Wrong/deceptive wording in eBay auction?

I won an auction where the title was "2000 US MINT PROOF SET + PROOF STATE QUARTER SET" and the item listing says "THIS AUCTION IS FOR THE US MINT 2000 PROOF STATE QUARTER SET AND US MINT 2000 PROOF SET".

According to me, I should be getting the 2000 clad proof state quarter set (5 coins) and the 2000 clad proof set (10 coins), but the seller only sent the 10 coin set. When I sent a question to him about this, his reply was 'that is what the auction was for....the 2000 us mint proof set which included the 5 state quarter set. I don't understand what you are asking? There should have been only 10 coins.'

My reply was: 'The auction description says "THIS AUCTION IS FOR THE US MINT 2000 PROOF STATE QUARTER SET AND US MINT 2000 PROOF SET"
That means there should be two sets, one 2000 proof set containing 10 coins, and one 2000 state quarter proof set containing the 5 quarters.'

Am I right in my assumption that I should get both sets?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yes you are right.

 

If it was a PROOF set then there would only be 5 coins ( S mint mark ) plus the 5 quarters. If it were a MINT set then there would be 10 coins (both P & D mint marks ) plus the 5 quarters.

Was a picture posted for this auction? It does get confusing when the auction states Mint Proof sets, which is it, a Mint set or a Proof set?

 

The 2000 clad proof set contains 10 coins, including the 5 quarters (see description at http://www.us-proof-sets.com/1999-date.htm).
By reading the auction description I was expecting to get one of those sets plus the 2000 State Quarter clad proof set (http://www.us-proof-sets.com/1999-date-quarter.htm)

The auction was for a 2000 proof set and a 2000 quarters proof set. The word "Mint" was used to describe that the coins come from the U.S. Mint, not that the items up for bid were mint sets.
No pictures...

 

It really sounds like you read the seller's plus sign as "and", when he/she meant "including". My guess is that he/she graduated from high school since proper command of the English language was dropped as a graduation requirement.

 

Yes the way it reads is a bit ambiguous, but I can see a non-coin-collector type and/or a careless person describing it that way without actually trying to deceive anybody. It stills stinks to feel like you overpaid though. Maybe they will let you return it since your interpretation is reasonable enough.

 

That may be what he meant, but that's not what he wrote...
To me, the text "THIS AUCTION IS FOR THE US MINT 2000 PROOF STATE QUARTER SET AND US MINT 2000 PROOF SET" clearly indicates that there are two separate sets included in the auction.

 

Agreed. You're preaching to the choir man! LoL. I just got burned by an out-and-out hustler, so don't feel like your alone. I learned my lesson the hard way for the bargain price of ~$70, so I consider myself lucky. It could have been worse. Now I am much more selective about sellers and always collect all the facts/clarification before bidding. Sometimes I miss out on bidding because the seller has plenty of bidders but doesn't want to spend extra time on me, but hey, I'm not going to get screwed any more either.

Best Regards

 

It probably was an honest mistake on the part of the seller. Probably not even meant to mislead. I swear that many sellers don't even read over their auctions to see how the wording could be interpreted (and to check for typos.) Does the seller seem willing to negotiate at all? Is it worth it to you to return the set if it is for a full refund (including shipping)?

 

This is a good example why I will never bid on an auction that does not have pictures. I always compare the description, Title, picture and if they do not match, I do not bid.

I also agree that this seller was not trying to cheat or lie, just worded things wrong.

 

Just received this:

"After reviewing how my auction read and comparing it to other auctions currently listed, i really don't the problem. the auction was for the 2000 us mint proof set.....which consists of 5 coins plus the set of the 5 quarters released that year. I am sorry if you thought there was 2 seperate sets of coins but you should have asked if before the auction ended if you were unsure as to the contents. plus the price alone should have made it clear. If it would have been two sets of quarters and the regular mint set ...the price would have been higher. I really am sorry you feel disappointed or cheated. You are welcome to send them back to me at your cost and I will refund your purchase price once I receive the coins."

My reply: "Both the 2000 quarter proof set (5 quarters) and the 2000 proof sets (10 coin set, including 5 quarters) are sets that were sold by the US Mint. Your auction description mentions both sets, so why shouldn't the two sets be included in the auction?

