Advice Needed

[coinman_23885]

I would appreciate any advice that you all may have regarding a fairly recent eBay transaction that I had and how to handle what is an unusual situation (or at least, I have never had anything like this happen before). My goal is to fashion a remedy for my customer and to be at least fair (if not more than fair). As such, equitable considerations are more important than strict time cutoffs or money.

 

1. On or about October 14 of this year, I sold a 1963 old PCI PR67 Roosevelt variety dime with toning. A fourteen day return privilege was offered. The item was purchased with a best offer, and the listing included the following description:

 

Up for sale is one (1) 1963 Roosevelt Dime attributed as a Double Die Reverse FS-802 (old FS 017.5) by PCI.  Any scratches or marks you are seeing in the photo are due to scratches on the plastic slab and not the coin! This grading company is not on eBay's chosen list of preferred certification services, so please use your own judgment in ascertaining the grade of the coin.  This company was fairly conservative and accurate from this time period, but no warranties or representations are made with regards to the coin's grade in order to comply with eBay policy.  I can say that the coin is accurately described as superb gem proof.  I will offer you an in hand inspection and return privilege.  I am unsure how many coins of this variety were produced, but I can tell you, based on my research, this is one of the more valuable varieties.  

 

PCGS has attributed exactly 13 of these as superb gem proof (12 PF67 and 1 PF68), and has certified a total of 33 pieces in all grades combined.  NGC has certified and attributed only 116 pieces in all grades combined.  When coupled with the monster toning seen on this specimen, I think it is a fair assessment to state that there are not many of this quality lying around.  

 

Shipping includes insurance.  Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions; thank you for your time!

 

2. Positive feedback was left and the purchaser submitted the coin to NGC seeking a variety attribution. Under NGC’s crossover policy, the coin was cracked from its holder for grading and is now raw.

 

3. One week ago, I receive an eBay message from the purchaser alerting me to the fact that NGC believed the dime was more properly attributed as a FS-801 and that NGC determined, in its opinion, that the coin was artificially toned. The period for reversing an eBay sale officially ended prior to the message, meaning that there will be no reimbursement of PayPal or eBay fees.

 

4. The purchaser and I have reexamined the attribution data, and it appears that NGC was in fact wrong on that point.

 

5. With regards to the toning determination, the coin was previously examined by a collector-dealer, without a financial or other interest, who specializes in toned coins. Having seen the coin in hand, the said collector-dealer agrees with my conclusion that the coin is NT. Moreover, the coin is in an old holder from the early to mid 1990s at a time when there would have really been no premium for a toned coin and no reason for someone to submit an AT piece to PCI.

 

How would you handle this situation? First and foremost, I want to do the correct/fair thing and offer my customer some sort of remedy even though I disagree with NGC (and have objective specialists who concur with my opinion regarding the toning). How far would you all go? Please keep in mind that the customer seems completely legitimate and the information relayed to me is verifiable. The customer is not asking for a refund, but I do want to stand behind what I sell.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EDITED TO ADD:

 

I want to make a few clarifications:

 

1. The buyer simply sent me a message informing me of NGC's determination and didn't expressly ask for a refund or request a remedy. I am the one who wants to afford some sort of remedy because I feel badly even though I disagree 100% with NGC on this one. My goal is to satisfy my customers generally.

 

2. I definitely understand the concern about dealing with people on eBay generally and potential scams, but I do not believe this individual to be problematic. The entire situation is verifiable.

[WoodenJefferson]

Key point* Under NGC’s crossover policy, the coin was cracked from its holder for grading and is now raw.

 

After the coin was removed from the PCI holder, ALL further attempts by the buyer is strictly up them, as the seller is now, no longer part of this equation. There is no moral obligation to cede anything to the buyer at this point in the transaction.

 

As we all know by now, submitting toned coins, even ones that have been previously holdered to the top tier grading services is a shoot at best.

 

Be sympathetic to the buyer, but you are under no obligation what so ever, even the buyer should realize this and not press for any sort of remedy.

 

Sorry it happened, swallow any pride, you did not attempt in any sort of manner to deceive anyone...Good luck!

[joes2001]

I think you covered yourself by saying things like "based on my research" and "i think." Also, you said "no warranties or representations are made with regards to the coin's grade," which means that if it was cracked out and deemed artificially toned then that's a part of the grade. Toning, eye appeal, etc.--artificial or not--will factor into the grade. You didn't 100% back the coin's overall grade, so I think the buyer's judgement is really under question, and he decided to buy it. However, I do think you hyped it up a bit, but for all you knew it was a valuable example of the error. Anyways, I would sympathize and all that and answer any more questions. I don't know what else you could do. It probably matters how much this person paid. If it was under a hundred, they should just move on. If it was more, I feel really bad for them.

[wdrob]

 

After the coin was removed from the PCI holder, ALL further attempts by the buyer is strictly up them, as the seller is now, no longer part of this equation. There is no moral obligation to cede anything to the buyer at this point in the transaction.

 

x2 (thumbs u

 

 

[Red Llama]

Not to rub it in but prime example of the dark forest that is ebay.

[coinman_23885]

Not to rub it in but prime example of the dark forest that is ebay.

 

Could you please clarify what you mean? I am not sure I understand. I could interpret your statement in a number of ways (i.e. at least three drastically different meanings).

 

Thank you so much to everyone who has taken the time to read my thread and respond thus far.

[FishyOne]

You have done your due diligence and do not owe the buyer anything morally, legally, or otherwise. I am perplexed by buyers who, long after taking ownership, go back to sellers hoping for financial remedy for a situation that is entirely their own responsibility.

