<< <i>No. Obviously not but it is a helpful piece of information that would govern bidders bids.
An ethical seller would disclose that fact. >>
Is an ethical seller expected to disclose that he submitted a coin in an MS64 holder and it regraded MS65? >>
I would say a seller should disclose anything he knows that negatively affects the value of a coin. Should a seller disclose that a coin has been cleaned if he is pretty sure it has been cleaned? I say yes. If he disagrees with NGC's professional opnion that's fine, but don't hide the fact that NCG determined it to be cleaned in order to sell the coin for more than its worth. And, if he is going to hide this important fact, he should at least have the decency to provide a refund when he is caught at his deception. Not only is he ripping of his buyers with his non-disclosure and fictitous descriptions, he's setting them up for further loss when they spend money to have it graded again.
<< <i>I would say a seller should disclose anything he knows that negatively affects the value of a coin. >>
Is it possible the knowledge that a coin was resubmitted in order to get a higher grade would negatively affect its value? How about if it was resubmitted three times? Ten times?
Auction link not working, but toolhaus is. I clearly remember discussing the 14-d with him.......he knew it was fake and relisted anyways. He was a hot sauce customer.......NY state if I remember, name was Mike something.
<< <i>I would say a seller should disclose anything he knows that negatively affects the value of a coin. >>
Is it possible the knowledge that a coin was resubmitted in order to get a higher grade would negatively affect its value? How about if it was resubmitted three times? Ten times? >>
I would say a seller should disclose anything he knows that negatively affects the value of a coin. Do you disagree with that?
<< <i>Auction link not working, but toolhaus is. I clearly remember discussing the 14-d with him.......he knew it was fake and relisted anyways. He was a hot sauce customer.......NY state if I remember. >>
He pulled the listing after I linked it, tells me he's reading the thread. Maybe he'll provide insight to why he does business this way. And if I'm wrong in calling it deceptive, maybe he can correct me.
<< <i>I would say a seller should disclose anything he knows that negatively affects the value of a coin. >>
Is it possible the knowledge that a coin was resubmitted in order to get a higher grade would negatively affect its value? How about if it was resubmitted three times? Ten times? >>
I would say a seller should disclose anything he knows that negatively affects the value of a coin. Do you disagree with that? >>
This is not intended to be argumentative, but you repeated your statement without answering my question.
<< <i>He pulled the listing after I linked it, tells me he's reading the thread. Maybe he'll provide insight to why he does business this way. And if I'm wrong in calling it deceptive, maybe he can correct me. >>
Doubt you're going to get this. When this is on page 4 the auctions will go back up and it will be business as usual.
If you think so, you are not understanding what I've said here. >>
I kow that I've already stated that I don't understand why you are defending this seller and now it appears as if you're just being argumentative over totally irrelevent points.
The thread is about a seller that buys details graded coins, cracks them out and sells raw with out mention of the fact that a professional and reputable coin grading organization had previously graded the coin as cleaned.
The buyer should know this upfront since it does affect the bidding process. Should the seller disclose the information and the buyer doesn't see it or ignores it and then come whining home to mama that the seller won't take it back, it would be a different story. But no such disclosure has occured in the 1839-O auction.
AND the buyer has made his feedback private. Gee.........I wonder why?
Let me guess...........he wants to protect his buyers identities. Yeah that must be it.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>The thread is about a seller that buys details graded coins, cracks them out and sells raw with out mention of the fact that a professional and reputable coin grading organization had previously graded the coin as cleaned. >>
Yes- I read the first post. Truth of the matter, though- many threads contain discussions that are only tangentally related to the initial comment.
<< <i>The thread is about a seller that buys details graded coins, cracks them out and sells raw with out mention of the fact that a professional and reputable coin grading organization had previously graded the coin as cleaned. >>
Yes- I read the first post. Truth of the matter, though- many threads contain discussions that are only tangentally related to the initial comment.
Possibly this is one of those threads? >>
With that I'll agree.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>I would say a seller should disclose anything he knows that negatively affects the value of a coin. >>
Is it possible the knowledge that a coin was resubmitted in order to get a higher grade would negatively affect its value? How about if it was resubmitted three times? Ten times? >>
I would say a seller should disclose anything he knows that negatively affects the value of a coin. Do you disagree with that? >>
This is not intended to be argumentative, but you repeated your statement without answering my question. >>
You are asking should a seller disclose the fact that a coin being offered failed to upgrade. Yes, but only if seller is describing it as a good candidate for upgrade. If not being sold as a candidate for upgrade then a professionally recognized TPG's failure to upgrade has no bearing on it's current value.
