The only surprise to me is that it took so long to file the lawsuit. I also believe ebay will loose this one, but however it turns out it's going to be interesting to watch.
Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Why? eBay restricts what can and cannot be sold on their site in many areas, and always has. In this case they aren't even stating that the material is prohibited, only that it must adhere to a set of guidelines. They also have a phalanx of the best lawyers on the planet. I'm sure the policy changes were extensively reviewed by legal staff before implementation. And, what about the other auction venues that restrict the TPG's they will even allow at all?
I don't see where the plaintiffs even have a case.
Why? eBay restricts what can and cannot be sold on their site in many areas, and always has. In this case they aren't even stating that the material is prohibited, only that it must adhere to a set of guidelines. They also have a phalanx of the best lawyers on the planet. I'm sure the policy changes were extensively reviewed by legal staff before implementation. And, what about the other auction venues that restrict the TPG's they will even allow at all?
I don't see where the plaintiffs even have a case.
Russ, NCNE >>
Too bad they will not be selecting the Jury from forum members.
<< <i>Why? eBay restricts what can and cannot be sold on their site in many areas, and always has. In this case they aren't even stating that the material is prohibited, only that it must adhere to a set of guidelines. They also have a phalanx of the best lawyers on the planet. I'm sure the policy changes were extensively reviewed by legal staff before implementation. And, what about the other auction venues that restrict the TPG's they will even allow at all?
I don't see where the plaintiffs even have a case. >>
The problem is that eBay is a monopolistic, 800 pound gorilla. And even if what Goliath is doing is completely within the bounds of the law, many juries may be sympathetic with David.
And even if I don't think the suit has much technical merit, I am uneasy with one entity wielding so much control over whether other businesses live or die.
I had no idea that eBay was a foreign corporation.
Anybody know where their actual corprate "home" is?
I'm somewhat torn.
While I don't think much of the plaintiffs in this case, I don't think much of eBay's rather arbitrary practices either.
"Lenin is certainly right. There is no subtler or more severe means of overturning the existing basis of society(destroy capitalism) than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
Why? eBay restricts what can and cannot be sold on their site in many areas, and always has. In this case they aren't even stating that the material is prohibited, only that it must adhere to a set of guidelines. They also have a phalanx of the best lawyers on the planet. I'm sure the policy changes were extensively reviewed by legal staff before implementation. And, what about the other auction venues that restrict the TPG's they will even allow at all?
I don't see where the plaintiffs even have a case.
Russ, NCNE >>
ebay restricts items and individuals that violate listing policy. I'm not aware of them restricting a company because someone does not like the product being sold. In this case it seems to me that there are several companies with the same product (coin grading) all doing business on ebay. But ebay decides that some of these companies have an inferior product and implies to the public that the product is inferior by not allowing the coins to be advertised as certified. I have a hard time believing a court will let that stand.
Most people on this board would likely agree the product is inferior, but I doubt that the law will agree because there too many different standards and everyone that testifies will agree that grading is subjective. NNC and ACG have different standards than PCGS, but I doubt that anyone will be able to prove one set of standards is right and the other wrong.
Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
I had no idea that eBay was a foreign corporation.
Anybody know where their actual corprate "home" is?
I'm somewhat torn.
While I don't think much of the plaintiffs in this case, I don't think much of eBay's rather arbitrary practices either. >>
In this case, the term "foreign" refers to a company whose place of business is outside the state of Florida.
Lane >>
Thanks, it's obvious I never went to law school.
"Lenin is certainly right. There is no subtler or more severe means of overturning the existing basis of society(destroy capitalism) than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
<< <i>Centsless and those third tier graders have ganged up and sued ebay, the ANA and PNG over the new ebay policy for graded coins. Personally, I hope the judge assigned summarily dismisses it. >>
I agree with you. I do not think these jokers have a leg to stand on, but ebay has to pay their lawyers to fight them. Leave it to the a-holes to fight for the right to rip people off. Disgusting!
"Most people on this board would likely agree the product is inferior, but I doubt that the law will agree because there too many different standards and everyone that testifies will agree that grading is subjective. NNC and ACG have different standards than PCGS, but I doubt that anyone will be able to prove one set of standards is right and the other wrong."
Correct, and well stated. But it confirms why eBay is within their rights to make such a decision. For me, it will be fun to see and hear the court and jury weigh in on the vague, nebulous and subjective industry of coin grading/slabbing. Nothing will change, eBay will win, the standards employed by the bigs will be vindicated, but it will be quite interesting along the way.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Not a lawyer, but I think Ebay is in for a pretty large payout to the Plaintiffs. I would say this would be a classic case of collusion between interested parties in an effort to eraticate competition. If this suit goes to trial during the next administration, look for a huge payday to the TPG's and centsles. I am suprised it has taken so long for this suit to come out.
This is kind of interesting This is a YES and NO battle. As I am a collector/semi-dealer on Ebay I do not buy or sell any of these off the wall TPG slabs. I mostly collect PCGS,NGC,ANACS,ICG, and PCI. Yes, PCI which has or had great grading standards in the earlier years. I have several PCI slabs that I broke out and actually had them to upgrade at PCGS. It seems that 99% of my bids on PCI coins have been cancelled on Ebay. I am very aware of Ebay policies, but if I want to by a PCI coin, then I should buy one. If a new grading company wanted to open their doors today, they would have no chance of selling on Ebay. If the new company graded to same standards and guarantee as the big three, I don't believe that Ebay will let them list. To me this is against the FTC(Federal Trade Commision) standards. Collectors need to be more educated and aware before they buy coins or any other thing.
