Another eBay coin buy gone bad-Why do I bother

I started to bid on an Indian Head Cent, 1888 0ver 7.
ebay item # 230380649730 You've got to check out her close up photos of someone else's coin.

I was thinking this is the KEY coin for all IHCs and I'll never win it. I thought it odd that it wasn't graded but figured it must've been cleaned at some point. The bidding seemed subdued, to say the least, and I figured that the serious bidders would snipe at the last second, as the coin is worth thousands of $$s. So I bid (Sniped) $355, never thinking I'd win, when the highest bid was $191 or so. To my surprise I won the coin at $255. Now I'm thinking to myself, self, why didn't this coin go for thousands of dollars more? According to the photos this coin could be the rarest of the 1888/7 coins, a Snow 1, out of 32 Snow varieties. When I got the coin home I could tell that this was not the coin pictured in the auction.

The seller stated that this coin had a cud by the UNITED on the obverse. Upon examination, this coin showed die deterioration that left the left side of the obverse a bit eroded but NO CUD as shown in Rick Snows "Flying Eagle and Indian Head Attribution Guide, 2nd edition, Volume 3, 1870-1889. In all the close up shots of the coin it showed that all of the loops in all of the 3 8s were clear, with no debris in them. The coin I got had blue/green crystal-like debris in all the loops of all the 8s. That proved to me that these close up photos were of another coin and the auction was a scam. I believe she, the seller, figured someone would take her word for the authenticity of the coin without doing any follow up inspection of the own.

I have ebay emails from her. She stated that she saw the low bids of her auction and tried to pull it, but was unsuccessful. She told me she'd be happy to buy the coin back at full price and also pay for shipping & handling, both ways. So I took her up on that promise. I filed with Paypal and claimed that the coin was, Significantly not as described.

I will post some of my photos to compare with the ones in her auction.

As you can see, the last and next to last 8s have blue/green debris in the loops of the 8s. This cannot be the same coin as posted in the auction. All her 8s were clear within the loops. The same is true with the middle 2 8s and the 18 of the 3rd photo.

The 4th photo, at 200 magnification, shows NO trace of the "small portion of the 7 that should be visible under the left half of the last 8". That is the proof of the 8 over the 7. It is not there. Again proving the coin I got was not the coin in her pictures.

And lastly, the final photo of the coin I received shows some rim erosion, not a rim cud into the denticles at 9:00 above TED in UNITED. Another stolen photo from someone elses coin.

I believe that the eBay seller, ovir, was counting on someone just accepting her story, with the phony photos of another coin, and being happy to get an 1888/7 IHC.

Thanks for listening.

Bruce

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Looking at the images in the Ebay listing and comparing them to yours, I am not convinced that you received a different coin. While I don't claim to be certain, there appear to spots in the areas around the second 8 in the date, which match in her photos and yours.

 

If you look at the whole coin photo of the seller, you'll see only a bit if blue on the left side of the 1___ digit's serif. And a touch of blue in the upper right loop of the second 8. There's no way that this whole 1888 coin is the same as the one she depicted in her close up shots with no blue/green crystal debris in the loops of the 8s. The coin she sent me did have some aspects of the whole photo shots, including the rim erosion at 9:00. But, the close ups of the 8s are way off, not having any debris within the loops and no trace of a 7 anywhere under the last 8, at both 60X mag and 200X mag. What more proof do I need to ascertain that these photos are from at least two different coins?

Bruce

 

I am with Marc on this one. I am seeing too many similarities to say they are different but not enough to say they are the same. If you could post a picture of the obverse like the one in the listing I could probably tell for sure.

 

Mark, I have a lot of respect for your coin knowledge and opinions so I want to make this clear. If you can prove to me that the coin I got is the same as in ALL of her photos, well then, I don't know. I'd eat my hat, but I don't like the taste of polyester/wool mix from China.

I do have more photos that I took with my digital microscope that I could upload. But, you know, I may get it wrong about a grade on a difficult coin but I don't think my eyes are fooling me when I find debris in the coins date where there wasn't any in the sellers auction photos. Especially on a coin that's worth thousands that I won for $255. This coin should have been graded and auctioned off at Heritage, Teletrade or some other highly respected auction company.

I deter any more comments until there is more response. Thanks Mark.

Bruce

 

Bruce, I can't prove it's the same coin, nor do I care to try. I have no desire to see you eat your hat. The most important thing is that you, as a buyer, were unhappy with it.

