• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Shaking my head in disgust

Started by dimefreak,

118 posts in this topic

leeg

leeg

Posted
Posted

What I've discovered is that it's a free market.

 

A seller can ask whatever they want for a coin.

 

The buyer has to determine the price they are willing to pay to add a coin to their collection. It's as simple as that.

 

I've paid "stupid" money to add a coin I liked to my collection. My choice and my decision

 

Didn't purchase it as an investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted

I find it really hard to believe that he would be selling these. That seller is a well known, reputable dealer in toned coins - I've never seen something that SCREAMED AT so much in his inventory!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted
How do we know, without any doubt, that the coins are not disgusting or previously cooked or manufactured by Skittles?

Teach me.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

In this case, I firmly believe that every single coin in that auction was cooked. Including the one in the slab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
I find it really hard to believe that he would be selling these. That seller is a well known, reputable dealer in toned coins - I've never seen something that SCREAMED AT so much in his inventory!

 

The 1955-D Lincoln Cent looks like one with extremely vivid, natural mint set toning to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Mcknowitall

Mr.Mcknowitall

Posted
Posted
How do we know, without any doubt, that the coins are not disgusting or previously cooked or manufactured by Skittles?

Teach me.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

In this case, I firmly believe that every single coin in that auction was cooked. Including the one in the slab.

 

In "fisics", is firm belief Truth?

 

I can understand how that may appear to be the case sometimes in Law, but (blah blah)......we are discussing a "fisical" coin with "fisical" color.

 

Respectfully (always)

John Curlis

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted
I find it really hard to believe that he would be selling these. That seller is a well known, reputable dealer in toned coins - I've never seen something that SCREAMED AT so much in his inventory!

 

The 1955-D Lincoln Cent looks like one with extremely vivid, natural mint set toning to me.

 

Normally, Mark, I would probably be inclined to believe you. However, when it is sold in the same lot as a couple of dozen other coins which have the appearance of enhanced toning, then this coin is guilty by association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
I find it really hard to believe that he would be selling these. That seller is a well known, reputable dealer in toned coins - I've never seen something that SCREAMED AT so much in his inventory!

 

The 1955-D Lincoln Cent looks like one with extremely vivid, natural mint set toning to me.

 

Normally, Mark, I would probably be inclined to believe you. However, when it is sold in the same lot as a couple of dozen other coins which have the appearance of enhanced toning, then this coin is guilty by association.

 

Jason, you just brought up, what is for me, an interesting and tough dilemma - one that I used to face as a grader.

 

When evaluating a coin, do you/should you evaluate it, purely on its own merits, or do you/should you consider other factors (such as the company it keeps)?

 

And should the answer be the same for a grader, as it is for a person contemplating buying the coin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted

Mark, I believe (as I have demonstrated in this thread) that yes, absolutely a coin can be judged by the company it keeps. This seller is well known to sell on consignment, and if there is one consignment with 28 pennies, only one of which is in a slab but demonstrates similar toning, I am going to question why. If those coins were genuinely NT, they would each be in a slab and be sold separately. That is the only way to maximize profits. To see that many unslabbed, but one with a slab? That raises legitimate questions about the one that made it - no matter what NGC might say.

 

Of course, I'm not telling you anything new here. Just describing the way I see it, and how I came to what some may consider a harsh decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CyberspaceVoid

CyberspaceVoid

Posted
Posted

This is one of the reasons I dont buy vivid toners ... I treat them all with suspicion. Sure, they are "pretty" but I would never be able to sleep at night with the thought of my friends laughing at me for purchasing an AT for my small collection.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MJ

MJ

Posted
Posted

As much as it pains me at times I agree with Mark Feld point for point.

 

I do admit it's a very weird listing.

 

MJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Mcknowitall

Mr.Mcknowitall

Posted
Posted
I find it really hard to believe that he would be selling these. That seller is a well known, reputable dealer in toned coins - I've never seen something that SCREAMED AT so much in his inventory!

 

The 1955-D Lincoln Cent looks like one with extremely vivid, natural mint set toning to me.

 

Normally, Mark, I would probably be inclined to believe you. However, when it is sold in the same lot as a couple of dozen other coins which have the appearance of enhanced toning, then this coin is guilty by association.

 

Jason, you just brought up, what is for me, an interesting and tough dilemma - one that I used to face as a grader.

 

When evaluating a coin, do you/should you evaluate it, purely on its own merits, or do you/should you consider other factors (such as the company it keeps)?

 

And should the answer be the same for a grader, as it is for a person contemplating buying the coin?

 

If a Grader is grading a coin on its merits, and the owner of the coin is not known, I am interested on why/how a coin could, or of more importance, why/how it SHOULD be considered by the company it keeps?

 

Granted, many of the same type/color of coins could be in the hands of the Grader at the same time, and granted it may be possible to, thru some type of coding, conclude the coins as a total are from the same submitter.

 

But (blah blah) this should never be a dilemma for the Grader. The coin stands on its own.

 

A Grader MAY have a suspicion, a Grader MAY know the coins are from the same source, the Grader MAY mentally question the association. However, these suspicions/thoughts should never be allowed to transfer to other coins in the hands of the Grader as a "guilty by association" determination.

 

It seems to me that this would not be grading by expert numismatic opinion. In fact, it would not be independent grading at all, and by logic, would be giving to the customer asking for an expert opinion, something less.

 

The difference between a Grader being paid to give an expert opinion and a buyer contemplating a purchase of the coin, is that the Buyer does not enjoy any recourse to the paid for an expert opinion as a buyer - Caveat....you know the rest.

 

I do not cocur that there is a tough dilemma for the Grader, especially in the context described.

 

Nor should a Grader justify the action by contemplating that the action is an expert opinion, when the opinion is based on association/source.

 

Better to decline to grade the coin or its partners at all, if such a circumstance exists in the mind of the Grader.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dimefreak

dimefreak

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I find it really hard to believe that he would be selling these. That seller is a well known, reputable dealer in toned coins - I've never seen something that SCREAMED AT so much in his inventory!

 

Exactly why it disgust me! He deals with them all the time! It would be like Mark putting a raw 1909SVDB on his site with a blatenly obvious added "S". Everybody respects his knowledge in toned coins and this is taking advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
I find it really hard to believe that he would be selling these. That seller is a well known, reputable dealer in toned coins - I've never seen something that SCREAMED AT so much in his inventory!

 

The 1955-D Lincoln Cent looks like one with extremely vivid, natural mint set toning to me.

 

Normally, Mark, I would probably be inclined to believe you. However, when it is sold in the same lot as a couple of dozen other coins which have the appearance of enhanced toning, then this coin is guilty by association.

 

Jason, you just brought up, what is for me, an interesting and tough dilemma - one that I used to face as a grader.

 

When evaluating a coin, do you/should you evaluate it, purely on its own merits, or do you/should you consider other factors (such as the company it keeps)?

 

And should the answer be the same for a grader, as it is for a person contemplating buying the coin?

 

If a Grader is grading a coin on its merits, and the owner of the coin is not known, I am interested on why/how a coin could, or of more importance, why/how it SHOULD be considered by the company it keeps?

 

Granted, many of the same type/color of coins could be in the hands of the Grader at the same time, and granted it may be possible to, thru some type of coding, conclude the coins as a total are from the same submitter.

 

But (blah blah) this should never be a dilemma for the Grader. The coin stands on its own.

 

A Grader MAY have a suspicion, a Grader MAY know the coins are from the same source, the Grader MAY mentally question the association. However, these suspicions/thoughts should never be allowed to transfer to other coins in the hands of the Grader as a "guilty by association" determination.

 

It seems to me that this would not be grading by expert numismatic opinion. In fact, it would not be independent grading at all, and by logic, would be giving to the customer asking for an expert opinion, something less.

 

The difference between a Grader being paid to give an expert opinion and a buyer contemplating a purchase of the coin, is that the Buyer does not enjoy any recourse to the paid for an expert opinion as a buyer - Caveat....you know the rest.

 

I do not cocur that there is a tough dilemma for the Grader, especially in the context described.

 

Nor should a Grader justify the action by contemplating that the action is an expert opinion, when the opinion is based on association/source.

 

Better to decline to grade the coin or its partners at all, if such a circumstance exists in the mind of the Grader.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

John, this reply might very well cause you to be disappointed in me, but I am, nevertheless, compelled to speak honestly on this subject.

 

First, when I graded coins, each coin from a given invoice was in the same box. So, while I wouldn't know who owned or submitted the coins, I at least knew they that they were submitted together on the same invoice.

