Fugio disappointment

Thought I found a really cool Fugio the other day for a decent price. Was getting help from some very knowledgeable and friendly folks here on CoinTalk. But then the coin arrived and I could see some things up close that weren't so apparent via photographs...

Seller's pictures:


Obverse pic taken at an angle (also visible through a loupe):

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm slow, what is it you see?

 

Scratches on the sundial... between 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock.

 

Darn, those look like recent scratches. The likely culprit is a staple. You'll see people occasionally scratch coins with staples when removing them from 2X2s.

 

Yep - sometimes it is all in the angle you take the picture from.

 

Yeah, that's what I thought, too. Darn staples.

To the seller's credit, it was priced lower for this reason and he did say there were "a few marks and light roughness consistent with the grade." I just think that the few marks were more noticeable than I am comfortable with.

 

Honestly, from the antiquity of this coin, when the scratches age and tone, will they even be noticeable?

 

Looks like someone spiffed it up as its missing quite a bit of veridigre from original pic

 

@Kentucky, I wish I was as confident as you. You're probably right, but I'm not sure I can wait that long.

@KoinJester, good catch... I didn't notice until you pointed that out.

More pics. So obviously, as bad as ANACS can be, something happened to the coin after it was graded. Probably a staple...

Not worth $385 in this condition. But it would have been a lot more expensive in the original condition, wouldn't you all agree?

 

Such a bummer...

 

I can't say I'm sure those scratches were there at all (yet) in the original seller pics.

 

@SuperDave, I agree.

I did not make the marks, so I'm guessing that someone goofed when taking it out of a 2x2, accidentally scratched it with the staples, then the seller bought it with thoughts of partially restoring it.

Either the seller posted pics that did not emphasize the scratches or he inadvertantly used the original pictures.

 

Hmmm...always inquire about a seller's return policy when buying online!

 

I don't think they inadvertently used the original pictures, I would say intentionally used original pics

 

You know, you're probably right. The "original" pics you posted still have EXIF data attached; they were shot in November 2012....I was thinking the seller somehow damaged the coin in the process of preparing it for shipping, at first.

That's about as deceptive as it gets.

 

@Dougmeister PM me...easy fix.

 

@Insider, too late. Already sent it back.

PM'ing you to see what you had in mind.

 

I am not as sure as the rest appear to be that the coin was not in the same condition in both sets of pictures. I think I can see some scratches in the original photos, although I am sure it was lite in such a way as to make them much less apparent, intentionally done or not I can't say. In addition, getting true color on these old copper coins can be very difficult. I have seen enough photos and coins to tell you that the red/green balance can often be very out of wack, with a coin in hand having a very natural appearance and the photo showing green highlights.

This looks like a pretty common version of poor photograph on the sellers part, bad color balance and bad lighting leading to a coin that looks much different in hand. I doubt anything was done to the coin between when the seller's photos were taken and when you got the coin.

 

The first seller's photo in this thread shows fresh "pink-orange" copper rub thru the brown surface in the middle of the coin.

There is also "green" residue that can be removed.

 

@beef1020, did you see the extra pictures I uploaded in post #9? Don't you think there is a lot of verdigris that has been removed when comparing to the original pics?