if the major problems you describe are evident in auction pics, what are your reasons for returning?
and it sounds like you disagree with NGCs grading standards, because they allowed that major problem coin in a slab
ps, that coin looks like it could have very nice toning (which I like)
and regrettably, I predict in our lifetime, that will be legal tender in the USA >>
<< <i>can you link the sellers pics?
if the major problems you describe are evident in auction pics, what are your reasons for returning?
and it sounds like you disagree with NGCs grading standards, because they allowed that major problem coin in a slab
ps, that coin looks like it could have very nice toning (which I like)
and regrettably, I predict in our lifetime, that will be legal tender in the USA >>
I posted the sellers obverse picture i believe on page 2. It is the smallest picture in the entire thread. These problems were not evident in his pictures. I have not supplied any pictures of the obverse because there are no problems on the obv. I agree, the color was very nice and I was pleasantly surprised with that part but it was not enough to overcome the rest of the coin's problems.
<< <i>I am only pressing this issue because I sell on ebay too. >>
That you also sell on eBay is irrelevant, but let me ask you this- should a bidder win one of your auctions, what would you do if he emailed you after the auction, expecting concessions that were not offered in your terms and with which you did not agree?
<< <i>However it is definelty damage, mild damage at least, no? >>
Definitely? No. From others in this thread:
"I see flaws like those on coins graded up to at least MS63 from time to time." "Im my opinion you are being a bit picky. Not too bad at all for an AU coin." "I agree with Mark. That is not "major damage" for an AU55 coin."
As I said before, there's no reason you can't consider the coin damaged. Nobody is obligated to agree with you, however. And some people don't.
<< <i>I am only pressing this issue because I sell on ebay too. >>
That you also sell on eBay is irrelevant, but let me ask you this- should a bidder win one of your auctions, what would you do if he emailed you after the auction, expecting concessions that were not offered in your terms and with which you did not agree?
<< <i>However it is definelty damage, mild damage at least, no? >>
Definitely? No. From others in this thread:
"I see flaws like those on coins graded up to at least MS63 from time to time." "Im my opinion you are being a bit picky. Not too bad at all for an AU coin." "I agree with Mark. That is not "major damage" for an AU55 coin."
As I said before, there's no reason you can't consider the coin damaged. Nobody is obligated to agree with you, however. And some people don't. >>
Well what do you call a scratch? Is that not damage? Forget grades and 3rd party graders. Forget mild and sever adjectives. Is a scratch damage at the purest of levels? I dont see what else anyone can possibly call it. If certain damage is acceptable at certain grades it doesnt change that it is in fact damage by definition.
As such I did not violate the return parameters. There was damage on the coin I could not see in the scan.
This is ebay, reurn what you want, right or wrong. I sell on ebay and you might as well just accept a return and move on. No big deal to me. If you do not like it do not sell on ebay. Over the years i have taken back a few coins that the next buyer LOVED!!
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
<< <i>Well what do you call a scratch? Is that not damage? >>
What I think has nothing to do with the return policy of the seller.
<< <i>Forget grades and 3rd party graders. Forget mild and sever adjectives. >>
No, according to the return policy in the auction, you can't forget them.
<< <i>Is a scratch damage at the purest of levels? >>
Regarding returns for the auction you bid on, the answer to that question needs to come from NGC.
<< <i>As such I did not violate the return parameters. There was damage on the coin I could not see in the scan. >>
From the auction:
"So any problems concerning cleaning or grading WILL ONLY be refunded on IF an EBAY RECOGNIZED grading authority returns the coin to you WITH THE PROBLEM STATED ."
Did you send the coin in for grading and did it come back with the problem stated? Those are the seller's return parameters.
<< <i>This is ebay, reurn what you want, right or wrong. >>
So you're advocating that buyers violate eBay policy when it's convenient for them?
<< <i>Well what do you call a scratch? Is that not damage? >>
What I think has nothing to do with the return policy of the seller.
<< <i>Forget grades and 3rd party graders. Forget mild and sever adjectives. >>
No, according to the return policy in the auction, you can't forget them.
<< <i>Is a scratch damage at the purest of levels? >>
Regarding returns for the auction you bid on, the answer to that question needs to come from NGC.
<< <i>As such I did not violate the return parameters. There was damage on the coin I could not see in the scan. >>
From the auction:
"So any problems concerning cleaning or grading WILL ONLY be refunded on IF an EBAY RECOGNIZED grading authority returns the coin to you WITH THE PROBLEM STATED ."
Did you send the coin in for grading and did it come back with the problem stated? Those are the seller's return parameters.
<< <i>This is ebay, reurn what you want, right or wrong. >>
So you're advocating that buyers violate eBay policy when it's convenient for them? >>
mrpotatoheadd continues to address the questions and issues at hand with facts and calm reason. I would love to have him on my debate team, or my legal time.
I am not going to get into the seller's return policy but with all due respect to those that seem to accept the rim dings and scratches on this coin to be acceptable, I am sorry, I disagree.
Please tell me that you would pay AU-55 money for this coin. I would not and in fact I have passed up many a coin in lower condition that had these "problems".
<< <i>I am very surprised by some of the responses.
I am not going to get into the seller's return policy but with all due respect to those that seem to accept the rim dings and scratches on this coin to be acceptable, I am sorry, I disagree.
Please tell me that you would pay AU-55 money for this coin. I would not and in fact I have passed up many a coin in lower condition that had these "problems".
Joe. >>
Joe, I believe that passing on such a coin, if offered to you via direct sale through the mail or viewed at a show or shop in person, is a very different matter. This was an auction, where the seller listed limited return privileges, which the buyer agreed to when he placed his bid.
The seller has the right to do that under Ebay's terms, and if a bidder is not willing to abide by those conditions, regardless of what he thinks of the coin, he should not bid. Both parties have a choice and should live with the consequences.
I too am very surprised at the stance by a couple of the prominent forum members. If this coin was raw those marks would be considered damage. Whether they are severe or mild that is besides the point. And if the pictures hid them that would be considered dishonest or incomplete at best. But suddenly because its in an NGC holder they are no longer damage??? That is buying the holder not the coin at its most extreme case outside of buying a holder without a coin in it at all! The most recent arguments make a case for buyers with no return policy not even posting pictures of the coin at all.
The bottom line is this. The coin did not look like the pictures and I did no like it. In spite of the return policy stated, this is a clear case of item not as described.
I'm sure I'll here the rebuke that it was only described as an AU 55 and that's what it is but that is opening up a can of debating worms that we can take pretty far....as far as descriptions that only read "it's a coin" and using that to scam people.
<< <i>I too am very surprised at the stance by a couple of the prominent forum members. If this coin was raw those marks would be considered damage. Whether they are severe or mild that is besides the point. And if the pictures hid them that would be considered dishonest or incomplete at best. But suddenly because its in an NGC holder they are no longer damage??? That is buying the holder not the coin at its most extreme case outside of buying a holder without a coin in it at all! The most recent arguments make a case for buyers with no return policy not even posting pictures of the coin at all.
The bottom line is this. The coin did not look like the pictures and I did no like it. In spite of the return policy stated, this is a clear case of item not as described.
I'm sure I'll here the rebuke that it was only described as an AU 55 and that's what it is but that is opening up a can of debating worms that we can take pretty far....as far as descriptions that only read "it's a coin" and using that to scam people. >>
I can't speak for others, but to me, the fact that the coin is in an NGC holder is irrelevant. And I strongly believe in buying the coin, not the holder. I also believe that that is perfectly consistent with advocating that bidders not bid sight unseen in auctions where there is a restricted return privilege or none at all.
<< <i>I too am very surprised at the stance by a couple of the prominent forum members. If this coin was raw those marks would be considered damage. Whether they are severe or mild that is besides the point. And if the pictures hid them that would be considered dishonest or incomplete at best. But suddenly because its in an NGC holder they are no longer damage??? That is buying the holder not the coin at its most extreme case outside of buying a holder without a coin in it at all! The most recent arguments make a case for buyers with no return policy not even posting pictures of the coin at all.
The bottom line is this. The coin did not look like the pictures and I did no like it. In spite of the return policy stated, this is a clear case of item not as described.
I'm sure I'll here the rebuke that it was only described as an AU 55 and that's what it is but that is opening up a can of debating worms that we can take pretty far....as far as descriptions that only read "it's a coin" and using that to scam people. >>
I can't speak for others, but to me, the fact that the coin is in an NGC holder is irrelevant. And I strongly believe in buying the coin, not the holder. I also believe that that is perfectly consistent with advocating that bidders not bid sight unseen in auctions where there is a restricted return privilege or none at all. >>
I still fail to see how these examples I showed arent "damage not seen in the pictures". Damage whether graded or not is damage. And if its not in the pics its not in the pics.
<< <i>I too am very surprised at the stance by a couple of the prominent forum members. If this coin was raw those marks would be considered damage. Whether they are severe or mild that is besides the point. And if the pictures hid them that would be considered dishonest or incomplete at best. But suddenly because its in an NGC holder they are no longer damage??? That is buying the holder not the coin at its most extreme case outside of buying a holder without a coin in it at all! The most recent arguments make a case for buyers with no return policy not even posting pictures of the coin at all.
The bottom line is this. The coin did not look like the pictures and I did no like it. In spite of the return policy stated, this is a clear case of item not as described.
I'm sure I'll here the rebuke that it was only described as an AU 55 and that's what it is but that is opening up a can of debating worms that we can take pretty far....as far as descriptions that only read "it's a coin" and using that to scam people. >>
I can't speak for others, but to me, the fact that the coin is in an NGC holder is irrelevant. And I strongly believe in buying the coin, not the holder. I also believe that that is perfectly consistent with advocating that bidders not bid sight unseen in auctions where there is a restricted return privilege or none at all. >>
I still fail to see how these examples I showed arent "damage not seen in the pictures". Damage whether graded or not is damage. And if its not in the pics its not in the pics. >>
You can call any flaw "damage" of one type or another, if you care too. You might even be correct. And most images, no matter how excellent they might be, don't show all of a coin's flaws.
However, as has already been pointed out, the "damage" issue is largely beside the point. The seller included conditions under which he accepted returns. And your complaint about the coin, whether justified or not, did not fall within those conditions. That's really the crux of the matter, whether you choose to accept it or not.
I'm confident that you will reply again. And you may have the last word, because I've said what I have to say and don't care to go round and round anymore. I suspect that deep down, you feel a little bit guilty about returning the coin.
<< <i>I too am very surprised at the stance by a couple of the prominent forum members. If this coin was raw those marks would be considered damage. Whether they are severe or mild that is besides the point. And if the pictures hid them that would be considered dishonest or incomplete at best. But suddenly because its in an NGC holder they are no longer damage??? That is buying the holder not the coin at its most extreme case outside of buying a holder without a coin in it at all! The most recent arguments make a case for buyers with no return policy not even posting pictures of the coin at all.
The bottom line is this. The coin did not look like the pictures and I did no like it. In spite of the return policy stated, this is a clear case of item not as described.
I'm sure I'll here the rebuke that it was only described as an AU 55 and that's what it is but that is opening up a can of debating worms that we can take pretty far....as far as descriptions that only read "it's a coin" and using that to scam people. >>
I can't speak for others, but to me, the fact that the coin is in an NGC holder is irrelevant. And I strongly believe in buying the coin, not the holder. I also believe that that is perfectly consistent with advocating that bidders not bid sight unseen in auctions where there is a restricted return privilege or none at all. >>
I still fail to see how these examples I showed arent "damage not seen in the pictures". Damage whether graded or not is damage. And if its not in the pics its not in the pics. >>
You can call any flaw "damage" of one type or another, if you care too. You might even be correct. And most images, no matter how excellent they might be, don't show all of a coin's flaws.
However, as has already been pointed out, the "damage" issue is largely beside the point. The seller included conditions under which he accepted returns. And your complaint about the coin, whether justified or not, did not fall within those conditions. That's really the crux of the matter, whether you choose to accept it or not.
I'm confident that you will reply again. And you may have the last word, because I've said what I have to say and don't care to go round and round anymore. I suspect that deep down, you feel a little bit guilty about returning the coin. >>
I will not respond in a matter as to conitune the debate. So in that regard that last word is yours. However I will say that it is apparent that you have a VERY strong bias to the dealer side of things.
<< <i>I alsways have trouble with thosebay sellers who don't allow a no questions asked return policy... >>
The only reason terms like that exist is because people insist on bidding in those auctions. If sellers with restricted return policies never got any bids, they'd either stop listing or modify their terms.
<< <i>I feel I agreed to the terms. The coin has damage not seein the pics. Plain and simple. >>
Here are the terms:
"So any problems concerning cleaning or grading WILL ONLY be refunded on IF an EBAY RECOGNIZED grading authority returns the coin to you WITH THE PROBLEM STATED ."
Did you send the coin to NGC and get it back with the problem stated?
<< <i>I alsways have trouble with thosebay sellers who don't allow a no questions asked return policy... >>
The only reason terms like that exist is because people insist on bidding in those auctions. If sellers with restricted return policies never got any bids, they'd either stop listing or modify their terms.
<< <i>I feel I agreed to the terms. The coin has damage not seein the pics. Plain and simple. >>
Here are the terms:
"So any problems concerning cleaning or grading WILL ONLY be refunded on IF an EBAY RECOGNIZED grading authority returns the coin to you WITH THE PROBLEM STATED ."
Did you send the coin to NGC and get it back with the problem stated? >>
My problems had nothing to do with cleaning or grading. NGC wants to call it an AU 55 fine by me. The coin had damage in areas that made the coin unappealing. The seller failed to show these in his pictures.
<< <i>If you can't agree to these terms DO NOT BID. >>
Quoted from the auction in question. You're not following his return parameters. This is just one reason why I no longer sale on eBay. >>
I feel I agreed to the terms. The coin has damage not seein the pics. Plain and simple. >>
Scratches have prevented coins from holdering while ANACS and SEGS have made note of them. What's been drilled into our heads does warrant a return. The seller knows full well that listing such problems and providing a detailed picture of the problems will prevent a sale. I'd be pissed because the seller failed to note such problems. Slabbed coins is the reason why we believe, "Buy the coin not the holder." I always get a kick out of having to ask, "are there any scratches, dings, marks, nicks, PVC, gouges, blemishes, carban spots, haze, dullness, low eye appeal on the coin that I should be worried about?" And the most common answer I get is, "it's been graded by one of the greatest grading companies around"! Of course that's always followed with, "I don't care!"
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
<< <i>I always get a kick out of having to ask, "are there any scratches, dings, marks, nicks, PVC, gouges, blemishes, carban spots, haze, dullness, low eye appeal on the coin that I should be worried about?" >>
You never have to ask if you buy from people with "no questions asked" return policies. How hard is that?
Sellers exact words: "Returns are accepted ONLY IF I omit mentioning damage that CANNOT be seen in the scan "
1) A scratch is damage 2) He ommited to mention it 3) The scratch is not seen in the scan
If anyone argues agasint #1 because of the mere fact that someone at NGC looked at it then that is a ridiculous argument. Damage is damage no matter who looks at it. If this seller did not intend to accept returns on slabbed coins then that should be his policy "No returns on slabbed coins". I see that on many sellers and I ususally do not bid.
Before someone tries to remind me that the certification of a coin is suppose to make sight-unseen buying safer, it's still a "grab bag" sale and I'll always have the right to refuse it. If their terms are too confussing then I'll pass. I'm not accepting a coin that does not meet the grade. How many times have any of you just sat there pondering over a grade assigned to a coin. Possibly thinking that it's close but does not meet the assign grade but you keep it anyway, Because you figured you can revamp your costs by selling it yourself rather than go through the all the trouble of mailing it back? Coins that don't meet this possibilty usually get returned no matter what the return policy says.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
<< <i>I always get a kick out of having to ask, "are there any scratches, dings, marks, nicks, PVC, gouges, blemishes, carban spots, haze, dullness, low eye appeal on the coin that I should be worried about?" >>
You never have to ask if you buy from people with "no questions asked" return policies. How hard is that? >>
As long as they pay P&H both ways that would be great! Not!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Just getting tired of your trying to make your point. "I'm right, there's DAMAGE!!" Waahhhh---
Can I have your Ebay handle so I can block you from my auctions? >>
It would be best that you provide yours so if he ever comes across your auctions, he can avoid them. Otherwise, whether he gives you his ebay handle or not, if you have something that he wants, he can always have someone else bid on it. See how rediculous your statement is?
