Counterfeits should be defaced?

I had a $20 Liberty gold coin that proved to be a counterfeit a while back. Subsequently I spoke with Universal Coin on this and they told me that the coin needed to be "defaced"; apparently to prevent others from being deceived by it. Is this a recommended practice with counterfeits? Also, I had a $10 Lib., a 1901-s, come back from grading at NGC recently as a fake one and the dealer who sold it to me refunded my money. Should dealers also bear any other costs associated with selling fake coins as good ones?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If an unintentional mistake, other than refunding you, what other costs do you think they should bear?

 

If someone represents a coin as genuine, an AU, etc., they should refund the costs of the coin as sold and possibly grading costs or the cost to ascertain that it was a fake. What do other professions do when they make professional mistakes?? Numismatics is not an island to itself that can make its own rules.

 

I'd say mark it COPY on the reverse so no one else gets fooled . The dealer should only have to refund the money you paid for the coin . The only way he should have to reimburse you for trying to get it slabbed is if you both agreed to that during purchase . It's a risk we take as collectors akin to getting hit in the head by a baseball at a ball game . Another reason we educate ourselves as much as we can about counterfeits .

 

There was an article about this very thing in the May 20, 2013 issue of Coin World by Armen Vartian. In it, he demonstrates, based on the current laws, that it's not the sellers responsibility to determine if the products they sell are genuine, but rather the person buying. Maybe someone with more time than I have can find and link to that piece for you.

 

Any good dealer will take back a fake and refund the price of the coin.
Grading fees are in the air. Too many things involved.

 

I absolutely and without question agree with you about refunding the purchase price, but do not believe any dealer should automatically refund submission or associated costs unless part of the original agreement. As a buyer, it must be understood that there are inherent risks when purchasing raw. Just as one should not expect a dealer to pay for a submission that does not come back at a level the buyer hoped (unless guaranteed), the same should apply here as long as it was an honest mistake.

With that said, and as for righting a "professional mistake", in some cases it may be reasonable to do so even if it was not agreed upon, but much would depend on the coin and buyer, and what type of material the dealer handles. If a higher value coin sold retail to a client, I would refund the purchase price and mostly likely reimburse the cost of submission at the normal tier, but if lower value or wholesaled material, refunding only the full purchase price is both reasonable and fair.

As for a genuine coin not coming back at the hoped for grade, unless guaranteed at the time of purchase, no dealer should be automatically expected to refund not only the purchase price, but all submission costs on any and every coin they sell.

 

I'd say the dealer has a legal responsibility to refund. It was an illegal sales contract and therefore voidable.

 

I think it's a worrying trend. I suppose the coin must have looked so good that there was no obvious signs of them being counterfeits. I can see where GDJMSP is coming from. I detest counterfeits with passion however when you are dealing with super counterfeits, I have to think twice especially when dealing with gold.

Would you happen to have taken some photos to show us Owle?

 

It's a tough issue and the only question revolves around fakes, I would think that responsibility on the seller has something to do with the premiums the seller was charging the customer assuming that the coin was rare, high grade, etc.. If the seller was charging low premiums then their responsibility is minimal, someone can do whatever they want with their purchase, put in a safe, etc.., sell, share with friends and family their pride of ownership. You don't want situations where a business owner is buying day after day, they have all the risks and expenses of running that business, they should not have the additional costs of hypotheticals. I'm not sure how the law has addressed this, Mr. Vartian has been excellent educating collectors on this front.

 

I see what you mean , but only with contempory fakes for collecting . If a person wants to study modern fakes to learn their diagnostics I'm sure they could do so with the word copy on the reverse .

 

I hate saying this because I know I'm going to get flak for this, but, at the end of the day a collector has to accept responsibility for one's own collection. Sure the dealer should be able to identify a fake/counterfeit coin but the buyer has the responsibility to do the same. To blindly trust the seller is a foolish mistake. It's the same way when buying a details coin. One has to know what they are getting themselves into. Obviously everyone has made the mistake of buying a "not-as-described" piece before, it's a part of learning how to become an experienced collector, however, it's ridiculous to invest stupid amounts of money with no guarantee that you are getting the real deal.
As for defacing a counterfeit, in my opinion, I think it's a terrible idea. Of course I despise the idea of fakes polluting the market and therefore the hobby but I think these fakes need to be labeled as such and then studied so collectors and dealers have the knowledge available to identify similar counterfeits. If you're not sure then buy an NGC or PCGS authenticated example, it will be worth the premium to make sure that you are getting what you paid for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't think you'll catch much flak at all , if you read some of our responses they are quite close in content .

 

i think the word COPY should be put on the edge.

 

I would hate to see a contemporary copy defaced.