<< <i>I thought ebay's policy used the companies that had a guarantee. What are the guarantee's provided by the third tier and below slabbers? >>
eBay's reliance on a guarantee is a bit fluid considering the "guarantees" by the allowed companies are not the same. While all four guarantee authenticity, I believe PCGS and NGC are the only that give a grade guarantee for copper/bronze (I know ANACS does not, but I could not find ICG's guarantee). And NGC's guarantee for copper is only valid on copper encapsulated after early 2003 and only extends for 10 years.
So, a true grading guarantee seems to be only provided by PCGS.
Lane
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>Correct, and well stated. But it confirms why eBay is within their rights to make such a decision. For me, it will be fun to see and hear the court and jury weigh in on the vague, nebulous and subjective industry of coin grading/slabbing. Nothing will change, eBay will win, the standards employed by the bigs will be vindicated, but it will be quite interesting along the way. >>
The courts have already weighed in and the decision has been that grading is too subjective. Then again, those decisions were based on cases where a seller was sued and being accused of excessive over-grading. I believe, if memory serves, one or two Board members were involved as expert witnesses in a couple of those cases.
Lane
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
The "subjectivity" of grading argument only goes so far. If the variance exceeds a reasonable range then a very strong argument can be made that the standard isn't really "subjective", but rather deliberate.
Defendants should first establish a clear and obvious difference between the grading standards of PCGS and NNC by providing numerous examples accompanied by expert testimony. Then, after doing so, put Robert Johnson on the stand and ask him why it is that he won one of the dealer rounds of the PCGS world series of grading, yet the standards for his own product are so radically different.
<< <i>"Most people on this board would likely agree the product is inferior, but I doubt that the law will agree because there too many different standards and everyone that testifies will agree that grading is subjective. NNC and ACG have different standards than PCGS, but I doubt that anyone will be able to prove one set of standards is right and the other wrong."
Correct, and well stated. But it confirms why eBay is within their rights to make such a decision. For me, it will be fun to see and hear the court and jury weigh in on the vague, nebulous and subjective industry of coin grading/slabbing. Nothing will change, eBay will win, the standards employed by the bigs will be vindicated, but it will be quite interesting along the way. >>
Well Mr. Pharmer I think you are wrong and I am a betting man. I am willing to put $1000.00 or $10K in escrow along side yours betting that the Plaintiffs prevail. By prevail I mean being paid money by the Defendants or their coins being allowed on eBay along side of the others.
The top 4 allowed by Ebay also grade to acceptable industry standards as per PNG and the ANA, 2 quasi consumer advocate groups designed to specifically police the industry of just these types of crooks. What is SEGS and PCI even doing siding with these shamless crooks, when they could probably win on their own merit without dragging along the pondscum.
I also believe it is plausible that PCI may attempt to blame Ebay for it's demise
<< <i>The top 4 allowed by Ebay also grade to acceptable industry standards as per PNG and the ANA, 2 quasi consumer advocate groups designed to specifically police the industry of just these types of crooks. What is SEGS and PCI even doing siding with these shamless crooks, when they could probably win on their own merit without dragging along the pondscum.
I also believe it is plausible that PCI may attempt to blame Ebay for it's demise >>
<< <i>Yes, PCI which has or had great grading standards in the earlier years. >>
That is one of the problems with eBay's policy. It is based on a slice in time (the present) and does not account for certified coins from the past. That, of course, irritates folks like me that collect slabs!
It is sad that eBay will not recognize ANAAB certified coins...you know, the American Numismatic Association Authentication Bureau (formed by the ANA after the sale of ANACS). There has never been a real issue with certified (authenticated) by them.
How about coins slabbed by the original Hallmark, formed by Q. David Bowers, et. al. Grading was fine.
What about coins certified by PNG...yeah, the Professional Numismatists Guild back in 1984? Any fraud, deception, or blatant over-grading by them?
Lane
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>The "subjectivity" of grading argument only goes so far. If the variance exceeds a reasonable range then a very strong argument can be made that the standard isn't really "subjective", but rather deliberate.
Defendants should first establish a clear and obvious difference between the grading standards of PCGS and NNC by providing numerous examples accompanied by expert testimony. Then, after doing so, put Robert Johnson on the stand and ask him why it is that he won one of the dealer rounds of the PCGS world series of grading, yet the standards for his own product are so radically different.
Russ, NCNE >>
In the same respect there are those who would accuse the big two of under grading. The primary reason I suppose would be to keep the population low and the values high.
<< <i>The "subjectivity" of grading argument only goes so far. If the variance exceeds a reasonable range then a very strong argument can be made that the standard isn't really "subjective", but rather deliberate. >>
Maybe. On average, does (say) SEGS exceed that range? Keep in mind that almost everything they "get right" gets cracked out. That market bias needs to be considered any time a service's competence is in question.
There are good reasons why an outfit like SEGS isn't seen as top tier, but it seems to me that eBay is powerful enough that this is practically the "death penalty" on other slabbers besides the "blessed ones." And while they may deserve "second tier" status, I think SEGS (and perhaps even PCI) is legitimate enough that they don't deserve the numismatic capital punishment that should be coming to the self-slabbers and fourth-tier crap slabbers who are primarily in business to feed insanely overgraded crap to shady coin pushers so they can part cash-rich and coin sense-poor collectors and investors from their money. They deserve better than to be lumped in with scamming self-slabbers and the crappiest of the crap slabbers.
<< <i>Yes, PCI which has or had great grading standards in the earlier years. >>
That is one of the problems with eBay's policy. It is based on a slice in time (the present) and does not account for certified coins from the past. That, of course, irritates folks like me that collect slabs!
It is sad that eBay will not recognize ANAAB certified coins...you know, the American Numismatic Association Authentication Bureau (formed by the ANA after the sale of ANACS). There has never been a real issue with certified (authenticated) by them.
How about coins slabbed by the original Hallmark, formed by Q. David Bowers, et. al. Grading was fine.
What about coins certified by PNG...yeah, the Professional Numismatists Guild back in 1984? Any fraud, deception, or blatant over-grading by them?
<< <i>The top 4 allowed by Ebay also grade to acceptable industry standards as per PNG and the ANA, 2 quasi consumer advocate groups designed to specifically police the industry of just these types of crooks. >>
Sorry, but this is a common misconception about the role of the ANA. It is not, nor has it been, nor will it ever likely be, an organization that can "police" the industry. It is a non-profit educational, membership-owned organization whose only "policing" activity can be performed on its members. The greatest penalty it can impose...expulsion as a member.
While I certainly cannot speak on PNG's role, I doubt it has any "policing" ability outside its own membership.
Lane
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i><< The "subjectivity" of grading argument only goes so far. If the variance exceeds a reasonable range then a very strong argument can be made that the standard isn't really "subjective", but rather deliberate. >>
Maybe. On average, does (say) SEGS exceed that range? >>
No, I don't think they do, which is why I noted earlier in the thread that they are the only plaintiff that has a legitimate beef.
Why? eBay restricts what can and cannot be sold on their site in many areas, and always has. In this case they aren't even stating that the material is prohibited, only that it must adhere to a set of guidelines. They also have a phalanx of the best lawyers on the planet. I'm sure the policy changes were extensively reviewed by legal staff before implementation. And, what about the other auction venues that restrict the TPG's they will even allow at all?
I don't see where the plaintiffs even have a case.
Russ, NCNE >>
ebay restricts items and individuals that violate listing policy. I'm not aware of them restricting a company because someone does not like the product being sold. In this case it seems to me that there are several companies with the same product (coin grading) all doing business on ebay. But ebay decides that some of these companies have an inferior product and implies to the public that the product is inferior by not allowing the coins to be advertised as certified. I have a hard time believing a court will let that stand.
Most people on this board would likely agree the product is inferior, but I doubt that the law will agree because there too many different standards and everyone that testifies will agree that grading is subjective. NNC and ACG have different standards than PCGS, but I doubt that anyone will be able to prove one set of standards is right and the other wrong. >>
I can see it now......."RCGS"..Raybo Coin Grading Service. I'm working on a 1000 point grading system just to be unique.
<< <i>The "subjectivity" of grading argument only goes so far. If the variance exceeds a reasonable range then a very strong argument can be made that the standard isn't really "subjective", but rather deliberate. >>
Yep, that's the $64,000 (or so) question. When does subjectivity move to fraud? A cleaned F Morgan dollar "certified" as MS-67 DMPL? Yeah, probably an easy call. What about an MS-64 Morgan certified as a 66? Perhaps not.
Poor grading on it's own is not fraud. Poor grading with an intent to deceive is fraud.
Lane
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>I wonder if Robert Johnson's past testimony against ACG is admissable in this proceeding? I'd guess plaintiffs would not want to see that surface.
Russ, NCNE >>
Ain't documentation grand?
Lane
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>I wonder if Robert Johnson's past testimony against ACG is admissable in this proceeding? I'd guess plaintiffs would not want to see that surface.
Russ, NCNE >>
Have you contacted Ebay yet to tell them you have some information their lawyers would probably want to review?
One big difference between this lawsuit and the last one is Ebay basically has infinite funds and is unlikely to cave like the ANA et al did.
<< <i>Poor grading on it's own is not fraud. Poor grading with an intent to deceive is fraud. >>
True. But I'd also say you could look for a preponderance of the evidence that a particular overgrading service was used primarily by con artists to fleece the public. And even though that's not proof of intent to defraud, it could be reasonably inferred that these crap slabbers intended to be a conduit for ripoff artists. Remember this would be a civil, not criminal, affair and that the burden of proof is lower.
<< <i>"Most people on this board would likely agree the product is inferior, but I doubt that the law will agree because there too many different standards and everyone that testifies will agree that grading is subjective. NNC and ACG have different standards than PCGS, but I doubt that anyone will be able to prove one set of standards is right and the other wrong."
Correct, and well stated. But it confirms why eBay is within their rights to make such a decision. For me, it will be fun to see and hear the court and jury weigh in on the vague, nebulous and subjective industry of coin grading/slabbing. Nothing will change, eBay will win, the standards employed by the bigs will be vindicated, but it will be quite interesting along the way. >>
Well Mr. Pharmer I think you are wrong and I am a betting man. I am willing to put $1000.00 or $10K in escrow along side yours betting that the Plaintiffs prevail. By prevail I mean being paid money by the Defendants or their coins being allowed on eBay along side of the others. >>
As I've said before, I wish you had the guts to post your profile and give us an idea of who you are, Mr. Anonymous Bigbetter You're too much
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
I see we have forum members on both sides of this one. I see one member who signs his name with esq saying the case doesn't have merit. I'd like to see published impartial legal opinions on it. I think it comes down to where eBay has one of those "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." signs hanging in their lobby.
The one thing I think eBay screwed up badly is overuse of the word "counterfeit". It will be very easy for the plaintiffs to produce thousands of real coins that were taken down and if they can get the judge focused on the "counterfeit" issue, then eBay is screwed. JMHO.
It will be interesting to see how much they claim they lost, especially since they can still sell the same stuff as before. It would give an insight into how well the policy is working.
As for the grading, I like this from a seller of a bunch of Morgans.
<< <i>I recently broke up an album of Morgans and sent them to NNC for grading. Their grading numbers are a little high, but the price was right. >>
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
<< <i>"Most people on this board would likely agree the product is inferior, but I doubt that the law will agree because there too many different standards and everyone that testifies will agree that grading is subjective. NNC and ACG have different standards than PCGS, but I doubt that anyone will be able to prove one set of standards is right and the other wrong."