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Just getting tired of your trying to make your point. "I'm right, there's DAMAGE!!" Waahhhh---
Can I have your Ebay handle so I can block you from my auctions? >>
It would be best that you provide yours so if he ever comes across your auctions, he can avoid them. Otherwise, whether he gives you his ebay handle or not, if you have something that he wants, he can always have someone else bid on it. See how rediculous your statement is?
Leo >>
His overpriced dreck morgans are safe from my coin returning claws.
I have gotten the urge to use names that would get me banned so I am done with this thread. If anyone would like to block me please PM me your ebay ID as well so we can insure we dont ever do business. Again my handle on ebay is Acaetano18. Thanks for everyones input on both sides.
<< <i>As long as they pay P&H both ways that would be great! Not! >>
An auction is not an approval service. If you're not confident that the coin is described properly, you shouldn't be bidding.
Not that this stops people from bidding anyway, of course. >>
But they always say, "feel free to ask questions before bidding!"
When the time comes when I find myself having to stand in line for my next "soup of the day" handout, the, "this is not an approval sale", will start to make some sense.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
NH484000 has aplogized in private and in public so I will do the same. I'm sorry to everyone I disagreed with and came across combative about it. I still disagree but and this is not where the thread was meant to go, but in a way I am glad it did because I thought i was within the terms of the return and that it was clean and dry case but I see now that it is not and that I have found surprising, interesting and good to know. I am out 8$ shipping costs both ways on this transaction if that helps anyone feel better about it. Not a lot of money but I dont make a habit of throwing 8$ away and that is 7$ more than the seller will be out if the 2nd chance guy buys the coin form him so I lose no matter what.
<< <i>But they always say, "feel free to ask questions before bidding!" >>
If you want to ask questions, you should go ahead and do it. I just thought that when you said "I always get a kick out of having to ask..., that that meant you didn't want to.
I am out 8$ shipping costs both ways on this transaction if that helps anyone feel better about it. Not a lot of money but I dont make a habit of throwing 8$ away and that is 7$ more than the seller will be out if the 2nd chance guy buys the coin from him so I lose no matter what.
Postage is what you invest to be able to see the coin in hand. This deal didn't work out but there are plenty of others out there. And $8 isn't a biggie considering it's a $150 coin. Despite the fact that he had a limited return policy, you'll get your refund one way or the other. The way ebay is set up all you need do is file a claim with them and with Paypal, and if that doesn't work, file a chargeback with your credit card company. Keep the DC info in case this is needed.
That said, I agree that the scratch on the obverse wasn't visible in their pics and I too wouldn't have been happy about it. Would it be a dealbreaker for me? That depends on exactly how nice the toning looks in hand. If it were a common date piece with sexy tone I wouldn't have given a second thought about keeping it even with the scratch. On a more valuable and scarcer date piece I'd have to think about it however. I'd also look to see what my downside is in XF.
<< <i> I am out 8$ shipping costs both ways on this transaction if that helps anyone feel better about it. Not a lot of money but I dont make a habit of throwing 8$ away and that is 7$ more than the seller will be out if the 2nd chance guy buys the coin from him so I lose no matter what.
Postage is what you invest to be able to see the coin in hand. This deal didn't work out but there are plenty of others out there. And $8 isn't a biggie considering it's a $150 coin. Despite the fact that he had a limited return policy, you'll get your refund one way or the other. The way ebay is set up all you need do is file a claim with them and with Paypal, and if that doesn't work, file a chargeback with your credit card company. Keep the DC info in case this is needed.
That said, I agree that the scratch on the obverse wasn't visible in their pics and I too wouldn't have been happy about it. Would it be a dealbreaker for me? That depends on exactly how nice the toning looks in hand. If it were a common date piece with sexy tone I wouldn't have given a second thought about keeping it even with the scratch. On a more valuable and scarcer date piece I'd have to think about it however. I'd also look to see what my downside is in XF. >>
I purchased a coin on the BST here and it was the same exact scenario. Except I didnt return the coin. The seller offered to do so, but I didnt think it was moentarily worth it to return it as by not liking it I could probably move it for a 5-10$ loss. The coin in this thread is a 1 year type, so not really a keydate. But my pictures would be much better than the sellers, which would mean a much greater loss as the coin with that blemish would probably go for XF money which is about half of AU money. In the end the coin is meant for my personal collection though, and I simply wasnt happy with it. And that is with nice toning ANY toning, being hard to find on these.
<< <i>I will not respond in a matter as to conitune the debate. So in that regard that last word is yours. However I will say that it is apparent that you have a VERY strong bias to the dealer side of things. >>
I have all the respect in the world for Mark, and many others on the board do, as well. If you read carefully what he says, consistently through any thread, he most certainly does not hold a dealer bias. Mark may be a dealer, but he has an ethical standard that far transcends that fact. When a dealer is right, he will say so. When a buyer is right, he will state that with the same confidence.
Now, I've read most of the replies to this thread, so here are my thoughts which largely agree with Mark, and come with any bias you want to associate with someone who sells coins on eBay, but also maintains a collection of carefully selected coins.
1- I likely would not purchase that coin. The mark you point out is distracting and I would probably hold out for a better example, unless the mark were less distracting when not blown up as in the image.
2- That's not a scratch that will be constituted as damage. If selling, I would describe it as a small mark and not dwell on it.
3- You provided two images. One of them doesn't show the mark, which, given your position, is likely not a message you intended to give. You've provided a great example of why no image can be perfect.
4- You purchased the coin with a small image that clearly can't be relied on to show surface defects. An image that size and quality would make an MS62 Morgan dollar with a hacked up face look like a gem. It's unreasonable to expect small marks to show up in an image like that; only the largest of gashes, which guaranteed would cause the coin to no-grade, would show.
5- The seller had a clear return policy. You didn't follow it. Complain as you may want to, you bid knowing the terms, and then you went around them when it didn't work your way. Because the coin is already graded by NGC, if you were to send it back in hopes that it were marked as a damaged coin, they would then cover the coin. Thus, if you followed the seller's return policy, he wouldn't have been involved anyway, because it would have fallen into NGC's policies.
6- When you buy a coin with a bad picture, you take a gamble. When you do so with a bad return policy, then you assume all risk.
7- No, I wouldn't deal this way. I would have better images, and I offer a no-questions-asked return policy. HOWEVER, when you bid on my auctions, you know that, and when you bid on this auction, you knew that WAS NOT the case. I wouldn't have bid on the auction because of those terms, or if I had, I would have recognized the possibility of disappointment.
In summary, I believe you're in the wrong here. Yes, buy the coin and not the holder, but when you bought the coin from those pictures, and without a return policy, you were in fact buying the holder and not the coin. There was no way to infer what was or wasn't present on the surfaces, and your gamble didn't pay off. I don't agree with the seller's practices and would not employ them myself, but they were clearly stated and you knew them.
If you had gotten a great deal because the coin was way better than you could have imagined from the photographs, would you have sent the seller more money? No. You took a gamble. You lost. You made a mistake. It's time to learn from it and move on.
OP-I understand your angst but that said, I wouldn't have bought this piece. For starters, there's no description, just a bunch of policies and disclaimers, as if he expects returns...plus, the pics are not the best, which would cause me to hit the "back" button right there.
Also...a point of clarification. The underbidder wouldn't necessarily get the item for $1 less than what you bid, unless the underbidder is an idiot. If I'm the underbidder I'd tell him "Well, if this guy who returned it hadn't bid, I'd have owned this for about $105- which is one increment over the third bidder's max bid." And I'd be right. So the seller here would be faced with either losing $45 or so, relisting the coin (and paying fees, etc. again), or selling it via a different venue. It's not as cut and dried as you think.
<< <i>I will not respond in a matter as to conitune the debate. So in that regard that last word is yours. However I will say that it is apparent that you have a VERY strong bias to the dealer side of things. >>
I have all the respect in the world for Mark, and many others on the board do, as well. If you read carefully what he says, consistently through any thread, he most certainly does not hold a dealer bias. Mark may be a dealer, but he has an ethical standard that far transcends that fact. When a dealer is right, he will say so. When a buyer is right, he will state that with the same confidence.
Now, I've read most of the replies to this thread, so here are my thoughts which largely agree with Mark, and come with any bias you want to associate with someone who sells coins on eBay, but also maintains a collection of carefully selected coins.