 

And I have to admit, in some instances, it was impossible not to be affected (positively or negatively) by the company with which some coins were submitted.

 

Here are a couple of general examples of how that might have occurred.....

 

In looking at a box of 10 coins, if the first 6 were obviously cleaned, altered, AT, counterfeit, whatever, I admittedly might look at the next 4 differently than I would if the first 6 were problem-free.

 

In looking at a box of 10 coins, if the first 6 were highly original looking gems, I admit that if the next coin looked a little bit off, I might look at it differently than I would if the first 6 were obviously messed with.

 

I made a conscientious effort to view and grade each coin on it's own merits. But on rare occasions, it was impossible for me to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MJ

MJ

Posted
Posted
As much as it pains me at times I agree with Mark Feld point for point.

 

I do admit it's a very weird listing.

 

MJ

 

I don't think Mr. Feld stated this.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

Hi John

 

I agreed with Mark's responses to the thread point for point.

 

The "weird listing" comment was my personal conjecture and the reason I separated it by starting a new sentence/paragraph .Personally I wouldn't make a listing like that. I apologize if that was confusing.

 

I was also being sarcastic about my agreeing with Mark. I happen to agree with him a lot.

 

MJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kurtdog

Kurtdog

Posted
Posted

All I know is without that slab this whole lot wouldn't fetch more than a double-sawbuck from most collectors I know, if it could even get that. No wonder the TPGs love these arbitrary standards, look at how much their word alone on these is worth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Mcknowitall

Mr.Mcknowitall

Posted
Posted

Rather than answer Mr. Feld as a quote reply, and having a mile long String, I will do it this way.

 

1) Never disappointed.

 

2) I support honesty and Integrity.

 

3) Impossibility of human emotion and thought in grading coins certainly can't be eliminated- although I must be just as honest and admit I have suspected it has been when I see some TPG coins. However, this does not give license to guilt by association and act on that suspicion without due diligence.

 

4) A "moral" comparison- a Priest in the Confessional. He knows the "submitter", and harbors doubts about exonerating the guilt of the submitter, and strongly suspects the submitter's family members, who are next in line, are also not deserving. Never the less these emotions are negated by a higher Standard, and individual attention is required before a proper Pennance. This is the basis of my comment that it would be better to decline to grade the coins, if the suspicion is harbored, and let another Grader do it, and avoid the "sometimes impossible" dilemma.

 

5) Another example- the charged Jury.

 

6) Lastly, a requirement when serving the public is to limit doubt that the task has not been independently evaluated and executed, even in the face of adversity. Yes, there may be 50 people on Death Row, and there may be 10 that are innocent (20% for the non-math majors). However, each received independent evaluation, without regard to the fate of the other 40.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buffalo Head

Buffalo Head

Posted
Posted

I find the 1955-D Lincoln very attractive. I won't comment on the other coins as I do respect this seller. But I will say this....If the coins are AT then maybe he should say so in the listing.....Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Mcknowitall

Mr.Mcknowitall

Posted
Posted
As much as it pains me at times I agree with Mark Feld point for point.

 

I do admit it's a very weird listing.

 

MJ

 

I don't think Mr. Feld stated this.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

Hi John

 

I agreed with Mark's responses to the thread point for point.

 

The "weird listing" comment was my personal conjecture and the reason I separated it by starting a new sentence/paragraph .Personally I wouldn't make a listing like that. I apologize if that was confusing.

 

I was also being sarcastic about my agreeing with Mark. I happen to agree with him a lot.

 

MJ

 

Mea Culpa, and please believe my words were not meant to be a harsh retort.

Sincerely,

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Mcknowitall

Mr.Mcknowitall

Posted
Posted
I find the 1955-D Lincoln very attractive. I won't comment on the other coins as I do respect this seller. But I will say this....If the coins are AT then maybe he should say so in the listing.....Joe

 

Yes, and if not, then don't. That way the coins get more attention on the Forum here.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Mcknowitall

Mr.Mcknowitall

Posted
Posted
All I know is without that slab this whole lot wouldn't fetch more than a double-sawbuck from most collectors I know, if it could even get that. No wonder the TPGs love these arbitrary standards, look at how much their word alone on these is worth!

 

In other words, the method of presentation of the offer to sell is good marketing, without spending money to encapsulate all of the them. Something to do with more profit for a business, I guess.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing