1924 rainbow pece dollar that belonged to TR found

[indiananationals-migration]

it seems it just happent to show up i will be waiting on my refund of the $200 down payment

[mkman123]

Hold on a sec.....you mean to say he was out 2k on a coin that you didn't insure and had to wait this long until it finally showed up?

[physics-fan3.14]

I have no idea what you guys are talking about. Someone fill in the story.

[indiananationals-migration]

nope ive been told he has been shopping it for some time now

[dimefreak]

I have no idea what you guys are talking about. Someone fill in the story.

A peace dollar was sent to Indiananationals for $2K. Indiana gave the guy a 10 percent DP and than never received the DP back after he returned the coin. Apparently the coin was lost for a very long time. I was offered the coin over a month ago for $1400. I got scared because I didnt think the coin was found yet. If it is in fact found than I missed out on a great coin for a great price. Now the coin is on Ebay. Indiana came over here to show he is very mad and wants his DP back. He isnt allowed to do that ATS. But the people ATS I am sure have been notified of this thread by a informant and when Don Willis gets home from the CSNS he will view the thread. Hi Don

[physics-fan3.14]

If you guys have ATS problems, send PM's or something. Why do you have to bring it over here?

[indiananationals-migration]

it is already being talked about ATS i was contacted by a couple members to let me know it was up for sale .....

[dimefreak]

If you guys have ATS problems, send PM's or something. Why do you have to bring it over here?

 

but to answer your question its against the ATS

[coinman_23885]

Hold on a sec.....you mean to say he was out 2k on a coin that you didn't insure and had to wait this long until it finally showed up?

 

Based on the information that we have, this is correct.

[coinman_23885]

it seems it just happent to show up i will be waiting on my refund of the $200 down payment

 

Normally, I would not hesitate to issue a refund immediately, but after your treatment of the seller, I would tempted to treat you the same way that you treated him (although I wouldn't out of a sense of professional responsibility and integrity). I think it would be fitting if the seller charged you interest and any other fee that he could think of that he could legally justify, and then remove this from your deposit. It would also be fitting if he held your deposit for the same number of days he was without his coin and $2k. Again, I probably wouldn't actually do this, but the thought would be enticing. In short, $200 isn't enough money to warrant interstate litigation and you would lose more than you would gain by suing the seller - in short, the cards are stacked in his favor.

[MarkFeld]

it seems it just happent to show up i will be waiting on my refund of the $200 down payment

 

Normally, I would not hesitate to issue a refund immediately, but after your treatment of the seller, I would tempted to treat you the same way that you treated him (although I wouldn't out of a sense of professional responsibility and integrity). I think it would be fitting if the seller charged you interest and any other fee that he could think of that he could legally justify, and then remove this from your deposit. It would also be fitting if he held your deposit for the same number of days he was without his coin and $2k. Again, I probably wouldn't actually do this, but the thought would be enticing. In short, $200 isn't enough money to warrant interstate litigation and you would lose more than you would gain by suing the seller - in short, the cards are stacked in his favor.

 

My understanding - and I certainly might be mistaken - is that the coin was sent back, but (was under insured and) took a long time to arrive. If so, I don't see how charging interest has anything to do with what occurred.

[braddick]

I too was offered the coin (before it sold to indiannationals) for a hefty discount. upon viewing the coin was struck with pure disappointment. Lackluster obverse with much too much brown.

 

I'm of the opinion, half due to my own inquiry and half due to gut and conjecture, there was shenanigans going on and it wasn't via indiannationals nor the post office.

[truthteller]

Looks the title on that coin will be forever in question, killing all potential sales.

 

 

TRUTH

[coinman_23885]

Looks the title on that coin will be forever in question, killing all potential sales.

 

 

TRUTH

 

Absolutely. While I would originally have some interest in the coin, I don't have any intentions of bidding on it for fear of the legal ramifications should the title be contested. From the new emerging details across the street, the whole thing looks fishy/potentially slimy to me. I wouldn't want to be involved at all with it at this point.

