http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=39470&item=3948668354&rd=1 so much for feedback ratings
Until buyers and sellers alike start having the guts to speak up and tell the truth in an forthright manner and quit worrying about retaliatory feedback - feedback on ebay will continue to be meaningless.
If you read through the feedback comments and look at the auctions, you will find that this seller has only sold a couple of coin auctions. Most of their feedback is for miscellaneous items and clothing. As they have a refund policy, this seller may not truly be a problem, they may just not know how to grade.
Which is odd when the word "coins" is in the user ID. I'm willing to cut slack for novice graders if they stick to generic terms like "BU" or "uncirculated." When they start throwing specific numbers around, they're probably either in WAY over their head or being misleading.
Yeah, this guy's been selling coins on eBay for years. Just this past month, alone, he's sold several fakes, that he had listed as genuine. Trust me, this guy knows exactly what he's doing.
I'm a little confused about this post. I'm not good at grading incuse designs but can't see what's wrong with this coin. I assume that the complaint comes from the lack of detail in the lower feathers, cheek and reverse breast. Since this is a low resolution scan (as opposed to a picture), and since Indian quarter eagles can be weakly struck, I can imagine that loss of detail me be an imaging problem. If the seller wants to use poor scans then that should be his/her problem. However, I don't see why this coin couldn't be an MS-63. The planchet looks good for the quality of the scan. I seems that any attempt to mask wear in the incuse design, especially with the lower feathers, would be obvious to any buyer. I also didn't see much to complain about with this seller. I didn't see any sign that he/she is selling counterfeit coins. I looked at their sales record for the last month and saw a few trade dollars sold as AU and BU and they looked legit. I guess I'm just curious at the negativity. And no, I am not the seller. Edited to add: It looks like it sold for just over AU price by the PCGS price guide... so I guess everyone else was seeing what I did not.
Howdy TRVST - Welcome to the Forum !! I think you did see what everybody else saw, the weakness in detail etc. But it appears, based on your comments, that you are more trusting of the listed grade than some are. I'll grant you, it is possible it is just a poor pic. But I learned long ago that if you are going to bid on coins where all you have is a pic to judge it by - then judge it by the pic. For if you go making assumptions that it may be a bad pic and the coin is as good as the seller says - then you're likely to regret the purchase. I'm not knocking your comments - just making my own. But on another note - I would never, and I do mean never, purchase raw US gold from this time period unless I had implicit trust in the seller. Counterfeits abound in the marketplace - perhaps more now than ever before. And many times the person selling the coin isn't even aware of it.
Thanks for the welcome. I've been lurking for a while but this one really had me scratching my head. I totally agree with your comments concerning trusting your seller. However, he does have a pretty good feedback rating and does offer a return policy. Overall it would still be a crap shoot. Such is the same for any unslabbed coin sold on the internet... all you have left is your confidence and belief in the seller. The kicker for me, in the scans, was the lack of detail in the lower obverse feathers. Excepting a heavily worn coin, this is evident of either a weak strike or a poor image- both appear to be the case. I like the thrill of taking a chance on ebay. I've made some modest finds on some very modest coins exploiting poor descriptions and pictures. I'm guessing the buyer will be happy at the price they paid, at worst it appears to an AU piece. Hey, at least it wasn't in an SGS holder bearing an MS70.
