Buyer beware !

Amen!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don't think the original photo was edited. It was certainly taken at an angle that put the coin in the best light. The scratches or substance spilled on the holder could have happened after the first photo was taken. But don't you buy the coin, not the holder ?

 

Well, I think it says something about the OP and something about the seller, or buyers and sellers in general because this comes up all the time. I totally agree with you that a seller is not going to bother taking great pains to edit the photos of a $30 coin. But he certainly is not going to mind if the image comes out way better than the coin actually is.

And that exposes the larger issue. Large sellers trying to move a lot of inventory simply are not going to sweat the little stuff. They offer a return policy, the coin is slabbed, that should be good enough. In this case, the buyer has learned a lesson about buying from images.

So I believe it comes down to personal and ethical decisions. I've only sold a few items (no coins yet) on ebay and labored over an accurate description of each item with multiple photographs. I want the buyer to be happy, if not delighted, with his purchase; the Golden Rule and all that. As a seller, would one feel comfortable putting stuff out there that might not be accurately described? There's no right answer because there are simply too many variables.

 

The other thing that comes up all the time, at least on ebay's board, as I don't know this one that well yet, is how quick many people are to suspect actual coins in listings of being counterfeit or doctored—$30 coins! Yes, there is a whole lot of counterfeiting and doctoring going on. But much, much more likely is that the photograph is doing something funky or awkward. Many buyers, especially those without photography experience, simply are not able to read and interpret photographs that well.

 

Amen. Too many coins are condemned/verified based on photos. In hand, looking at in at different angles, is the only way to condemn AT or a forgery unless there is clear evidence. Lets not forget how easily photos can be intentionally or unintentionally distorted. I can take any toned coin I own and play with color meters and everyone would insist it is AT, even though I have owned it since it was new.

If the OP was unhappy with the coin, he should send it back. Its a risk and cost of buying online via a photo. I used to send coins back in mail order days if I was unhappy. It was a cost of purchasing, nothing more of less. This is where grading came from, so that two people could get an idea of the level of preservation of a coin without photos.

 

I agree that the $3.00 return shipping is a small price to pay for sending back a coi9n you are always going to be unhappy with. Every time you look at it and feel cheated or wronged in some way, even if you weren't, is toxic to your self and those around you. I strongly suggest it gets returned so the OP can move forward without this disrupting his life. IMHO

 

Or did he shoot it in such a way as to present the coin in the best possible light? As most people marketing a product would do.

I will admit that in many cases the two are one and the same.

 

I kind of doubt if any of us really know the intent of the individual selling the coin.

 

Thanks for taking the time to post the photos of your OGH IKE. And for your comments and sharing the knowledge. This thread has been a good learning experience for me, and I hope for other CT'ers as well.

 

No, I don"t disagree with the grade. I did keep the coin. In addition, the eBay photo was taken to promote the good points of the coin, and my photos were taken to emphasize the flaws. I think The reality of it all lies somewhere in between.The vertical lines across Ike's cheek are what the old school would call cabinet friction. Under really close microscopic examination these (scratches?) do not penetrate the surface of the coin, but they mar the patina. As to whether or not it was misrepresented, I think the seller should have mentioned this in the description. And the few white spots appear to me to be places where the coin was (conserved?) Any one that has played around with MS-70 coin brightener will recognise the damage to the surface when spots or pvc have been properly removed,.I will add that I purchased 4 coins from this seller and I returned three. I consider the cost of returning unsatisfactory items a legitimate and not unexpected expense.

 

Ikes sometimes get milk spots. From the photos, I would not necessarily conclude that the spots you mention were a result of conservation. Of course, you have the coins in-hand and are in a much better position to determine the cause, but I did want to share with you my experience with Ikes, now having collected them on and off for thirty plus years. Respectfully...Mike

 

Milk spots / spots

Thanks Mike. I'd like to start by saying how fortunate I feel to be able to sit down with a bunch of knowledgeable and experienced numismatists and disect the finer points of the hobby with a razorknife....... Good point about the milk spots. When I see them I think of the remains of a water drop(s) that has evaporated. Or solvent that has been overused and contains impurities from previous usage. There many slabs with coins like these that have been legally and correctly conserved, (eg) NCS. Photography is one of my hobbies, so I am posting some 40X pics of the spots in question on that IKE. My agenda is the gathering and disemination of quality information.


I realise that anything over 20X (some would say 10X) makes the point moot. Past a certain point it doesn't much matter if the tiny spots are natural or not. Except to a dedicated (some would say fanatic) numismatic addict. The first pic in on the flat in the field. The others are on curved surfaces in the hair. A couple spots look normal with a point near the center and corrosion spreading out from it like one would expect to see around around a so called carbon spot. But a few others are shiny silvery bright with no surface damage as though some dirt or non corrosive contaminant had been lifted from the surface. No where on either side of the coin do I see, like, water spots or residual chemical (acetone) spots... Thx again for your comments.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110563551106&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT
PS I left the seller 5 stars for good service, instant refund and no hassel return. Bone Head

 

He has this in his listing.

 

After seeing the auction page, this whole thread is a non-issue.

 

I would agree, this thread should be re-titled "Seller Beware!"

 

Probably, but I still learned something from it. I don't regret spending the time to follow it.

gary

 

Buyer beware!

...

 

I did not archive the original listing. And to say " I think this", or "I remember that", is useless. What I can illustrate are the descriptions from
from two other coins returned to the same seller.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350374631023&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250668846942&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT
For what it's worth (not much) This is what I remember from the listing for the coin that is the center of this thread. Whew!, this is getting complicated. But notice the descriptions.

 

I don't think it's a non issue. The point remains that what you see is not always what you get. In this respect the 'buyer beware' is legitimate. And I agree with the OP that said "How about not putting the blame anywhere?" This thread was never about placing blame, but rather a discussion of issues. Please see post # 59 Thx.