Another Fake from Lanz

Thank you for your response @Lolli.

1) Bringing up this previously dead thread will help others to judge whether or not to make a purchase from Lanz.

2) After watching almost every episode of the detective series “Columbo,” I can tell you with tremendous authority that the worst thing a guilty person can do is keep talking. If I were Lanz, I would have hoped this thread would quietly go away.

3) There is an expression, the “Ring of Truth.” Sadly some use this to see if their coins are solid silver, I advise against it because if the coin is crystallized, it can shatter and even good silver can be scratched or dented. In life however, I think it has value.

Why do we “want” or “expect” Lanz to sell fakes?
Why is it that no one, other than you, has jumped to Lanz’s defense? Why is it that others say, “yeah, he burned me too?” Why doesn’t anyone say, “Lanz promptly refunded my money long after my recourse though Paypal has expired. He is so honest!”
Of course I could be lying, anyone interested has to decide who has the “Ring of Truth.”

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

.

 

You're completely ignoring the fact that we don't simply have Nemo's recollection of what happened. We have his and Lanz's email correspondence on the subject, which is "not clear" only if you're accusing Nemo of forging that correspondence. Lanz had a chance to explain his actions to Nemo in that correspondence, and failed to do so -- again, unless you're accusing Nemo of omitting relevant correspondence. Given that Lanz has a long history of selling tooled and fake coins -- and being otherwise dishonest in his dealings -- whereas I'm not aware of any history of dishonesty on Nemo's part, that would be a very serious accusation, for which you would have no evidence -- unlike Nemo, who has persuasive evidence for his accusations.

Certainly Nemo's evidence is persuasive enough for me to believe, given that we're in the court of public opinion here. What would happen in a real court, in a real litigation, is completely irrelevant. After all, Lanz knows perfectly well that litigation against him in Germany is highly impractical for a non-German like Nemo over such a relatively small amount of money; the attorneys' fees alone would probably far exceed the value of the case. (And although I would argue that Lanz's business activities in fraudulently marketing and selling coins to the USA via Ebay constitute sufficient contacts to subject him to transactional jurisdiction in a US court, the same would be true of attorneys' fees here in the USA, especially because the issue of jurisdiction would undoubtedly have to be litigated before even reaching the merits.)

Therefore, Lanz has little or no incentive to refrain from cheating people, since he apparently doesn't care about his reputation among knowledgeable collectors. There are always enough uneducated buyers on ebay to allow him to continue profiting from his shady practices.

Furthermore, given the relevant email correspondence, the question of whether the coin Nemo purchased is actually authentic or a fake is completely irrelevant to his right to a refund. Again, unless you're accusing Nemo of forging the correspondence, Lanz expressly told him that he could return the coin, in response to Nemo's requests for a refund. There is only one commercially reasonable interpretation of Lanz's communication: that he was telling Nemo to return the coin for a refund. Because a refund was the express subject of their communications, and, in any event, is the only normal outcome of a consumer's return of purchased goods, absent an express agreement to the contrary. Therefore, there's no ambiguity in the correspondence that might require further evidence. If Lanz wanted Nemo to return the coin on a consignment basis, with Nemo entitled to receive only the proceeds of a resale, he had every opportunity to say that -- but failed to do so, let alone to obtain Nemo's agreement to such an arrangement. Whether German or U.S. law were applied, I find it extremely difficult to believe that any court or tribunal would read such unspoken terms into their agreement, or take into account Lanz's unspoken alleged intentions, given that doing so is completely unnecessary to carry out the parties' agreement.

For all its length, your defense of Lanz rests on a bed of sand.

 

I am always sceptical, if people pretend it was exactly as they said, without giving the other side the chance to respond.
My experience is that almost all but not all people are trying to let themselves look as good as possible, that can be by not mentioning things that could be negative for them or lying unintentionally or intentionally. And to be honest I am sometimes lying too and I think we all show think how often we lie out of politeness or under other circumstances. But if it comes to money or such things I would never lie has something to do with honor and dignity.

If you ask witnesses about an accident you can be sure to get to hear differences although non of them is intentionally lying.

Lanz is selling much and the more you sell the higher the chance that soneone will not be happy.
I think we should see the number of not satisfied customers in relation to satisfied one

 

"We have his and Lanz's email correspondence on the subject, which is "not clear" only if you're accusing Nemo of forging that correspondence"

Jokes should be marked as such!
We only have Nemo s word that it was like this not more.

If he can prove Screenshots of Email conversation it would be another case or any evidence that it was like he pretends.

If Nemo would have posted any real evidence for what he pretends I would be 100 % on Nemo s side and I would have written Lanz wtf he is doing and would have liked to this thread in other forums too because this behavior could not be justified.