1- I likely would not purchase that coin. The mark you point out is distracting and I would probably hold out for a better example, unless the mark were less distracting when not blown up as in the image.
2- That's not a scratch that will be constituted as damage. If selling, I would describe it as a small mark and not dwell on it.
3- You provided two images. One of them doesn't show the mark, which, given your position, is likely not a message you intended to give. You've provided a great example of why no image can be perfect.
4- You purchased the coin with a small image that clearly can't be relied on to show surface defects. An image that size and quality would make an MS62 Morgan dollar with a hacked up face look like a gem. It's unreasonable to expect small marks to show up in an image like that; only the largest of gashes, which guaranteed would cause the coin to no-grade, would show.
5- The seller had a clear return policy. You didn't follow it. Complain as you may want to, you bid knowing the terms, and then you went around them when it didn't work your way. Because the coin is already graded by NGC, if you were to send it back in hopes that it were marked as a damaged coin, they would then cover the coin. Thus, if you followed the seller's return policy, he wouldn't have been involved anyway, because it would have fallen into NGC's policies.
6- When you buy a coin with a bad picture, you take a gamble. When you do so with a bad return policy, then you assume all risk.
7- No, I wouldn't deal this way. I would have better images, and I offer a no-questions-asked return policy. HOWEVER, when you bid on my auctions, you know that, and when you bid on this auction, you knew that WAS NOT the case. I wouldn't have bid on the auction because of those terms, or if I had, I would have recognized the possibility of disappointment.
In summary, I believe you're in the wrong here. Yes, buy the coin and not the holder, but when you bought the coin from those pictures, and without a return policy, you were in fact buying the holder and not the coin. There was no way to infer what was or wasn't present on the surfaces, and your gamble didn't pay off. I don't agree with the seller's practices and would not employ them myself, but they were clearly stated and you knew them.
If you had gotten a great deal because the coin was way better than you could have imagined from the photographs, would you have sent the seller more money? No. You took a gamble. You lost. You made a mistake. It's time to learn from it and move on. >>
Thank you Jeremy.
And for the record, in my previous posts to this thread, I had no idea whether the seller was a dealer or a collector. It wouldn't have mattered to me, either way. I only learned via PM that the seller was apparently a dealer. So, I had no bias to the "dealer side of things". I was merely siding with an unknown seller, under these specific circumstances. That was despite the fact that I don't like his return policy and would not bid in his auctions.
<< <i>So, I had no bias to the "dealer side of things". I was merely siding with an unknown seller, under these specific circumstances. That was despite the fact that I don't like his return policy and would not bid in his auctions. >>
This is a good way to be misunderstood. Many people will (wrongly, in many cases) assume that, if one supports someone's right to run his business as he sees fit, that one also agrees with how that someone runs his business.
Well it was never my intent to get into an argument over the grade of the coin. I feel I was trapped into that argument but ok, something might have bveen learned, I know its a tough crowd here and I suppose thats what you get when you post something potentially controversial. I have been blasted before over something I saw differently (I posted a link to an auction on ebay where the seller stated that "because PCGS had deemed the coin "enviromentally damaged" that meant the toning was natural".) I ended up being the wrong guy in that one too as per the forum members that argued for the seller which ill never understand but that's life. People disagree. Im sure it will happen again. My intent was never a dishonest one.
<< <i>I will not respond in a matter as to conitune the debate. So in that regard that last word is yours. However I will say that it is apparent that you have a VERY strong bias to the dealer side of things. >>
I have all the respect in the world for Mark, and many others on the board do, as well. If you read carefully what he says, consistently through any thread, he most certainly does not hold a dealer bias. Mark may be a dealer, but he has an ethical standard that far transcends that fact. When a dealer is right, he will say so. When a buyer is right, he will state that with the same confidence.
Now, I've read most of the replies to this thread, so here are my thoughts which largely agree with Mark, and come with any bias you want to associate with someone who sells coins on eBay, but also maintains a collection of carefully selected coins.
1- I likely would not purchase that coin. The mark you point out is distracting and I would probably hold out for a better example, unless the mark were less distracting when not blown up as in the image.
2- That's not a scratch that will be constituted as damage. If selling, I would describe it as a small mark and not dwell on it.
3- You provided two images. One of them doesn't show the mark, which, given your position, is likely not a message you intended to give. You've provided a great example of why no image can be perfect.
4- You purchased the coin with a small image that clearly can't be relied on to show surface defects. An image that size and quality would make an MS62 Morgan dollar with a hacked up face look like a gem. It's unreasonable to expect small marks to show up in an image like that; only the largest of gashes, which guaranteed would cause the coin to no-grade, would show.
5- The seller had a clear return policy. You didn't follow it. Complain as you may want to, you bid knowing the terms, and then you went around them when it didn't work your way. Because the coin is already graded by NGC, if you were to send it back in hopes that it were marked as a damaged coin, they would then cover the coin. Thus, if you followed the seller's return policy, he wouldn't have been involved anyway, because it would have fallen into NGC's policies.
6- When you buy a coin with a bad picture, you take a gamble. When you do so with a bad return policy, then you assume all risk.
7- No, I wouldn't deal this way. I would have better images, and I offer a no-questions-asked return policy. HOWEVER, when you bid on my auctions, you know that, and when you bid on this auction, you knew that WAS NOT the case. I wouldn't have bid on the auction because of those terms, or if I had, I would have recognized the possibility of disappointment.
In summary, I believe you're in the wrong here. Yes, buy the coin and not the holder, but when you bought the coin from those pictures, and without a return policy, you were in fact buying the holder and not the coin. There was no way to infer what was or wasn't present on the surfaces, and your gamble didn't pay off. I don't agree with the seller's practices and would not employ them myself, but they were clearly stated and you knew them.
If you had gotten a great deal because the coin was way better than you could have imagined from the photographs, would you have sent the seller more money? No. You took a gamble. You lost. You made a mistake. It's time to learn from it and move on. >>
His return policy states he will only accept returns if the coin has damage not mentioned in his description and not seen in the pictures. He did not describe the coin at all and had a small scan pic so the damage was not visibile at all.
Well, I guess it all depends on one's opinion on how long and deep a scratch needs to be before it constitutes damage on a coin and justifies a return.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
"SCRATCHES of a very minor nature may permit a coin to be certified, but use of this term in Details Grading indicates that the damage is more severe."
Wow, all this hullabaloo over the simple return of a coin...seems way easier a situation than this thread makes it out to be..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>If you can't agree to these terms DO NOT BID. >>
Quoted from the auction in question. You're not following his return parameters. This is just one reason why I no longer sale on eBay. >>
I feel I agreed to the terms. The coin has damage not seein the pics. Plain and simple. >>
It may not have damage, but it certainly has issues. No one expects a circulated coin to be flaw free. I agree the pics did not truly represent the coin.
<< <i>I too am very surprised at the stance by a couple of the prominent forum members. If this coin was raw those marks would be considered damage. Whether they are severe or mild that is besides the point. And if the pictures hid them that would be considered dishonest or incomplete at best. But suddenly because its in an NGC holder they are no longer damage??? That is buying the holder not the coin at its most extreme case outside of buying a holder without a coin in it at all! The most recent arguments make a case for buyers with no return policy not even posting pictures of the coin at all.
The bottom line is this. The coin did not look like the pictures and I did no like it. In spite of the return policy stated, this is a clear case of item not as described.
I'm sure I'll here the rebuke that it was only described as an AU 55 and that's what it is but that is opening up a can of debating worms that we can take pretty far....as far as descriptions that only read "it's a coin" and using that to scam people. >>
I can't speak for others, but to me, the fact that the coin is in an NGC holder is irrelevant. And I strongly believe in buying the coin, not the holder. I also believe that that is perfectly consistent with advocating that bidders not bid sight unseen in auctions where there is a restricted return privilege or none at all. >>
Unfortunately, it would seem that the seller's outlook is quite the opposite of yours Mark. To him NGC's slab is everything and he is definitely selling the plastic and not the coin. If NGC slabbed it there can be nothing wrong with it. Of course it doesn't mean that everyone will like it. He apparently made sure that any issues with the coin [even tho it was graded] were not visible to any buyer viewing his listings.
"SCRATCHES of a very minor nature may permit a coin to be certified, but use of this term in Details Grading indicates that the damage is more severe." >>
It might help someone who is not familiar with NGC....... Again, "buy the coin and not the holder!"