Seller in question was deceptive when he sold a coin as "BU+ Mint State" and failed to disclose a professionally recognized TPG opinion of AU Cleaned Details. In all fairness to the buyer he should have disclosed the TPG opinion even if he disagreed with it. Removing it from it's problem coin holder and selling it as a non-problem coin fits my definition of deceptive.
<< <i>You are asking should a seller disclose the fact that a coin being offered failed to upgrade. >>
Actually, I was asking if a seller was expected to disclose that a coin that did upgrade failed at least one try before succeeding. >>
Depends on whether one sees that as having a negative affect on the value of the coin. I personally don't. I accept reputable TPG opinions as they were last documented. A TPG 64 remains a TPG 64 until it upgrades to a TPG 65. An AU Details Cleaned remains an AU Details Cleaned until a reputable TPG says otherwise. A TPG determined problem coin remains a problem coin until a reputable TPG says otherwise.
I have it from a reliable source that this seller has been reprimanded by eBay for this deceptive behavior. Now, if enough instances of his problem-coin crackout and resale "game" can be documented and reported to ebay I think his feet would be to the fire. This, of course, would require a time investment by interested individuals, with some time to spare.
<< <i>This, of course, would require a time investment by interested individuals, with some time to spare. >>
Or, and this is (IMO) much easier, buyers could just read the listings and when they get to the "No returns unless counterfeit" part, say to themselves "Why would I want to bid with terms like that?" and just move along to a seller with more favorable terms.
Yeah, I know... expecting people to take responsibility for their own actions- good luck with that, right?
<< <i>This, of course, would require a time investment by interested individuals, with some time to spare. >>
Or, and this is (IMO) much easier, buyers could just read the listings and when they get to the "No returns unless counterfeit" part, say to themselves "Why would I want to bid with terms like that?" and just move along to a seller with more favorable terms.
Yeah, I know... expecting people to take responsibility for their own actions- good luck with that, right?
And no- I am not taking the seller's side here. >>
You could have fooled me, a scammer is a scammer. Not everyone is as astute as yourself and many others when it comes to ebay. Many people actually think that people with 100 percent positive feedback must be honest individuals. What ever the case maybe, whether the buyer is naive or ignorant to the ways of a scammer, this scumbag deserves to loose his account... EOM
<< <i>Not everyone is as astute as yourself and many others when it comes to ebay. >>
If you expect to be able to return something which turns out to be unsatisfactory upon examination in person, how astute do you really have to be in order to avoid "no returns" auctions?
A scammer is a scammer, yes, but the OP said it is fraud. I see blatant overgrading, misrepresentation and sleazy practices, but when you accuse someone of fraud, and you are wrong, you leave yourself open to a suit, I would think. Although I am not a Lawyer and don't play one on TV. Like I said, what a way to start on the forum.
I would say it would be better to ask people to block the seller rather then boldly accuse someone of fraud right from the get-go.
<< <i>Not everyone is as astute as yourself and many others when it comes to ebay. >>
If you expect to be able to return something which turns out to be unsatisfactory upon examination in person, how astute do you really have to be in order to avoid "no returns" auctions? >>
You know something, altough I always put my auctions with a no return policy. I have had instances where buyers had legitimate concerns and I have accepted returns. I think any honest ebayer that has nothing to hide is more than willing to do that, when an honest mistake happens. Of course I do not expect to hold you to those high standards, but to each its own...
<< <i>A scammer is a scammer, yes, but the OP said it is fraud. I see blatant overgrading, misrepresentation and sleazy practices, but when you accuse someone of fraud, and you are wrong, you leave yourself open to a suit, I would think. Although I am not a Lawyer and don't play one on TV. Like I said, what a way to start on the forum.
I would say it would be better to ask people to block the seller rather then boldly accuse someone of fraud right from the get-go. >>
That is neither here or there, the guy is a scamming piece of crap, why should he not be outed as such? But you are entitled to your opinion and I respect it!
<< <i>You know something, altough I always put my auctions with a no return policy. I have had instances where buyers had legitimate concerns and I have accepted returns. >>
So your position is that everybody should be like you? Good luck with that.