Correct, and well stated. But it confirms why eBay is within their rights to make such a decision. For me, it will be fun to see and hear the court and jury weigh in on the vague, nebulous and subjective industry of coin grading/slabbing. Nothing will change, eBay will win, the standards employed by the bigs will be vindicated, but it will be quite interesting along the way. >>
Well Mr. Pharmer I think you are wrong and I am a betting man. I am willing to put $1000.00 or $10K in escrow along side yours betting that the Plaintiffs prevail. By prevail I mean being paid money by the Defendants or their coins being allowed on eBay along side of the others. >>
As I've said before, I wish you had the guts to post your profile and give us an idea of who you are, Mr. Anonymous Bigbetter You're too much >>
I'm with you on this one, Pharmer. I got excited about taking smoe of that action, until I saw that the A.B. didn't have the cojones to post a profile
<< <i>One big difference between this lawsuit and the last one is Ebay basically has infinite funds and is unlikely to cave like the ANA et al did. >>
Yeah, but the problem is that when you start making specific judgment calls on which services deserve to be "certified" and which have to be sold as raw, you are undermining your tried and true "just a venue" defense. So if eBay wins this one, it can still be used against them potentially in another dispute when they fall back on "we're just a venue" after someone sues them for being ripped off.
IMO, eBay is trying to have it both ways here. Either you are "just a venue" which allows a free-for-all (and exempts you from liability over bad transactions) or you exercise some amount of control over what is sold there. It's just not consistent to be "just a venue" while making qualititative judgments about which coins are "certified" and which are "raw." You are MORE than just a venue when you do that.
<< <i>The "subjectivity" of grading argument only goes so far. If the variance exceeds a reasonable range then a very strong argument can be made that the standard isn't really "subjective", but rather deliberate. >>
Maybe. On average, does (say) SEGS exceed that range? Keep in mind that almost everything they "get right" gets cracked out. That market bias needs to be considered any time a service's competence is in question.
There are good reasons why an outfit like SEGS isn't seen as top tier, but it seems to me that eBay is powerful enough that this is practically the "death penalty" on other slabbers besides the "blessed ones." And while they may deserve "second tier" status, I think SEGS (and perhaps even PCI) is legitimate enough that they don't deserve the numismatic capital punishment that should be coming to the self-slabbers and fourth-tier crap slabbers who are primarily in business to feed insanely overgraded crap to shady coin pushers so they can part cash-rich and coin sense-poor collectors and investors from their money. They deserve better than to be lumped in with scamming self-slabbers and the crappiest of the crap slabbers. >>
Now, we who pay close attention may conclude that it's a numismatic "death penalty", but eBay is just one of many venues, and as a single venue it cannot reasonably assumed their policy results in said capital punishment, unless they also are found to be a monopoly, which they are not, and cannot found to be when there are alternative venues, including those provided by members of this forum
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
The one thing I think eBay screwed up badly is overuse of the word "counterfeit". It will be very easy for the plaintiffs to produce thousands of real coins that were taken down and if they can get the judge focused on the "counterfeit" issue, then eBay is screwed. JMHO.
Why is this suit about grading and not just about eBay's legal right to limit, ban or categorize whatever they want, however they want? There is no legal right to be on eBay.
Wouldn't it be neat if the suit back-fired and testimony was used to indict the plaintiffs for fraud?? Neat settlement talks... SEGS and PCI move to Tier 1 category, the others go to prison.
<< <i>Now, we who pay close attention may conclude that it's a numismatic "death penalty", but eBay is just one of many venues, and as a single venue it cannot reasonably assumed their policy results in said capital punishment, unless they also are found to be a monopoly, which they are not, and cannot found to be when there are alternative venues, including those provided by members of this forum >>
Keep in mind that I'm trying to think like an average juror here, many of which aren't fans of big, huge powerful businesses that have the ability to destroy smaller businesses with arguably arbitrary judgment calls that can make or break a business.
For the average individual looking to sell into a large audience, there really *is* no alternative venue to eBay. Thus, even if it's not an actual monopoly, it is in many ways a de facto monopoly for practical purposes.
<< <i>"Most people on this board would likely agree the product is inferior, but I doubt that the law will agree because there too many different standards and everyone that testifies will agree that grading is subjective. NNC and ACG have different standards than PCGS, but I doubt that anyone will be able to prove one set of standards is right and the other wrong."
Correct, and well stated. But it confirms why eBay is within their rights to make such a decision. For me, it will be fun to see and hear the court and jury weigh in on the vague, nebulous and subjective industry of coin grading/slabbing. Nothing will change, eBay will win, the standards employed by the bigs will be vindicated, but it will be quite interesting along the way. >>
Well Mr. Pharmer I think you are wrong and I am a betting man. I am willing to put $1000.00 or $10K in escrow along side yours betting that the Plaintiffs prevail. By prevail I mean being paid money by the Defendants or their coins being allowed on eBay along side of the others. >>
As I've said before, I wish you had the guts to post your profile and give us an idea of who you are, Mr. Anonymous Bigbetter You're too much >>
I'm with you on this one, Pharmer. I got excited about taking smoe of that action, until I saw that the A.B. didn't have the cojones to post a profile >>
Hey, did I forget to mention I DON'T have the cojones to bet, on anything, ever?So he's all yours. It's just that I think he's an alt of someone we would remember.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Why is this suit about grading and not just about eBay's legal right to limit, ban or categorize whatever they want, however they want? There is no legal right to be on eBay. >>
When they start exercising "editorial control" on which businesses may have their product advertised as "certified" and which have to have the handicap of being considered "raw," they have overstepped their boundaries as "just a venue," I think.