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Comments
<< <i>can you link the sellers pics?
if the major problems you describe are evident in auction pics, what are your reasons for returning?
and it sounds like you disagree with NGCs grading standards, because they allowed that major problem coin in a slab
ps, that coin looks like it could have very nice toning (which I like)
and regrettably, I predict in our lifetime, that will be legal tender in the USA >>
<< <i>can you link the sellers pics?
if the major problems you describe are evident in auction pics, what are your reasons for returning?
and it sounds like you disagree with NGCs grading standards, because they allowed that major problem coin in a slab
ps, that coin looks like it could have very nice toning (which I like)
and regrettably, I predict in our lifetime, that will be legal tender in the USA >>
I posted the sellers obverse picture i believe on page 2. It is the smallest picture in the entire thread. These problems were not evident in his pictures. I have not supplied any pictures of the obverse because there are no problems on the obv. I agree, the color was very nice and I was pleasantly surprised with that part but it was not enough to overcome the rest of the coin's problems.
<< <i>I am only pressing this issue because I sell on ebay too. >>
That you also sell on eBay is irrelevant, but let me ask you this- should a bidder win one of your auctions, what would you do if he emailed you after the auction, expecting concessions that were not offered in your terms and with which you did not agree?
<< <i>However it is definelty damage, mild damage at least, no? >>
Definitely? No. From others in this thread:
"I see flaws like those on coins graded up to at least MS63 from time to time."
"Im my opinion you are being a bit picky. Not too bad at all for an AU coin."
"I agree with Mark. That is not "major damage" for an AU55 coin."
As I said before, there's no reason you can't consider the coin damaged. Nobody is obligated to agree with you, however. And some people don't.
<< <i>
<< <i>I am only pressing this issue because I sell on ebay too. >>
That you also sell on eBay is irrelevant, but let me ask you this- should a bidder win one of your auctions, what would you do if he emailed you after the auction, expecting concessions that were not offered in your terms and with which you did not agree?
<< <i>However it is definelty damage, mild damage at least, no? >>
Definitely? No. From others in this thread:
"I see flaws like those on coins graded up to at least MS63 from time to time."
"Im my opinion you are being a bit picky. Not too bad at all for an AU coin."
"I agree with Mark. That is not "major damage" for an AU55 coin."
As I said before, there's no reason you can't consider the coin damaged. Nobody is obligated to agree with you, however. And some people don't. >>
Well what do you call a scratch? Is that not damage? Forget grades and 3rd party graders. Forget mild and sever adjectives. Is a scratch damage at the purest of levels?
I dont see what else anyone can possibly call it. If certain damage is acceptable at certain grades it doesnt change that it is in fact damage by definition.
As such I did not violate the return parameters. There was damage on the coin I could not see in the scan.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>Well what do you call a scratch? Is that not damage? >>
What I think has nothing to do with the return policy of the seller.
<< <i>Forget grades and 3rd party graders. Forget mild and sever adjectives. >>
No, according to the return policy in the auction, you can't forget them.
<< <i>Is a scratch damage at the purest of levels? >>
Regarding returns for the auction you bid on, the answer to that question needs to come from NGC.
<< <i>As such I did not violate the return parameters. There was damage on the coin I could not see in the scan. >>
From the auction:
"So any problems concerning cleaning or grading WILL ONLY be refunded on IF an EBAY RECOGNIZED grading authority returns the coin to you WITH THE PROBLEM STATED ."
Did you send the coin in for grading and did it come back with the problem stated? Those are the seller's return parameters.
<< <i>This is ebay, reurn what you want, right or wrong. >>
So you're advocating that buyers violate eBay policy when it's convenient for them?
<< <i>
<< <i>Well what do you call a scratch? Is that not damage? >>
What I think has nothing to do with the return policy of the seller.
<< <i>Forget grades and 3rd party graders. Forget mild and sever adjectives. >>
No, according to the return policy in the auction, you can't forget them.
<< <i>Is a scratch damage at the purest of levels? >>
Regarding returns for the auction you bid on, the answer to that question needs to come from NGC.
<< <i>As such I did not violate the return parameters. There was damage on the coin I could not see in the scan. >>
From the auction:
"So any problems concerning cleaning or grading WILL ONLY be refunded on IF an EBAY RECOGNIZED grading authority returns the coin to you WITH THE PROBLEM STATED ."
Did you send the coin in for grading and did it come back with the problem stated? Those are the seller's return parameters.
<< <i>This is ebay, reurn what you want, right or wrong. >>
So you're advocating that buyers violate eBay policy when it's convenient for them? >>
mrpotatoheadd continues to address the questions and issues at hand with facts and calm reason. I would love to have him on my debate team, or my legal time.
I am not going to get into the seller's return policy but with all due respect to those that seem to accept the rim dings and scratches on this coin to be acceptable, I am sorry, I disagree.
Please tell me that you would pay AU-55 money for this coin. I would not and in fact I have passed up many a coin in lower condition that had these "problems".
Joe.
<< <i>I am very surprised by some of the responses.
I am not going to get into the seller's return policy but with all due respect to those that seem to accept the rim dings and scratches on this coin to be acceptable, I am sorry, I disagree.
Please tell me that you would pay AU-55 money for this coin. I would not and in fact I have passed up many a coin in lower condition that had these "problems".
Joe. >>
Joe, I believe that passing on such a coin, if offered to you via direct sale through the mail or viewed at a show or shop in person, is a very different matter. This was an auction, where the seller listed limited return privileges, which the buyer agreed to when he placed his bid.
The seller has the right to do that under Ebay's terms, and if a bidder is not willing to abide by those conditions, regardless of what he thinks of the coin, he should not bid. Both parties have a choice and should live with the consequences.
The bottom line is this. The coin did not look like the pictures and I did no like it. In spite of the return policy stated, this is a clear case of item not as described.
I'm sure I'll here the rebuke that it was only described as an AU 55 and that's what it is but that is opening up a can of debating worms that we can take pretty far....as far as descriptions that only read "it's a coin" and using that to scam people.
<< <i>I too am very surprised at the stance by a couple of the prominent forum members. If this coin was raw those marks would be considered damage. Whether they are severe or mild that is besides the point. And if the pictures hid them that would be considered dishonest or incomplete at best. But suddenly because its in an NGC holder they are no longer damage??? That is buying the holder not the coin at its most extreme case outside of buying a holder without a coin in it at all! The most recent arguments make a case for buyers with no return policy not even posting pictures of the coin at all.
The bottom line is this. The coin did not look like the pictures and I did no like it. In spite of the return policy stated, this is a clear case of item not as described.
I'm sure I'll here the rebuke that it was only described as an AU 55 and that's what it is but that is opening up a can of debating worms that we can take pretty far....as far as descriptions that only read "it's a coin" and using that to scam people. >>
I can't speak for others, but to me, the fact that the coin is in an NGC holder is irrelevant. And I strongly believe in buying the coin, not the holder. I also believe that that is perfectly consistent with advocating that bidders not bid sight unseen in auctions where there is a restricted return privilege or none at all.
<< <i>
<< <i>I too am very surprised at the stance by a couple of the prominent forum members. If this coin was raw those marks would be considered damage. Whether they are severe or mild that is besides the point. And if the pictures hid them that would be considered dishonest or incomplete at best. But suddenly because its in an NGC holder they are no longer damage??? That is buying the holder not the coin at its most extreme case outside of buying a holder without a coin in it at all! The most recent arguments make a case for buyers with no return policy not even posting pictures of the coin at all.
The bottom line is this. The coin did not look like the pictures and I did no like it. In spite of the return policy stated, this is a clear case of item not as described.
I'm sure I'll here the rebuke that it was only described as an AU 55 and that's what it is but that is opening up a can of debating worms that we can take pretty far....as far as descriptions that only read "it's a coin" and using that to scam people. >>
I can't speak for others, but to me, the fact that the coin is in an NGC holder is irrelevant. And I strongly believe in buying the coin, not the holder. I also believe that that is perfectly consistent with advocating that bidders not bid sight unseen in auctions where there is a restricted return privilege or none at all. >>
I still fail to see how these examples I showed arent "damage not seen in the pictures". Damage whether graded or not is damage. And if its not in the pics its not in the pics.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I too am very surprised at the stance by a couple of the prominent forum members. If this coin was raw those marks would be considered damage. Whether they are severe or mild that is besides the point. And if the pictures hid them that would be considered dishonest or incomplete at best. But suddenly because its in an NGC holder they are no longer damage??? That is buying the holder not the coin at its most extreme case outside of buying a holder without a coin in it at all! The most recent arguments make a case for buyers with no return policy not even posting pictures of the coin at all.
