Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by Eyeappealcoin, May 3, 2021.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
Thanks! These days you just don’t know who can falsify, etc.
The red'ish one with the residue is what I got.
Agreed. That's exactly what I did.
They are the same coin. Ignore the difference in color, as that can easily be attributed to white balance differences in the camera/post processing. That happens often.
Aside from the portrait, everything else between the two coins is the same. Same crud in the 2nd 'N' in UNION, same filled die in the first N, same filled '4', same dirt/toning around the devices (note star immediately to left of the date), and more.
But then we get to the portrait. What the Heck!?!?! Is that wacky discoloration showing at all angles? Particularly straight-on like the seller's photo? Is it physical gunk on the token, or something else?
Kinda looks like it's been coated in olive oil or something.
Definitely get eBay involved, and even though (IMO) it's the same coin, the images were deceptive enough to warrant an 'Item Not As Described' claim.
Also get whoever you used to pay (credit card or PayPal, etc) involved, and dispute the charge.
I agree that it's the same coin. My thought is after the photo was taken and later used in the auction, a cleaning or other experiment was done to it that went bad. Either way, it's very different from what I thought I was buying.
Really? There is that modeling on the face device on the ebay photography?
That is not a problem. Cameras don't shoot accurate images all the time. All image development involves a degree of photo-editing, whether it film development balancing the emulsions, or white balancing the lamps, etc. The problem is when they use photoshot to hide defects in the coin.
Just looks like the photo is not that sharp and is taken with lighting and an angle that did not show the same surface reflected in the much sharper image taken by the buyer with different lighting and angle.
I don't think there was any photoshop going on. The picture appears to fit with the general appearance of other items sold. Many of the items have photos taken in holders and with poor lighting with some being out of focus.
Not buying it. This is an example of an attempt to misrepresent the item. You can not just miss an essential aspect of the coins aesthetic value, like that, and then blame it on the lighting and camera. The seller has a RESPONSIBILITY to present the item being sold in a reasonably honest way so that the buyer can make a reasonable assessment of its value. Clearly, we have a preponderance of evidence that the seller failed to live up to reasonable expectations of the sellers fiduciary responsibility in this matter and the claim against his honesty as an ebay dealer is completely justified based on this evidence.
This is an open and closed case and the judge with the seeing eye dog will not review all the circles and arrows on the 8x11 gross pictures. The seller will pay a $50 fine and pick up the trash.
Back to Thanksgiving dinner.
Separate names with a comma.