, but if I were that seller, I would disclose that fact also.

Hobbyist · September 11, 2005 4:37AM

<< No and sort of, since the TPG grade means so much to so many. If the buyer doesn't like the grade/holder, he can crack it out and have what he thought he had in the first place. >>

I agree with you. Especially the last bit.

I would also put the buyer on my Block List and recommend that the seller be kicked out of the Circle Of Trust.

Hey, why not a "Keets" hypothetical???

Comments

Leave a Comment

Hey, why not a &quot;Keets&quot; hypothetical???

Comments

Leave a Comment

Hey, why not a "Keets" hypothetical???