Look what a seller on eBay neglected to mention

I have to say, I am a little surprised by many of the responses here. I can even say I am disappointed, to be honest.

I guess I am a little old school. I guess calling out someone is now considered "picking a fight." Expecting someone to own up to dishonesty is frowned upon and it is me who gets blamed. Posting a dark, vague photo, and him saying the white streaky areas - including the fingerprint area - are simply "exposure marks" from his camera, is perfectly "OK" to do (this means he was explaining away what many of you said you saw in his photo). Finding out a $500 coin I paid fair market value for (according to pricing in Grey Sheet and what Heritage sold one for recently) had a painfully obvious and large fingerprint on it makes me a "whiner." Then even someone accusing me of possibly being dishonest myself because I claim to be honest in my own terms of sale (and people liking/agreeing with that absurd statement) is perhaps the best one.

This does not instill confidence in this hobby for a new collector. This man clearly hoped to pull off selling a clearly damaged coin (Sorry. Fingerprints = damaged goods) or at least his problem merchandise and not disclosing it openly is shady, immoral, and just plain wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I did NOT say I told him I was law enforcement. I analyzed his response, or lack of, from what I used to do for a living- analyzing behavior. You say I should more clearly look at photos? Try reading more carefully.

 

I find those that have had their trust abused are more careful in future dealings.

 

I think you are taking things the wrong way. First of all, I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around people saying it was a "good price". Since, like you say, the price you paid is right around fmv. It was an auction which means you set the price, but I'd reckon all that means is at least one other person didn't see the fingerprint.

Now, where you are having trouble getting empathy is because of ebay's return policy. You can return it. You will only be out cost of shipping, unless you want to go thru an "item not as described" case. Personally, I wouldn't in this case because I, too, can identify the fingerprint in the seller's photographs.

I think the majority are just trying to say: take it as a learning experience. Don't let this one incident get you worked up. Maybe the seller was trying to hide fingerprint; maybe he was trying to display ddo; or, maybe he just sucks at photography. There just isn't enough information to come to any conclusions in that regard.

 

From the auction:

Nowhere, anywhere, in that description does the seller make any claims about 'streaks', which you claim are his attempt to 'conceal' the fingerprints. He is pointing out that the 'specks' are dust on the holder, highlighted by the scanner's light, and that those specks are not on the coin. He also didn't use a camera.

You're right, I inferred that you told him that you were former LE. I did that because I can't see why it is relevant here in this thread, or in ebay communications. Because you used to be in law enforcement does not automatically give you better abilities to interpret someone's thoughts, especially in the internet/emails/etc. But because you felt the need to point it out, you feel it does. Cool for you.

I really believe you saw the fingerprints, read his description, and read what you wanted to read.

So we both need a little improvement in the reading department. Difference is, mine didn't cost me $500.

Just a question for you. You are obviously aware of Heritage (and GC probably). You see what these have sold for on HA/GC, so why would you go to ebay to pay the same price, with crappy pics? I always go to HA/GC, and only buy from ebay if I'm looking for raw, or it's a steal of a price.

 

No sorry but you don't get to do that nonsense. Fingerprints are not damage no matter what you say. You don't get to just show up and tell the whole hobby they have to follow your rules or you're going to run around calling people "shady" and "immoral" because you said so.

This is why people are taking an issue with your behavior. All you had to do was return it and move on it's that simple. Instead you picked a fight and now you're running around making big accusations based on your own opinion of something which is in direct contradiction of the hobby.

You're free to like and dislike whatever type of coins you want, but you don't get to unilaterally condemn people when it goes against your personal taste.

 

@kasia put up a slightly uneasy topic the other day, about grading coins, and it's relativity to each of Us, as collectors, and our ability to successfully grade a coin for the correct purpose.

 

Peace Dollars?

 

Above is what an honest person (me) says about a coin with a fingerprint.

Below attached is the seller explaing "white marks" are not actually there, which by default includes the very faint white streaks where some of you said you saw a fingerprint mark. Again, he is trying to cover up and explain away those marks. He says very clearly, WORD FOR WORD, "THEY ARE NOT ON THE COIN."

 

@JCro57 - I'm not sure I understand the point or purpose of your screenshot. It is clearly not for the coin in question.

Oh, and to add -

If it had been me in your shoes, I seriously would have initially been pissed off at the fingerprint (not likely, as they don't really c=bother me too much most of the time), but I would have immediately gone back to the photo to see if I could see it in the auction. Once I looked at it again, and saw that, yes, the FP is in the auction photos, I would have smacked myself on the forehead, and said "Dammit! How did I miss that?". Then put the coin in it's new home in a PCGS box, and moved on with life.

 

At this point it really just looks like you’re blaming the seller because you don’t know what you’re looking at. No one wants to be a jerk about it but with how you’ve approached it no ones gonna pull any punches at this point either

 

Right. He CLEARLY STATES THE SPECKS (NOT STREAKS AS YOU SAID) ARE NOT ON THE COIN. He said NOTHING about streaks.

Would you mind sharing the item number of (or a link to) your Peace dollar that the description goes to?

 

Yes. That's for the one I sold. I explicitly said it had fingerprints because I didn't want someone to think they were scratches, gouge, marks or other damage other than fingerprints. I even wrote the buyer and reminded him. I consider prints damaged. He didn't care.

 

Just post the item number.

 

Notice the print in my listing is visible in all 3 obverse photos, and most visible in the 2nd shot. I also mention it in the description. I also let people know that it is in fact a fingerprint and not damage from a scratch, gouge or bag mark.

I guess I am just upsetting the Apple cart of people who think it is ok to sell problem coins using vague photos and no descriptions, and then claim "oops! Sorry. Your fault! Should have seen that yourself despite me saying it is really just an allusion from my camera! Sucks for you!"

 

Thanks.

Now here's something to consider, and while this may come across as bashing, it isn't meant to be.

Your description:

And the coin (obverse) -



You specifically say "Notice both Liberty's face AND the Eagle are not marked up at all!!!" and yet, I can clearly see light scratches on Liberty's face. So if I bought this coin, and in reading you're very specific description of how clean her face/cheek is, and when I got it, I saw these "undescribed" scratches, that had to have been omitted from the description, (clearly in an attempt to deceive me), and I asked for a refund because of them, what would your response have been?

 

IMO, and the opinion of many, a scratch of any degree, is far worse than a fingerprint. Based on your own item's description, I, and the court of coin-nerds, find you to be a deceptive seller, no better or worse then the seller you are so angry with. (This is meant light-heartedly)