eBay Buyer Protection Policy Opinions Needed

Hi folks,

I should have known better, but I recently purchased a coin on eBay that was slabbed by one of those generic coin companies. I wasn't expecting the coin to be in the same condition that they listed, and I sent it off to PCGS as a cross-over hoping to get a legitimate grade maybe a few grades below. Well, it didn't grade and came back damaged.

I haven't contacted the seller yet, but I'm wondering if I would still be able to make a "significantly not as described" claim using eBay's Buyer Protection even though the coin was removed from it's original slab and placed in another? Anyone have a similar experience?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

How much time has elapsed?

 

Less then 30 days. I still have plenty of time to make a claim with eBay and/or PayPal and/or my credit card company if the seller is resistant.

 

ebay buyer plan will cover you for 90 days.
but I never have done what you did. but good luck!!!

 

That,s a tuff one as long as the seller described what it was graded at by the other company
I,am not sure how that would work for you, but it doesnt hurt to try!

 

I agree; the sellers description wasn't misleading, the grade given by the tpg was misleading. Before making any kind of claim with Ebay/Paypal, I would simply contact the seller and try to resolve the issue directly with him/her first.

 

That's a tough call once the coin has been removed from its holder. Even if the seller accepts returns, once the coin is broken out I doubt if he would honor a return.

 

I hear you!

The listing states it's a "GEM BU" coin. I sent it into PCGS for professional confirmation of this fact, and it came back as "damaged".

Really, the only way I can dispute the grade a seller gives a coin IS to send it to a professional grading company. I'm hoping eBay will see the logic in that.

Anyway, I contacted the seller so maybe he'll own up and make this all a moot point.

 

I'm not sure about this one. There are plenty of coins out there graded by the reputable TPGs that might never again pull the original grade if cracked out and resubmitted or submitted to a different TPG. If it was merely slabbed as GEM BU that's not even a grade in the first place. Was it not assigned an actual grade?

 

It was slabbed with a grade of MS-65. It was described as GEM BU in the listing, since they couldn't list the grade of a coin that was not slabbed by PCGS, NGC, or ANACS.

 

I'm actually thinking photos would help us give you a better opinion, or even better, post a link to the auction.

 

I assume that there was no warranty given by the seller about the coin's grade or whether it would slab by a different TPG.

The coin is now removed from the original holder (slab). IMO. If returned, the seller should get his original coin in his original holder. I don't see a right to return the coin unless it is fake or the damage was hidden by the original holder.

I read a case in the Numismatist once that involved a guy buying an old slab & he sent it in for a possible upgrade to the same TPG. It came back in a new slab with the same grade. IMO, the original seller did not need to take the coin back because it was no longer in his old slab (which possibly had different aesthetics & different value). The question discussed in the Numismatist was why should the original seller take the coin back in a different slab? In this case, the buyer was trying to cherry pick the seller & then when it failed, he wanted to return the coin. Maybe someone else at CT remembers this Numismatist article.

 

The difference here is that the coin was sold as GEM BU and graded MS-65 (which I can most likely prove was slabbed by the same seller). I sent the coin to the top (arguably) coin grading company to get confirmation I got what I paid for, and not only is it not GEM BU, but it's damaged to the point it wouldn't even grade.

Again, I would have been happy with an MS-60, but no such luck. The top (arguably) professionals in the field said not only was it not GEM BU as advertised (regardless of what the slab said), but that it was basically a cull coin. I hoping that is grounds enough for a "significantly not as described" claim.

This is not a case of the seller's opinion of the coin vs. my opinion, it's the seller's opinion vs. PCGS's opinion. He says it's a gem example of a brilliant uncirculated coin and PCGS says it's damaged junk.

 

Education is the key! especially dealing with a TPG that is not in the top tier you have to
Be able to judge for yourself if the coin will meet the standards you are looking for
I guess you could put this one under lesson learned.

 

GEM BU is most certainly a grade. It is simply not a numeric grade. A grade simply defines the condition and/or marketability of an item when speaking of tangible property.

 

It is too bad that you couldn't determine this without removing it from the seller's holder.

jallengomez mentioned that there are plenty of coins out there graded by the reputable TPGs that might never again pull the original grade if cracked out and submitted to a reputable TPG. This is your issue & you can do what you want. I was just giving you my opinion. If I remove a coin from a holder, then I always figure I bought it.

It would be nice to see the coin & the damage in question. It would also be nice to learn the sale price & hear how you handle this case.

 

What you are insinuating is that the original third party grader is not a professional. Grading is subjective, and every numismatist must remember that. Grading standards aside, everybody has their own opinion with bias on a particular item.

Now, that is not to say that the coin may have, in fact, been damaged. However, you have yet also to disclose the alleged nature of this damage. Even amongst seasoned numismatists, what does and does not constitute damage is arguable. Even the matter of a coin being unable to be "graded" is arguable. Any coin is able to be graded. Grade describes the condition and/or marketability of the item.

Just because an entity or small group of entities hold to a specific philosophy in no manner makes it "law".

And that is the point. You make the statement that PCGS is arguably the "top" professionals. I am sure you can easily still search on the FTC website how in the early 1990s the government most certainly argued the fact that PCGS marketing of their "professional grading" was misleading because grading of numismatic items is subjective and not objective as PCGS misled some to believe.

And, now, today it appears that there is a growing segment in the community that have come to believe that PCGS (or NGC, or ANACS, or anybody else's) grading is somehow objective and the "correct" grade for an item. Subjectiveness does not allow for objective "truth".

And that is the whole point here. It is all subjective.

Now, with that said, the seller did in fact disclaim the coin as GEM BU. That entails a few "expectations" regarding the coin. First, that the coin is uncirculated. Now, regardless of any alleged damage, an uncirculated coin is uncirculated.

This fact, however, has become a subject of debate and argument in the community (you can tell which side of the fence I sit on). Damage should be disclosed as damage alongside the grade instead of the grade being adjusted to levels that the grader believes the market may accept the valuation of the coin to be.

The second "expectation" is that the uncirculated coin is "brilliant". With this, any copper coin should be expected to be fully to nearly red, and there should be minimal toning and impairment to luster on any other coin. Without this, then the "expectation" for the coin being "BU", or brilliant uncirculated, fails.

Thirdly, we have the term "GEM" which entails that the coin has full, original surfaces and luster. So, in the opinion of the seller, the coin pictured should have been a fully brilliant coin with little to no impairments to the coin's surfaces or luster and had been in uncirculated condition, regardless of any numeric grade that was on the holder's label.

If the coin appeared as such (or even closely enough since it is still subjective), then the matter of alleged "damage" must be considered. The only problem is that the coin was removed from its original sealed holder. At that point, it could be argued that any damage occurred only after the coin had been removed from its original holder.

To know what the alleged damage to the coin actually is would be more helpful in determining how to advise you in filing your complaint. Remember, you entered into a legally binding contract that neither eBay nor PayPal are a legal party to. Depending on the jurisdiction you are in and the amount of money the seller may be out, the seller may also decide to take action (most likely not, but all possibilities should be considered) to recoup against you as the buyer in what could be construed as a fraud.

Yet, never allow fear to determine your course of action. Consider these things only to put into perspective the whole situation and to ascertain the seller's view on this case as well that you can step back and look at it in a completely subjective manner.

And again, knowing the full facts of the situation would most certainly help to get a better picture of the situation and give a better opinion.

 

I am not sure just what eBay would do. Try calling them. Were it up to me, I would deny your claim. From what I read, you cannot even return what you bought - let alone in the condition you bought it. (Where is the slab?) It would be like buying a car, having a wreck and trying to return the motor for a full refund because it did not have the horse power they claimed. I know that is not a good analogy, but really, the difference is only a matter of degree. On the other hand, if you were to return it 30 days later in tact, I would have no problem refunding your money.

 

Like I said before, you should post the link to the listing in question, and photos of the coin after you received it back from PCGS. I, for one, would like to compare the two. Like NPCoin said, is the damage before or after you removed it from the slab? You provide little detail as to the actual condition of the coin, and the type/amount of damage. You don't even mention what type of coin it is; you refer to it simply as "the coin". Without being able to compare before and after photos, I would be willing to bet none of us could give you an informed opinion.

Unitl then, this seems to be another "I bought a coin from eBay, now I don't like it or I misread the listing, so it's the seller's fault and now I want my money back" type of thread.

 

Once you cracked the coin, you gave up your ability to return, IMO. However, I don't see what it would hurt to try and fill out a SNAD form.

Alternatively, you can just chalk it up to a lesson learned.