Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Am I an idiot, or nuts, or is this a language issue?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 8186811, member: 110350"]I'm embarrassed to admit that in the middle of the night last night -- always a bad time to make impulse purchases -- I bought a solidus of Constans from the Siscia Mint (RIC VIII 115) on MA-Shops, relying on a (French-language) statement of the seller that I interpreted, based partly on the Google Chrome translation -- perhaps wrongly? -- as representing that the coin had a provenance dating to an NAC auction in 2013. God forbid that I should look at the NAC coin and compare it to this one before making the purchase, but I didn't. Today, I did, and also found a later sale of the NAC coin by Leu in 2020. Comparing the photos, I don't see how the coin I just bought could be the same one sold by NAC in 2013 and by Leu in 2020.</p><p><br /></p><p>So this is the email I just sent to the seller, with a copy to MA-Shops Customer Service, asking for a refund. Do you think I have a case?</p><p><br /></p><p>Dear Sir:</p><p><br /></p><p>I just purchased this solidus from you last night. In making the purchase, I relied on the statement in your description that "LE MEME EXEMPLAIRE CHEZ NAC VENTE 75 DU 18 NOV 2013 LOT 328 A FAIT 4500 FS HORS FRAIS" -- in English, that "THE SAME EXEMPLARY AT NAC SALE 75 DU 18 NOV 2013 LOT 328 WAS 4500 CHF EXCLUDING EXPENSES." To me, the only reasonable interpretation of this statement is that the coin I purchased was the same coin -- the same specimen -- as the one sold by NAC in 2013 (which, according to ACSearch, was sold again by Leu in 2020). The fact that you point out the edge nick at 7:00 on the reverse ("PETIT CHOC A 7H"), just as NAC pointed out an edge nick at 7:00 on the reverse of the example it sold in 2013 (stating "An absolutely unobtrusive edge nick at seven o'clock on reverse"), confirms to me that you were stating that this was the same coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>However, comparing your photo to the NAC and Leu examples, it does not seem possible to me that this is the same coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>Thus, here is your photo, at <a href="https://www.ma-shops.com/cheilan/item.php?id=15251" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.ma-shops.com/cheilan/item.php?id=15251" rel="nofollow">https://www.ma-shops.com/cheilan/item.php?id=15251</a>:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1432351[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Here is the photo from the NAC sale, Auction 75, 18.11.2013, Lot 328:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1432352[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>And here is the photo from the Leu sale, Auction 7, 24.10.2020, Lot 1747, citing the NAC sale in the coin's provenance:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1432353[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>From comparing your photo to the other two, I do not see how your coin could possibly be the same example as the coin sold by Leu and NAC in 2020 and 2013, respectively.</p><p><br /></p><p>Among the obvious differences:</p><p><br /></p><p>The obverse of your coin shows a flaw or indentation in the rim at about 11:00, which is not present in the Leu and NAC photos.</p><p><br /></p><p>There is a space between the top of Constans's head and the rim on the obverse of your coin that is not present in the other two photos, both of which show the top of Constans's head touching the rim.</p><p><br /></p><p>The design of the drapery at the bottom of the obverse is different in your photo and the other two photos.</p><p><br /></p><p>There are four dots on the bottom left of the drapery on your coin, whereas the other two photos show only three dots in the same location.</p><p><br /></p><p>The ties at the back of Constans's hair point down in your photo, whereas they curve upwards in the other two photos.</p><p><br /></p><p>On the reverse, there appears to be a horizontal scratch at the top of your coin, running through the legend from approximately 11:00 to 1:00. No such scratch is present in the other two photos.</p><p><br /></p><p>The shape and design of the wreath held by the two Victories on the reverse of your coin is not the same as in the other two photos. The same is true of the two ribbons(?) at the bottom of the wreath.</p><p><br /></p><p>And so on.</p><p><br /></p><p>In fact, the only specific thing your coin appears to share with the other coin, apart from being the same type from the same mint, is the dent at 7:00 on the reverse.</p><p><br /></p><p>Perhaps I should not have taken your word for it that your coin is "LE MEME EXEMPLAIRE" as the NAC/Leu coin. But I assumed that your statement was accurate.</p><p><br /></p><p>Because I relied on your statement of provenance in purchasing the coin, I believe that I am entitled to a refund. Whether or not you intended to represent that yours was the same coin as the NAC/Leu coin, I believe that was the only reasonable interpretation. Otherwise, why mention the edge dent at 7:00 on the reverse? Why else mention that particular example, out of the 30+ examples of this type, from this mint, listed on ACSearch?</p><p><br /></p><p>I have copied MA-Shops customer service on this email, in case they may be of assistance. But I suggest that you give me a refund -- before you send the coin! -- and that when you re-list the coin you delete your statement of provenance.</p><p><br /></p><p>Many thanks.