So while I think they have the right to do this, I think it comes at the price of forfeiting their "we're just a venue" legal defense elsewhere.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>Does anybody else find it strange that a company that is on the auction block, PCI, is one of the plaintiffs?
Russ, NCNE >>
I don't. Does anyone else find it strange the amount of inflammatory posts that Russ has already made on this thread. I don't.
Link to legal action >>
If truth is inflammatory, I'm guilty as well.
And PCI may well have jumped on the bandwagon months ago. These things generally don't happen overnight.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>I also believe ebay will loose this one >>
Why? eBay restricts what can and cannot be sold on their site in many areas, and always has. In this case they aren't even stating that the material is prohibited, only that it must adhere to a set of guidelines. They also have a phalanx of the best lawyers on the planet. I'm sure the policy changes were extensively reviewed by legal staff before implementation. And, what about the other auction venues that restrict the TPG's they will even allow at all?
I don't see where the plaintiffs even have a case.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>I also believe ebay will loose this one >>
Why? eBay restricts what can and cannot be sold on their site in many areas, and always has. In this case they aren't even stating that the material is prohibited, only that it must adhere to a set of guidelines. They also have a phalanx of the best lawyers on the planet. I'm sure the policy changes were extensively reviewed by legal staff before implementation. And, what about the other auction venues that restrict the TPG's they will even allow at all?
I don't see where the plaintiffs even have a case.
Russ, NCNE >>
Too bad they will not be selecting the Jury from forum members.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
<< <i>Why? eBay restricts what can and cannot be sold on their site in many areas, and always has. In this case they aren't even stating that the material is prohibited, only that it must adhere to a set of guidelines. They also have a phalanx of the best lawyers on the planet. I'm sure the policy changes were extensively reviewed by legal staff before implementation. And, what about the other auction venues that restrict the TPG's they will even allow at all?
I don't see where the plaintiffs even have a case. >>
The problem is that eBay is a monopolistic, 800 pound gorilla. And even if what Goliath is doing is completely within the bounds of the law, many juries may be sympathetic with David.
And even if I don't think the suit has much technical merit, I am uneasy with one entity wielding so much control over whether other businesses live or die.
I had no idea that eBay was a foreign corporation.
Anybody know where their actual corprate "home" is?
I'm somewhat torn.
While I don't think much of the plaintiffs in this case, I don't think much of eBay's rather arbitrary practices either.
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
<< <i>I had no idea that eBay was a foreign corporation. >>
That simply means they are incorporated in a state different than where the suit is filed.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>I also believe ebay will loose this one >>
Why? eBay restricts what can and cannot be sold on their site in many areas, and always has. In this case they aren't even stating that the material is prohibited, only that it must adhere to a set of guidelines. They also have a phalanx of the best lawyers on the planet. I'm sure the policy changes were extensively reviewed by legal staff before implementation. And, what about the other auction venues that restrict the TPG's they will even allow at all?
I don't see where the plaintiffs even have a case.
Russ, NCNE >>
ebay restricts items and individuals that violate listing policy. I'm not aware of them restricting a company because someone does not like the product being sold. In this case it seems to me that there are several companies with the same product (coin grading) all doing business on ebay. But ebay decides that some of these companies have an inferior product and implies to the public that the product is inferior by not allowing the coins to be advertised as certified. I have a hard time believing a court will let that stand.
Most people on this board would likely agree the product is inferior, but I doubt that the law will agree because there too many different standards and everyone that testifies will agree that grading is subjective. NNC and ACG have different standards than PCGS, but I doubt that anyone will be able to prove one set of standards is right and the other wrong.
<< <i>I guess I'm really out of the loop here.
I had no idea that eBay was a foreign corporation.
Anybody know where their actual corprate "home" is?
I'm somewhat torn.
While I don't think much of the plaintiffs in this case, I don't think much of eBay's rather arbitrary practices either. >>
In this case, the term "foreign" refers to a company whose place of business is outside the state of Florida.
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>
<< <i>I guess I'm really out of the loop here.
I had no idea that eBay was a foreign corporation.
Anybody know where their actual corprate "home" is?
I'm somewhat torn.
While I don't think much of the plaintiffs in this case, I don't think much of eBay's rather arbitrary practices either. >>
In this case, the term "foreign" refers to a company whose place of business is outside the state of Florida.
Lane >>
Thanks, it's obvious I never went to law school.
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I guess I'm really out of the loop here.
I had no idea that eBay was a foreign corporation.
Anybody know where their actual corprate "home" is?
I'm somewhat torn.
While I don't think much of the plaintiffs in this case, I don't think much of eBay's rather arbitrary practices either. >>
In this case, the term "foreign" refers to a company whose place of business is outside the state of Florida.
Lane >>
Thanks, it's obvious I never went to law school. >>
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>Centsless and those third tier graders have ganged up and sued ebay, the ANA and PNG over the new ebay policy for graded coins. Personally, I hope the judge assigned summarily dismisses it. >>
I agree with you. I do not think these jokers have a leg to stand on, but ebay has to pay their lawyers to fight them. Leave it to the a-holes to fight for the right to rip people off. Disgusting!
<< <i>What are the guarantee's provided by the third tier and below slabbers? >>
The only one among the plaintiffs that has a guarantee is SEGS, and it's only six months from date of slabbing.
Russ, NCNE
Correct, and well stated. But it confirms why eBay is within their rights to make such a decision. For me, it will be fun to see and hear the court and jury weigh in on the vague, nebulous and subjective industry of coin grading/slabbing. Nothing will change, eBay will win, the standards employed by the bigs will be vindicated, but it will be quite interesting along the way.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>
<< <i>What are the guarantee's provided by the third tier and below slabbers? >>
The only one among the plaintiffs that has a guarantee is SEGS, and it's only six months from date of slabbing.