<< <i>Of course I do not expect to hold you to those high standards, but to each its own... >>
Well, thank you so much- you are far too generous to a poor schlub like me. I can only hope, one day, to be as exceptional a seller as you. In order that I might be enlightened, could you post a link to your auctions, that I might, perhaps, learn from The Master?
<< <i>I have it from a reliable source that this seller has been reprimanded by eBay for this deceptive behavior. Now, if enough instances of his problem-coin crackout and resale "game" can be documented and reported to ebay I think his feet would be to the fire. This, of course, would require a time investment by interested individuals, with some time to spare. >>
Maybe it would be easier not to buy coins that are unslabbed, no returns accepted, and guaranteed only to be genuine.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>So your position is that everybody should be like you? Good luck with that. >>
Not at all my friend Let me explain it with bullets that even you may understand...
My Position is that not everyone that ha a no return policy is a scumbag
My Position is that although buyer could have avoided this problem altogether by not purchasing raw coins from a person with a no return policy, the seller did purposely misrepresented the coin and that makes him a scum bag
My position is that although both parties play a part, the only mistake buyer did was to buy, seller still concealed information that could have influenced buyers decision
My position is that anyone that thinks the sellers practice is acceptable they should at least post their ebay nicks so that we can all avoid their auctions
My position is that you appear to be a great individual and I respect your opinion, although I do not agree or share the same and there is nothing you can say or do to change that!
Note that I do not expect you to understand or agree with my position on the matter, but if you are unable to stay on topic and prefer to make the post about me; then maybe you should start your own thread or drop me a pm, heck we can exchange nice childhood stories...
<< <i>I have it from a reliable source that this seller has been reprimanded by eBay for this deceptive behavior. Now, if enough instances of his problem-coin crackout and resale "game" can be documented and reported to ebay I think his feet would be to the fire. This, of course, would require a time investment by interested individuals, with some time to spare. >>
Maybe it would be easier not to buy coins that are unslabbed, no returns accepted, and guaranteed only to be genuine. >>
I agree that the best first line of defense is an educated, alert buyer. The seller's listings are full of red flags for such buyers. However, to describe the coin other than it actually is-- with full knowledge of it's true condition-- is in my opinion a deliberate attempt to fleece the unwary. Many new collectors simply don't understand what a snakepit eBay can really be. As individuals, we can choose to look the other way and let people fend for themselves-- that's easy, and nothing wrong with that-- or individuals can choose to take action, which is harder.
<< <i>Well here's his 1889-CC he describes as "BU+ near gem mint state condition" 89-CC $ He then says cleaned or dipped in the end of the listing.......
Well here's the same coin that sold on Heritage in a NGC AU detail - whizzed holder Heritage auction >>
"BUT FOR ACCURACY COIN HAS LIKELY BEEN CLEANED AND/OR DIPPED." Looks like seller dipped it himself after removing from "whizzed" holder.
<< <i>Well here's his 1889-CC he describes as "BU+ near gem mint state condition" 89-CC $ He then says cleaned or dipped in the end of the listing.......
Well here's the same coin that sold on Heritage in a NGC AU detail - whizzed holder Heritage auction >>
"BUT FOR ACCURACY COIN HAS LIKELY BEEN CLEANED AND/OR DIPPED." Looks like seller dipped it himself after removing from "whizzed" holder. >>
Amazing that a polished coin can somehow become a near gem with blazing white luster....lol.
I get a kick out of the seller showing a photo of the coin being held on its edge with a pair of toothed plastic tweezers. Yup, that's how I handle all my expensive near gem coins. So what is the point of that photo? To show that the coin is a turd such that regardless of how it is handled it really can't get any worse?
<< <i>Note that I do not expect you to understand or agree with my position on the matter, >>
I understand the position you have taken on several points here, one of which involves your apparent insistence that I have said something I have not.
<< <i>... but if you are unable to stay on topic and prefer to make the post about me... >>
What are you? The Thread Police?
The parts about you are in response to comments directed at me. The first one began: "You could have fooled me, a scammer is a scammer", inferring that I have somehow posted in support of the seller in the first post (something I have not done). You then continued with this snide comment: "Not everyone is as astute as yourself", which is, of course, your perogative, but it seems rather hypocritical to complain when I follow your lead in my responses to you.
