I was wanting to share something evil for my 666th post. I went to my favorite Mom & Pop's collectable store not long after the management had changed hands. As a YN, I needed some blue Whitman folders and I found a bunch of used ones; one of them had a complete set of Rosie's still inside! I bought the folders in bulk at 15 cents each. About a year later I was in the store and, remembering the "deal" I had found the last time, I looked through the pile of Whitmans' on the floor. I found a Lincoln One book with a lot of holes filled. I took it up to the counter to buy it and the guy opened it up, asked me if I wanted to buy it, took out the two "$12 coins" and offered it to me for $30. Since I was hoping for the 15 cent price, I turned him down. The worst part is this: If this were to happen to me today, I would not hesitate to bring the oversight to the attention of the dealer and yet, in my memory, I still kick myself for not burying that penny folder in a pile of used folders, as it happened in my original heist! :devil:
If that makes you feel good about yourself, fine. Personally, I don't like taking advantage. If a deal is fair to everyone involved then it's a good one. When someone has been cheated, then it's not, in my opinion. Hey, there's too much in life and too many things happen over which you have no control. But you have control over your own actions. I guess it all comes down to the kind of person you visualize yourself to be and what your goals for yourself are. I strive to be a better person than I am every day. A few ill gained dollars one way or the other simply cannot make difference enough to compromise myself. IMHO gary
How was it unfair in any way? Completely uncoerced, the dealer offered the albums for sale at a price he selected. The opportunity to examine each folder was there, he chose not to take it. The opportunity to double check each folder at time of sale was there, he chose not to take it. What happened was NO different than the dozens of people around here who cherry-pick "junk" or "cull" boxes for rare and expensive varieties, and then come on here and brag (justifiably) about their sharp eye. I completely agree with you...I can not abide any man who will conduct a transaction that is unfair, coerced, or fraudulent. But to benefit from the other individual's unWILLINGness to do his own due diligence is simply a matter of outworking him.
The surprising observation that I thought I was sharing: That even though I would never act (or want to act) that way today, my recollection is accompanied by the feelings/desires I had as an adolescent, the age at which the memory was formed. I guess we can't always control what others hear! For example I hear you saying that you think I feel good about stealing and that you never have bad thoughts.
I think there is a difference. The dealer knows that the junk and cull boxes have coins in them! What if it was a First Spouse coin box the dealer had priced as empty and it wasn't?!
It is possible that the shop owner actually knew that the first album contained coins, and wanted to give you a head start in collecting, I would bet if you had informed him at the time he would have said "keep em". It reminds me of an eccentric lady I had on my paper route. I had taken over the route from another boy who had gotten a better job, he informed me that she left money laying out. I went to collect, she went into another room leaving me in the room with a large bowl of money on the table, I was tempted but I happened to notice that she was standing there, watching me by means of a mirror that was in the room. People are funny.
MAYBE, if it was the original owner, who I had a long relationship with as a YP (philatelist), but the "new management" were the ones who, years later, offered me spot for my 1889 cc Morgan. As this happened pre-government hoard, you'd think the "cc" would have stuck out even if 1889 didn't!
Then the dealer will pay a price for his laziness, inefficiency, lack of education, or whatever else led him to make such a mistake. Someone on here said something just the other day that rings true...if stupid hurt more, there'd be less of it. If I'm more prepared, more observant, or more willing to do the "dirty" jobs than you...then I win, you lose. You want to come out on the better side of the equation? Then be better at whatever it is we're doing than I am. Look harder, search longer, spend more time going through piles of coin albums on the off chance you find something of value, whatever. If any of us are careless, haphazard, or lazy in life...we suffer the consequences. What makes business any different?
Awesome quote! What about unprofessionals, like little old ladies trying to get $20 for their gold coins?
Depends. Is she simply taking the double eagle to the bank to exchange for currency? If so, as far as I'm concerned, she gets what she deserves...$20. Again...it's not up to me, or anyone else, to do your homework for you. If you can't be bothered to do your own research or legwork, and know the value of your own possessions, then you get what you get. For me, that's no different than any other aspect of life. If your insurance policy doesn't cover flood losses, and your home floods, sorry about your luck. It is incumbent upon YOU, not "me" (as in, the general somebody else) to know the value of your home and belongings, and the limits of your insurance policy. All of this, of course, presumes that nobody was coerced into a contract they might otherwise not have entered into. Now...is the old lady at the coin dealer, inquiring about the value? In that case, I take issue with the coin dealer. The lady IS trying to do her own due diligence, and she has approached an individual who ACTIVELY MARKETS himself as a source of expertise and reliable information. The lady is seeking his counsel specifically because he claims this expertise, and then he knowingly and with malice misrepresents the exchange for personal gain. Admittedly...if the lady's "victimized" here, I'm probably not going to feel too sorry for her. If you wish to make a habit of consulting a single source that can not possibly remain impartial when engaging in business dealings, you get what you deserve, imo.