The sets can be bought from dealers like Paul Sims for about $40 (incl. shipping) for both sets, so my bid for $34 (incl. shipping) is a fair bid for both sets and I had no reason to believe that my bid was for only one set.

Sure I can send the sets back for a refund, but I expect to get my shipping cost refunded too. Why should I have to lose money because your auction listed two sets but only one set was actually offered for sale?"

 

I think this all comes down to semantics. What defines a set? Is all 5 quarters a set and are the 5 "other" coins a set? Or is a set the 5 quarters and the other set the 5 quarters and the "other" 5 coins a set?

I can see where you are coming from CoinSwede and if I were the seller I would refund the purchase price, but not the shipping costs. Misunderunderstandings occur, but there is always a cost of education.

 

In this case I would define a set based on the US Mint's definition of sets: A 2000 proof set is supposed to contain the 5 quarters and the 5 "other" coins. A 2000 quarter proof set is supposed to contain 5 quarters. If a seller lists both a proof set and a quarter proof set, I expect to receive both complete sets (15 coins total), not half a proof set (no quarters) plus a quarter proof set.

I agree that the issue is a misunderstanding caused by an unclear auction listing, but I can't really see why I should bear any cost when the seller was unclear.
paying for my shipping would be the cost of education for the seller in this case.

My issue is not the money I paid. It's more a question of holding people accountable for their mistakes. Everyone can make a mistake, but I would expect people to assume responsibility for the mistakes they make.

 

I am not taking one side or the other nor am I trying to offend anyone here, but I will quote you " ... I would expect people to assume responsibility for the mistakes they make." As my post above states "This is a good example why I will never bid on an auction that does not have pictures. I always compare the description, Title, picture and if they do not match, I do not bid." Maybe both the buyer and seller each made a mistake.

The only reason I am saying this is I am both a buyer ond seller on ebay, so I can see both sides.

 

I hate to say it, but after reading his response to you, I am convinced that you are the victim of stupidity, not veniality. He really doesn't understand how his poor English skills misled you.

 

Yeah, I guess my mistake was that I expected the seller to know what he was selling. When he listed two sets, I should have known that he only meant one set...

(I realize that I could have been more careful when choosing which auctions to bid on, but I generally expect the seller to know what he's selling.)

 

Boy, if that happened all would be well.

Good Luck on getting this settled.

Larry

 

Actually, some of the best bargains I have gotten on EBay were auctions where:

• the seller honestly did not know what he was selling; and
• his descriptions were inadequate/incomplete; but
• his pictures were clear enough for me to know what he had.

 

I've also taken advantage of the above, but very carefully since such a seller could cause me a lot of trouble through his ignorance. I'll look at the whole auction including his spelling, grammar, and punctuation which tells me at what level at which I would be working. If his English is poor, there's a good possibility he might have a communication problem; this happened to me once on an 89-CC Morgan which was improperly represented and in which the seller couldn't express himself, so he became angry at ME. Fortunately, I was able to work a compromise.

I also always, always look at feedback on one of these picture-only auctions, but I think everyone on this forum is astute enough to do likewise with all auctions. Sometimes, the seller knows exactly what he's doing when he lists a coin with a picture only: often, there is a serious problem with the coin which doesn't show up in the pictures and he's just trying to dump it. I am very suspicious of "You grade the coin" auctions with pictures only. In all such instances, I'll query the seller asking for more details; if I receive a vague or deceptive answer or no answer at all, I almost always skip the auction (although I've been known to take a chance... and have been burned a few times).

Nevertheless, as sastootoko states, some good bargains can be had from picture-only auctions.

 

I am fully in agreement with Roy and MorganFred. I have found some fabulous bargains from auctions with no descriptions. I have also found some excellent bargains in auctions with no pictures or very poor pictures. However, I always make sure that I am not going to spend more than I can afford to lose. It's like gambling at the casino. You may win; you may lose. If you plan to lose, you can't be disappointed.

Overall, I have done very well - been burned a couple of times but never seriously. But the seller is not to blame for any of the times I've been burned. I deliberately set out to get a great deal at a risk. When I chose to take that risk, I took responsibility for the outcome.

I only say that because it is easy to take the chance and then blame the seller for not fully representing an item. If you know that you are taking the chance, you need to also accept responsibility for that decision.