There is a reason why so many "mint" coins are offered raw on eBay. Why anyone would buy one, get a problem and then complain is beyond me. There is no free lunch, stay away from raw coins on-line.
I was the underbidder of a 1795 A/E FH half that was a hoard coin sold by Metal1 in 2008 on the bay. Seriouscoins won her. A couple weeks later, I see the coin on the bay by Seriouscoins - it had been dramatically AT'd and was darkly toned. Seller offered her with no mention of the history as a hoard coin - but of course the hallmark gave her away. Those who followed those coins are well aware of their appearance and the fact that the surfaces generally show hairlines and some residual dirt but virtually no toning. I called seller out on this in an email and expressed my dismay. The auction was stopped and seller blocked me (which I actually appreciate should I ever have a mental lapse and place a bid on one of his coins).
IMO, the intent to deceive is a practice that speaks volumes of the integrity or lack thereof of an individual.
<< <i>There is a reason why so many "mint" coins are offered raw on eBay. Why anyone would buy one, get a problem and then complain is beyond me. There is no free lunch, stay away from raw coins on-line. >>
The seller of a raw coin doesn't want the coin. Reasons vary from seller to seller, but if the coin was worth much more in a reputable holder, it would be in one.
Comments
<< <i>No. Obviously not but it is a helpful piece of information that would govern bidders bids.
An ethical seller would disclose that fact. >>
Is an ethical seller expected to disclose that he submitted a coin in an MS64 holder and it regraded MS65?
<< <i>
<< <i>No. Obviously not but it is a helpful piece of information that would govern bidders bids.
An ethical seller would disclose that fact. >>
Is an ethical seller expected to disclose that he submitted a coin in an MS64 holder and it regraded MS65? >>
I would say a seller should disclose anything he knows that negatively affects the value of a coin. Should a seller disclose that a coin has been cleaned if he is pretty sure it has been cleaned? I say yes. If he disagrees with NGC's professional opnion that's fine, but don't hide the fact that NCG determined it to be cleaned in order to sell the coin for more than its worth. And, if he is going to hide this important fact, he should at least have the decency to provide a refund when he is caught at his deception. Not only is he ripping of his buyers with his non-disclosure and fictitous descriptions, he's setting them up for further loss when they spend money to have it graded again.
Velocity, Not Valuation Defines A Bubble.
<< <i>I would say a seller should disclose anything he knows that negatively affects the value of a coin. >>
Is it possible the knowledge that a coin was resubmitted in order to get a higher grade would negatively affect its value? How about if it was resubmitted three times? Ten times?
<< <i>
<< <i>No. Obviously not but it is a helpful piece of information that would govern bidders bids.
An ethical seller would disclose that fact. >>
Is an ethical seller expected to disclose that he submitted a coin in an MS64 holder and it regraded MS65? >>
Obviously not since all coins prior to being submitted for grading are "no grades" or grades subject to the opinion of the owner.
I don't understand your position in defending this shark. What he's done is deceitful and you know it.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>I would say a seller should disclose anything he knows that negatively affects the value of a coin. >>
Is it possible the knowledge that a coin was resubmitted in order to get a higher grade would negatively affect its value? How about if it was resubmitted three times? Ten times? >>
I would say a seller should disclose anything he knows that negatively affects the value of a coin. Do you disagree with that?
<< <i>Auction link not working, but toolhaus is. I clearly remember discussing the 14-d with him.......he knew it was fake and relisted anyways. He was a hot sauce customer.......NY state if I remember. >>
He pulled the listing after I linked it, tells me he's reading the thread. Maybe he'll provide insight to why he does business this way. And if I'm wrong in calling it deceptive, maybe he can correct me.
Velocity, Not Valuation Defines A Bubble.
<< <i>I don't understand your position in defending this shark. >>
Where have I defended him?
<< <i>Do we know for fact this seller was the buyer and cracked the coins out?
So if I buy a proof coin with a little toning and dip it, I'm obligated by E-Bay rules to declare that? Right...that'll happen. >>
No we don;t James but the feedback evidence appears to indicate a pattern.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't understand your position in defending this shark. >>
Where have I defended him? >>
You are defending his actions by adding irrelevent questions to the thread thereby absolving the seller of his responsibility.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I would say a seller should disclose anything he knows that negatively affects the value of a coin. >>
Is it possible the knowledge that a coin was resubmitted in order to get a higher grade would negatively affect its value? How about if it was resubmitted three times? Ten times? >>
I would say a seller should disclose anything he knows that negatively affects the value of a coin. Do you disagree with that? >>
This is not intended to be argumentative, but you repeated your statement without answering my question.