Russ, NCNE >>
Which basically does nothing for a consumer buying the product off of ebay down the road. Thus the reason for the policy.
<< <i>I thought ebay's policy used the companies that had a guarantee. What are the guarantee's provided by the third tier and below slabbers? >>
eBay's reliance on a guarantee is a bit fluid considering the "guarantees" by the allowed companies are not the same. While all four guarantee authenticity, I believe PCGS and NGC are the only that give a grade guarantee for copper/bronze (I know ANACS does not, but I could not find ICG's guarantee). And NGC's guarantee for copper is only valid on copper encapsulated after early 2003 and only extends for 10 years.
So, a true grading guarantee seems to be only provided by PCGS.
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>Correct, and well stated. But it confirms why eBay is within their rights to make such a decision. For me, it will be fun to see and hear the court and jury weigh in on the vague, nebulous and subjective industry of coin grading/slabbing. Nothing will change, eBay will win, the standards employed by the bigs will be vindicated, but it will be quite interesting along the way. >>
The courts have already weighed in and the decision has been that grading is too subjective. Then again, those decisions were based on cases where a seller was sued and being accused of excessive over-grading. I believe, if memory serves, one or two Board members were involved as expert witnesses in a couple of those cases.
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Defendants should first establish a clear and obvious difference between the grading standards of PCGS and NNC by providing numerous examples accompanied by expert testimony. Then, after doing so, put Robert Johnson on the stand and ask him why it is that he won one of the dealer rounds of the PCGS world series of grading, yet the standards for his own product are so radically different.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>"Most people on this board would likely agree the product is inferior, but I doubt that the law will agree because there too many different standards and everyone that testifies will agree that grading is subjective. NNC and ACG have different standards than PCGS, but I doubt that anyone will be able to prove one set of standards is right and the other wrong."
Correct, and well stated. But it confirms why eBay is within their rights to make such a decision. For me, it will be fun to see and hear the court and jury weigh in on the vague, nebulous and subjective industry of coin grading/slabbing. Nothing will change, eBay will win, the standards employed by the bigs will be vindicated, but it will be quite interesting along the way. >>
Well Mr. Pharmer I think you are wrong and I am a betting man. I am willing to put $1000.00 or $10K in escrow along side yours betting that the Plaintiffs prevail. By prevail I mean being paid money by the Defendants or their coins being allowed on eBay along side of the others.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
I also believe it is plausible that PCI may attempt to blame Ebay for it's demise
<< <i>The top 4 allowed by Ebay also grade to acceptable industry standards as per PNG and the ANA, 2 quasi consumer advocate groups designed to specifically police the industry of just these types of crooks. What is SEGS and PCI even doing siding with these shamless crooks, when they could probably win on their own merit without dragging along the pondscum.
I also believe it is plausible that PCI may attempt to blame Ebay for it's demise >>
My thoughts exactly
<< <i>Yes, PCI which has or had great grading standards in the earlier years. >>
That is one of the problems with eBay's policy. It is based on a slice in time (the present) and does not account for certified coins from the past. That, of course, irritates folks like me that collect slabs!
It is sad that eBay will not recognize ANAAB certified coins...you know, the American Numismatic Association Authentication Bureau (formed by the ANA after the sale of ANACS). There has never been a real issue with certified (authenticated) by them.
How about coins slabbed by the original Hallmark, formed by Q. David Bowers, et. al. Grading was fine.
What about coins certified by PNG...yeah, the Professional Numismatists Guild back in 1984? Any fraud, deception, or blatant over-grading by them?
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>The "subjectivity" of grading argument only goes so far. If the variance exceeds a reasonable range then a very strong argument can be made that the standard isn't really "subjective", but rather deliberate.
Defendants should first establish a clear and obvious difference between the grading standards of PCGS and NNC by providing numerous examples accompanied by expert testimony. Then, after doing so, put Robert Johnson on the stand and ask him why it is that he won one of the dealer rounds of the PCGS world series of grading, yet the standards for his own product are so radically different.
Russ, NCNE >>
In the same respect there are those who would accuse the big two of under grading. The primary reason I suppose would be to keep the population low and the values high.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
<< <i>The "subjectivity" of grading argument only goes so far. If the variance exceeds a reasonable range then a very strong argument can be made that the standard isn't really "subjective", but rather deliberate. >>
Maybe. On average, does (say) SEGS exceed that range? Keep in mind that almost everything they "get right" gets cracked out. That market bias needs to be considered any time a service's competence is in question.
There are good reasons why an outfit like SEGS isn't seen as top tier, but it seems to me that eBay is powerful enough that this is practically the "death penalty" on other slabbers besides the "blessed ones." And while they may deserve "second tier" status, I think SEGS (and perhaps even PCI) is legitimate enough that they don't deserve the numismatic capital punishment that should be coming to the self-slabbers and fourth-tier crap slabbers who are primarily in business to feed insanely overgraded crap to shady coin pushers so they can part cash-rich and coin sense-poor collectors and investors from their money. They deserve better than to be lumped in with scamming self-slabbers and the crappiest of the crap slabbers.
<< <i>
<< <i>Yes, PCI which has or had great grading standards in the earlier years. >>
That is one of the problems with eBay's policy. It is based on a slice in time (the present) and does not account for certified coins from the past. That, of course, irritates folks like me that collect slabs!
It is sad that eBay will not recognize ANAAB certified coins...you know, the American Numismatic Association Authentication Bureau (formed by the ANA after the sale of ANACS). There has never been a real issue with certified (authenticated) by them.