But I can not imagine that Lanz would do this intentionally, I met him only 3 time and had some Email conversations with him and and this behavior does not fit to my impression of him and in internet everyone can write anything so I am sceptical if this was not a misunderstanding except there will be prove otherwise.

 

Hmmmmm, now i'm a liar and a pretender? I have the full correspondence but I choose not to post it publicly. Anyway, how easy is it to fake a screenshot? I'm technically challenged but even i know that wouldn't hold up in a court of law! What would motivate @Lolli to call me a liar?

 

So if Dr. Lanz is on CT, what is/are his avatars and CT handles?

Steve

 

This is pretty much what I was going to say. It appears that I was correct that @Lolli's argument rests entirely on the premise that you're a liar, that your account of what happened is something you "pretend[]," and that you're making up the contents of your correspondence with Lanz. Because unless all those things are true, his argument collapses. And, as you point out, if you posted screenshots of that correspondence, he would undoubtedly respond by saying that maybe you forged those as well!

 

I think it's time for all of us to get the heck out of the house!!!!!!!!

 

Agreed!!!

 

I never said that you Nemo must be lying but I mentioned the possibility that he misunderstood something or lied intentionally or unintentionally and that we can not know for sure without evidence.

Show me where I wrote it this way as you say, I mentioning it as one of many options. I would never say this because I can not know if it exactly as you say or not, only you and Lanz know how it really was.

For me it is just interesting if Lanz really did it as Nemo said or not.

If I would be Lanz I would not post in such a thread especially if there would be evidence against me and going on here would harm me or pissing Nemo so off that he would actually decide to go to court and causing really bad publicity.

Lanz can not win by reopening this thread but this is not the point, I am just curious and I do not trust people in internet or in real life.

You can guess that I am not him, I am just very sceptical about things written in internet without verifyable evidence.

Do you really believe everything people write here and in other boards ?

Screenshot can be done easily, if you press print and then go in paint or paint.net program and there you go on paste.

I doubt that Nemo would fake such screenshoots the only question is if there could have been something misunderstood when he offered you to resell it or not, this is what is all about, if something you or he wrote or did could have been misunderstood or not and so if he did it intentionally or if it was a misunderstanding. Because we speak here about something very serious (legal actions with punishment very likely if it would go to court) and stupid, if he really did it this way.

Then we can close this topic forever and Lanz reputation will be destroyed (with screenshot) and all will be on your side and I will apologize and never ever write here in this forum again.

 

What a bunch of Lanz nut hugger nonsense! That coin is as fake as Otho's hair!
I read this thread when it came out and kept silent, but what you are saying is nonsense. #1 is not a possibility. Just like whoever at Lanz that sold that thinking it was legit is not a possibility.
I agree that you bringing this thread back up is a good thing. More people realizing that they should not purchase from Lanz. Keep hurting that seller of fakes business by defending him and keeping this thread at the top of page 1!

 

well... we also have the 'Discoveries of advanced pre-flood civiliztions' which has been on the first page for ages.

 

Man, that post is like Jason Voorhies! Can't somebody just kill it already?! Though I wouldn't mind a new Friday the 13th...if the franchise could ever get out of court...

 

probably in relation with this:

THough I would like it if that thread, kept alive due to COVID, stays with us during COVID

 

My point was that people in general are weary and tempers flaring.

 

To slightly amend this...the worst thing an INNOCENT person can do is keep talking. Why do you think they warn you "Anything you say can, and will be used against you in a court of law." and not "Anything you say can be used in your defense."If arrested...no I have never been...the best thing to say is "Lawyer."

 

Despite whatever verbal gymnastics are employed in the defense of the seller in this case I think enough of the story has come out that collectors can make up their own mind on what / who to believe.

If even one collector decides never to buy from Lanz due to what we have learned about how he handled this situation (such as I have) then I will say the 432EU he saved by not giving a full refund is the most expensive money he ever earned. I have refrained from bidding in several of his sales for coins high on my want list and will continue to do so.

 

Same. He has Macedonian shield coins on eBay all the time. Won’t touch em. I’d been warned about him before but this post was probably what made me say never again. Heck, I put where I acquired coins from in my description. I removed his name from my descriptions to avoid giving him business.

 

An established pattern of willful unscrupulous business practices is justifiably indictable in comparison to a forgivable honest mistake (or two).

It's understandable that one may not be able to please all of the people all of the time. However, when reading (verifiable) reviews on a product or service, I find myself often reading the negative reviews first. Isolated complaints are often easily dismissed as one-offs.

When I see multiple different reviews describing similar recurring complaints, red flags arise. I then have to make a decision of whether I want to spend my hard-earned money with a merchant that has a documented negative track record with former customers.

I usually opt to pass, unless the alternative options are non-existent. Fortunately, with something like 'ancient coins', there are plenty of honest ancient coin dealers out there to do business with.