<< <i>You are defending his actions. >>
If you think so, you are not understanding what I've said here.
<< <i>He pulled the listing after I linked it, tells me he's reading the thread. Maybe he'll provide insight to why he does business this way. And if I'm wrong in calling it deceptive, maybe he can correct me. >>
Doubt you're going to get this. When this is on page 4 the auctions will go back up and it will be business as usual.
<< <i>
<< <i>You are defending his actions. >>
If you think so, you are not understanding what I've said here. >>
I kow that I've already stated that I don't understand why you are defending this seller and now it appears as if you're just being argumentative over totally irrelevent points.
The thread is about a seller that buys details graded coins, cracks them out and sells raw with out mention of the fact that a professional and reputable coin grading organization had previously graded the coin as cleaned.
The buyer should know this upfront since it does affect the bidding process. Should the seller disclose the information and the buyer doesn't see it or ignores it and then come whining home to mama that the seller won't take it back, it would be a different story. But no such disclosure has occured in the 1839-O auction.
AND the buyer has made his feedback private. Gee.........I wonder why?
Let me guess...........he wants to protect his buyers identities. Yeah that must be it.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>why you are defending this seller and now it appears as if you're just being argumentative over totally irrelevent points. >>
Endeavor to not mistake pedantry with malice
<< <i>
<< <i>why you are defending this seller and now it appears as if you're just being argumentative over totally irrelevent points. >>
Endeavor to not mistake pedantry with malice
I gotta go look that up.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>The thread is about a seller that buys details graded coins, cracks them out and sells raw with out mention of the fact that a professional and reputable coin grading organization had previously graded the coin as cleaned. >>
Yes- I read the first post. Truth of the matter, though- many threads contain discussions that are only tangentally related to the initial comment.
Possibly this is one of those threads?
<< <i>
<< <i>The thread is about a seller that buys details graded coins, cracks them out and sells raw with out mention of the fact that a professional and reputable coin grading organization had previously graded the coin as cleaned. >>
Yes- I read the first post. Truth of the matter, though- many threads contain discussions that are only tangentally related to the initial comment.
Possibly this is one of those threads?
With that I'll agree.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I would say a seller should disclose anything he knows that negatively affects the value of a coin. >>
Is it possible the knowledge that a coin was resubmitted in order to get a higher grade would negatively affect its value? How about if it was resubmitted three times? Ten times? >>
I would say a seller should disclose anything he knows that negatively affects the value of a coin. Do you disagree with that? >>
This is not intended to be argumentative, but you repeated your statement without answering my question. >>
You are asking should a seller disclose the fact that a coin being offered failed to upgrade. Yes, but only if seller is describing it as a good candidate for upgrade. If not being sold as a candidate for upgrade then a professionally recognized TPG's failure to upgrade has no bearing on it's current value.
Seller in question was deceptive when he sold a coin as "BU+ Mint State" and failed to disclose a professionally recognized TPG opinion of AU Cleaned Details. In all fairness to the buyer he should have disclosed the TPG opinion even if he disagreed with it. Removing it from it's problem coin holder and selling it as a non-problem coin fits my definition of deceptive.
Velocity, Not Valuation Defines A Bubble.
<< <i>You are asking should a seller disclose the fact that a coin being offered failed to upgrade. >>
Actually, I was asking if a seller was expected to disclose that a coin that did upgrade failed at least one try before succeeding.
<< <i>
<< <i>You are asking should a seller disclose the fact that a coin being offered failed to upgrade. >>
Actually, I was asking if a seller was expected to disclose that a coin that did upgrade failed at least one try before succeeding. >>
Depends on whether one sees that as having a negative affect on the value of the coin. I personally don't. I accept reputable TPG opinions as they were last documented. A TPG 64 remains a TPG 64 until it upgrades to a TPG 65. An AU Details Cleaned remains an AU Details Cleaned until a reputable TPG says otherwise. A TPG determined problem coin remains a problem coin until a reputable TPG says otherwise.