The bottom line is this. The coin did not look like the pictures and I did no like it. In spite of the return policy stated, this is a clear case of item not as described.
I'm sure I'll here the rebuke that it was only described as an AU 55 and that's what it is but that is opening up a can of debating worms that we can take pretty far....as far as descriptions that only read "it's a coin" and using that to scam people. >>
I can't speak for others, but to me, the fact that the coin is in an NGC holder is irrelevant. And I strongly believe in buying the coin, not the holder. I also believe that that is perfectly consistent with advocating that bidders not bid sight unseen in auctions where there is a restricted return privilege or none at all. >>
I still fail to see how these examples I showed arent "damage not seen in the pictures". Damage whether graded or not is damage. And if its not in the pics its not in the pics. >>
You can call any flaw "damage" of one type or another, if you care too. You might even be correct. And most images, no matter how excellent they might be, don't show all of a coin's flaws.
However, as has already been pointed out, the "damage" issue is largely beside the point. The seller included conditions under which he accepted returns. And your complaint about the coin, whether justified or not, did not fall within those conditions. That's really the crux of the matter, whether you choose to accept it or not.
I'm confident that you will reply again. And you may have the last word, because I've said what I have to say and don't care to go round and round anymore. I suspect that deep down, you feel a little bit guilty about returning the coin.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I too am very surprised at the stance by a couple of the prominent forum members. If this coin was raw those marks would be considered damage. Whether they are severe or mild that is besides the point. And if the pictures hid them that would be considered dishonest or incomplete at best. But suddenly because its in an NGC holder they are no longer damage??? That is buying the holder not the coin at its most extreme case outside of buying a holder without a coin in it at all! The most recent arguments make a case for buyers with no return policy not even posting pictures of the coin at all.
The bottom line is this. The coin did not look like the pictures and I did no like it. In spite of the return policy stated, this is a clear case of item not as described.
I'm sure I'll here the rebuke that it was only described as an AU 55 and that's what it is but that is opening up a can of debating worms that we can take pretty far....as far as descriptions that only read "it's a coin" and using that to scam people. >>
I can't speak for others, but to me, the fact that the coin is in an NGC holder is irrelevant. And I strongly believe in buying the coin, not the holder. I also believe that that is perfectly consistent with advocating that bidders not bid sight unseen in auctions where there is a restricted return privilege or none at all. >>
I still fail to see how these examples I showed arent "damage not seen in the pictures". Damage whether graded or not is damage. And if its not in the pics its not in the pics. >>
You can call any flaw "damage" of one type or another, if you care too. You might even be correct. And most images, no matter how excellent they might be, don't show all of a coin's flaws.
However, as has already been pointed out, the "damage" issue is largely beside the point. The seller included conditions under which he accepted returns. And your complaint about the coin, whether justified or not, did not fall within those conditions. That's really the crux of the matter, whether you choose to accept it or not.
I'm confident that you will reply again. And you may have the last word, because I've said what I have to say and don't care to go round and round anymore. I suspect that deep down, you feel a little bit guilty about returning the coin.
>>
I will not respond in a matter as to conitune the debate. So in that regard that last word is yours. However I will say that it is apparent that you have a VERY strong bias to the dealer side of things.
<< <i>If you can't agree to these terms DO NOT BID. >>
Quoted from the auction in question. You're not following his return parameters.
This is just one reason why I no longer sell on eBay.
<< <i>
<< <i>If you can't agree to these terms DO NOT BID. >>
Quoted from the auction in question. You're not following his return parameters.
This is just one reason why I no longer sale on eBay. >>
I feel I agreed to the terms. The coin has damage not seein the pics. Plain and simple.
<< <i>I alsways have trouble with thosebay sellers who don't allow a no questions asked return policy... >>
The only reason terms like that exist is because people insist on bidding in those auctions. If sellers with restricted return policies never got any bids, they'd either stop listing or modify their terms.
<< <i>I feel I agreed to the terms. The coin has damage not seein the pics. Plain and simple. >>
Here are the terms:
"So any problems concerning cleaning or grading WILL ONLY be refunded on IF an EBAY RECOGNIZED grading authority returns the coin to you WITH THE PROBLEM STATED ."
Did you send the coin to NGC and get it back with the problem stated?
<< <i>
<< <i>I alsways have trouble with thosebay sellers who don't allow a no questions asked return policy... >>
The only reason terms like that exist is because people insist on bidding in those auctions. If sellers with restricted return policies never got any bids, they'd either stop listing or modify their terms.
<< <i>I feel I agreed to the terms. The coin has damage not seein the pics. Plain and simple. >>
Here are the terms:
"So any problems concerning cleaning or grading WILL ONLY be refunded on IF an EBAY RECOGNIZED grading authority returns the coin to you WITH THE PROBLEM STATED ."
Did you send the coin to NGC and get it back with the problem stated? >>
My problems had nothing to do with cleaning or grading. NGC wants to call it an AU 55 fine by me. The coin had damage in areas that made the coin unappealing. The seller failed to show these in his pictures.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If you can't agree to these terms DO NOT BID. >>
Quoted from the auction in question. You're not following his return parameters.
This is just one reason why I no longer sale on eBay. >>
I feel I agreed to the terms. The coin has damage not seein the pics. Plain and simple. >>
Scratches have prevented coins from holdering while ANACS and SEGS have made note of them. What's been drilled into our heads does warrant a return. The seller knows full well that listing such problems and providing a detailed picture of the problems will prevent a sale. I'd be pissed because the seller failed to note such problems. Slabbed coins is the reason why we believe, "Buy the coin not the holder."
I always get a kick out of having to ask, "are there any scratches, dings, marks, nicks, PVC, gouges, blemishes, carban spots, haze, dullness, low eye appeal on the coin that I should be worried about?"
And the most common answer I get is, "it's been graded by one of the greatest grading companies around"! Of course that's always followed with, "I don't care!"
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>I always get a kick out of having to ask, "are there any scratches, dings, marks, nicks, PVC, gouges, blemishes, carban spots, haze, dullness, low eye appeal on the coin that I should be worried about?"
You never have to ask if you buy from people with "no questions asked" return policies. How hard is that?
"Returns are accepted ONLY IF I omit mentioning damage that CANNOT be seen in the scan "
1) A scratch is damage
2) He ommited to mention it
3) The scratch is not seen in the scan
If anyone argues agasint #1 because of the mere fact that someone at NGC looked at it then that is a ridiculous argument. Damage is damage no matter who looks at it.
If this seller did not intend to accept returns on slabbed coins then that should be his policy "No returns on slabbed coins". I see that on many sellers and I ususally do not bid.
<< <i>Ok, just return the darn thing! >>
I did. This thread was suppose to be about whether I should enter the delivery confirmation into the ebay system or wait for the seller to act.
Just getting tired of your trying to make your point. "I'm right, there's DAMAGE!!" Waahhhh---
Can I have your Ebay handle so I can block you from my auctions?
<< <i>This thread was suppose to be about whether I should enter the delivery confirmation into the ebay system or wait for the seller to act. >>
Just hold on to the Del. Conf. for now. No need to open a claim.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>good to hear that-
Just getting tired of your trying to make your point. "I'm right, there's DAMAGE!!" Waahhhh---
Can I have your Ebay handle so I can block you from my auctions? >>
Sure Acaetano18. May I have yours too please.
<< <i>
<< <i>I always get a kick out of having to ask, "are there any scratches, dings, marks, nicks, PVC, gouges, blemishes, carban spots, haze, dullness, low eye appeal on the coin that I should be worried about?"
You never have to ask if you buy from people with "no questions asked" return policies. How hard is that? >>
As long as they pay P&H both ways that would be great! Not!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
"Acaetano18 - Invalid user I.D."
Why am I not surprised?
and no, you may not have mine until you provide a vaild User ID
<< <i>good to hear that-
Just getting tired of your trying to make your point. "I'm right, there's DAMAGE!!" Waahhhh---
Can I have your Ebay handle so I can block you from my auctions? >>
It would be best that you provide yours so if he ever comes across your auctions, he can avoid them. Otherwise, whether he gives you his ebay handle or not, if you have something that he wants, he can always have someone else bid on it.
See how rediculous your statement is?
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>
<< <i>good to hear that-
Just getting tired of your trying to make your point. "I'm right, there's DAMAGE!!" Waahhhh---
Can I have your Ebay handle so I can block you from my auctions? >>
It would be best that you provide yours so if he ever comes across your auctions, he can avoid them. Otherwise, whether he gives you his ebay handle or not, if you have something that he wants, he can always have someone else bid on it.
See how rediculous your statement is?
Leo >>
His overpriced dreck morgans are safe from my coin returning claws.
<< <i>As long as they pay P&H both ways that would be great! Not! >>
An auction is not an approval service. If you're not confident that the coin is described properly, you shouldn't be bidding.
Not that this stops people from bidding anyway, of course.
My comments got rather nasty, and I'd like to apologize. I'll keep my nose out of this one.
If anyone would like to block me please PM me your ebay ID as well so we can insure we dont ever do business. Again my handle on ebay is Acaetano18.
Thanks for everyones input on both sides.
<< <i>
<< <i>As long as they pay P&H both ways that would be great! Not! >>
An auction is not an approval service. If you're not confident that the coin is described properly, you shouldn't be bidding.
Not that this stops people from bidding anyway, of course.
But they always say, "feel free to ask questions before bidding!"
When the time comes when I find myself having to stand in line for my next "soup of the day" handout, the, "this is not an approval sale", will start to make some sense.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I still disagree but and this is not where the thread was meant to go, but in a way I am glad it did because I thought i was within the terms of the return and that it was clean and dry case but I see now that it is not and that I have found surprising, interesting and good to know. I am out 8$ shipping costs both ways on this transaction if that helps anyone feel better about it. Not a lot of money but I dont make a habit of throwing 8$ away and that is 7$ more than the seller will be out if the 2nd chance guy buys the coin form him so I lose no matter what.
<< <i>But they always say, "feel free to ask questions before bidding!" >>
If you want to ask questions, you should go ahead and do it. I just thought that when you said "I always get a kick out of having to ask..., that that meant you didn't want to.
Postage is what you invest to be able to see the coin in hand. This deal didn't work out but there are plenty of others out there. And $8 isn't a biggie considering it's a $150 coin. Despite the fact that he had a limited return policy, you'll get your refund one way or the other. The way ebay is set up all you need do is file a claim with them and with Paypal, and if that doesn't work, file a chargeback with your credit card company. Keep the DC info in case this is needed.
That said, I agree that the scratch on the obverse wasn't visible in their pics and I too wouldn't have been happy about it. Would it be a dealbreaker for me? That depends on exactly how nice the toning looks in hand. If it were a common date piece with sexy tone I wouldn't have given a second thought about keeping it even with the scratch. On a more valuable and scarcer date piece I'd have to think about it however. I'd also look to see what my downside is in XF.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i> I am out 8$ shipping costs both ways on this transaction if that helps anyone feel better about it. Not a lot of money but I dont make a habit of throwing 8$ away and that is 7$ more than the seller will be out if the 2nd chance guy buys the coin from him so I lose no matter what.
Postage is what you invest to be able to see the coin in hand. This deal didn't work out but there are plenty of others out there. And $8 isn't a biggie considering it's a $150 coin. Despite the fact that he had a limited return policy, you'll get your refund one way or the other. The way ebay is set up all you need do is file a claim with them and with Paypal, and if that doesn't work, file a chargeback with your credit card company. Keep the DC info in case this is needed.
That said, I agree that the scratch on the obverse wasn't visible in their pics and I too wouldn't have been happy about it. Would it be a dealbreaker for me? That depends on exactly how nice the toning looks in hand. If it were a common date piece with sexy tone I wouldn't have given a second thought about keeping it even with the scratch. On a more valuable and scarcer date piece I'd have to think about it however. I'd also look to see what my downside is in XF. >>
I purchased a coin on the BST here and it was the same exact scenario. Except I didnt return the coin. The seller offered to do so, but I didnt think it was moentarily worth it to return it as by not liking it I could probably move it for a 5-10$ loss. The coin in this thread is a 1 year type, so not really a keydate. But my pictures would be much better than the sellers, which would mean a much greater loss as the coin with that blemish would probably go for XF money which is about half of AU money. In the end the coin is meant for my personal collection though, and I simply wasnt happy with it. And that is with nice toning ANY toning, being hard to find on these.
<< <i>I will not respond in a matter as to conitune the debate. So in that regard that last word is yours. However I will say that it is apparent that you have a VERY strong bias to the dealer side of things. >>
I have all the respect in the world for Mark, and many others on the board do, as well. If you read carefully what he says, consistently through any thread, he most certainly does not hold a dealer bias. Mark may be a dealer, but he has an ethical standard that far transcends that fact. When a dealer is right, he will say so. When a buyer is right, he will state that with the same confidence.
Now, I've read most of the replies to this thread, so here are my thoughts which largely agree with Mark, and come with any bias you want to associate with someone who sells coins on eBay, but also maintains a collection of carefully selected coins.
1- I likely would not purchase that coin. The mark you point out is distracting and I would probably hold out for a better example, unless the mark were less distracting when not blown up as in the image.
2- That's not a scratch that will be constituted as damage. If selling, I would describe it as a small mark and not dwell on it.
3- You provided two images. One of them doesn't show the mark, which, given your position, is likely not a message you intended to give. You've provided a great example of why no image can be perfect.
4- You purchased the coin with a small image that clearly can't be relied on to show surface defects. An image that size and quality would make an MS62 Morgan dollar with a hacked up face look like a gem. It's unreasonable to expect small marks to show up in an image like that; only the largest of gashes, which guaranteed would cause the coin to no-grade, would show.
5- The seller had a clear return policy. You didn't follow it. Complain as you may want to, you bid knowing the terms, and then you went around them when it didn't work your way. Because the coin is already graded by NGC, if you were to send it back in hopes that it were marked as a damaged coin, they would then cover the coin. Thus, if you followed the seller's return policy, he wouldn't have been involved anyway, because it would have fallen into NGC's policies.
6- When you buy a coin with a bad picture, you take a gamble. When you do so with a bad return policy, then you assume all risk.
7- No, I wouldn't deal this way. I would have better images, and I offer a no-questions-asked return policy. HOWEVER, when you bid on my auctions, you know that, and when you bid on this auction, you knew that WAS NOT the case. I wouldn't have bid on the auction because of those terms, or if I had, I would have recognized the possibility of disappointment.
In summary, I believe you're in the wrong here. Yes, buy the coin and not the holder, but when you bought the coin from those pictures, and without a return policy, you were in fact buying the holder and not the coin. There was no way to infer what was or wasn't present on the surfaces, and your gamble didn't pay off. I don't agree with the seller's practices and would not employ them myself, but they were clearly stated and you knew them.
If you had gotten a great deal because the coin was way better than you could have imagined from the photographs, would you have sent the seller more money? No. You took a gamble. You lost. You made a mistake. It's time to learn from it and move on.
Also...a point of clarification. The underbidder wouldn't necessarily get the item for $1 less than what you bid, unless the underbidder is an idiot. If I'm the underbidder I'd tell him "Well, if this guy who returned it hadn't bid, I'd have owned this for about $105- which is one increment over the third bidder's max bid." And I'd be right. So the seller here would be faced with either losing $45 or so, relisting the coin (and paying fees, etc. again), or selling it via a different venue. It's not as cut and dried as you think.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
<< <i>I will not respond in a matter as to conitune the debate. So in that regard that last word is yours. However I will say that it is apparent that you have a VERY strong bias to the dealer side of things. >>
I have all the respect in the world for Mark, and many others on the board do, as well. If you read carefully what he says, consistently through any thread, he most certainly does not hold a dealer bias. Mark may be a dealer, but he has an ethical standard that far transcends that fact. When a dealer is right, he will say so. When a buyer is right, he will state that with the same confidence.
Now, I've read most of the replies to this thread, so here are my thoughts which largely agree with Mark, and come with any bias you want to associate with someone who sells coins on eBay, but also maintains a collection of carefully selected coins.
