E-Bay Seller: Is he an optimist or unethical?

I think optimistic, because one should really know the value of things before bidding.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

There's a difference between "unethical" and "ridiculous".

The difference lies in intent, which I can't discern from the auction (it's been removed). If the seller honestly believes the coin is deserving of the high price, s/he isn't unethical. If the seller intentionally and knowingly listed a misleading high price, that starts to smell like an ethical issue.

I think this one is a grey area. Except for one clear issue - avoid this one, and maybe all things by this seller.

If this pattern repeated, even after pointing out the facts to the seller, it might suggest an ethics issue.

Another indicating factor - what sort of "after the sale" support does the seller give ?

 

Ebay removed the listing.

Now to go after the rest of his garbage! :goof:

Ribbit

Ps: I found out from the NGC forum that the seller is the former owner of Accugrade! :goof:

 

Doug, maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any reference to the PCGS price guide. But rather, a listed asking price that corresponded with the price in the PCGS price guide. To me, those are two different things, though apparently some people feel differently.

How do you folks feel about the listing below? It appears to be a true auction, but it's for an NGC coin, yet includes the PCGS Price Guide price in the listing. Does the fact that it's an auction as opposed to a minimum listed price make a difference?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=130315840723

 

interesting, the lot has been pulled.

 

PayPal is not required, but a traceable electronic payment is required along with no checks.

 

It seems that the main assumption is that an NGC coin can never grade on par with a PCGS coin...if that is an incorrect assumption, then it is just clever marketing.

 

Certainly a valid point, Doug. If he is mindful that his PCGS price is misleading and posts it anyway, intentionally attempting to make the coin appear more valuable than Fair Market, to me that's fraud.

Yes, any competent person should know. But not all E-bay sellers are competent.

Since I don't know what he was thinking, my jury is still out - unethical, ridiculous, or incompetent ? I dunno.

 

Not at all. The key issue is this coin in this grade range.

As Lehigh pointed out, there seems to be a statistically significant spread 'twixt NGC and PCGS on this one. That is not true for all coins in all grade ranges.

 

We've changed two variables at once, thus clouding the picture just a bit.

With the '28-S SLQ, the PCGS vs. Numismedia spread is about 50% ($850 v. $538). That's a big difference, but a far cry from the 600% difference in the OP.

If we neglect that effect, and focus only on auction vis a vis fixed price...

To me, the fact it's an auction makes little difference. Some, but not much. The dominant factor remains intent. If the seller is intending to mislead, it's unethical.

One way to determine the seller's intent is their response when informed of their faux pas.

 

The listing is gone now so I can't point to it and show you where he quoted the PCGS PG, but he did and it was in the neighborhood of 4G. :goof: So by doing that, he was saying the coin was worth 4G and a bargain at the listed price. :goofer:

As to the one you posted, that seller may not know there is a difference in PCGS/NGC price lists and that you have to go by the one your coin is graded by to accurately determine value but the one in the OP claims to be a NGC Dealer so he clearly knows better!

Ribbit

 

People are entitled to ask whatever price they wish. Nothing unethical in that provided no misrepresentation or fraud is perpetrated.

Would I do it? Probably not. Is it unethical? I can't say that it is.

As for the follow-up question concerning the CAC, since I saw no ethical issue with the first scenario, there's no issue with the second one either.

 

If we buy the coin not the holder, wouldn't the conclusion above be wrong and the best coins -- irrespective of the slab -- be deserving of a higher price tag?

Said another way, how can one conclude the 14 top pop PCGS coins are better than all the 744 NGC coins? Couldn't it be possible that one or more of the 744 NGC coins is better than some/all of the 14 PCGS coins?

Bottom line: Pops alone don't tell the quality of said coins, and conclusions based on populations are shaky at best. SHOW ME THE COINS!

 

I think that there is confusion and at least some of us are talking about two different listings. I was speaking of the item listed at the beginning of this thread. In that listing the PCGS Price Guide price was apparently $600, which coin coincided with the asking price of the coin. I don't think there was any reference to the Price Guide in that listing.

You, on the other hand, seem to be talking about a completely different listing which is still active and which does mention the PCGS Price Guide price: http://cgi.ebay.com/1944-P-JEFFERSO...QptZCoinsQ5fUSQ5fIndividualQQsalenotsupported

 

That was the one I was referring to.

I looked at several yesterday and confused it with the OP listing and since the OP listing has been yanked, I didn't have it to refer back to. :goofer:

Thanks for catching that and put my remarks to that listing instead of the OP.

Ribbit

 

Fairy tales could come true...It could happen to you. Ahhhh that's all a poor man has is wishin and hopin. Ripley

 

Mark,

Doug actually found a way to express my point more succinctly than I ever could. You are correct that there was no mention of the PCGS price guide in the listing, but that does not matter IMO. Again, I can only think of two scenarios. First, the seller believes that the coin is an MS67 and would probably cross into a PCGS holder thereby justifying his asking price that corresponded to the $600 PCGS price guide. The second scenario is that he is intentionally listing the NGC coin at the PCGS price in order to snare an unwary newbie who doesn't know the ins and outs of the Jefferson Nickel series.

With regards to you SLQ listing. That is comparing apples to oranges. The PCGS price for a 1928-S SLQ MS65 FH is $850. The Numismedia price guides are $760 & $950 for wholesale and retail respectively. Both TPG's use similar standards for this series and the price guides are basically interchangeable.

The same can not be said about the Jefferson Nickel series for which there is an obvious difference in grading standards. I have no problem with the seller asking a ridiculous price. However, I wonder what price he would have listed the coin at if the PCGS price guide was $125. If the seller really thinks the coin is worth $600, then okay. But if he is using the PCGS price as a means to generate extra profit on a coin he knows is worth only $100, that is unethical. I can't decide whether it is unethical because I can't read the sellers mind. Hence the reason for the thread which was to get others opinions. While I respect the opinions given, to flat out dismiss any chance or unethical behavior on the part of the seller is IMO, unreasonable. Having said that, I still haven't decided whether or not what this seller did was deceptive or whether CAVEAT EMPTOR should rule even if he was being deceptive.

 

I read this over for a second time. Everyone here is just like me, intitled to their opinion. But after reading all a second time I feel more than before it is unethical what the seller is doing. Since I feel so strongly about it I feel I can see into his/her mind, and what I see is making a profit over eithics.

 

Without belaboring the point, based on the auction records I viewed, it appears that PCGS MS65FH 1928-S Quarters have been selling for roughly 30% to 50% over the levels of NGC ones. So why couldn't listing the PCGS Price Guide price for an NGC coin be considered unethical? Either way, how/where do you draw the line in deeming an asking price so high as to be unethical? And it seems that the answer shouldn't depend upon whether there is a price guide value included in a listing or not.

By the way, what if the owner of the Jefferson Nickel thought there was an 80% chance the coin would cross? 60%? 40%? Should he be obligated to try to cross it in order that he ethically ask PCGS money for it?