How about coins slabbed by the original Hallmark, formed by Q. David Bowers, et. al. Grading was fine.
What about coins certified by PNG...yeah, the Professional Numismatists Guild back in 1984? Any fraud, deception, or blatant over-grading by them?
Lane >>
<< <i>The top 4 allowed by Ebay also grade to acceptable industry standards as per PNG and the ANA, 2 quasi consumer advocate groups designed to specifically police the industry of just these types of crooks. >>
Sorry, but this is a common misconception about the role of the ANA. It is not, nor has it been, nor will it ever likely be, an organization that can "police" the industry. It is a non-profit educational, membership-owned organization whose only "policing" activity can be performed on its members. The greatest penalty it can impose...expulsion as a member.
While I certainly cannot speak on PNG's role, I doubt it has any "policing" ability outside its own membership.
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i><< The "subjectivity" of grading argument only goes so far. If the variance exceeds a reasonable range then a very strong argument can be made that the standard isn't really "subjective", but rather deliberate. >>
Maybe. On average, does (say) SEGS exceed that range? >>
No, I don't think they do, which is why I noted earlier in the thread that they are the only plaintiff that has a legitimate beef.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I also believe ebay will loose this one >>
Why? eBay restricts what can and cannot be sold on their site in many areas, and always has. In this case they aren't even stating that the material is prohibited, only that it must adhere to a set of guidelines. They also have a phalanx of the best lawyers on the planet. I'm sure the policy changes were extensively reviewed by legal staff before implementation. And, what about the other auction venues that restrict the TPG's they will even allow at all?
I don't see where the plaintiffs even have a case.
Russ, NCNE >>
ebay restricts items and individuals that violate listing policy. I'm not aware of them restricting a company because someone does not like the product being sold. In this case it seems to me that there are several companies with the same product (coin grading) all doing business on ebay. But ebay decides that some of these companies have an inferior product and implies to the public that the product is inferior by not allowing the coins to be advertised as certified. I have a hard time believing a court will let that stand.
Most people on this board would likely agree the product is inferior, but I doubt that the law will agree because there too many different standards and everyone that testifies will agree that grading is subjective. NNC and ACG have different standards than PCGS, but I doubt that anyone will be able to prove one set of standards is right and the other wrong. >>
I can see it now......."RCGS"..Raybo Coin Grading Service.
I'm working on a 1000 point grading system just to be unique.
Ray
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>The "subjectivity" of grading argument only goes so far. If the variance exceeds a reasonable range then a very strong argument can be made that the standard isn't really "subjective", but rather deliberate. >>
Yep, that's the $64,000 (or so) question. When does subjectivity move to fraud? A cleaned F Morgan dollar "certified" as MS-67 DMPL? Yeah, probably an easy call. What about an MS-64 Morgan certified as a 66? Perhaps not.
Poor grading on it's own is not fraud. Poor grading with an intent to deceive is fraud.
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>I wonder if Robert Johnson's past testimony against ACG is admissable in this proceeding? I'd guess plaintiffs would not want to see that surface.
Russ, NCNE >>
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
On the plaintiff side, restraint of trade is very unpopular - and un-populist.
On the defendant side - did Ebay set a clear enough (and reasonable) line in establishing criteria for acceptable TPG's versus unacceptable ones?
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>I wonder if Robert Johnson's past testimony against ACG is admissable in this proceeding? I'd guess plaintiffs would not want to see that surface.
Russ, NCNE >>
Have you contacted Ebay yet to tell them you have some information their lawyers would probably want to review?
One big difference between this lawsuit and the last one is Ebay basically has infinite funds and is unlikely to cave like the ANA et al did.
<< <i>Poor grading on it's own is not fraud. Poor grading with an intent to deceive is fraud. >>
True. But I'd also say you could look for a preponderance of the evidence that a particular overgrading service was used primarily by con artists to fleece the public. And even though that's not proof of intent to defraud, it could be reasonably inferred that these crap slabbers intended to be a conduit for ripoff artists. Remember this would be a civil, not criminal, affair and that the burden of proof is lower.
<< <i>
<< <i>"Most people on this board would likely agree the product is inferior, but I doubt that the law will agree because there too many different standards and everyone that testifies will agree that grading is subjective. NNC and ACG have different standards than PCGS, but I doubt that anyone will be able to prove one set of standards is right and the other wrong."
Correct, and well stated. But it confirms why eBay is within their rights to make such a decision. For me, it will be fun to see and hear the court and jury weigh in on the vague, nebulous and subjective industry of coin grading/slabbing. Nothing will change, eBay will win, the standards employed by the bigs will be vindicated, but it will be quite interesting along the way. >>
Well Mr. Pharmer I think you are wrong and I am a betting man. I am willing to put $1000.00 or $10K in escrow along side yours betting that the Plaintiffs prevail. By prevail I mean being paid money by the Defendants or their coins being allowed on eBay along side of the others. >>
As I've said before, I wish you had the guts to post your profile and give us an idea of who you are, Mr. Anonymous Bigbetter
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
The one thing I think eBay screwed up badly is overuse of the word "counterfeit". It will be very easy for the plaintiffs to produce thousands of real coins that were taken down and if they can get the judge focused on the "counterfeit" issue, then eBay is screwed. JMHO.
--Jerry
As for the grading, I like this from a seller of a bunch of Morgans.
<< <i>I recently broke up an album of Morgans and sent them to NNC for grading. Their grading numbers are a little high, but the price was right. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>"Most people on this board would likely agree the product is inferior, but I doubt that the law will agree because there too many different standards and everyone that testifies will agree that grading is subjective. NNC and ACG have different standards than PCGS, but I doubt that anyone will be able to prove one set of standards is right and the other wrong."