[coinman_23885]

it seems it just happent to show up i will be waiting on my refund of the $200 down payment

 

Normally, I would not hesitate to issue a refund immediately, but after your treatment of the seller, I would tempted to treat you the same way that you treated him (although I wouldn't out of a sense of professional responsibility and integrity). I think it would be fitting if the seller charged you interest and any other fee that he could think of that he could legally justify, and then remove this from your deposit. It would also be fitting if he held your deposit for the same number of days he was without his coin and $2k. Again, I probably wouldn't actually do this, but the thought would be enticing. In short, $200 isn't enough money to warrant interstate litigation and you would lose more than you would gain by suing the seller - in short, the cards are stacked in his favor.

 

My understanding - and I certainly might be mistaken - is that the coin was sent back, but (was under insured and) took a long time to arrive. If so, I don't see how charging interest has anything to do with what occurred.

 

If the coin was properly insured (and if the coin truly went missing - this is now questionable in light of some of the newer posts ATS), then the seller would have received his money within 30 days or so after the package went missing. The seller was forced to go several additional weeks without the coin, and it is my understanding that he had other sellers lined up. I think he should be compensated from the lost revenue/interest he could have received had the funds been deposited for the several additional weeks/months that the seller was forced to undergo. Again, Indiana Nationals couldn't help the slow delivery, but once the seller could have received his funds from the Post Office claims division, I think IN should be forced to pay him the interest from that point (or at least from when the seller had lined up another buyer). The proceeds could have been placed in an interest bearing account.

 

Again, all of my comments were based on what some on the boards consider karma. Again, as I indicated previously, I wouldn't do this and would maintain my professional integrity and responsibility notwithstanding the problematic dealing with the buyer. I also don't think that the seller would be successful in recovering said fees if it was legally contested absent a contractual agreement (which is unlikely to exist).

[copper toning]

For 2k I do not see all the hoop la. It is not that nice unless you just like being buried. To each his own not all that attractive to me.

[coinman_23885]

For 2k I do not see all the hoop la. It is not that nice unless you just like being buried. To each his own not all that attractive to me.

 

It's not about $2,000; it's about principle. I wouldn't have paid $2,000 either, but the coin, in light of auction prices, would have commanded more than the $300 that it was insured for. Moreover, the buyer and seller agreed to a price, and there is no reason for the coin not be returned insured for the agreed price. This is the issue in my eyes.

[MarkFeld]

it seems it just happent to show up i will be waiting on my refund of the $200 down payment

 

Normally, I would not hesitate to issue a refund immediately, but after your treatment of the seller, I would tempted to treat you the same way that you treated him (although I wouldn't out of a sense of professional responsibility and integrity). I think it would be fitting if the seller charged you interest and any other fee that he could think of that he could legally justify, and then remove this from your deposit. It would also be fitting if he held your deposit for the same number of days he was without his coin and $2k. Again, I probably wouldn't actually do this, but the thought would be enticing. In short, $200 isn't enough money to warrant interstate litigation and you would lose more than you would gain by suing the seller - in short, the cards are stacked in his favor.

 

My understanding - and I certainly might be mistaken - is that the coin was sent back, but (was under insured and) took a long time to arrive. If so, I don't see how charging interest has anything to do with what occurred.

 

If the coin was properly insured (and if the coin truly went missing - this is now questionable in light of some of the newer posts ATS), then the seller would have received his money within 30 days or so after the package went missing. The seller was forced to go several additional weeks without the coin, and it is my understanding that he had other sellers lined up. I think he should be compensated from the lost revenue/interest he could have received had the funds been deposited for the several additional weeks/months that the seller was forced to undergo. Again, Indiana Nationals couldn't help the slow delivery, but once the seller could have received his funds from the Post Office claims division, I think IN should be forced to pay him the interest from that point (or at least from when the seller had lined up another buyer). The proceeds could have been placed in an interest bearing account.

 

Again, all of my comments were based on what some on the boards consider karma. Again, as I indicated previously, I wouldn't do this and would maintain my professional integrity and responsibility notwithstanding the problematic dealing with the buyer. I also don't think that the seller would be successful in recovering said fees if it was legally contested absent a contractual agreement (which is unlikely to exist).

 

I don't understand how the amount of insurance necessarily had any effect on how long the package took to get to the recipient.

[Mark T]

it seems it just happent to show up i will be waiting on my refund of the $200 down payment

 

Normally, I would not hesitate to issue a refund immediately, but after your treatment of the seller, I would tempted to treat you the same way that you treated him (although I wouldn't out of a sense of professional responsibility and integrity). I think it would be fitting if the seller charged you interest and any other fee that he could think of that he could legally justify, and then remove this from your deposit. It would also be fitting if he held your deposit for the same number of days he was without his coin and $2k. Again, I probably wouldn't actually do this, but the thought would be enticing. In short, $200 isn't enough money to warrant interstate litigation and you would lose more than you would gain by suing the seller - in short, the cards are stacked in his favor.

 

My understanding - and I certainly might be mistaken - is that the coin was sent back, but (was under insured and) took a long time to arrive. If so, I don't see how charging interest has anything to do with what occurred.

 

If the coin was properly insured (and if the coin truly went missing - this is now questionable in light of some of the newer posts ATS), then the seller would have received his money within 30 days or so after the package went missing. The seller was forced to go several additional weeks without the coin, and it is my understanding that he had other sellers lined up. I think he should be compensated from the lost revenue/interest he could have received had the funds been deposited for the several additional weeks/months that the seller was forced to undergo. Again, Indiana Nationals couldn't help the slow delivery, but once the seller could have received his funds from the Post Office claims division, I think IN should be forced to pay him the interest from that point (or at least from when the seller had lined up another buyer). The proceeds could have been placed in an interest bearing account.

 

Again, all of my comments were based on what some on the boards consider karma. Again, as I indicated previously, I wouldn't do this and would maintain my professional integrity and responsibility notwithstanding the problematic dealing with the buyer. I also don't think that the seller would be successful in recovering said fees if it was legally contested absent a contractual agreement (which is unlikely to exist).

 

Interest rates are currently close to Zero So forget about lost Interest on $1200. I think it probably comes out to about 35 cents for 30 days

 

 

[e1cnr]

Does anyone really know when the package arrived? or if an insurance claim was filed?

 

Someone with access to the USPS intranet probably could find out something.

 

Does anyone really know the details of the transaction? Was it a lay-away, viewing deposit, down payment....

 

Only the original buyer and seller know the details, and I am guessing they both have different versions/interpretations.

[Pafarmer-migration]

Interesting , i usually just read but im confused also enough to ask why Coinman feels Indiana should owe interest on something he had no control over.If (and it seems a big if) the coin was lost/late it's the USPS to thank ..no ? What am i missing here Coinman ?

[MarkFeld]

Looks the title on that coin will be forever in question, killing all potential sales.

 

 

TRUTH

 

Absolutely. While I would originally have some interest in the coin, I don't have any intentions of bidding on it for fear of the legal ramifications should the title be contested. From the new emerging details across the street, the whole thing looks fishy/potentially slimy to me. I wouldn't want to be involved at all with it at this point.

 

While one party might owe the other a return of a deposit, I don't believe that would effect title to the coin.

[TomB]

Looks the title on that coin will be forever in question, killing all potential sales.

 

 

TRUTH

 

Absolutely. While I would originally have some interest in the coin, I don't have any intentions of bidding on it for fear of the legal ramifications should the title be contested. From the new emerging details across the street, the whole thing looks fishy/potentially slimy to me. I wouldn't want to be involved at all with it at this point.

 

While one party might owe the other a return of a deposit, I don't believe that would effect title to the coin.

 

If TR filed with the USPS for collection on the $300 insurance that was originally purchased when IN sent the coin back to him then title might be in jeopardy. I write this because it is my understanding that TR never told IN that the coin eventually showed up and that TR kept the downpayment that IN sent to him for the coin.

[coinman_23885]

Interesting , i usually just read but im confused also enough to ask why Coinman feels Indiana should owe interest on something he had no control over.If (and it seems a big if) the coin was lost/late it's the USPS to thank ..no ? What am i missing here Coinman ?

 

Here is what I am saying: I agree that Indiana Nationals ("IN") couldn't control how long USPS took to deliver the package; however, I do believe that he had an obligation to mail the coin back with insurance for the full purchase price. If IN had, the original seller could have received his funds back 30 days after the package was lost, but could not because IN did not fulfill his obligation to insure the package. Instead, he was forced to go without the coin for additional weeks/months and lost the interest that he would have received from the proceeds once being reimbursed by the USPS (again provided that IN had fulfilled his obligation to insure the package). My comment was meant to suggest that IN should pay the original seller for the lost interest after the original seller would have received his funds from USPS had IN fulfilled his obligation. He incurred a direct loss as a result of IN's negligence or intentional neglect.

 

The question now turns to whether IN ever had a duty to fully insure the package to begin with. I would argue that he had an ethical responsibility to insure the coin for the full purchase price, but did not. With regards to legal responsibility, I guess it would ultimately come down to whether the original seller and IN had a contract. As I admitted, there would probably be legal problems with this approach absent a contract. In the interest of brevity, I will say this: I don't know how you all do it, but whenever I engage in a trade (and certainly if I ever released a coin on approval), there would be a contract outlining the legal responsibilities of both parties including insurance charges and the amount of insurance in the event of a return. In anticipation of a breach, I think the party who breached the contract (whether actual or implied) should be liable for all damages including a loss of interest as a result of the breach.

 

In short, as I indicated previously, I wouldn't do this and I would adhere to professional integrity/responsibility. I would give him his $200 gladly to go away and to leave me alone.

[coinman_23885]

Looks the title on that coin will be forever in question, killing all potential sales.

 

 

TRUTH

 

Absolutely. While I would originally have some interest in the coin, I don't have any intentions of bidding on it for fear of the legal ramifications should the title be contested. From the new emerging details across the street, the whole thing looks fishy/potentially slimy to me. I wouldn't want to be involved at all with it at this point.

 

While one party might owe the other a return of a deposit, I don't believe that would effect title to the coin.

 

If TR filed with the USPS for collection on the $300 insurance that was originally purchased when IN sent the coin back to him then title might be in jeopardy. I write this because it is my understanding that TR never told IN that the coin eventually showed up and that TR kept the downpayment that IN sent to him for the coin.

 

I agree with TomB, but will add that we don't conclusively know whether the coin was in fact returned to TR or whether or not the package was stolen in transit, misdelivered, etc., and some third party could be selling the coin without the knowledge of TR or IN. If the coin was stolen, then there would be an issue with the title.

[TomB]

The circumstantial evidence suggests that the ebay seller may have been TR. But of course, I cannot prove that at this time and don't know that I ever could.

[Pafarmer-migration]

Point taken Coinman , although in light of todays revelations i'd find it difficult to appropriate any blame to IN , for all anyone knows the TR guy had it all along.

[coinman_23885]

Point taken Coinman , although in light of todays revelations i'd find it difficult to appropriate any blame to IN , for all anyone knows the TR guy had it all along.

 

I agree with you, but when I wrote that comment, I did not have this knowledge (the developments weren't revealed until afterwards). If TR had the coin all along and still filed the claim with the Post Office, then he is guilty of, among other things, fraud. If this is the case, then there is plenty of blame to go around, and yes, IN should receive his deposit back. I still would have problems for IN under-insuring the coin, but it could be inconsequential to the case at hand if TR received the coin all along. If this is the case, my previous comment would not applicable.

[MarkFeld]

Looks the title on that coin will be forever in question, killing all potential sales.

 

 

TRUTH

 

Absolutely. While I would originally have some interest in the coin, I don't have any intentions of bidding on it for fear of the legal ramifications should the title be contested. From the new emerging details across the street, the whole thing looks fishy/potentially slimy to me. I wouldn't want to be involved at all with it at this point.

 

While one party might owe the other a return of a deposit, I don't believe that would effect title to the coin.

 

If TR filed with the USPS for collection on the $300 insurance that was originally purchased when IN sent the coin back to him then title might be in jeopardy. I write this because it is my understanding that TR never told IN that the coin eventually showed up and that TR kept the downpayment that IN sent to him for the coin.

 

Agreed. My comment pertained only to the deposit not being returned and how that would (or would not) affect title.

[Pafarmer-migration]

Point taken Coinman , although in light of todays revelations i'd find it difficult to appropriate any blame to IN , for all anyone knows the TR guy had it all along.

 

I agree with you, but when I wrote that comment, I did not have this knowledge (the developments weren't revealed until afterwards). If TR had the coin all along and still filed the claim with the Post Office, then he is guilty of, among other things, fraud. If this is the case, then there is plenty of blame to go around, and yes, IN should receive his deposit back. I still would have problems for IN under-insuring the coin, but it could be inconsequential to the case at hand if TR received the coin all along. If this is the case, my previous comment would not applicable.

 

Nothing seems certain , one thing you have my full agreement on , plenty of blame to go round.Like the others i don't know anything is certain , just that it seems very odd.