To Return or Not to Return... Bronze Disease Dilemma

I think if the BD existed on the coin at the time of sale and was not disclosed (or noticed by the seller), one should have the opportunity to return it right away. Otherwise, your point is well taken that it can show up afterwards due to no fault of the seller.

As for this coin and the OP, I think he should keep it and treat it. If he's a collector of bronze, he might as well learn how to treat it because it probably won't be the last time he deals with it especially depending on his climate and storage options.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This illustrates my point and questions. If neither party knows that it exists (or will exist) why should someone be held responsible? We humble humans do not have the power of prediction.

Nevertheless, I also think this coin should be retained and be treated (either by @Curtisimo or someone he trusts). I've seen much worse cases and I think he would regret losing the coin.

 

The question is whether or not someone knew the coin was a BD bomb just waiting to go off. Let's say I have a coin with BD and soak it in DW and dry it out so it looks OK. Then I consign it to your auction and you list it in your sale whether or not you recognized the situation. Six months after the sale, the BD blooms again and the buyer has a problem through no fault of his own except that he bought a coin from one or two people who were hiding the fact that the coin had a problem. On the other hand, if the purchaser lives in a high humidity area, the fully 'cured' coin could relapse while it would not have been in the desert. It is not the fault of a consignor or dealer that a buyer lives in Florida.

As I stated before, I would be surprised if the auction would refund the coin after so long but some sellers will refund anything for any reason just to keep return customers coming back for more.

From a business sake, would the seller benefit more refunding this one coin and keeping all of us happy? Would refusing cost him our business including the decision with whom we will chose to consign our coins when we sell/pass? I guarantee that the dealer who will make the most off of me in the future is not the one I will buy from in the next few years but the one I have instructed my family to contact when I am gone.

Part of me believes that it would be inappropriate to ask for a refund under the circumstances presented by this coin after so long BUT I can see where granting that unreasonable refund might be a good idea depending on how important that seller considers his relationship with this particular customer.

 

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider too long, given that it does take this kind of a flaw a while to show up?

 

BTA is nasty stuff, Google the material safety data sheet on it. I would not want to handle a coin with my bare hands after it has been treated with it. It is also impossible to remove from the surface once treated. That is for museum collections that know what they are doing.

 

"Too long" is usually defined in the rules posted for the sale hat must be agreed to by participants. This can be anywhere from zero (no returns) to any period but sales of coins on consignment can't be too long since the consignor expects to be paid promptly. Auctions are not conditional/approval sales in most cases. You are expected to decide if you want the coin as it is before bidding. There is usually an exception in the case of fake coins but even this has limit in some cases. I wonder how many people ever read the terms before bidding.

 

Thanks

 

I do not think asking for a refund in the case that I have stated above is inappropriate in the least. That is not to say that I believe that the auction house was dishonest or intentionally misleading when they sold me this coin. I don't know the circumstances. Unless their response to me on this issue is rude or dismissive I have absolutely no ill feelings toward them and will buy from them again.

Based on the photos I took soon after I received the coin, I think that the coin had begun to suffer from bronze disease BEFORE I took ownership of it. This is really the heart of the matter for me. If I had no way to show that the coin was showing signs of BD when I got it (such as if I had waited to photograph it till now) I would not even consider returning it an option. As such my photo's metadata shows exactly when it was starting to show signs (that I admittedly didn't recognize at the time). A seller or dealer hiding behind a boiler plate "not my problem" clause in a case like this is a level of buyer beware that frankly seems unreasonable to me... why would anyone ever buy bronze from them again!

The sale terms do indeed give a (very short) time limit on returns which are obviously past in this case but are also far too short to note an incremental condition like BD. The return clause is reasonable if it is meant to protect the auction house from late onset buyers remorse but crosses into unreasonable if used to shield it from working with repeat customers to solve a legitimate issue.

For instance, would the auction house or dealer refuse to refund a coin that they thought was problem free but was later shown to have been tooled or altered? Some might. The ones who would refund are the ones I would buy from again.

Part of me hopes the auction house will offer to have it treated for me or if not to allow me to return it if I fail in my effort to treat it myself. To lose the coin and the money I spent on it would be insult to injury!

 

I hope you will let us know how this eventually works out.