Ebay...Still a Cherrypickers Paradise 2017'

Simple. Because you now "have reason to believe" a coin is a problem coin. If you weren't willing to overwhelmingly often accept the TPG's opinion, why did you send it?

And just to be clear, if you have any record about ME yelling about over or undergraded coins, please show it below. That's never been my rant. I tend to accept NGC's grade. VERY rarely have I ever even wondered about it. YMMV. Mine hasn't.

Maybe I'm more confident in my TPGS' grades because I use NGC (exclusively) and you use PCGS. Could be. It's not the 1980's any more.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I find the recent discussion useful to me. I am tending to support the attitude that if a buyer inquires about whether a raw coin had been previously graded by a TPG then the only ethical answer would be to tell the truth. Obviously the TPGs make mistakes. If you purposely withold pertinent information then it's unethical.

 

It's useful to me too. It tells me I need to avoid doing business with a whole bunch of people on CoinTalk. Anyone willing to reveal their true identity?

 

And yet, it is perfectly ethical for you to rip off consignors to local auctions by purchasing numismatic gold coins at melt or under. Do you not have an ethical responsibility to inform the other bidders that they are letting the coins go too cheaply?

Ethics works both ways. It doesn't matter whether you are buying or selling.

By the way, I have no problem IDing myself--there are many people on here who already know who I am from selling to me. I'm Jim Purcell of Oklahoma City OK.

 

Ever hear of a "public auction"? It's a licensed field in my state and all auctions must be held under certain rules, INCLUDING if there is a Reserve Price, that is announced in advance.

 

So what? Do you not have an ethical responsibility to share any knowledge that you might have? If as a buyer it is ok to withhold information that might benefit you financially, then why does a seller have to share?

 

The overwhelming number of bidders ARE so-called "professional" (Yeah, as if...) coin dealers! I'm just a stinking individual collector. I should teach them? Hah!

I'll "school" them all right. But I don't have an obligation to teach them their field. I also learn what kind of markup they think is normal, by watching who buys certain lots and then watch what they have it priced at in a local show later. The "entitlement level" of coin dealers here is simply ASTOUNDING. They buy ultra-cheap and try to mark things up to "moon money". Most aren't EVEN satisfied with "double what I paid."

 

So basically, ethical behavior only applies to the other guy. When you benefit all bets are off. Good to know.

 

It takes some pretty remarkable mental gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion, so I won't bother to try changing your mind. You have to be tired enough by now.

However, I will mention a couple things for the benefit those reading while holding more open minds.

First, there is no ethical defense for withholding the information that a professional third-party evaluator whose opinion is widely accredited as "capable" considers the coin you're offering cleaned, damaged or of a different grade than the one you claim. If you send a coin to PCGS and it comes back 92'd (or similar), and then crack it and offer it for sale without mentioning that opinion, shame on you. The fact that you refuse to mention the opinion is damning evidence in itself.

Yes, the TPG's get it wrong sometimes. It's your right to disagree. But considering yourself their superior is kinda silly on its' face. They've seen more cleaned coins this week than you may have in your entire career. Do you have the equipment to detect chemical residue on the surface of a coin? Somebody who gets paid to know - right or wrong - has offered a public opinion regarding that coin and you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge that opinion. That makes you greasy.


Let us contrast that with the idea of offering a coin for sale for which you've not bothered to do appropriate due diligence. You, as a seller, are purely responsible - like any other retailer of the last three millennia or so - for determining the value and pricing of your offering. You can't use ignorance as an excuse for breaking the law, either. This, to one extent or another, is a fundamental aspect of buying coins or anything else, for that matter. Do you know anyone who has never, ever paid less than the maximum they possibly could have for something? Someone willing to pay $10,000 for a loaf of bread? The last loaf in the store before the hurricane hits might_just be worth that to someone, except there's laws against gouging.

This is how a trade-based economy works. A few years ago, I made a fairly decent market - for a short while - in certain used electronic gear with a trading partner overseas who had access to a clientele who couldn't get what I was selling. He gave me double the money which I could get in America for the stuff, and only did that because he was profiting on the flip. It only happened because I sold something at auction, and when it hammered well above what I thought it worth, I inquired of the buyer. Hell, I was going to cut his price some, because what he paid was so ridiculous, until he told me he had plenty of margin left on his end.

Otherwise I'd have been ignorant, and would have cheerfully sold him all the gear he could buy for well less than he would have paid me had I not asked.

If you want to be a successful retailer, you sell things for the lowest price you can get away with in order to build business and command the market. If you could sell those things for a lot more, and fail to do so, that's not my fault.


The difference? In one case, the seller knows better and deliberately holds back relevant information in order to artificially inflate the price. In the other, the seller lacks information it's his fundamental responsibility to acquire and undersells something he should have known better about.

The two do not conflate in any moral sense, regardless of how you twist things.

 

Thanks for the well thought out reply on this subject.