 

Now if you want play Mr. Nice Guy (aka doormat), you could ask the buyer what remedy they have in mind. It costs nothing to be cordial and extend empathy. It also allows you to perhaps gather what this buyer real frame of mind is. Good luck.

[Red Llama]

Not to rub it in but prime example of the dark forest that is ebay.

 

Could you please clarify what you mean? I am not sure I understand. I could interpret your statement in a number of ways (i.e. at least three drastically different meanings).

 

Thank you so much to everyone who has taken the time to read my thread and respond thus far.

 

Well you don't know what you are getting. I mean when you are dealing with a faceless person on the other end that you don't know and never meet and you are dealing on a site riddled with cons, scams, crazies, and whacks your mind runs wild. I mean you can't help let yourself begin to think 'what ifs'.

Like is the guy trying some con (In this case it does not seem so but you never know)

Maybe this person suddenly needs money and is a stand up guy/gal but really needs cash and they want to get a refund from you but did not know you would go to such lengths (ie setting up inspection with neutral dealer)

Or did the buyer tried to add AT thinking it would increase value? Is the buyer novice and thought he was getting a PCGS/NGC 67?

 

You try and do the right thing and I commend you for taking the time to do the RIGHT thing and not whatever is in your best interest. My point was with distance and so much time you really never know what you getting into and it puts you in spots like this. I mean by ebay standards you are in the clear--but will this person get pissed off and try and cause you trouble? Just because it is right 'policy' is it morally right? It is a jungle

 

 

By the way. Can't buyers make claims with Paypal Buyer Protection like 45 days after payment? If he can't open a claim with ebay couldn't he open it with Paypal?

[coinman_23885]

I want to make a few clarifications:

 

1. The buyer simply sent me a message informing me of NGC's determination and didn't expressly ask for a refund or request a remedy. I am the one who wants to afford some sort of remedy because I feel badly even though I disagree 100% with NGC on this one. My goal is to satisfy my customers generally.

 

2. I definitely understand the concern about dealing with people on eBay generally and potential scams, but I do not believe this individual to be problematic. The entire situation is verifiable.

 

Thanks again for the responses.

[cpm9ball]

I want to make a few clarifications:

 

1. The buyer simply sent me a message informing me of NGC's determination and didn't expressly ask for a refund or request a remedy. I am the one who wants to afford some sort of remedy because I feel badly even though I disagree 100% with NGC on this one. My goal is to satisfy my customers generally.

 

2. I definitely understand the concern about dealing with people on eBay generally and potential scams, but I do not believe this individual to be problematic. The entire situation is verifiable.

 

Thanks again for the responses.

 

I agree with Woodie 100%.

 

I'd like to add that even though the buyer did not specifically request a refund or some amount of compensation, I find it hard to believe that he would notify you if he wasn't playing on your sympathy and hoping that you would make an offer to reimburse him. I think he knows that he assumed the risk, lost and that is why he let you know.

 

If you think that NGC was wrong in their determination, why don't you suggest that he submit it to PCGS. If they make the same determination, so be it, but leave it at that.

 

Chris

[Red Llama]

I want to make a few clarifications:

 

1. The buyer simply sent me a message informing me of NGC's determination and didn't expressly ask for a refund or request a remedy. I am the one who wants to afford some sort of remedy because I feel badly even though I disagree 100% with NGC on this one. My goal is to satisfy my customers generally.

 

2. I definitely understand the concern about dealing with people on eBay generally and potential scams, but I do not believe this individual to be problematic. The entire situation is verifiable.

 

Thanks again for the responses.

 

I agree with Woodie 100%.

 

I'd like to add that even though the buyer did not specifically request a refund or some amount of compensation, I find it hard to believe that he would notify you if he wasn't playing on your sympathy and hoping that you would make an offer to reimburse him. I think he knows that he assumed the risk, lost and that is why he let you know.

 

If you think that NGC was wrong in their determination, why don't you suggest that he submit it to PCGS. If they make the same determination, so be it, but leave it at that.

 

Chris

 

Honestly this is my first thought.

We tend to think there are 2 extremes

The stand-up, legitimate people and then the total scam artists

 

Not always so black and white. I'm going to assume this buyer was trying to get you to offer a refund.

[physics-fan3.14]

The buyer simply sent me a message informing me of NGC's determination and didn't expressly ask for a refund or request a remedy. I am the one who wants to afford some sort of remedy because I feel badly even though I disagree 100% with NGC on this one. My goal is to satisfy my customers generally.

 

The buyer is passively asking for compensation, and is hoping that you start the negotiating by offering something. Let me be clear - the buyer clearly wants something and is using advanced tactics to play on your emotions to maximise what he can get.

 

You owe the buyer ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The buyer can identify the coin for himself, had a tremendous amount of time to do it, submitted the coin (which has now been cracked out and is raw, thus materially altering the condition you sold it in), and you believe NGC made a mistake. There is no fault, blame, or any other obligation on your part to do anything at all for this buyer.

 

DO NOT even offer to do anything - as that will only encourage him. If you want to reply, say something like "I believe NGC made a mistake." Don't even apologize - it is not your fault!

[jpcienkus]

You owe the buyer nothing. I'm trying to figure out how to make this response concise as I look at your situation from all angles.

 

Your eBay description was accurate and frankly provided more information about the coin than most sellers. You gave him a fair return policy. Now that's expired as well as the eBay buyer protection.

 

What did your buyer want to do with the coin? Did they want to flip it or add it to a registry set? Either way, there is inherrent risk in buying a PCI coin and hoping it will holder in a NGC slab. They even took it to a dealer for a second opinion. There is nothing wrong with the coin and they can still try PCGS. Once they cracked the coin out and decided to send it in, they determined in their mind, that their plan would work. IMO, that's the moment they no longer had any right to return the coin.

 

Sleep easy. You do not need to do anything for the buyer. Your buyer took a chance and it didn't work out and you don't owe them any recompense for their action.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

I would appreciate any advice that you all may have regarding a fairly recent eBay transaction that I had and how to handle what is an unusual situation (or at least, I have never had anything like this happen before). My goal is to fashion a remedy for my customer and to be at least fair (if not more than fair). As such, equitable considerations are more important than strict time cutoffs or money.

 

1. On or about October 14 of this year, I sold a 1963 old PCI PR67 Roosevelt variety dime with toning. A fourteen day return privilege was offered. The item was purchased with a best offer, and the listing included the following description:

 

Up for sale is one (1) 1963 Roosevelt Dime attributed as a Double Die Reverse FS-802 (old FS 017.5) by PCI.  Any scratches or marks you are seeing in the photo are due to scratches on the plastic slab and not the coin! This grading company is not on eBay's chosen list of preferred certification services, so please use your own judgment in ascertaining the grade of the coin.  This company was fairly conservative and accurate from this time period, but no warranties or representations are made with regards to the coin's grade in order to comply with eBay policy.  I can say that the coin is accurately described as superb gem proof.  I will offer you an in hand inspection and return privilege.  I am unsure how many coins of this variety were produced, but I can tell you, based on my research, this is one of the more valuable varieties.  

 

PCGS has attributed exactly 13 of these as superb gem proof (12 PF67 and 1 PF68), and has certified a total of 33 pieces in all grades combined.  NGC has certified and attributed only 116 pieces in all grades combined.  When coupled with the monster toning seen on this specimen, I think it is a fair assessment to state that there are not many of this quality lying around.  

 

Shipping includes insurance.  Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions; thank you for your time!

 

2. Positive feedback was left and the purchaser submitted the coin to NGC seeking a variety attribution. Under NGC’s crossover policy, the coin was cracked from its holder for grading and is now raw.

 

3. One week ago, I receive an eBay message from the purchaser alerting me to the fact that NGC believed the dime was more properly attributed as a FS-801 and that NGC determined, in its opinion, that the coin was artificially toned. The period for reversing an eBay sale officially ended prior to the message, meaning that there will be no reimbursement of PayPal or eBay fees.

 

4. The purchaser and I have reexamined the attribution data, and it appears that NGC was in fact wrong on that point.

 

5. With regards to the toning determination, the coin was previously examined by a collector-dealer, without a financial or other interest, who specializes in toned coins. Having seen the coin in hand, the said collector-dealer agrees with my conclusion that the coin is NT. Moreover, the coin is in an old holder from the early to mid 1990s at a time when there would have really been no premium for a toned coin and no reason for someone to submit an AT piece to PCI.

 

How would you handle this situation? First and foremost, I want to do the correct/fair thing and offer my customer some sort of remedy even though I disagree with NGC (and have objective specialists who concur with my opinion regarding the toning). How far would you all go? Please keep in mind that the customer seems completely legitimate and the information relayed to me is verifiable. The customer is not asking for a refund, but I do want to stand behind what I sell.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EDITED TO ADD:

 

I want to make a few clarifications:

 

1. The buyer simply sent me a message informing me of NGC's determination and didn't expressly ask for a refund or request a remedy. I am the one who wants to afford some sort of remedy because I feel badly even though I disagree 100% with NGC on this one. My goal is to satisfy my customers generally.

 

2. I definitely understand the concern about dealing with people on eBay generally and potential scams, but I do not believe this individual to be problematic. The entire situation is verifiable.

 

Kenny, first of all, good for you for caring and going above and beyond to be fair. Especially since you probably have no obligation to do anything.

 

Before I get to my suggested solution, I do have some admittedly picky criticisms of your Ebay description, which are aimed at saving you trouble in the future. I believe that each of your statements below set you up for possible problems, particularly since you were selling a coin in a holder other than ANACS, NGC or PCGS:

 

1) I wouldn't have included "This company was fairly conservative and accurate from this time period.."

 

2) I wouldn't have included "I can say that the coin is accurately described as superb gem proof..."

 

3) I wouldn't have included "but I can tell you, based on my research, this is one of the more valuable varieties. "

 

4) I wouldn't have included "When coupled with the monster toning seen on this specimen, I think it is a fair assessment to state that there are not many of this quality lying around."

 

I don't think you have any legal or ethical obligation to do anything for the buyer. But, knowing that he took a gamble and lost, if YOU would feel better by compensating him in some amount of money - perhaps for the grading fee and/or postage, or whatever amount seems fair to YOU - do that. If, on the other hand, it would not make you feel better, I see no need to do anything.

 

[Raisethis2]

 

Wow, just wow.

 

In some kind of reverse order I'll say that the descriptions included in your E-Bay listing are designed to help you sell the coin. To that end, if you believed everything you said to be true then they are fine. They are good sales tools and nothing more. Not using them may inhibit your ability to make the sale.

 

The idea that E-Bay is some dark place where bad things happen is really unfair. Jesus, the same thing can be said of coin shows. Every coin I see at shows not slabbed is immediately suspect. The Dealers will never admit to doing anything though. The coins in slabs (as in this example) are to be suspect too. The old "buy the coin, not the slab" applies. Buy everybody makes mistakes. The question in this case is who made the mistake here?

 

The great majority of E-Bay transactions are smooth and problem free where Buyers and Sellers both feel they got a fair deal. If you use common sense as a Buyer and require a return policy, review the pictures carefully and read the description you should have your bases covered. If you're not thrilled, send it back.

 

As a Seller I assume every coin I ever sell can come back. I reserve feedback until they give me some, once the coin's in hand. Most say they got more than they thought they'd get. I've had hundreds of transactions with just 2 returned coins.

 

The Buyer contacting you about a purchase made in October could be a subtly request for economic consideration. Or it could be a subtle way of showing you that NGC sees the coin differently that both you and PCI. Maybe he accepts NGC's opinions entirely. Maybe he is unaware that you don't.

 

If the coin was super high value and sold as that, then he cracks it out and it results in something less, I'd feel obligated to refund the entire purchase price. Or at least split the loss (minus the coins current value) with the guy because it was sold as something greater.

 

Another remedy would be to tell him you don't agree with NGC's findings and will pay to ship it to PCGS for their consideration however, it may come back as even more of a trainwreck after their judgement.

 

The fact that he cracked it out doesn't mean that much to me. If he didn't mess with it, it should be what you represented it to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jom]

I disagree with Raisethis in that cracking the coin out DOES make a difference, IMO. To me this voids taking the coin back. I mean, he has SEEN the coin and I'm sure there is plenty of documentation out there that proves the attribution. The only place you might get into trouble (as pointed out by Mark) are the grading/toning issues.

 

However, if you feel bad about the situation I'd suggest just compensation for the NGC fees or some such. I wouldn't go beyond that because nothing prevents him from sending the coin to PCGS and getting his grade/attribution.

 

jom

[messydesk]

If the buyer can get it back into the original PCI holder, accept the return.

[Crazy Mtn Coins]

Wow! I plead guilty and lay my fate at the feet of the court of my peers. Hopefully my sentence can be reduced from a firing squad to life without parole. Now the Rest Of The Story (thanks Paul Harvey for your many years on the radio). I purchased the 1963 monster toned Roosevelt FS-802 from Kenny (coinman_23885) on Oct. 14 on eBay. I am surprised no one had searched yet and found the transaction and showed it here. My eBay user name is zsmartiehorse and you can search for all the information about me. The coin was listed for a Buy It Now price of $175.00 or make offer. I made an offer of $125 and Kenny accepted it. He commented when I gave my shipping information that my name sounded familiar and wondered if I was a member of the Collector Society. I said I was and gave my user name. I also said that I did not expect the coin to upgrade my existing set of Roosevelt varieties for FS-802 since I currently had a PCGS 68 deep cameo, top coin of both PCGS and NGC. However, I want to start a custom set of Roosevelt and Jefferson varieties. I enjoy the challenge of the photographing the doubled dies and like to display them for other members to see.

I received the coin with a little delay as Kenny’s father-in-law was ill and he apologized. I said there was no problem and I hoped his father-in-law had a good recovery. I took a quick look at the coin and saw a very nice strong doubled die reverse. The coin was very colorful and that was it. I gave positive feedback and put the coin in the drawer as I was waiting for some other coins before sending the coin for grading. The coin sat in my drawer for some time and I finally decided to submit it to NGC for grading and Variety Plus designation. I chose NGC as I was hoping for a star designation. Even though I held the coin for some time I chose the three day review and sent this coin and a raw Jefferson in. I received it back and here is our correspondence:

 

Dear coinman23885,

 

Thought you should know I submitted this coin to NGC for grading and it came back artificially toned. Also had the wrong variety - FS-801.

- zsmartiehorse

 

Dear zsmartiehorse,

 

Is the coin still in the original holder? I'm sorry. I honestly didn't know that the attribution was incorrect. With regards to the toning, it looked like some others that I had seen in top tier plastic. So, just to confirm, NGC said FS-801?

- coinman23885

 

Dear zsmartiehorse,

 

Please see my other message, but, shoot me a PM on the NGC boards if you would. My moniker there is the same except there is an underscore between the letters and numbers in my username.

- coinman23885

 

Collectors Society Message Board –

Jim - “I just received shipment notification from NGC and the invoice info says artificially toned and FS-801. I won't have the coin for 4 or 5 days to check it out. Also when NGC grades it, the coin is cracked out so the holder is gone.”

 

Kenny – “Please give me a few days, and let me figure out how I am going to sort this mess out. I want to make this right and I don't want to leave you hanging. I honestly did not know that the attribution was wrong, and had seen similarly toned pieces holder in top TPG plastic. Given some of the coins that I have seen turn in PCI holders, I also didn't think to question it. I have never had this happen to me before.

 

I do want to thank you for contacting me to let me know what happened rather than hating me or assuming the worse (i.e. that I knew of the incorrect attribution, etc.) without giving me an opportunity to try to remedy the problem.”

 

Jim – “I will let you know when I get the coin back. I want to look at it again.”

 

Jim – “I received the coin back from NGC and after studying it under my microscope and looking at the NGC Variety Plus descriptions for FS-801 and FS-802, I have to disagree with NGC. To me it is clearly an FS-802 and that concerns me about NGC and the variety attribution. I sent the coin to NGC because to me it was clearly doubled dies and I was hoping for a star grade. I have no experience at determining artificial toning and actually own only four colorful toned coins. What concerns me about NGC on variety attribution of proof dimes is they only accept three years - 1960, 1963 and 1964. So it is almost like the variety designation is not important to them and in which case I don't have much confidence in their determinations, even less now. PCGS does all of them basically in the Cherry Pickers guide. I also have two NGC graded 1960 Roosevelts labeled FS-102a and to me they are clearly FS-102b by their own descriptions. So this is my last Variety Plus submittal to NGC. What I am going to do just to prove my point is send the coin to James Wiles for variety attribution. I am pouring more money into the coin but oh well. So don't be concerned about what you need to do. If you want to reimburse some of the cost, that is up to you. It is not a big deal to me.”

 

Kenny – “I definitely want to afford you some sort of remedy, and my goal is to stand behind what I sell generally. At the very least, I want to be fair (and I think my tentative plan should be more than fair). Before formally proposing it; however, I do want to solicit opinions from dealers on the board that may have more experience than I do. I have been delayed in creating a thread because of personal obligations, but do intend to get something up sometime today (Thursday).

 

Also, do you have imaging capabilities? If so, could you shoot me an image of the doubling? I want to look it up myself, and I am wondering whether a PM to Max Spiegel or one of the other NGC people may be useful to see if they could review the coin for the designation for free assuming NGC erred. That still leaves the toning problem, but I am wondering whether an acetone bath would eliminate the AT (if it is in fact AT). If the toning comes off, you may still have a gradeable coin for your set. Please note I am suggesting this to be helpful, and this is no way means that I am planning on leaving you without a remedy. I know, however, that you bought this for a variety set, and I would at least like you to have a problem free example.

 

With regards to the toning and this situation, it is very unusual so I have no comparable experience whatsoever (the reason for the forthcoming thread). I have never had a coin come back to me as AT, and I was honestly surprised by NGC's determination. To be honest, if baffles me that someone would send in an AT modern proof Roosevelt Dime to PCI in the early to mid 1990s before toned coins started to sell for the premiums that are common today. At that time, the toning would bring little if any premium, so it really doesn't make much sense to me. “

 

Now I guess I put on a pretty hard push to get all my money back and apologize for that. I guarantee it will not happen again, any of it. Will I accept any refund at this point, not a snowballs chance in ... I do not give a meadow muffin about the cost of the coin. I just thought Kenny would like to know the results. I rest my case.

 

Jim Gelhaus

 

 

 

 

 

[bsshog40]

Wow! I plead guilty and lay my fate at the feet of the court of my peers. Hopefully my sentence can be reduced from a firing squad to life without parole. Now the Rest Of The Story (thanks Paul Harvey for your many years on the radio). I purchased the 1963 monster toned Roosevelt FS-802 from Kenny (coinman_23885) on Oct. 14 on eBay. I am surprised no one had searched yet and found the transaction and showed it here. My eBay user name is zsmartiehorse and you can search for all the information about me. The coin was listed for a Buy It Now price of $175.00 or make offer. I made an offer of $125 and Kenny accepted it. He commented when I gave my shipping information that my name sounded familiar and wondered if I was a member of the Collector Society. I said I was and gave my user name. I also said that I did not expect the coin to upgrade my existing set of Roosevelt varieties for FS-802 since I currently had a PCGS 68 deep cameo, top coin of both PCGS and NGC. However, I want to start a custom set of Roosevelt and Jefferson varieties. I enjoy the challenge of the photographing the doubled dies and like to display them for other members to see.

I received the coin with a little delay as Kenny’s father-in-law was ill and he apologized. I said there was no problem and I hoped his father-in-law had a good recovery. I took a quick look at the coin and saw a very nice strong doubled die reverse. The coin was very colorful and that was it. I gave positive feedback and put the coin in the drawer as I was waiting for some other coins before sending the coin for grading. The coin sat in my drawer for some time and I finally decided to submit it to NGC for grading and Variety Plus designation. I chose NGC as I was hoping for a star designation. Even though I held the coin for some time I chose the three day review and sent this coin and a raw Jefferson in. I received it back and here is our correspondence:

 

Dear coinman23885,

 

Thought you should know I submitted this coin to NGC for grading and it came back artificially toned. Also had the wrong variety - FS-801.

- zsmartiehorse

 

Dear zsmartiehorse,

 

Is the coin still in the original holder? I'm sorry. I honestly didn't know that the attribution was incorrect. With regards to the toning, it looked like some others that I had seen in top tier plastic. So, just to confirm, NGC said FS-801?

- coinman23885

 

Dear zsmartiehorse,

 

Please see my other message, but, shoot me a PM on the NGC boards if you would. My moniker there is the same except there is an underscore between the letters and numbers in my username.

- coinman23885

 

Collectors Society Message Board –

Jim - “I just received shipment notification from NGC and the invoice info says artificially toned and FS-801. I won't have the coin for 4 or 5 days to check it out. Also when NGC grades it, the coin is cracked out so the holder is gone.”

 

Kenny – “Please give me a few days, and let me figure out how I am going to sort this mess out. I want to make this right and I don't want to leave you hanging. I honestly did not know that the attribution was wrong, and had seen similarly toned pieces holder in top TPG plastic. Given some of the coins that I have seen turn in PCI holders, I also didn't think to question it. I have never had this happen to me before.

 

I do want to thank you for contacting me to let me know what happened rather than hating me or assuming the worse (i.e. that I knew of the incorrect attribution, etc.) without giving me an opportunity to try to remedy the problem.”

 

Jim – “I will let you know when I get the coin back. I want to look at it again.”

 

Jim – “I received the coin back from NGC and after studying it under my microscope and looking at the NGC Variety Plus descriptions for FS-801 and FS-802, I have to disagree with NGC. To me it is clearly an FS-802 and that concerns me about NGC and the variety attribution. I sent the coin to NGC because to me it was clearly doubled dies and I was hoping for a star grade. I have no experience at determining artificial toning and actually own only four colorful toned coins. What concerns me about NGC on variety attribution of proof dimes is they only accept three years - 1960, 1963 and 1964. So it is almost like the variety designation is not important to them and in which case I don't have much confidence in their determinations, even less now. PCGS does all of them basically in the Cherry Pickers guide. I also have two NGC graded 1960 Roosevelts labeled FS-102a and to me they are clearly FS-102b by their own descriptions. So this is my last Variety Plus submittal to NGC. What I am going to do just to prove my point is send the coin to James Wiles for variety attribution. I am pouring more money into the coin but oh well. So don't be concerned about what you need to do. If you want to reimburse some of the cost, that is up to you. It is not a big deal to me.”

 

Kenny – “I definitely want to afford you some sort of remedy, and my goal is to stand behind what I sell generally. At the very least, I want to be fair (and I think my tentative plan should be more than fair). Before formally proposing it; however, I do want to solicit opinions from dealers on the board that may have more experience than I do. I have been delayed in creating a thread because of personal obligations, but do intend to get something up sometime today (Thursday).

 

Also, do you have imaging capabilities? If so, could you shoot me an image of the doubling? I want to look it up myself, and I am wondering whether a PM to Max Spiegel or one of the other NGC people may be useful to see if they could review the coin for the designation for free assuming NGC erred. That still leaves the toning problem, but I am wondering whether an acetone bath would eliminate the AT (if it is in fact AT). If the toning comes off, you may still have a gradeable coin for your set. Please note I am suggesting this to be helpful, and this is no way means that I am planning on leaving you without a remedy. I know, however, that you bought this for a variety set, and I would at least like you to have a problem free example.

 

With regards to the toning and this situation, it is very unusual so I have no comparable experience whatsoever (the reason for the forthcoming thread). I have never had a coin come back to me as AT, and I was honestly surprised by NGC's determination. To be honest, if baffles me that someone would send in an AT modern proof Roosevelt Dime to PCI in the early to mid 1990s before toned coins started to sell for the premiums that are common today. At that time, the toning would bring little if any premium, so it really doesn't make much sense to me. “

 

Now I guess I put on a pretty hard push to get all my money back and apologize for that. I guarantee it will not happen again, any of it. Will I accept any refund at this point, not a snowballs chance in ... I do not give a meadow muffin about the cost of the coin. I just thought Kenny would like to know the results. I rest my case.

 

Jim Gelhaus

 

 

 

 

Well it looks to me that you still want the coin Jim. Doesn't sound like any hard feelings about it either. It also sounds like Kenny still has a conscious concern about making it right as to him wondering about others opinions in the matter. It sounds to me that both of you are honest individuals making sure there is still honesty amongst collectors! I'm sure that you both can work this out between yourselves and it will come out for the positive on both sides.

[Raisethis2]

 

 

Jim,

 

Actually I don't think you were pushing hard for a refund at all. Rather, I see 2 knowledgable collectors of attributed coins that are both miffed by an illogical conclusion from the NGC grading room.

 

As I said in my post earlier, even with the best of intentions mistakes can be made. It sounds to me like NGC may well have made one here. It happens.

 

At the end of the day I'd feel the coin has to be regraded by either our host or ATS. If Max Speigel has the authority to fix an error sending him photos to review (or have reviewed) followed by a re-submission of the coin UNLESS THE REASONS FOR FS-801 attribution can be clarified seems the best course of action.

 

The bottom line is the Original Poster sold a coin that may or may not be what he thought it to be. If someone's going to take an economic loss he sounds like it should be him (at least in part).

 

 

The good thing is that the next step seems to be achievable working together since you both cross paths here and sound willing to resolve this logically.

 

 

 

 

[cpm9ball]

Wow! I plead guilty and lay my fate at the feet of the court of my peers. Hopefully my sentence can be reduced from a firing squad to life without parole. Now the Rest Of The Story (thanks Paul Harvey for your many years on the radio). I purchased the 1963 monster toned Roosevelt FS-802 from Kenny (coinman_23885) on Oct. 14 on eBay. I am surprised no one had searched yet and found the transaction and showed it here. My eBay user name is zsmartiehorse and you can search for all the information about me. The coin was listed for a Buy It Now price of $175.00 or make offer. I made an offer of $125 and Kenny accepted it. He commented when I gave my shipping information that my name sounded familiar and wondered if I was a member of the Collector Society. I said I was and gave my user name. I also said that I did not expect the coin to upgrade my existing set of Roosevelt varieties for FS-802 since I currently had a PCGS 68 deep cameo, top coin of both PCGS and NGC. However, I want to start a custom set of Roosevelt and Jefferson varieties. I enjoy the challenge of the photographing the doubled dies and like to display them for other members to see.

I received the coin with a little delay as Kenny’s father-in-law was ill and he apologized. I said there was no problem and I hoped his father-in-law had a good recovery. I took a quick look at the coin and saw a very nice strong doubled die reverse. The coin was very colorful and that was it. I gave positive feedback and put the coin in the drawer as I was waiting for some other coins before sending the coin for grading. The coin sat in my drawer for some time and I finally decided to submit it to NGC for grading and Variety Plus designation. I chose NGC as I was hoping for a star designation. Even though I held the coin for some time I chose the three day review and sent this coin and a raw Jefferson in. I received it back and here is our correspondence:

 

Dear coinman23885,

 

Thought you should know I submitted this coin to NGC for grading and it came back artificially toned. Also had the wrong variety - FS-801.

- zsmartiehorse

 

Dear zsmartiehorse,

 

Is the coin still in the original holder? I'm sorry. I honestly didn't know that the attribution was incorrect. With regards to the toning, it looked like some others that I had seen in top tier plastic. So, just to confirm, NGC said FS-801?

- coinman23885

 

Dear zsmartiehorse,

 

Please see my other message, but, shoot me a PM on the NGC boards if you would. My moniker there is the same except there is an underscore between the letters and numbers in my username.

- coinman23885

 

Collectors Society Message Board –

Jim - “I just received shipment notification from NGC and the invoice info says artificially toned and FS-801. I won't have the coin for 4 or 5 days to check it out. Also when NGC grades it, the coin is cracked out so the holder is gone.”

 

Kenny – “Please give me a few days, and let me figure out how I am going to sort this mess out. I want to make this right and I don't want to leave you hanging. I honestly did not know that the attribution was wrong, and had seen similarly toned pieces holder in top TPG plastic. Given some of the coins that I have seen turn in PCI holders, I also didn't think to question it. I have never had this happen to me before.

 

I do want to thank you for contacting me to let me know what happened rather than hating me or assuming the worse (i.e. that I knew of the incorrect attribution, etc.) without giving me an opportunity to try to remedy the problem.”

 

Jim – “I will let you know when I get the coin back. I want to look at it again.”

 

Jim – “I received the coin back from NGC and after studying it under my microscope and looking at the NGC Variety Plus descriptions for FS-801 and FS-802, I have to disagree with NGC. To me it is clearly an FS-802 and that concerns me about NGC and the variety attribution. I sent the coin to NGC because to me it was clearly doubled dies and I was hoping for a star grade. I have no experience at determining artificial toning and actually own only four colorful toned coins. What concerns me about NGC on variety attribution of proof dimes is they only accept three years - 1960, 1963 and 1964. So it is almost like the variety designation is not important to them and in which case I don't have much confidence in their determinations, even less now. PCGS does all of them basically in the Cherry Pickers guide. I also have two NGC graded 1960 Roosevelts labeled FS-102a and to me they are clearly FS-102b by their own descriptions. So this is my last Variety Plus submittal to NGC. What I am going to do just to prove my point is send the coin to James Wiles for variety attribution. I am pouring more money into the coin but oh well. So don't be concerned about what you need to do. If you want to reimburse some of the cost, that is up to you. It is not a big deal to me.”

 

Kenny – “I definitely want to afford you some sort of remedy, and my goal is to stand behind what I sell generally. At the very least, I want to be fair (and I think my tentative plan should be more than fair). Before formally proposing it; however, I do want to solicit opinions from dealers on the board that may have more experience than I do. I have been delayed in creating a thread because of personal obligations, but do intend to get something up sometime today (Thursday).

 

Also, do you have imaging capabilities? If so, could you shoot me an image of the doubling? I want to look it up myself, and I am wondering whether a PM to Max Spiegel or one of the other NGC people may be useful to see if they could review the coin for the designation for free assuming NGC erred. That still leaves the toning problem, but I am wondering whether an acetone bath would eliminate the AT (if it is in fact AT). If the toning comes off, you may still have a gradeable coin for your set. Please note I am suggesting this to be helpful, and this is no way means that I am planning on leaving you without a remedy. I know, however, that you bought this for a variety set, and I would at least like you to have a problem free example.

 

With regards to the toning and this situation, it is very unusual so I have no comparable experience whatsoever (the reason for the forthcoming thread). I have never had a coin come back to me as AT, and I was honestly surprised by NGC's determination. To be honest, if baffles me that someone would send in an AT modern proof Roosevelt Dime to PCI in the early to mid 1990s before toned coins started to sell for the premiums that are common today. At that time, the toning would bring little if any premium, so it really doesn't make much sense to me. “

 

Now I guess I put on a pretty hard push to get all my money back and apologize for that. I guarantee it will not happen again, any of it. Will I accept any refund at this point, not a snowballs chance in ... I do not give a meadow muffin about the cost of the coin. I just thought Kenny would like to know the results. I rest my case.

 

Jim Gelhaus

 

 

 

 

 

Jim, please excuse me because I'm having a hard time digesting my food. The foot was okay, but the shoe is taking a little longer.

 

This is just one (more) instance where people are given only part of the story and expected to offer advice. Yes! I think it would have made a big difference if we had been informed of your membership and participation, here. At least then, we could have waited for your comments before offering opinions. At the same time, I don't understand why he chose to make this a public discussion knowing this. He could have asked some of the other members privately via PM for their thoughts.

 

With that said, I think coinman should have been more forthright with us.

 

Best wishes for the holidays!

 

Chris

[coinman_23885]

Wow! I plead guilty and lay my fate at the feet of the court of my peers. Hopefully my sentence can be reduced from a firing squad to life without parole.

 

I never anticipated there being negative comments against you, and I never implied that you did anything wrong. I'm sorry if anyone has said or implied anything disparaging. The whole point of this thread was to determine whether my intended recourse (a partial refund of some kind) would be appropriate or whether I owed you more. There are no hard feelings from this end and I hope there aren't from your end either.

 

Now I guess I put on a pretty hard push to get all my money back and apologize for that. I guarantee it will not happen again, any of it. Will I accept any refund at this point, not a snowballs chance in ... I do not give a meadow muffin about the cost of the coin. I just thought Kenny would like to know the results. I rest my case.

 

Jim Gelhaus

 

No, I never suggested that you pushed to get back all of your money, and nothing I said was meant to suggest that. Someone made a false assumption initially, and I was more than clear that I was the one who wanted to offer you a remedy (and that you didn't expressly ask for one).. Again, the point of this thread was to make sure that my tentative offer of a partial refund was fair to you as opposed to a different remedy (i.e. more drastic). I never envisioned this thread would take the turn that it did.

[coinman_23885]

Kenny, first of all, good for you for caring and going above and beyond to be fair. Especially since you probably have no obligation to do anything.

 

Before I get to my suggested solution, I do have some admittedly picky criticisms of your Ebay description, which are aimed at saving you trouble in the future. I believe that each of your statements below set you up for possible problems, particularly since you were selling a coin in a holder other than ANACS, NGC or PCGS:

 

1) I wouldn't have included "This company was fairly conservative and accurate from this time period.."

 

2) I wouldn't have included "I can say that the coin is accurately described as superb gem proof..."

 

3) I wouldn't have included "but I can tell you, based on my research, this is one of the more valuable varieties. "

 

4) I wouldn't have included "When coupled with the monster toning seen on this specimen, I think it is a fair assessment to state that there are not many of this quality lying around."

 

I don't think you have any legal or ethical obligation to do anything for the buyer. But, knowing that he took a gamble and lost, if YOU would feel better by compensating him in some amount of money - perhaps for the grading fee and/or postage, or whatever amount seems fair to YOU - do that. If, on the other hand, it would not make you feel better, I see no need to do anything.

 

Thank you! You commented on exactly the point of the listing that troubles me: the way that it is hyped up. Although I believed all of it to be true at the time (and still do), I feel badly because of the toning determination and my description as superb gem proof. Before posting this thread, I was anticipating offering a partial refund of some kind (but was wondering whether I should offer something more). It sounds like this is consistent with the tenor of your post.

 

[coinman_23885]

Jim, please excuse me because I'm having a hard time digesting my food. The foot was okay, but the shoe is taking a little longer.

 

This is just one (more) instance where people are given only part of the story and expected to offer advice. Yes! I think it would have made a big difference if we had been informed of your membership and participation, here. At least then, we could have waited for your comments before offering opinions. At the same time, I don't understand why he chose to make this a public discussion knowing this. He could have asked some of the other members privately via PM for their thoughts.

 

With that said, I think coinman should have been more forthright with us.

 

Best wishes for the holidays!

 

Chris

 

I didn't mention his membership or participation, or post any of the comments between us, because I wanted to protect his privacy. I didn't think anyone would care enough to try to look up his identity based on the information posted. I expressly stated he did not ask for a refund and I had no doubts he was legitimate in what he was saying. I wanted to fashion a remedy for him because being accurate, honest, and fair are the most important things to me in executing any business transaction. I don't see his membership as a material fact and it has nothing to do with the question posed (i.e. what would be a proper remedy?). I would make the same offer regardless of whether the person was a member here or not. As such, I don't see how my post was anything less than completely forthright, and I don't see his membership as a material fact.

 

With regards to the other points, I posted this publicly because I wanted several views, and I understand that there may be differences of opinions among members that may never surface it I had selected only a few individual members. I saw nothing wrong with asking a simply question publicly: What sort of remedy would you offer? In fact, I told him that I was planning to start a thread seeking advice several answers in advice and he was aware of it before the actual posting. I was leaning towards a partial refund, but wanted to know whether I should do more.

[Catbert]

I am not a dealer.

 

After reading all of the above, if I were in your shoes coinman, I would refund 50% of the purchase price ($63). I do not think you're responsible for NGC grading fees. If that would make me a dealer doormat as another member would label such an action, so be it.

 

You have indicated a desire to provide some remedy and I commend you for your instinct. However, I do not believe you should be responsible for the entire burden of the transaction.

[MarkFeld]

This appears to be a case where the buyer and seller are both good guys. I am therefore, extremely confident, that the two of them will come to a gentlemanly and equitable resolution.

[rrantique]

This appears to be a case where the buyer and seller are both good guys. I am therefore, extremely confident, that the two of them will come to a gentlemanly and equitable resolution.

 

This (thumbs u

[Red Llama]

This appears to be a case where the buyer and seller are both good guys. I am therefore, extremely confident, that the two of them will come to a gentlemanly and equitable resolution. [/quote

 

It is a Christmas miracle

[Crazy Mtn Coins]

This is my last post on this thread. I feel Kenny's original post was a case of too much information or too little. Too much information in my mind allowed anyone with a little work to find the eBay item and identify zsmartiehorse as the buyer and if they bothered to look, would have found my name on the Collectors Society Chat Board eBay name listing. I felt the thread was moving in a direction I did not want my name to eventually surface and then have to do a whole bunch of damage control. So I felt it was better to reveal my name and the rest of the story. Regarding the original posting being too little, I felt if the information about the coin was revealed it would have been better to tell all the story. The poster (Kenny) should have run the posting by me to see if I had any comments on the language. But now that is all past and I want to move on. I do not want to drag this thread along. I understand Kenny's desire to obtain comments regarding how he should proceed with refunding money, etc.etc. As far as partial refund now, I think I made my feelings quite clear in my other post. I do not hold any hard feeling toward Kenny. My comments in my original post were directed more toward the direction the thread was moving and not so much toward Kenny. So let's move on. Regarding re-submitting the coin to NGC to re-evaluate the variety attribution, I do not feel that would gain anything as they have already determined the coin to be AT.

[coinman_23885]

To everyone who has taken the time to post comments and advice to this thread, I very much appreciate your time and consideration. As always, your help is appreciated.

 

Jim, I will refrain from posting further to this thread to keep it from languishing on, but in closing, I do want to offer you an apology. When I announced my intent to start this thread, you seemed okay with the idea and I saw the content of the post to be completely innocuous. I do wish, in hindsight, that I had given you an opportunity to view it ahead of time. I had no way of knowing that the thread would have taken the turn that it did, even after I made it clear that although you didn't ask for a refund (from the very beginning), that I wanted to do the ethical/fair thing for you. If there was any negativity in this thread, I thought it would have been directed at me. Since I have no experience with this type of situation, I sought advice. I included the auction description, only because I thought the strong language contained therein might be worth considering in determining how equitable my proposed solution is.

 

My offer for a partial refund stands even if you don't wish to resubmit the coin.