Ethical Hypothetical

[coinman_23885]

I saw a post on another coin forum where someone had removed a Morgan Dollar from a new ANACS yellow holder and replaced it with an Eisenhower Dollar, and the holder looked as if it had never been tampered with. So here is my hypothetical: If you had a coin in a new ANACS holder and you "cracked" it out using this method to prevent damage to the holder and the coin did not grade at NGC/PCGS, would it be unethical to place the coin back in the ANACS slab to attempt to enforce the guarantee? And again, I would like to emphasize that this question is a hypothetical and not based on an actual "plot."

[skippy]

No question that it is unethical. Buyer is entitled to a holder that is not messed with if he is buying a coin that is advertised as holdered.

 

Furthermore, seller could have done some damage to the coin during the crackout that changed the grade. Buyer would only have the seller's word for it that this did not happen, not the neutral TPG's word.

 

[RWB]

Once the slab is open, the birds begin to sing.

[bartlesvilleok]

I do not see how anyone could say that this was not unethical.

[jom]

It's only ethical if it is DISCLOSED that the coin was put back in the holder. But...at that point why bother putting it back in the holder in the first place? To me the ONLY reason to do so would be to deceive...IMO.

 

jom

[Conder101]

Once the holder was opened the warranty was void. The op said the coin was placed back in the holder and in an attempt to enforce the guarantee in other words to try and get ANACS to honor the guarantee that no longer exists. It is not only unethical, it is also attempted fraud. If you didn't try and get ANACS to honor the guarantee but instead tried to sell the coin without disclosing that you had opened it that would also be unethical and fraudulent because you would be representing the coin as something it is not, an anacs slabbed coin. If you sold it with disclosure it would not be fraudulent, but I think it would still be unethical because it would permit someone else to fraudulently sell it. Your hands are clean but you are aiding and abetting someone else.

 

Likewise useing a slab label to help in selling a raw coin is in my opinion questionable as well since there is usually no way to verify that the coin being sold actually belongs with that label.

[coinman_23885]

Thanks for the responses, and you all espoused the same view that I have. The hypothetical arose in response to some other posts that I had seen on various forums, and I was curious if I was missing something. Thanks!

[mhomei]

utterly UNETHICAL

 

[PerryHall]

Unethical but on a scale of 1 to 10 it would only be a 2. If you substituted a lesser coin then it would be an 8.