is this a sight-seen, or a sight-UNseen transaction?

dorkkarl · June 17, 2007 10:57PM

i give up on trying to set up a poll, so i'll just pose it as question.

does the following sequence of events describe a sight-seen transaction? or sight-unseen?

1. i see a digi-pic of a $9000 raw coin online
2. i order the coin
3. i receive the coin.
4. i examine the coin for a day & decide i don't like it
5. i return the coin & get my money back

K S

OKbustchaser · June 17, 2007 11:02PM

Yes, it is sight-seen, but there are many people on this forum whom you will never convince of the fact.

ziggy29 · June 17, 2007 11:03PM

Depends on your definition.

Some would define it "sight unseen" if money changes hands before the coin is ever seen -- regardless of return policy.

Some would only define it "sight unseen" if you spend the money and have no recourse if you don't like it.

Regardless of the definitions, the bottom line is that if you have a return policy in place which you can trust the dealer to honor, whether it's sight-seen or sight-unseen it's a pretty low-risk transaction provided you can properly and quickly evaluate (and perhaps value) the coin when you receive it.

Really, that's what this whole debate should focus around instead of definitions of "seen" and "unseen": How much risk is there in the transaction if someone puts up the money before seeing the coin? Not much...IF the dealer can be trusted to accept a return for a full refund. Having said that, I could certainly conceive of someone thinking they like a coin as, say, a 65 and keeping it as such -- and getting it back from a slabber as a 63 or 64. There is always that risk, whether you see a coin before putting up the money or you look at it only after paying, and deciding not to use the return policy.

RYK · June 17, 2007 11:15PM

Sight-seen, assuming that #5 is iron clad.

dorkkarl · June 17, 2007 11:19PM

<< Sight-seen, assuming that #5 is iron clad. >>

point taken, so in all fairness, let's also assume that #1 you don't get refunded for the cost of shipping the $9000 coin back and #2 the refund is shorted by $40 for the original shipping cost #3 the seller has been in business for 50 years & built a reputation on not screwing collectors.

K S

RYK · June 17, 2007 11:20PM

<< 

<< Sight-seen, assuming that #5 is iron clad. >>

point taken, so in all fairness, let's also assume that #1 you don't get refunded for the cost of shipping the $9000 coin back and #2 the refund is shorted by $40 for the original shipping cost #3 the seller has been in business for 50 years & built a reputation on not screwing collectors.

K S >>

I will give you #1 and #2. I would expect to pay for the shipping both ways. #3 is open to debate.

ColonialCoinUnion · June 17, 2007 11:22PM

Of course it's sight-seen if you have the opportunity to review and examine it, though it sounds like you spent all night reading the Stack's terms and conditions and found some fine print to try to justify your earlier comments in the BigE threads and now are trying to flaunt it here in the forum to somehow prove, in your mind, that you were right and that TDN was wrong.

If we tell you how smart you are, will you stop typing?

tmot99 · June 17, 2007 11:26PM

I say sight-seen. The big question is the refund question, that you have addressed. I would still consider it sight-seen if there is a small restocking fee. The dealer is taking a risk too and should be eligible for some fee for that.

dorkkarl · June 17, 2007 11:27PM

<< Of course it's sight-seen if you have the opportunity to review and examine it, though it sounds like you spent all night reading the Stack's terms and conditions and found some fine print to try to justify your earlier comments in the BigE threads and now are trying to flaunt it here in the forum to somehow prove, in your mind, that you were right and that TDN was wrong. >>

for the record, it took me approximately 1 minute to find the terms. maybe you have never read them? maybe tdn has'nt either???

<< If we tell you how smart you are, will you stop typing? >>

if you stop typing, will you stop looking foolish?

K S

ColonialCoinUnion · June 17, 2007 11:39PM

You know what I'd like? I'd like to see 6 or 7 more new threads on this topic. That would be great. Can you start them all?

dorkkarl · June 17, 2007 11:41PM

<< You know what I'd like? I'd like to see 6 or 7 more new threads on this topic. >>

liar

K S

ColonialCoinUnion · June 18, 2007 12:16AM

This is hilarious.

You tell me it took you only 1 minute to find the terms. Did you actually read them, or just find them?

Maybe your next forum poll could be as follows:

Is a request to return the same as a right to return?

Darkmane · June 18, 2007 12:34AM

Dorkkarl.

You really don't give up, do you. Come up with something reasonably clever if you're going to bash people who positively contribute to the forums on a regular basis, please.

BigE · June 18, 2007 12:34AM

CCU, quit acting like a dealer, how long have you been in business

------------------BigE

dorkkarl · June 18, 2007 12:37AM

<< You really don't give up, do you. Come up with something reasonably clever if you're going to bash people who positively contribute to the forums on a regular basis, please. >>

would you kindly point out who bashed who 1st in this thread?

i do not see anything wrong w/ discussing what the term "sight unseen" means.

K S

BigE · June 18, 2007 12:37AM

<< Dorkkarl.

You really don't give up, do you. Come up with something reasonably clever if you're going to bash people who positively contribute to the forums on a regular basis, please. >>

Quit kissin' butt---------------------------BigE

Darkmane · June 18, 2007 12:40AM

Dorkkarl.

You're trolling, plain and simple. Picking a topic you've beaten to death and playing it as a hypothetical to elicit responses. You get the responses you wanted (namely, someone asking if they call you smart, if you'll drop the subject) and then bash them.

Please don't play / act stupid.

EDIT: Sorry, trolls just annoy me. When you know the answer to a question and ask it with an agenda, then play stupid... well... I guess I already said how I feel.

ziggy29 · June 18, 2007 12:40AM

<< i do not see anything wrong w/ discussing what the term "sight unseen" means. >>

Again, I think people define it differently and it's largely quibbling over semantics. The important thing, regardless of whether you call it "sight seen" or "sight unseen," is: Does the purchase have a return privilege for any reason, for which I'd get a full refund, and I trust the dealer to honor it?

Regardless of the semantics of terminology, this cuts to the chase and describes what is really important. That is what determines whether or not throwing several grand at a coin is a major gamble.

Personally, given that the return policy says you may "request a return" and not that a return privilege is a foregone conclusion, I'd opine that there is no guarantee a coin could be returned for full refund if you didn't like it when you received it.

bushmaster8 · June 18, 2007 12:42AM

Jeezuz Dorkkarl! Even your biggest fans are starting to get annoyed!

Give it a rest already!!

dorkkarl · June 18, 2007 12:49AM

<< You tell me it took you only 1 minute to find the terms. Did you actually read them, or just find them? >>

bingo! ever hear of "search"?

<< You're trolling, plain and simple. Picking a topic you've beaten to death and playing it as a hypothetical to elicit responses. You get the responses you wanted (namely, someone asking if they call you smart, if you'll drop the subject) and then bash them. Please don't play / act stupid. EDIT: Sorry, trolls just annoy me. When you know the answer to a question and ask it with an agenda, then play stupid... well... I guess I already said how I feel. >>

darkmane, i have no idea who you are, nor what your motives are, but i seriously hope that you are kidding.

i take the issue of what "sight unseen" means VERY SERIOUSLY, because that is an area i believe well-meaning coin collectors often mess up - buying coins sight unseen. yet, the term appears to me to be frequently misused & abused on this forum & elsewhere. AND, the term can be used fraudulently.

for you to accuse me of "trolling" is indeed stupid. if you truly don't like trolls, ask colonial-coin-union why he is making posts purely for the (feeble) attempts to insult me.

K S

Artist · June 18, 2007 12:57AM

I like silver dollars...

Russ · June 18, 2007 2:07AM

Since Mark Feld cannot post, here is his response to Karl's attempt to distort reality:

<< Winning a coin in a auction is not "ordering" a coin. And, a winning bidder of a genuine coin does not have the RIGHT to return it.

Stack's terms of sale, which he uses to claim the transaction was sight-seen, state:

"Mail, FAX and Internet bidders may make return requests within three days of the receipt of the lot."

That does not mean bidders have a right or the privilege to return uncertified coins - it simply means that they can make a REQUEST - that is not the same as a RIGHT. That is clearly a huge difference and one that makes a purchase SIGHT-UNSEEN.

If the coin belonged to Stack's or a good consignor and/or the buyer wasn't a big client, do you think they would allow a return? If a winning bidder caught Stack's at the wrong time of day and/or the wrong person received the return request, do you think they would allow a return? >>

Russ, NCNE

tradedollarnut · June 18, 2007 2:18AM

Dunno - why don't you try calling Stacks and ask to return a raw coin you just purchased in auction because you don't think it will grade out and let's see what happens.

Here - start with this one.

ANACONDA · June 18, 2007 2:22AM

Initially it's a sight unseen purchase which morphs into a sight seen purchase. If I had to vote for only one, i would call it a sight seen purchase because you get to see the coin before you make up your mind. I think most others would think it's sight seen purchase because the term 'sight unseen' usually refers to a purchase where there is no return privilege and the buyer never sees the coin in hand before being obligated to pay for it.

dorkkarl · June 18, 2007 2:30AM

<< Dunno - why don't you try calling Stacks and ask to return a raw coin you just purchased in auction because you don't think it will grade out and let's see what happens. >>

tradedollarnut, that is a EXCELLENT suggestion, which is exactly why i mentioned that i have personally successfully returned material to stack's, & so has a friend. i ADMIT that they were not friendly w/ my friend's return, but i did not have any problems.

<< That does not mean bidders have a right or the privilege to return uncertified coins - it simply means that they can make a REQUEST >>

this is absolutely correct also. the only way to prove the intent of stacks wording is to actually attempt to make a return (rather then simply make baseless assumptions). i have had a 100% success rate.

<< Initially it's a sight unseen purchase which morphs into a sight seen purchase. If I had to vote for only one, i would call it a sight seen purchase because you get to see the coin before you make up your mind. I think most others would think it's sight seen purchase because the term 'sight unseen' usually refers to a purchase where there is no return privilege and the buyer never sees the coin in hand before being obligated to pay for it. >>

anaconda, that is an insightful analysis, & again, i appreciate your thoughtful contribution to the issue.

K S

edit -> tradedollarnut, based on just the information in my opening post, what would your answer be? i promise not to jump on what you say

Russ · June 18, 2007 2:34AM

<< this is absolutely correct also. the only way to prove the intent of stacks wording is to actually attempt to make a return (rather then simply make baseless assumptions). i have had a 100% success rate. >>

Really? Link a coin you bought raw and returned.

Russ, NCNE

tradedollarnut · June 18, 2007 2:38AM

edit -> tradedollarnut, based on just the information in my opening post, what would your answer be? i promise not to jump on what you say

There's not enough information to definitively state one way or the other. If you knew for a fact that you could return the coin, then it's sight seen. If you have to guess, then it's sight unseen.

However, if you are attempting to extend this to the BigE situation, then you are ignoring several things:

1) Stacks has the right to say 'no, you may not return the coin' for any reason they deem proper.
2) BigE states he never returns coins
3) How does the fact he had an auction employee describe the coin to him affect any ability to return the coin?
4) For what reasons may a coin be returned? I know of NO auction house that will allow a return because a coin 'won't grade out'.

dorkkarl · June 18, 2007 2:44AM

<< Link a coin you bought raw and returned. >>

no thanks.

<< edit -> tradedollarnut, based on just the information in my opening post, what would your answer be?

There's not enough information to definitively state one way or the other. If you knew for a fact that you could return the coin, then it's sight seen. If you have to guess, then it's sight unseen. >>

terrific answer, & i agree.

<< However, if you are attempting to extend this to the BigE situation, then you are ignoring several things:... >>

i know that it was assumed by a couple of folks that that was my intent, but it was'nt originally. i'd really hoped this would be a discussion independent of the big-e issue.

that being said, i don't know what bearing #2 has, & i do not agree w/ #4. in fact, disagreement w/ grade (#4) was exactly the reason i returned a coin to stack's. of course, i also know 100% for a fact that coins can be returned if a attribution is wrong.

K S

Longacre · June 18, 2007 2:48AM

Prior to purchase, I would call and speak to someone in authority and pose this scenario, and get confirmation of the return privilege, if any.

tradedollarnut · June 18, 2007 2:49AM

<< any provision made to allow a buyer to commit to a coin only after examination in person results in a SIGHT SEEN transaction. there's no splitting hairs! either you get to physically examine the coins, or you do not, before the sale is final. THAT is what determines whether it's sight-seen or not.

K S >>

<< edit -> tradedollarnut, based on just the information in my opening post, what would your answer be?

There's not enough information to definitively state one way or the other. If you knew for a fact that you could return the coin, then it's sight seen. If you have to guess, then it's sight unseen. >>

terrific answer, & i agree.

*sigh*

Russ · June 18, 2007 2:51AM

<< in fact, disagreement w/ grade (#4) was exactly the reason i returned a coin to stack's. >>

Link?

Russ, NCNE

Russ · June 18, 2007 2:52AM

<< << Link a coin you bought raw and returned. >>

no thanks. >>

In that case, we have no choice but to assume you're full of crap.

Russ, NCNE

airplanenut · June 18, 2007 2:53AM

<< this is absolutely correct also. the only way to prove the intent of stacks wording is to actually attempt to make a return (rather then simply make baseless assumptions). i have had a 100% success rate. >>

Aha... but if you make the purchase without a 100% return privilege, then you are buying knowing you may be stuck with a coin you do not with to own. In that case, your purchase is site-unseen, because you must price it such that it is acceptable even if the piece is not everything you hoped for.

earlygoldnut · June 18, 2007 2:55AM

i give up on trying to set up a poll, so i'll just pose it as question.

does the following sequence of events describe a sight-seen transaction? or sight-unseen?

1. i see a digi-pic of a $9000 raw coin online
2. i order the coin
3. i receive the coin.
4. i examine the coin for a day & decide i don't like it
5. i return the coin & get my money back

K S

Sight seen- as a dealer when sending coins out to collectors everything is sight seen unless they make an offer and we come to a mutual agreement that they own it at that number and cannot return it.

dorkkarl · June 18, 2007 2:56AM

<< In that case, we have no choice but to assume you're full of crap. >>

we? you speak for everyone? more & more, i'm convinced you do think so, which is why less & less, what you post matters to me.

<< 

<< this is absolutely correct also. the only way to prove the intent of stacks wording is to actually attempt to make a return (rather then simply make baseless assumptions). i have had a 100% success rate. >>

Aha... but if you make the purchase without a 100% return privilege, then you are buying knowing you may be stuck with a coin you do not with to own. In that case, your purchase is site-unseen, because you must price it such that it is acceptable even if the piece is not everything you hoped for. >>

airplanenut, i agree. that is why i would only bid w/ an auction house whose return policy i trust, such as stack's.

K S

earlygoldnut · June 18, 2007 2:58AM

point taken, so in all fairness, let's also assume that #1 you don't get refunded for the cost of shipping the $9000 coin back and #2 the refund is shorted by $40 for the original shipping cost #3 the seller has been in business for 50 years & built a reputation on not screwing collectors.

When a coin is returned the shipping should be refunded, luckily I don't get many coins back but we have never not refunded shipping when we do.

Russ · June 18, 2007 2:59AM

<< << In that case, we have no choice but to assume you're full of crap. >>

we? you speak for everyone? more & more, i'm convinced you do think so, which is why less & less, what you post matters to me. >>

It's really pretty simple, Karl. You're arguing that it's a sight-seen transaction because one can "request" a return, and you attempt to bolster that argument by claiming that you've had "100% success" returning coins to Stack's.

Prove it.

Russ, NCNE

earlygoldnut · June 18, 2007 3:01AM

Winning a coin in a auction is not "ordering" a coin. And, a winning bidder of a genuine coin does not have the RIGHT to return it.

This is correct- if this whole thread is about returning an auction coin:

A) They should not refund your money

If they are knind enough to take the coin back the shipping is YOUR expense. Why should the auction company pay you to break the rules?

dorkkarl · June 18, 2007 3:03AM

<< You're arguing that it's a sight-seen transaction because one can "request" a return, and you attempt to bolster that argument by claiming that you've had "100% success" returning coins to Stack's. Prove it. >>

prove otherwise.

ok, so my 100% success rate is 1 for 1. my friend's succes rate was also 1 for 1, & i believe another forum poster has stated his success rate.

btw, i checked to the best i know how, & the coin i returned appears to have been long before how far stack's archives go back.

K S

Russ · June 18, 2007 3:09AM

<< the seller has been in business for 50 years & built a reputation on not screwing collectors. >>

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=553933

Russ, NCNE

ColonialCoinUnion · June 18, 2007 3:11AM

Karl - seriously, if you have bought a coin at Stack's, disagreed with the grade and then returned it, why not post it? The archives on their site go back to late 2004, but earlier archives are available on the web.

Or perhaps you could just tell us what auction it was from and the lot #. I have all the old catalogs here and could scan and post the image and description. In fact, I'd be happy to because I think it would useful for everyone:

It would be educational for the forum.

It would reflect positively on Stack's

And it would support your argument here.

So why not do it?

Russ · June 18, 2007 3:11AM

<< ok, so my 100% success rate is 1 for 1. >>

They let you return one coin and you think that proves anything?

Russ, NCNE

ziggy29 · June 18, 2007 3:12AM

<< Karl - seriously, if you have bought a coin at Stack's, disagreed with the grade and then returned it, why not post it? The archives on their site go back to late 2004, but earlier archives are available on the web. >>

I would have thought their pre-2004 archives were on daguerreotypes.

dorkkarl · June 18, 2007 3:13AM

<< 

<< the seller has been in business for 50 years & built a reputation on not screwing collectors. >>

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=553933 >>

russ, i appreciate it, but i don't think i'd define stack's reputation on this singular incident. i failed earlier in trying to do a poll, but if you care to, do a poll about whether stack's has a good reputation or a bad reputation. i'll defer to that poll.

for me, i like stacks ALOT. for the record, i cared for "anr" less, & personally, i'm not happy that they merged (though i was at 1st). i have had fantastic success buying coins from stacks, from the standpoint of assembing my collection.

K S

ColonialCoinUnion · June 18, 2007 3:14AM

I've been able to pull some Stack's listings from 2003 off archive.org, but as I said, I have every Stack's catalog here in my library and can scan anything in an upload it in a snap.

It's no problem. I'm happy to do it.

tradedollarnut · June 18, 2007 3:17AM

<< i don't think i'd define stack's reputation on this singular incident.

K S >>

I once purchased a circulated trade dollar in a Stacks [Coin Galleries] auction. Not only did they run it up to my max bid, but years later when I took the coin out of the flip I discovered it was obviously holed and plugged. They got me.

Oh, and buy me!

Russ · June 18, 2007 3:19AM

<< << the seller has been in business for 50 years & built a reputation on not screwing collectors. >>

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=553933 >>

russ, i appreciate it, but i don't think i'd define stack's reputation on this singular incident. >>

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=566604

Russ, NCNE

dorkkarl · June 18, 2007 3:21AM

<< I've been able to pull some Stack's listings from 2003 off archive.org, but as I said, I have every Stack's catalog here in my library and can scan anything in an upload it in a snap.

It's no problem. I'm happy to do it. >>

my purchase was in the late 1990s - possible 1997? regardless, i'm not interested in linking to the coin. there is a reason why i do not show my coins on the internet, or any other electronic format. far too many of them are easily traceable.

<< http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=566604 >>

the opening post says "I will go on record for saying upfront that I take full responsibility. Here goes..." i read none of the rest of the thread, but it appears as if the poster absolves anyone else by taking full responsibilty.

you would have to find ALOT more then 1, 2, or 12 bad stack's transactions to convince me that the 10s of thousands of customers happy w/ stack's are wrong.

like you said, 1 for 1 success rate proves nothing (except that i am satisfied), nor does a 2/10,000 failure rate.

K S

BigE · June 18, 2007 3:29AM

<< 

<< i don't think i'd define stack's reputation on this singular incident.

K S >>

I once purchased a circulated trade dollar in a Stacks [Coin Galleries] auction. Not only did they run it up to my max bid, but years later when I took the coin out of the flip I discovered it was obviously holed and plugged. They got me.

Oh, and buy me! >>

Hi TDN, if it was obviously holed and plugged how come you could not see it through the flip. It must have been hard to see also during in hand lot viewing. Maybe this is why Laura could not really check out the coin I purchased-------------------BigE

mrpotatoheadd · June 18, 2007 3:30AM

<< ok, so my 100% success rate is 1 for 1. my friend's succes rate was also 1 for 1... >>

Although I'm not a statistician, I would suggest that a sampling of two is too small a number to make any valid predictions regarding the likelihood of similar future results.

It would be kind of like saying "I ran a red light once. My friend did, too, and neither of us got hit. So it must be safe to run red lights." Not enough occurrances to draw a reliable conclusion.

ColonialCoinUnion · June 18, 2007 3:31AM

<< my purchase was in the late 1990s - possible 1997? regardless, i'm not interested in linking to the coin. there is a reason why i do not show my coins on the internet, or any other electronic format. far too many of them are easily traceable.

K S >>

Traceable? To whom? I said I would post the image, in which case you would have nothing to worry about. And since you returned it, it isn't your coin anymore, right?

I like you karl, but I think this a little strange.

is this a sight-seen, or a sight-UNseen transaction?

Comments

Leave a Comment