Mislisted eBay Morgans

Correct this humble narrator if I'm wrong. There are two Morgans with the NGC star currently listed by a seller as DMPL (no such designation on the grade label).

Am I right to say this is a deceptive listing? If so, I'm going to report it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Without seeing the listings, I'm guessing they're simply expressing their own (rather subjective) opinion regarding the designation. That said, if it's deceptive or not would depend on exactly how they're presenting it to potential buyers.

In an ideal world I would hope that photos of the actual coin for sale would be enough for any halfway intelligent individual to disregard such a claim/opinion/statement, but how could anyone reasonably expect due diligence from an eBay buyer...

 

I believe eBay, myself, and many others have become frustrated with inconsistencies when it comes to PL and DMPL, as you might understand from this linked article:
http://news.coinupdate.com/testing-mirrors-at-pcgs-and-ngc-1126/

I'm sorry but this coin just makes me shake my head in incomprehension:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1881-S-Morg...253828?hash=item4d4d69b044:g:a9sAAOSwZVlXjlBr

I've discussed the subject with eBay before about listings titled with PL or DMPL, when the assigned slab doesn't indicate same, they have no interest because it appears that the past reflective requirement, and lustrous fields no longer apply.

I'm amazed you only found 2 mislabeled auctions, as I discontinued the search after six.

JMHO

 

The two I saw stood out because of the star designation. Probably at least half of a search of DMPL or DPL produces coins without the DMPL designation. Then of course, you have "almost DMPL" and "near DMPL." Same for PL.

eBay could hire any of us to police the coin listings from our houses. I'd do it since I'm retired. But eBay just doesn't care.

 

When it comes to coins, eBay's people in charge don't give a rip. It is very frustrating to deal with!

 

I don't understand how people could consider this deceptive (especially given the NGC label refuses to designate them as DPL/DMPL), but yet many do not find DCarr overstrikes to be deceptive. The listings made no attempts to obscure the TPG finding, no?

 

It’s certainly deceptive, but as long as the seller doesn’t claim that NGC provided the DPL attribution, then (unfortunately) it’s considered okay according to eBay. An omission of “this is my personal opinion, but…” doesn’t constitute an “item not as described”, or the like, according to eBay. It’s not the same as using a title such as “NGC graded DPL MS-63”, for example, where there exists an obvious discrepancy pictured slab (say, MS-63*) and the claimed grade.

 

Um, that coin is in a PCGS MS65+ DMPL slab, exactly as the auction title says....

 

What am I missing? The title says 1881S PCGS MS-65+DMPL CAC, and that is exactly what is listed here..... ?

 

What really frustrates me on the PL/DPL coins is when you'll see a coin straight graded MS-67 by NGC or PCGS, but then that stickering huckster MAC comes and puts one of their ludicrous stickers on it. They are all "PL" or "DPL", no matter what the slab actually says. MAC is a scam, but somehow they get away with it.

 

Never heard of MAC before

 

You aren't missing anything. They rank right up there with Wings, QA, and CAC - they look at slabs, put meaningless stickers on them, and then people charge more for them.

 

I attached a study link which included several images of what would normally be expected when a grade is followed by PL or DMPL. The study also defined what I've received when a correctly graded PL or DMPL coin is realized, namely a uniform field which will clearly reflect an object from .5 to 4 inches from the coin, respectively.

Proper auctions will show the reflected object and coin image of same, thus:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/PCGS-1885-P...384399?hash=item1eb936a28f:g:fuEAAOSwNRdX707s

JMHO

 

The trouble with images like that is they do not accurately communicate a true PL/DMPL surface. Even "transitional" surfaces - no longer PL but not yet just "lustrous" - will vaguely reflect color in that fashion. It's virtually impossible to accurately image a DMPL surface. You'd need a 12" field of view containing both coin and what it was reflecting, at sufficient resolution to clearly show what was being reflected. Call it, say, 100 megapixels.

 

From the photos, sure doesn't look 65+ with CAC. May be a case of photography exaggerating the dings. I've noticed in playing with lighting and exposure that I can make dings go away or greatly magnify them. That's one reason I seldom play the game of GTG in posts of mint state coins.

Cal

 

People lack the chutzpah to take a stand for fear of another frivolous (in my opinion) lawsuit from the ACG guy. People should be taking stands against this garbage, and I think I am being overly generous in my description.

 

You might consider checking your "frivolous" facts. I believe you'll find that the results of arbitration was HAGER scored 1, DETRACTORS scored 0.

As in the initial Coin World grading study of 2003,
https://forums.collectors.com/discu...ding-services-paul-richards-coinworld-article
I believe you'll find that the ACG coins being currently submitted "raw" are being graded consistently, as previously anonymously determined, while "Top Tier" TPG are determined/found inconsistent.

Time will probably correct some current "injustices" in the Numismatic "Industry", but the aggrieved should be a much greater number.

JMHO

 

The lawsuit I saw was dismissed.

 

FYI: "The parties to the ASA Accugrade, Inc. litigation, Plaintiffs ASA Accugrade, Inc., Alan Hager and Diane Hager and the Defendants, the American Numismatic Association, Heritage Capital Corporation, Collectors Universe, Inc., Professional Coin Grading Service, Inc., Barry Stuppler & Company, Inc., and the Professional Numismatic Guild, Inc., together with their insurance carriers have resolved the dispute which was pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. At a court ordered mediation, a confidential settlement was reached among all the parties. The settlement had no impact on the ANA's finances or budget. The agreement reached was to our total satisfaction."

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/anyone-know-of-acg-accugrade.78648/page-2

 

(1) What you posted suggests a settlement agreement, and not Hager winning either a lawsuit or an arbitration award. There is a big difference. Settlements can mean many things and does not mean the initial suit had merit nor does it admit liability. It also doesn't mean that Hager was vindicated in court or received monetary compensation for his claim.

(2) I am not convinced that we are referring to the same lawsuit. I will need to look back. I seem to recall a lawsuit involving a third tier slabber being dismissed on a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion. I thought it involved Mr. Hager. I will need to search PACER.