Ebay Throws ANACS Under the Bus

I doubt that's what they're doing. It sounds more like they're taking a pro-active position to reduce the number of frauds that occur on their website, and to attempt to make the numismatic market on their site more reputable than it has been.

SGS SEGS and other bottom feeding, basement graders have no business grading coins as they have no standards doing it whatsoever. For eBay to take the initiative to prohibit those labels from being sold on their site, as they are garbage to begin with, doesn't ring of anything illegal.

They are a free enterprise and can do as they wish. Or was there a change in the laws anywhere that did away with "reserving the right to refuse service to anyone"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It doesn't matter if the numbers conform to your engineering definition of comparable. What matters is public perception, and normal people (not engineers) are not going to look at that chart and think that ANACS is comparable to PCGS & NGC. If you don't believe me, start a thread and post a poll and find out. Heck Frank, the PCGS kool-aid drinkers don't even think NGC is comparable to PCGS. You read the PCGS forum, tell me I am wrong.

I have no problem with letting the buyer decide if the coin meets his standards. But I don't make policy for E-Bay. Obviously they have a reason for this policy change. If you don't understand there reasoning, perhaps you should contact them in an attempt to further clarify the decision.

 

This policy will mean that even better bargains can be had on ANACs slabbed coins for those discerning enough to buy the coin and not the slab. Buy a nice coin in an ANACs slab, crack it out or cross it over to PCGS/NGC if you want. There will also be those who now try and buy up ANAC/ICG slabbed coins at a discount, and cross them over to sell for a profit.

For every action there is an unforseen third order effect.

 

I don't know that Lockheed engineers do that themselves.

 

I do not consider SEGS (Sovereign Grading Service) to be a "bottom feeding company with basement graders" since Billl Fivaz (one of the CPG Founders) acts as a consultant for the company.

SEGS also offers a grade guarantee backed with cash almost identical to PCGS.

Definitely not "Bottom Feeders".

 

While I agree with you that SEGS is not a bottom feeder, I feel that most of these companies do little to help themselves in terms of their reputation. Look at the SEGS website for example. The website is the store front and is their chance to make a good first impression. If you visit the PCGS site, then visit the NGC site, then visit the SEGS site, you are definitely left with the impression that they are much closer to the bottom than they are for the top.

http://www.segsgrading.com/

I am not an expert in website marketing, but I know enough to know that site needs to make major improvements!

 

Being at the bottom for a grading company is nowhere near being a "bottom feeder" which implies a disreputable scum sucker that cannot be trusted.

Just because their web site ain't as pretty as PCGS or NGC and the fact that they do not have an online Registry to heavily inflate the prices of modern coins, does not mean that they are not a reputable grading service.

 

Okay, stop trying to be right and read what I wrote again. First, I agree with you that they are not a bottom feeder. But with a edited website like that they give the perception that they are not much more than a fly by night operation. If the effort they put into their website is an indication of their service, then they have nobody to blame but themselves when their reputation is called into question.

 

I really do not have a dog in this fight but as I understand it ANACS provide some attribution services not available with PCGS/NGC

 

that was my line of thinking- I know for a fact that there are some very nice coins in ANACS slabs

 

I can't believe that now we're grading TPGs by their websites! I've never used SEGS, but they've been around for over 11 years. Hardly a fly-by-night outfit!

http://reviews.ebay.com/SEGS-Sovereign-Entities-Grading-Service?ugid=10000000004403950

 

Several people have made the comment that you won't be able to list ANACS in the title or use ANACS as a search item. Now I know currently the rule is that you can only use the names of PCGS, NGC, ICG, and ANACS. The new rule says that you can only list a numeric grade in the title if it is slabbed by PCGS or NGC, but I don't see anything in the new rule that says you can't still list ICG or ANACS in the title You can't list their grade, but it doesn't say you can't list the company.

Yes ANACS will attribute more varieties than PCGS or NGC. Not only that, but they are also more accurate with their attributions than PCGS or NGC.

 

It certainly changes the whole discussion if ANACS can be used in the title and can still be seached on as an arguement. The prohibition on using MS63 (etc) without TPG has been around for a number of years already and its a rule I strongly support in that it eliminates spurious listings on a search by blow-hard sellers inflating the grade of a coin while knowing many collectors search simply on MS65 or MS63 to see what's out there at the high end of a specific coin.

 

Wow.... I could make that Segs site in 2 hours or less... edited

 

SEGS is not a fly by night operation, but that is the impression they give to anybody who visits their website.

Never in my life have I used information found in an E-Bay review. It is about as credible as advice given on internet chat forums.

 

If you can't tell the difference, why pay the difference?

 

This is no longer the case. Many equal protection cases have been made (14th Amendment) against establishments who refuse equal protection in the minds of those rejected from entry or participation. They simply overlook that fact that those prohibitions were placed on the States and their State Laws. However; many States and local jurisdictions have passed similar laws barring discrimination by both individuals and businesses. Enforcement lagged authorization by about 100 years.

It appears the concept of individual unaliable rights which neither the Feds, States or Local Governments can usurp (Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness) has been lost in our modern world.

 

You're right they did.

Discrimination against sex, race, religious affiliation, creed, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.

However, a business can still choose to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. As long as the decision to refuse that service is not based on, or could be construed as discriminatory in nature.

eBay can make policy as they see fit. If people, sellers mostly, don't like the policy they can go elsewhere to sell their wares. Those who are up in arms about this change seem to be under the impression that it's a right to use eBay, when in fact the use is controlled and subject to eBay's Terms of Service, and as such users must agree to those terms and abide by them.

One person mentioned the Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1890 and what eBay is doing is illegal under that act.

That's a very loose interpretation of the act. I don't see eBay as a monopoly on anything. If they went after Heritage and Teletrade, and any other online auction site specializing in coins, and tried taking them over in order to be the only online auction site, I could see possibly the Sherman act coming into play. But that hasn't happened, nor will it IMO.

 

In every situation, the original acts and prohibitions begin with limited scope The scope and application expands dramatically over time, and always at the expense of individual liberty. I could easily see eBay lose a lawsuit based on Sherman Anti-trust and similar laws simply because it is a major player in the market.

The concept of a Monopoly has been watered down by the courts over time to include just about anything which could remotely affect any market. Sort of like how they use the Commerce Clause in the Constitution to make the 10th Amendment meaningless.

 

If it were that simple there would a flood of suits filed under the Sherman act.

One thing I mentioned in one of my posts to this thread was Frontier Communications has the monopoly on phone service( and I should have clarified that to be landline phone service) in western N.Y. for as long as I can remember. According to your theory, Verizon should be able to win a suit against Frontier to open the landline phone service market for competitive availability, under the Sherman act.

Verizon does have a marketshare for landline phone service in other markets nationally, including Long Island.

So they should sue Frontier to open that market citing violation of the Sherman act?