But I have seen a multitude of coins (some of the details and/or flaws of) which, did not match their images. Sometimes that was probably intentional, and other times, definitely not.

So, in trying to determine if a coin is the same one depicted in pictures, I don't look for differences (which might or might not show up in the images). But rather, I look for details that are apparent on the coin and in the images. If or when there are enough matches of such details, at a certain point it becomes evident that the coin is the same one that is imaged.

Perhaps that isn't the case with the coin in question, but I saw enough apparent matches to make me think it might be.

 

I have to agree it is the same coin based on comparison of marks on the date. Why the difference in corrosion, I can only guess that photoshop.

For what it is worth, I say it is not a Snow-1. It lacks the portion of the 7 inside the upper loop, the bottom of the 7 would be more visible at this wear state.

Jim

 

I agree that there are some similarities in the sellers whole coin photos compared to what she sent me. The close ups are not even close. Where she "shows" the shadows? of a 7 under an 8 in the magnified photos, they are barely discernable, if not a photoshop job, not prominent as in Rick Snows book. And as far as the coin I got, they are non-existant. My digital 60X mag and 200X mag photos show NO 7s under any of the 8s. I am contending that all of her magnified shots are from another coin or a catalog or book, or computer generated. It wouldn't surprise me when a BU coin is worth over $50,000.

I just had spent a good 20 minutes posting more photos and explaining more of what I believe to be a scam. However, my Mozilla Firefox dumped me right before I was going to post again.

So, now I've got to get some sleep before I get up for work in the morning.

Keep on posting. I'd like to see some other opinion on this 1888.../7 IHC situation.

G'night

Bruce

 

Jim, We must have posted at the same time. The coin I got was loaded with blue/green crystals in all the 8s. So, how could she take true photos of the coin and show NO debris, No real 7 under an 8, It's a scam auction. This coin is a regular 1888 with a small rim erosion by the 9:00 position on the obverse. This is not an 1888 over 7. Anyone disagree?

Bruce

 

I do not know enough about 1888 over 7 to comment on that, but it is easy to take pictures of GREEN verdigris and not see any green - either by accident or on purpose. It can be done by white balance, lighting, or photoshopping the pictures.

 

My problem is sometimes the reverse. I take photos of coins with dark toning or junk and they come out green

Jim

 

Bruce:
I have to agree with you, it does look like a different coin to my eye.

(but, hey, what do I know, I wear glasses).

Alos, I don't see the cud, in her pictures.

(see note about glasses above.)

 

I take it back, I see the rim cud.

So, I presume that yours does not have it?

 

That is my problem also. I would like to see a full picture of the coin - not just the snap shots. Then again even from the auction I do not think it was the 1888/7 - simply the cud is in the wrong spot to my eyes. Plus I really don't see anything around the 8 but dirt. Just my humble opinion.

 

That's because there is crud all over this coin. The close up photos in the auction could not have come from this coin. There is nothing around the last 8 that would make this a 1888/7. This is an ordinary 1888 with some die erosion around the 9:00 position. No cud, just erosion in a coincidental location near where it would be on an 88/7 S-1. She tried to scam the buyers on eBay and got caught. No doubt she put it up for auction again soon.


Bruce :kewl:

 

In comparing the two, the green notwithstanding, I think they look like one and the same coin. As for the green, I could show you numerous ways you could get rid of that in photoshop in under 30 seconds. Doesn't make her an honest seller, but does not rule out it being the same coin. Do you have any full coin images?

 

I think if anything, I would be throwing a fit about this:

I mean, when you post an auction, and brag about NO RESERVE, then you should probably stick to your guns when it sells, and a low price..
If you don't want to gamble, don't take the risk.

 

The coins I seem to return most often on ebay are 1917DDO ( 1 real one out of 8, 7 returned) and 1888/7 IHC. ( 1 ANACS 1888/7 that is neither Snow 1 or 2, 1 Snow 2 ( fairly sure) and 4 that were "imagination").

Rather like fishing for the "Magic Mermaid".

Jim

 

Not the same coin.. Look at the different positions of the nics on the pics with the 88's. Nics arn't the same..

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?VISuperSize&item=230380649730

This is the whole coin she posted. Looking at the 1888 you see no debris. Looking at my magnified photos there is much debris, enough so as to preclude any possible photos of a7 under an 8. No bottom of 7 protruding fro the lower left part of the last 8. That is the telltale sign of the 1888/7 S-1

So, where's the 7 protruding from under the last 8 in my 60X and 200 x photos?

Bruce