Correct, and well stated. But it confirms why eBay is within their rights to make such a decision. For me, it will be fun to see and hear the court and jury weigh in on the vague, nebulous and subjective industry of coin grading/slabbing. Nothing will change, eBay will win, the standards employed by the bigs will be vindicated, but it will be quite interesting along the way. >>
Well Mr. Pharmer I think you are wrong and I am a betting man. I am willing to put $1000.00 or $10K in escrow along side yours betting that the Plaintiffs prevail. By prevail I mean being paid money by the Defendants or their coins being allowed on eBay along side of the others. >>
As I've said before, I wish you had the guts to post your profile and give us an idea of who you are, Mr. Anonymous Bigbetter
I'm with you on this one, Pharmer. I got excited about taking smoe of that action, until I saw that the A.B. didn't have the cojones to post a profile
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>One big difference between this lawsuit and the last one is Ebay basically has infinite funds and is unlikely to cave like the ANA et al did. >>
Yeah, but the problem is that when you start making specific judgment calls on which services deserve to be "certified" and which have to be sold as raw, you are undermining your tried and true "just a venue" defense. So if eBay wins this one, it can still be used against them potentially in another dispute when they fall back on "we're just a venue" after someone sues them for being ripped off.
IMO, eBay is trying to have it both ways here. Either you are "just a venue" which allows a free-for-all (and exempts you from liability over bad transactions) or you exercise some amount of control over what is sold there. It's just not consistent to be "just a venue" while making qualititative judgments about which coins are "certified" and which are "raw." You are MORE than just a venue when you do that.
<< <i>
<< <i>The "subjectivity" of grading argument only goes so far. If the variance exceeds a reasonable range then a very strong argument can be made that the standard isn't really "subjective", but rather deliberate. >>
Maybe. On average, does (say) SEGS exceed that range? Keep in mind that almost everything they "get right" gets cracked out. That market bias needs to be considered any time a service's competence is in question.
There are good reasons why an outfit like SEGS isn't seen as top tier, but it seems to me that eBay is powerful enough that this is practically the "death penalty" on other slabbers besides the "blessed ones." And while they may deserve "second tier" status, I think SEGS (and perhaps even PCI) is legitimate enough that they don't deserve the numismatic capital punishment that should be coming to the self-slabbers and fourth-tier crap slabbers who are primarily in business to feed insanely overgraded crap to shady coin pushers so they can part cash-rich and coin sense-poor collectors and investors from their money. They deserve better than to be lumped in with scamming self-slabbers and the crappiest of the crap slabbers. >>
Now, we who pay close attention may conclude that it's a numismatic "death penalty", but eBay is just one of many venues, and as a single venue it cannot reasonably assumed their policy results in said capital punishment, unless they also are found to be a monopoly, which they are not, and cannot found to be when there are alternative venues, including those provided by members of this forum
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
The one thing I think eBay screwed up badly is overuse of the word "counterfeit". It will be very easy for the plaintiffs to produce thousands of real coins that were taken down and if they can get the judge focused on the "counterfeit" issue, then eBay is screwed. JMHO.
Why is this suit about grading and not just about eBay's legal right to limit, ban or categorize whatever they want, however they want? There is no legal right to be on eBay.
Wouldn't it be neat if the suit back-fired and testimony was used to indict the plaintiffs for fraud?? Neat settlement talks... SEGS and PCI move to Tier 1 category, the others go to prison.
<< <i>Now, we who pay close attention may conclude that it's a numismatic "death penalty", but eBay is just one of many venues, and as a single venue it cannot reasonably assumed their policy results in said capital punishment, unless they also are found to be a monopoly, which they are not, and cannot found to be when there are alternative venues, including those provided by members of this forum
Keep in mind that I'm trying to think like an average juror here, many of which aren't fans of big, huge powerful businesses that have the ability to destroy smaller businesses with arguably arbitrary judgment calls that can make or break a business.
For the average individual looking to sell into a large audience, there really *is* no alternative venue to eBay. Thus, even if it's not an actual monopoly, it is in many ways a de facto monopoly for practical purposes.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>"Most people on this board would likely agree the product is inferior, but I doubt that the law will agree because there too many different standards and everyone that testifies will agree that grading is subjective. NNC and ACG have different standards than PCGS, but I doubt that anyone will be able to prove one set of standards is right and the other wrong."
Correct, and well stated. But it confirms why eBay is within their rights to make such a decision. For me, it will be fun to see and hear the court and jury weigh in on the vague, nebulous and subjective industry of coin grading/slabbing. Nothing will change, eBay will win, the standards employed by the bigs will be vindicated, but it will be quite interesting along the way. >>
Well Mr. Pharmer I think you are wrong and I am a betting man. I am willing to put $1000.00 or $10K in escrow along side yours betting that the Plaintiffs prevail. By prevail I mean being paid money by the Defendants or their coins being allowed on eBay along side of the others. >>
As I've said before, I wish you had the guts to post your profile and give us an idea of who you are, Mr. Anonymous Bigbetter
I'm with you on this one, Pharmer. I got excited about taking smoe of that action, until I saw that the A.B. didn't have the cojones to post a profile
Hey, did I forget to mention I DON'T have the cojones to bet, on anything, ever?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>A couple of points:
Why is this suit about grading and not just about eBay's legal right to limit, ban or categorize whatever they want, however they want? There is no legal right to be on eBay. >>
When they start exercising "editorial control" on which businesses may have their product advertised as "certified" and which have to have the handicap of being considered "raw," they have overstepped their boundaries as "just a venue," I think.
So while I think they have the right to do this, I think it comes at the price of forfeiting their "we're just a venue" legal defense elsewhere.