</p><p><br /></p><p>Am I nuts? Could the coin I bought possibly be the same coin as the NAC/Leu coin? And does "LE MEME EXEMPLAIRE" mean something different from what I took it to mean? In any event, I do feel like an idiot. I hope I get a refund, because the provenance was the key to my purchase. And I think I've learned a lesson for the future: don't make expensive impulse purchases at 3 am![/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 8186811, member: 110350"]I'm embarrassed to admit that in the middle of the night last night -- always a bad time to make impulse purchases -- I bought a solidus of Constans from the Siscia Mint (RIC VIII 115) on MA-Shops, relying on a (French-language) statement of the seller that I interpreted, based partly on the Google Chrome translation -- perhaps wrongly? -- as representing that the coin had a provenance dating to an NAC auction in 2013. God forbid that I should look at the NAC coin and compare it to this one before making the purchase, but I didn't. Today, I did, and also found a later sale of the NAC coin by Leu in 2020. Comparing the photos, I don't see how the coin I just bought could be the same one sold by NAC in 2013 and by Leu in 2020. So this is the email I just sent to the seller, with a copy to MA-Shops Customer Service, asking for a refund. Do you think I have a case? Dear Sir: I just purchased this solidus from you last night. In making the purchase, I relied on the statement in your description that "LE MEME EXEMPLAIRE CHEZ NAC VENTE 75 DU 18 NOV 2013 LOT 328 A FAIT 4500 FS HORS FRAIS" -- in English, that "THE SAME EXEMPLARY AT NAC SALE 75 DU 18 NOV 2013 LOT 328 WAS 4500 CHF EXCLUDING EXPENSES." To me, the only reasonable interpretation of this statement is that the coin I purchased was the same coin -- the same specimen -- as the one sold by NAC in 2013 (which, according to ACSearch, was sold again by Leu in 2020). The fact that you point out the edge nick at 7:00 on the reverse ("PETIT CHOC A 7H"), just as NAC pointed out an edge nick at 7:00 on the reverse of the example it sold in 2013 (stating "An absolutely unobtrusive edge nick at seven o'clock on reverse"), confirms to me that you were stating that this was the same coin. However, comparing your photo to the NAC and Leu examples, it does not seem possible to me that this is the same coin. Thus, here is your photo, at [URL]https://www.ma-shops.com/cheilan/item.php?id=15251[/URL]: [ATTACH=full]1432351[/ATTACH] Here is the photo from the NAC sale, Auction 75, 18.11.2013, Lot 328: [ATTACH=full]1432352[/ATTACH] And here is the photo from the Leu sale, Auction 7, 24.10.2020, Lot 1747, citing the NAC sale in the coin's provenance: [ATTACH=full]1432353[/ATTACH] From comparing your photo to the other two, I do not see how your coin could possibly be the same example as the coin sold by Leu and NAC in 2020 and 2013, respectively. Among the obvious differences: The obverse of your coin shows a flaw or indentation in the rim at about 11:00, which is not present in the Leu and NAC photos. There is a space between the top of Constans's head and the rim on the obverse of your coin that is not present in the other two photos, both of which show the top of Constans's head touching the rim. The design of the drapery at the bottom of the obverse is different in your photo and the other two photos. There are four dots on the bottom left of the drapery on your coin, whereas the other two photos show only three dots in the same location. The ties at the back of Constans's hair point down in your photo, whereas they curve upwards in the other two photos. On the reverse, there appears to be a horizontal scratch at the top of your coin, running through the legend from approximately 11:00 to 1:00. No such scratch is present in the other two photos. The shape and design of the wreath held by the two Victories on the reverse of your coin is not the same as in the other two photos. The same is true of the two ribbons(?) at the bottom of the wreath. And so on. In fact, the only specific thing your coin appears to share with the other coin, apart from being the same type from the same mint, is the dent at 7:00 on the reverse. Perhaps I should not have taken your word for it that your coin is "LE MEME EXEMPLAIRE" as the NAC/Leu coin. But I assumed that your statement was accurate. Because I relied on your statement of provenance in purchasing the coin, I believe that I am entitled to a refund. Whether or not you intended to represent that yours was the same coin as the NAC/Leu coin, I believe that was the only reasonable interpretation. Otherwise, why mention the edge dent at 7:00 on the reverse? Why else mention that particular example, out of the 30+ examples of this type, from this mint, listed on ACSearch? I have copied MA-Shops customer service on this email, in case they may be of assistance. But I suggest that you give me a refund -- before you send the coin! -- and that when you re-list the coin you delete your statement of provenance. Many thanks. Am I nuts? Could the coin I bought possibly be the same coin as the NAC/Leu coin? And does "LE MEME EXEMPLAIRE" mean something different from what I took it to mean? In any event, I do feel like an idiot. I hope I get a refund, because the provenance was the key to my purchase. And I think I've learned a lesson for the future: don't make expensive impulse purchases at 3 am![/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Am I an idiot, or nuts, or is this a language issue?
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...