Crazy coin on Ebay -

[JIM F.]

PCGS says it's cleaned unc. Seller claims it's a proof.

If you believe PCGS it's probably about a $80 coin.

Seller wants $19,950.

 

Seems to be an Ebay violation advertising it as a proof.

 

 

What's the deal with this seller?

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1893-Columbian-Silver-Half-Dollar-PROOF-COIN-PCGS-UNC-Details-/190710169326?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item2c67363eee

 

 

[bsshog40]

Don't know about any violation but that thing looks like the reverse was wiped with steel wool.

[nk1nk]

I don't see how its an eBay violation he clearly states it's their opinion its a proof.

 

Nick

[brg5658]

Careful, no one likes when you judge the holy "Julian".

 

The coin has been posted for months, and there is about as likely a chance of it selling for that asking price as there is that pigs fly. To each his/her own.

 

Listings like this aren't against any eBay rules that I know of. A bit funny, but not against any rules.

 

=====================

 

PS -- To answer your question "What's the deal with this seller?":

 

Well, he has a lot of nice material in his inventory, and he has a WHOLE LOT of coins that are graded but for which the listing states that they are "under graded". There are even several coins in inventory that are details/genuine graded, and the listing says that they disagree with the grading company. In short, the "deal" with this seller is that he's very well known in the numismatic world, and he is of the opinion that only his opinion matters.

[JIM F.]

So, if he thought it was a proof when he bought it, do you think he paid proof money? If not, are there ethical questions (if I'm not mistaken dealers that are members of certain professional organizations have a duty to treat buyers and sellers with fairness)? I'm not making any judgements, just soliciting opinions. Funny how some thread discussions lead to other discussions.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

I don't see how its an eBay violation he clearly states it's their opinion its a proof.

 

Nick

 

Nick, I am not at all certain, but suspect that it might be an EBay violation. That is, to include the word "Proof" in the listing title of a certified coin that has not been graded as such. At the very least, I think it could be construed as "keyword spam".

[JIM F.]

I don't see how its an eBay violation he clearly states it's their opinion its a proof.

 

Nick

 

Nick, I am not at all certain, but suspect that it might be an EBay violation. That is, to include the word "Proof" in the listing title of a certified coin that has not been graded as such. At the very least, I think it could be construed as "keyword spam".

 

Good point, Mark, that's how I happened to come across.

[mumu]

Does anyone else think its a proof?

[toyman-migration]

Agreed. seems like keyword spam violation.

I don't see how its an eBay violation he clearly states it's their opinion its a proof.

 

Nick

 

Nick, I am not at all certain, but suspect that it might be an EBay violation. That is, to include the word "Proof" in the listing title of a certified coin that has not been graded as such. At the very least, I think it could be construed as "keyword spam".

[newprepper]

I know next to nothing about this, but the fields on the middle pic sure look like the fields on some of the imaged proofs I see here. But I don't know

[e1cnr]

Don't know about any violation but that thing looks like the reverse was wiped with steel wool.

 

The reverse shows heavy die polish on fields - the mint did it

[mikew148]

How many Proof Columbian Half's were minted in 1893?

[WoodenJefferson]

How many Proof Columbian Half's were minted in 1893?

 

In 1892 there were 104 proofs are believed to have been struck of the Columbian half dollar, represented by the first 101 coins produced in addition to the 400th, 1492nd, and 1892nd pieces.

 

I know of only a handful of proof examples for 1893, there maybe more.

 

 

[FILTHYHOARD]

What's the deal with this seller?

 

 

The only thing I can say for sure about this seller is that since he feels every coin in his inventory is "undergraded" he expects to get paid for the value of the next grade. He'll list his items as buy-it-now or best offer, but believe me, he's not willing to budge. I've made him offers on a few Morgans & was willing to pay a premium when compared to similar examples which recently sold on Heritage. It's a shame because he does have a lot of beautiful coins.

[jerseycat10]

His prices are laughable, plain and simple.

[MarkFeld]

Don't know about any violation but that thing looks like the reverse was wiped with steel wool.

 

The reverse shows heavy die polish on fields - the mint did it

 

I don't know how you can determine that from those images. Especially since PCGS saw the coin in hand and determined that it had been cleaned.

[grip]

Another proof side by side,in hand would tell a lot, DYT?

[Buffalo Head]

Don't know about any violation but that thing looks like the reverse was wiped with steel wool.

 

The reverse shows heavy die polish on fields - the mint did it

 

I don't know how you can determine that from those images. Especially since PCGS saw the coin in hand and determined that it had been cleaned.

 

I agree. If pcgs graded the coin as cleaned I'll go with that....

[Conder101]

His prices are laughable, plain and simple.

But he has been in business a LONG time and his stock is constantly changing so it is going somewhere. Most of his stuff is very nice and he does have a client base for it.

[e1cnr]

Don't know about any violation but that thing looks like the reverse was wiped with steel wool.

 

The reverse shows heavy die polish on fields - the mint did it

 

I don't know how you can determine that from those images. Especially since PCGS saw the coin in hand and determined that it had been cleaned.

 

 

The major reverse lines are on the fieild and go under the devices. When grading services say 'cleaned;' they do not say where or how. I agree that PCGS has seem the coin in hand, and may have felt that the coin was chemically cleaned too much, or manually cleaned somewhere I can not determine from picture.

 

NGC and PCGS have both graded 1893 Columbian Expo halves as proof.

proof sold - look at obverse stars and reverse sail lines

[Kenneth F]

Careful, no one likes when you judge the holy "Julian".

 

Yea, no kidding.. I was dragged out into the town square and whipped for speaking out against said dealer.

 

By the way, the "make better offer" is a mirage.. doesnt exist.

 

But I have to agree, he does have some nice stuff.

[bsshog40]

Don't know about any violation but that thing looks like the reverse was wiped with steel wool.

 

The reverse shows heavy die polish on fields - the mint did it

I wondered that after I got to looking at it closer. They were pretty much going in the same direction instead of cleaning hairlines that go everywhere. It's hard to tell by the pics but could be one or the other as far as I can tell.

[e1cnr]

mostly, if not all die polish lines on reverse

but does not mean coin was not cleaned somewhere on coin as per PCGS

 

[RWB]

Keep in mind that the Columbian "proofs" were not struck on a medal press, and the dies received only cursory polishing and proof-finishing.

 

LeeG has the details in his book draft.

[Mark T]

If the coin is a proof then why does he not re submit to PCGS??

If PCGS rejects it then submit it to NGC, if NGC rejects it then it is not a proof. !!

Seriously I think he is delusional for listing this coin as a proof with that price.

 

[e1cnr]

I am leaning towards BS, but would submit to NGC for the PL.

 

Since there is no mint record of any proofs struck, I feel both NGC/PCGS would be reluctant to call another one proof.

[MarkFeld]

I am reminded of a test, of sorts, from long ago, for such coins:

 

Based on the appearance and credentials of the coin, would its seller still offer it as a Proof, if business strikes were more valuable than Proofs, rather than the other way around?

[L1ncolnF4n]

I agree that I think the hairlining is die polish, but the dentils are not the same as those on the proof coin I've inspected in hand ( http://stacksbowers.com/Auctions/AuctionLot.aspx?LotID=323432 ) leading me to say it's a very PL MS coin.

[physics-fan3.14]

Julian is one of those dealers that a lot of people respect. However, when I look at his inventory, everything is described as undergraded or undesignated proofs, and his listed prices are often multiples of what the coin is worth. If his coins were really what he said they all were, it would seem like he would resubmit them and get some validation. I don't trust him, and I don't like his methods. Sorry if that steps on some toes, but it seems every couple of months a thread gets posted about this guy.

[Buffalo Head]

PCGS says it's cleaned unc. Seller claims it's a proof.

If you believe PCGS it's probably about a $80 coin.

Seller wants $19,950.

 

Seems to be an Ebay violation advertising it as a proof.

 

 

What's the deal with this seller?

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1893-Columbian-Silver-Half-Dollar-PROOF-COIN-PCGS-UNC-Details-/190710169326?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item2c67363eee

 

 

I agree. If this coin is not a proof, and it's not. Why then is the seller allowed to list it as such? If it was a proof wouldn't it say "PROOF" on the slab? Now he wants to sell it for WHAT!! $19,950!!! I guess if he listed it at $20,000 it would scare everyone away....