Velocity, Not Valuation Defines A Bubble.
<< <i>Depends on whether one sees that as having a negative affect on the value of the coin. I personally don't. >>
Fair enough. But I'll bet that some people *do* think it has a negative affect. Would you agree?
What a way to start posting here!
<< <i>This, of course, would require a time investment by interested individuals, with some time to spare. >>
Or, and this is (IMO) much easier, buyers could just read the listings and when they get to the "No returns unless counterfeit" part, say to themselves "Why would I want to bid with terms like that?" and just move along to a seller with more favorable terms.
Yeah, I know... expecting people to take responsibility for their own actions- good luck with that, right?
And no- I am not taking the seller's side here.
<< <i>
<< <i>This, of course, would require a time investment by interested individuals, with some time to spare. >>
Or, and this is (IMO) much easier, buyers could just read the listings and when they get to the "No returns unless counterfeit" part, say to themselves "Why would I want to bid with terms like that?" and just move along to a seller with more favorable terms.
Yeah, I know... expecting people to take responsibility for their own actions- good luck with that, right?
And no- I am not taking the seller's side here. >>
You could have fooled me, a scammer is a scammer. Not everyone is as astute as yourself and many others when it comes to ebay. Many people actually think that people with 100 percent positive feedback must be honest individuals. What ever the case maybe, whether the buyer is naive or ignorant to the ways of a scammer, this scumbag deserves to loose his account... EOM
<< <i>Not everyone is as astute as yourself and many others when it comes to ebay. >>
If you expect to be able to return something which turns out to be unsatisfactory upon examination in person, how astute do you really have to be in order to avoid "no returns" auctions?
I would say it would be better to ask people to block the seller rather then boldly accuse someone of fraud right from the get-go.
<< <i>
<< <i>Not everyone is as astute as yourself and many others when it comes to ebay. >>
If you expect to be able to return something which turns out to be unsatisfactory upon examination in person, how astute do you really have to be in order to avoid "no returns" auctions?
You know something, altough I always put my auctions with a no return policy. I have had instances where buyers had legitimate concerns and I have accepted returns. I think any honest ebayer that has nothing to hide is more than willing to do that, when an honest mistake happens. Of course I do not expect to hold you to those high standards, but to each its own...
<< <i>A scammer is a scammer, yes, but the OP said it is fraud. I see blatant overgrading, misrepresentation and sleazy practices, but when you accuse someone of fraud, and you are wrong, you leave yourself open to a suit, I would think. Although I am not a Lawyer and don't play one on TV. Like I said, what a way to start on the forum.
I would say it would be better to ask people to block the seller rather then boldly accuse someone of fraud right from the get-go. >>
That is neither here or there, the guy is a scamming piece of crap, why should he not be outed as such? But you are entitled to your opinion and I respect it!
<< <i>You know something, altough I always put my auctions with a no return policy. I have had instances where buyers had legitimate concerns and I have accepted returns. >>
So your position is that everybody should be like you? Good luck with that.
<< <i>Of course I do not expect to hold you to those high standards, but to each its own... >>
Well, thank you so much- you are far too generous to a poor schlub like me. I can only hope, one day, to be as exceptional a seller as you. In order that I might be enlightened, could you post a link to your auctions, that I might, perhaps, learn from The Master?
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>I have it from a reliable source that this seller has been reprimanded by eBay for this deceptive behavior. Now, if enough instances of his problem-coin crackout and resale "game" can be documented and reported to ebay I think his feet would be to the fire. This, of course, would require a time investment by interested individuals, with some time to spare. >>
Maybe it would be easier not to buy coins that are unslabbed, no returns accepted, and guaranteed only to be genuine.
<< <i>So your position is that everybody should be like you? Good luck with that. >>
Not at all my friend
My Position is that not everyone that ha a no return policy is a scumbag
My Position is that although buyer could have avoided this problem altogether by not purchasing raw coins from a person with a no return policy, the seller did purposely misrepresented the coin and that makes him a scum bag
My position is that although both parties play a part, the only mistake buyer did was to buy, seller still concealed information that could have influenced buyers decision
My position is that anyone that thinks the sellers practice is acceptable they should at least post their ebay nicks so that we can all avoid their auctions
My position is that you appear to be a great individual and I respect your opinion, although I do not agree or share the same and there is nothing you can say or do to change that!
Note that I do not expect you to understand or agree with my position on the matter, but if you are unable to stay on topic and prefer to make the post about me; then maybe you should start your own thread or drop me a pm, heck we can exchange nice childhood stories...<< <i>Seller pulled the original auction (was listed as BU, no problems mentioned) and created a new listing. >>
Ah, I stand corrected. Thanks.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>
<< <i>I have it from a reliable source that this seller has been reprimanded by eBay for this deceptive behavior. Now, if enough instances of his problem-coin crackout and resale "game" can be documented and reported to ebay I think his feet would be to the fire. This, of course, would require a time investment by interested individuals, with some time to spare. >>
Maybe it would be easier not to buy coins that are unslabbed, no returns accepted, and guaranteed only to be genuine. >>
I agree that the best first line of defense is an educated, alert buyer. The seller's listings are full of red flags for such buyers. However, to describe the coin other than it actually is-- with full knowledge of it's true condition-- is in my opinion a deliberate attempt to fleece the unwary. Many new collectors simply don't understand what a snakepit eBay can really be. As individuals, we can choose to look the other way and let people fend for themselves-- that's easy, and nothing wrong with that-- or individuals can choose to take action, which is harder.
He has done this on a couple other listings as well.
It looks like he or she has heard the rants here and done something positive about it.
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
Bad Buyer! Left negative feedback with no communication! Nice coin! Beware!
I didn't know it was "bad etiquette" to immediately leave neg. FB for a seller who knowingly sells an altered or counterfeit coin as problem free.
roadrunner
Well here's the same coin that sold on Heritage in a NGC AU detail - whizzed holder Heritage auction
Same coin sold in Heritage Auction: AU details Obv. cleaned - Heritage
<< <i>Well here's his 1889-CC he describes as "BU+ near gem mint state condition" 89-CC $ He then says cleaned or dipped in the end of the listing.......
Well here's the same coin that sold on Heritage in a NGC AU detail - whizzed holder Heritage auction >>
"BUT FOR ACCURACY COIN HAS LIKELY BEEN CLEANED AND/OR DIPPED."
Looks like seller dipped it himself after removing from "whizzed" holder.
Velocity, Not Valuation Defines A Bubble.
<< <i>
<< <i>Well here's his 1889-CC he describes as "BU+ near gem mint state condition" 89-CC $ He then says cleaned or dipped in the end of the listing.......
Well here's the same coin that sold on Heritage in a NGC AU detail - whizzed holder Heritage auction >>
"BUT FOR ACCURACY COIN HAS LIKELY BEEN CLEANED AND/OR DIPPED."
Looks like seller dipped it himself after removing from "whizzed" holder. >>
Amazing that a polished coin can somehow become a near gem with blazing white luster....lol.
I get a kick out of the seller showing a photo of the coin being held on its edge with a pair of toothed plastic tweezers. Yup, that's how I handle all my expensive near gem
coins. So what is the point of that photo? To show that the coin is a turd such that regardless of how it is handled it really can't get any worse?
roadrunner
<< <i>Note that I do not expect you to understand or agree with my position on the matter, >>
I understand the position you have taken on several points here, one of which involves your apparent insistence that I have said something I have not.
<< <i>... but if you are unable to stay on topic and prefer to make the post about me... >>
What are you? The Thread Police?
The parts about you are in response to comments directed at me. The first one began: "You could have fooled me, a scammer is a scammer", inferring that I have somehow posted in support of the seller in the first post (something I have not done). You then continued with this snide comment: "Not everyone is as astute as yourself", which is, of course, your perogative, but it seems rather hypocritical to complain when I follow your lead in my responses to you.
<< <i>What are you? The Thread Police?
Velocity, Not Valuation Defines A Bubble.
IMO, the intent to deceive is a practice that speaks volumes of the integrity or lack thereof of an individual.
<< <i>There is a reason why so many "mint" coins are offered raw on eBay. Why anyone would buy one, get a problem and then complain is beyond me. There is no free lunch, stay away from raw coins on-line. >>
The seller of a raw coin doesn't want the coin. Reasons vary from seller to seller, but if the coin was worth much more in a reputable holder, it would be in one.
Velocity, Not Valuation Defines A Bubble.
Well said.
BTW, what happened to the OP. Will we ever hear from him again?