 

I agree it is not a matte proof,
partially because it does not have the diagnostics, but also because it does not have the strike characteristics typical to matte proofs.

When researching this subject though, I found on 1909 VDB and 1911, that some EDS business strikes that were stronger in striking (design elements, rim, and rim corner) than matte proofs. This was partially because on 1911, they left the die in to long, the matte surface wore down to a satin surface, and the design elements wore down a little.

IMO, Third Party Grading Services normally get designations such as proof/business strike correctly, but I have found over the past 27 years of searching certified proofs in business strike holders and vice versa.
Perhaps sometimes its a matter of the grading service not knowing, such as with the Isabella quarter, only 8 were especially struck, but the Director also had all 40,000 coins struck on polished planchets and as high a relief as possible, making it easy to confuse them. I am sure over the years Linc and Buff mattes have shared the same problems with identification sometimes, luckily the matte dies were not used to strike business coins.

Remember also, the graders from what I read, look at each coin with a 5x loop for 5 seconds each. The third grader having the deciding call. If you do not verify the diagnostics, it can be difficult.

In the 1990s, I saw a certified 1909 VDB, which had different diagnostics than the normal 1909 VDB. I recorded and photographed the diagnostics of this coin and presented it in the back of my book. This was in case another verifying specimen was found. It was a nice 1909 VDB, and since my book, I have seen many 1909 VDBs that people believed were mattes, when they were not.

After I wrote my Lincoln cent matte proof book, Brian found a 1909 P Matte proof, which was not listed in my book, The obverse matches Albrecht #3, the reverse is not listed in Albrecht. Jamie found a confirming specimen, which IMO verified its existence as a matte, besides it have the characteristics of a matte proof in both surface texture and striking.

I believe that in 1909, the 1194 1909 VDB proofs that were delivered and sold on August 2nd were from 1 die pair created during 1 striking of these coins. There was no additional strikings with the VDB reverse. I know in 1916 for example, there are 3 die pairs known, but there was also 3 different strikings of these.

I believe it is cool though that a coin was found that fooled the grading services, but its like everything else, we are human, we can and eventually all make mistakes.

Kevin

 

Five seconds surely isn't enough time. That surprises me if that is the case.

 

I agree, IMO it should take more time, especially in determining grade, especially for uncirculated coins, but again it is just an opinion, and sometimes first instinct is correct, plus if you take three people, average out best guess, you get close enough IMO.

I sent the grading services an idea years ago of how to improve grading, when you get the coin, you already have, or should have denom, type, date and mint mark, if not, it should be with the coin and scanable. As you type in your opinion, three pairs of photos come up, showing grade chosen, one above and one below, this way you see quickly what the norm is. Same for proofs, as you type, you get diagnostics that help you verify, it does not slow you down, but creates a quick visual reference for what it should look like.

On the 5 seconds, Mark Salzberg of NGC stated this before.
More than likely, for die varieties and special coins, then have one of their specialist check.

I read in one of the threads herein about dealer verification. A friend of mine had a 1909-S VDB, which he requested me to verify. I verified as Die #2, it had all the diagnostics, and was not counterfeit. He sold the set which included my authentication letter. Two weeks letter I get an email from the buyer, stating that he showed the coin to four dealers, all of whom said it was counterfeit. I sent him the photos from my book, which precisely show the diagnostics, what to look for on the S mintmark, relative position of the S to the date, B of VDB and so on. It was obvious that the dealers did not know how to authenticate, did not know what to look for, or perhaps wanted to buy the coin cheap. There are many good books out there which can help identify coins from particular dies, become the expert yourself and not depend upon others.

Kevin

 

I bought raw 1909-S VDB and 1922 no D strong reverse Lincolns on Ebay several years ago. I spent a lot of time looking at reference materials to make sure (at least give me confidence) that I was getting the real deal. As a buyer, education is important.

 

Kevin, thanks for joining us! Your Authoritative Reference of LC is one of my most used. Updated one in the works ??

Jim

 

Hi Jim,

Yeah I wish, but have to finish all of the other series first, almost done the Treasuring Hunting the Top 20th and 21st century die varieties with John Wexler (600 pages), also working on A Mint History of the First 100 years, Branch Mint Proofs, a few kids books and such. Also am working up in Boston for a year at MIT, working 10-12 hours a day, plus getting old. Hard to find time to focus and write, especially with all the great hike and bike trails and places to swim up here.
Was just thinking, need to do a Buff Matte book, but it is difficult to find the coins, and also, the ones I did find, had very little diagnostics.

What would be cool on the Linc mattes is to have a reference to show the different toning and colors, especially on coins that were left in the mint paper they were distributed with for a while.

Thanks
Kevin

 

Looks like a book I need to get.

 

Not exactly what you were looking for, but here is a starter - if you can get into it. http://100greatestmatteprooflincolns.com If not, I would bet @WingedLiberty would let you in. Here is a small preview;

 

Here is a digital album of ones I've assembled.

 

Welcome Kevin. Cool to see you here.