It sounds like Gary thought I was you! Here's one more nuance. What if the old lady is going to a teller at her own bank, expecting them to have her financial interests at heart (or at least in exchange for her business). PS: The opposite can also be true, that a little old lady won't take spot for her junk or culls because she's convinced that people are trying to rip her off!
Eh...on the surface, I'm probably still on the bank's "side" here. That's still a business relationship, and there's really no commitment by the bank to see to it this lady gets fair deals in all her transactions. Indeed, I'm not sure there's even an express or implied commitment to "have her financial interests at heart". If their were, then we can reasonably expect the bank to prevent her from making any number of bad investments throughout her life. Admittedly...the bank may offer some service..say, financial counseling..where such an implied commitment might exist...but in general, the bank's job is to store, secure, and provide access to her money, in exchange for which they seek to profit off their use of it for loans and investments of their own. (Though, admittedly, more and more these days, they seek to profit off HER use of it as well, but that's another thread entirely). In general however, I don't believe a bank teller has any obligation to protect a customer from a poor financial decision made out of ignorance. Now...might one CHOOSE to do so as a function of smart business? Sure. It's probably in the BANK'S best interest to help Old Widow Brown out here, particularly if she's a long time customer with significant deposits. Nothing says a bank can't exchange a short term "gain" here for a longer term benefit. Or heck..maybe they just LIKE Widow Brown, and don't want to see her victimized by a bad decision. Nothing wrong with any of those...I merely submit that no OBLIGATION exists. Absolutely! Not only "can" it be true, it frequently IS! PRECISELY because some coin dealer might do as we suggested above, the next "little old lady" is convinced all coin dealers are scum and out to rip her off. For me, anyway, the "ethics" here are the same, however. The onus to DYODD still rests on the owner of the coins. If she fails to recognize their true value, then she's experiencing reduced cash flow, increased time, effort, and worry, and increased expenses simply to wind up finally selling them for what they're worth. She could have sold them immediately, and gone on vacation, but instead she's burned 2 tanks of gas and a week's worth of time, only to be told at every turn that her coins just aren't that valuable. ========================= I guess to me this whole thing really comes down to intent...which, I admit, is frequently hard to determine. If you're setting out to mislead, misrepresent, or coerce another party, and by doing so profit at their expense...you're a slimeball. If everyone's in a level playing field, and you're simply profiting by being more knowledgeable, better prepared, or faster on the draw....good for you. You win. All you did in the original case...imo anyway...was profited by acting on information EVERYONE had available to them, but only YOU did the work to obtain. And..guess what? Next time, the dealer did his work better, now didn't he? "if stupid hurt more, there'd be less of it."
A good read! One line stood out because I often engage a fierce Libertarian at my school in dialogues for fun. It is her (Libertarian?) belief that intent NEVER matters; One is as guilty of murder whether it was a robbery gone wrong, or a planned hate crime, or (hardest to swallow) an accident.
I think her point was that one can never really prove intent, but the victim is just as dead by your actions, and people need to be accountable for their actions. If it really does "all come down to intent," then may the best actor win! PS: I remember asking, What about Cheney accidentally shooting someone on a duck hunt? She said, "How do you know he didn't mean to?" I guess I don't...at least not for sure!
Its not unfair that he got the dime book for 15 cents and it doesnt say what KIND of a person you are. If thats what the owner wanted, that means he likes that price and it willing to give it away for that price, and even if he did not know there were coins in there, that is his responsibility as a shop owner to know what he is selling.
Tell her the Jews will be relieved to know the Nazis' actions might have all been a big accident. This is, imo, an excellent point. When did it become the customers' responsibility to know the contents and value of each container offered for sale in any given shop?
She's a dean at our school, I think she'd probably go the other way; she'd treat the person who accidentally slaughtered innocent people as harshly as she would a Nazi. PS: and this actually speaks to her point. She wants "an eye for an eye," not "an eye if you can prove the intent was to take an eye."