1- I likely would not purchase that coin. The mark you point out is distracting and I would probably hold out for a better example, unless the mark were less distracting when not blown up as in the image.
2- That's not a scratch that will be constituted as damage. If selling, I would describe it as a small mark and not dwell on it.
3- You provided two images. One of them doesn't show the mark, which, given your position, is likely not a message you intended to give. You've provided a great example of why no image can be perfect.
4- You purchased the coin with a small image that clearly can't be relied on to show surface defects. An image that size and quality would make an MS62 Morgan dollar with a hacked up face look like a gem. It's unreasonable to expect small marks to show up in an image like that; only the largest of gashes, which guaranteed would cause the coin to no-grade, would show.
5- The seller had a clear return policy. You didn't follow it. Complain as you may want to, you bid knowing the terms, and then you went around them when it didn't work your way. Because the coin is already graded by NGC, if you were to send it back in hopes that it were marked as a damaged coin, they would then cover the coin. Thus, if you followed the seller's return policy, he wouldn't have been involved anyway, because it would have fallen into NGC's policies.
6- When you buy a coin with a bad picture, you take a gamble. When you do so with a bad return policy, then you assume all risk.
7- No, I wouldn't deal this way. I would have better images, and I offer a no-questions-asked return policy. HOWEVER, when you bid on my auctions, you know that, and when you bid on this auction, you knew that WAS NOT the case. I wouldn't have bid on the auction because of those terms, or if I had, I would have recognized the possibility of disappointment.
In summary, I believe you're in the wrong here. Yes, buy the coin and not the holder, but when you bought the coin from those pictures, and without a return policy, you were in fact buying the holder and not the coin. There was no way to infer what was or wasn't present on the surfaces, and your gamble didn't pay off. I don't agree with the seller's practices and would not employ them myself, but they were clearly stated and you knew them.
If you had gotten a great deal because the coin was way better than you could have imagined from the photographs, would you have sent the seller more money? No. You took a gamble. You lost. You made a mistake. It's time to learn from it and move on. >>
Thank you Jeremy.
And for the record, in my previous posts to this thread, I had no idea whether the seller was a dealer or a collector. It wouldn't have mattered to me, either way. I only learned via PM that the seller was apparently a dealer. So, I had no bias to the "dealer side of things". I was merely siding with an unknown seller, under these specific circumstances. That was despite the fact that I don't like his return policy and would not bid in his auctions.
<< <i>So, I had no bias to the "dealer side of things". I was merely siding with an unknown seller, under these specific circumstances. That was despite the fact that I don't like his return policy and would not bid in his auctions. >>
This is a good way to be misunderstood. Many people will (wrongly, in many cases) assume that, if one supports someone's right to run his business as he sees fit, that one also agrees with how that someone runs his business.
Don't ask me how I know this.
(I posted a link to an auction on ebay where the seller stated that "because PCGS had deemed the coin "enviromentally damaged" that meant the toning was natural".)
I ended up being the wrong guy in that one too as per the forum members that argued for the seller which ill never understand but that's life. People disagree. Im sure it will happen again. My intent was never a dishonest one.
<< <i>
<< <i>I will not respond in a matter as to conitune the debate. So in that regard that last word is yours. However I will say that it is apparent that you have a VERY strong bias to the dealer side of things. >>
I have all the respect in the world for Mark, and many others on the board do, as well. If you read carefully what he says, consistently through any thread, he most certainly does not hold a dealer bias. Mark may be a dealer, but he has an ethical standard that far transcends that fact. When a dealer is right, he will say so. When a buyer is right, he will state that with the same confidence.
Now, I've read most of the replies to this thread, so here are my thoughts which largely agree with Mark, and come with any bias you want to associate with someone who sells coins on eBay, but also maintains a collection of carefully selected coins.
1- I likely would not purchase that coin. The mark you point out is distracting and I would probably hold out for a better example, unless the mark were less distracting when not blown up as in the image.
2- That's not a scratch that will be constituted as damage. If selling, I would describe it as a small mark and not dwell on it.
3- You provided two images. One of them doesn't show the mark, which, given your position, is likely not a message you intended to give. You've provided a great example of why no image can be perfect.
4- You purchased the coin with a small image that clearly can't be relied on to show surface defects. An image that size and quality would make an MS62 Morgan dollar with a hacked up face look like a gem. It's unreasonable to expect small marks to show up in an image like that; only the largest of gashes, which guaranteed would cause the coin to no-grade, would show.
5- The seller had a clear return policy. You didn't follow it. Complain as you may want to, you bid knowing the terms, and then you went around them when it didn't work your way. Because the coin is already graded by NGC, if you were to send it back in hopes that it were marked as a damaged coin, they would then cover the coin. Thus, if you followed the seller's return policy, he wouldn't have been involved anyway, because it would have fallen into NGC's policies.
6- When you buy a coin with a bad picture, you take a gamble. When you do so with a bad return policy, then you assume all risk.
7- No, I wouldn't deal this way. I would have better images, and I offer a no-questions-asked return policy. HOWEVER, when you bid on my auctions, you know that, and when you bid on this auction, you knew that WAS NOT the case. I wouldn't have bid on the auction because of those terms, or if I had, I would have recognized the possibility of disappointment.
In summary, I believe you're in the wrong here. Yes, buy the coin and not the holder, but when you bought the coin from those pictures, and without a return policy, you were in fact buying the holder and not the coin. There was no way to infer what was or wasn't present on the surfaces, and your gamble didn't pay off. I don't agree with the seller's practices and would not employ them myself, but they were clearly stated and you knew them.
If you had gotten a great deal because the coin was way better than you could have imagined from the photographs, would you have sent the seller more money? No. You took a gamble. You lost. You made a mistake. It's time to learn from it and move on. >>
His return policy states he will only accept returns if the coin has damage not mentioned in his description and not seen in the pictures. He did not describe the coin at all and had a small scan pic so the damage was not visibile at all.
Well, I guess it all depends on one's opinion on how long and deep a scratch needs to be before it constitutes damage on a coin and justifies a return.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>Well, I guess it all depends on one's opinion on how long and deep a scratch needs to be before it constitutes damage on a coin... >>
Does this help?
"SCRATCHES of a very minor nature may permit a coin to be certified, but use of this term in Details Grading indicates that the damage is more severe."
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If you can't agree to these terms DO NOT BID. >>
Quoted from the auction in question. You're not following his return parameters.
This is just one reason why I no longer sale on eBay. >>
I feel I agreed to the terms. The coin has damage not seein the pics. Plain and simple. >>
It may not have damage, but it certainly has issues. No one expects a circulated coin to be flaw free. I agree the pics did not truly represent the coin.
<< <i>
<< <i>I too am very surprised at the stance by a couple of the prominent forum members. If this coin was raw those marks would be considered damage. Whether they are severe or mild that is besides the point. And if the pictures hid them that would be considered dishonest or incomplete at best. But suddenly because its in an NGC holder they are no longer damage??? That is buying the holder not the coin at its most extreme case outside of buying a holder without a coin in it at all! The most recent arguments make a case for buyers with no return policy not even posting pictures of the coin at all.
The bottom line is this. The coin did not look like the pictures and I did no like it. In spite of the return policy stated, this is a clear case of item not as described.
I'm sure I'll here the rebuke that it was only described as an AU 55 and that's what it is but that is opening up a can of debating worms that we can take pretty far....as far as descriptions that only read "it's a coin" and using that to scam people. >>
I can't speak for others, but to me, the fact that the coin is in an NGC holder is irrelevant. And I strongly believe in buying the coin, not the holder. I also believe that that is perfectly consistent with advocating that bidders not bid sight unseen in auctions where there is a restricted return privilege or none at all. >>
Unfortunately, it would seem that the seller's outlook is quite the opposite of yours Mark. To him NGC's slab is everything and he is definitely selling the plastic and not the coin. If NGC slabbed it there can be nothing wrong with it. Of course it doesn't mean that everyone will like it. He apparently made sure that any issues with the coin [even tho it was graded] were not visible to any buyer viewing his listings.
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, I guess it all depends on one's opinion on how long and deep a scratch needs to be before it constitutes damage on a coin... >>
Does this help?
"SCRATCHES of a very minor nature may permit a coin to be certified, but use of this term in Details Grading indicates that the damage is more severe." >>
It might help someone who is not familiar with NGC....... Again, "buy the coin and not the holder!"
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection