I have to speak out posted by The Wells Collection

[CSJournals-migration]

about unethical practices

 

I have sat silent long enough. I am not one to out someone for something that might be considered a private matter, but I want to know if I am crazy for thinking the way I do.

 

I have had a few conversations with a collector who on occasion adds a coin to his collection that he does not own. Albeit he is probably the current high bidder on the coin but he does not own it because the auction has not ended yet.

 

The coin in question this time is a 1957 NGC 25c PF68+UC that is at greatcollections right now ending Sunday night.

 

When he did this the last time I asked if he was selling this coin and he stated no. I emailed back then why is it in your collection already even though the auction has not ended yet. His response was that he adds coins to his collection to make sure he is going to get it. I told him that by adding it early it will make people aware and will make him pay more for the coin. He did this with a 1951 25c PF68*CAMEO and he paid at least 2k more because people bid him up.

 

I am not sure what NGC could or would do about this as it may be out of their control but in my opinion it is completely unethical and shouldn't be overlooked.

 

Because of my emails from the last time he did this, he is now obscuring his sets. Like that ever stopped anyone from seeing what people are up to.

 

If my post gets people all angry I guess I can just delete it and move on.

 

http://www.ngccoin.com/NGCCoinExplorer/CoinDetail.aspx?CoinID=65483&webSyncID=0492e8c7-aa65-40ca-4b9a-933e12ad3c72&sessionGUID=e9452274-2a59-6a18-42b8-5610b5a99c76

 

You can follow the link to see who this collector is for yourself at the bottom of the page.

 

Thanks for reading,

Seth

 

See more journals by The Wells Collection

[Coindude]

I personally would never do this and don't agree with people doing it. I know more than just this person do it and not sure there's much anyone can do to stop it with the exception of the current owner denying the transfer of ownership.

[Walkerfan]

This is an interesting post. I agree that he shouldn't add it to his set, until he has won the item, but I am sure that others do this as well.

 

I, personally, would never do it for the reasons mentioned above (being run up and/or exposed,too). Hopefully, he is smart enough to remove the coin, immediately, if he doesn't win the auction.

 

I know a lot of guys who are VERY anxious to add coins to their sets and they do so as soon as they win (i.e. before physically taking possession). IMHO you should, at least, win the coin and PAY for the item first----I think THAT is OK w/o having physical possession. But that is much different than adding the coin before even winning it.

[The Fielding Collection]

I for one would never do such a unethical thing for one as you said it would drive the price up possible point that I could not afford the coin and it would make me look like a fool it I did not win the coin. this person either has very deep pockets or is a fool.

Now I am guilty of adding MY coins as soon as ngc list the scores but these are my coins that I sent in for grading. not auction coins that I'm bidding on I have not as of this writing tried to buy a coin in any auction I stay away fron them because I've heard to many horror stories about coins being misrepresented by the seller.

Happy Collecting and may God Bless....Mike

[jpcienkus]

I don't get the idea of adding a coin to your registry before winning the coin. I mean, if you really want a coin, one would think you wouldn't forget to watch the end of the auction and bid accordingly.

 

I admit that I have added a coin to the registry after I've bought and paid for the coin but before receiving it in hand. It's usually because I'm so happy to have it, I want to add it asap. I don't do it often, but I have done it.

 

I've never even thought about adding a coin to my registry while it's still up for auction. I just don't understand why you would do it.

[Ultra Cameo Collection]

He told me basically that it sets it in his mind that he is getting it no matter what.

 

Mind over matter kind of thing I guess.

 

Just like last time, someone will notice it and bid it up just out of spite. I think the coin is worth about 2k and it is already over 3k. In the end he will never get his money back from these coins because he is overpaying in the first place.

 

I try to do the opposite, I don't tell anyone I am bidding on the coin. I hope to get it for less than I think it is worth. I want to be able to at least think I might someday get my money back.

 

Thanks for everyone's input.

Seth

[Ultra Cameo Collection]

I just checked and he removed this coin from his sets.

[CSdot]

It seems weird that someone would include a coin they don't yet own. I am not offended by the posters above who add coins they have purchased or recently had certified, even if they don't have it in hand, because they OWN the coin. However, adding a coin you do not OWN to your registry is just wrong.

 

Even worse would be a situation where someone does not own the coin, has never owned the coin, and has no intention to own the coin, yet they include it in their registry set. I would suggest that sort of conduct, absent a reasonable explanation (not sure what that could be?) should be grounds for termination from the registry. I have always wondered if this happens more often than we know?

[Kaiser14]

Registering a coin one doesn't own is a definite sleaze all will agree, but I'd bet it's relatively infrequent. The more common irritant is the situation where coins registered to a set no longer belong to the registrant. Many set owners sell some or all of their coins and conveniently "forget" to delete them from their sets. Indeed, many PCGS cert numbers registered to sets no longer exist because of re-grades. The net result is that those coins are "frozen" in NGC sets because NGC doesn't (and can't) monitor changes in PCGS cert numbers and presently non-existent PCGS cert numbers can never be re-registered in and NGC sets. So, these sets can never die a natural death by attrition. Many high-ranking sets are, in fact, "zombie" sets of this kind with coins long sold off and/or with cert numbers no longer valid. Until very recently (this week?), NGC published the cert numbers of coins in all sets. I imagine they deleted public display of cert numbers to prevent clowns from messing with sets. I don't think it was a wise idea to eliminate cert numbers because, without them, fraud and manipulation can't be exposed by other collectors. Anyway, I think it would be a good idea for NGC to require that all set owners confirm their sets once a year, either by activity in the set (e.g., at least one addition, deletion, description, photo, etc.) or by confirming by e-mail that they still own the coins registered. It won't stop the insufficiently_thoughtful_persons altogether, but it would be a small step in legitimizing the registry.

[ILJC#70]

I agree with Kaiser on a number of points, several of which I planned to make before reading his post. Regarding the annual e-mail verification idea, there would need to be limits. I personally have over 1000 coins registered in sets, so a sampling of 5-10% of each collect's inventory with a maximum of 25-50 coins would probably be acceptable. However, this would be adding an additional workload and expense at NGC that would be passed on to us in some form.

 

On a related note, several times I have purchased a coin in the past which required me to request that a previous owner remove it from their set so I could add it to mine. I would occasionally check out the set that it came from and notice several other coins that sold at the same time that were still in the set - not sure if the seller was just lazy about removing them or was happy to retain credit for them until forced to give it up. Another example of an unethical practice.

[benjmurts]

Ummm doesnt the seller have to ok the NGC change of ownership to get the coin in your collection??

[Ultra Cameo Collection]

Not if the coin currently isn't part of anyone's collection.

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

I'm not sure if I'd exactly call it "unethical". I mean, no one is really negatively impacted in any significant way. I'd call it more of a potential waste of time for him. But I can't see how adding a coin to his registry helps him win the auction in any way. So it's not like he's cheating or manipulating the market in any way.

 

This person could be a very wealthy collector, willing to pay anything for a coin. Like, maybe he's already put in a $50,000 bid for that $2,000 coin. I know a guy in Vancouver who does this, but he collects guitars. If there is a guitar that he absolutely has to have, he'll just bid double what he thinks it's worth and wins an auction no problem. A couple thousand bucks is two or three months of rent to me. But to him, it's just a bottle of wine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kaiser14]

In response to Mr. Smith Guesser's comment, I agree that no one in "negatively impacted in any significant way," in the sense that no one loses any money by such misrepresentations. In the final analysis, registry sets are simply entertainment/fun. Antics on a registry forum don't affect the market value of the coins owned. On the other hand, in order for registry sets to be "fun," there must (1) be rules and (2) those rules must be enforced. It's no different than a baseball or card game. If there are no rules and no enforcement, the game isn't fun and, sooner or later, legitimate people won't play. When honest people won't register their coins/sets, NGC's registry set program (and NGC itself) loses all credibility. Now, when I speak of rules and enforcement, I'm not talking police state. I'm simply saying that mechanisms must be in place to promote a level playing field. As I said in my previous post, annual re-registration of sets---a simple "yes" response to an e-mail---or simple activity within a set is hardly burdensome to anyone. Most people who've sold their coins won't respond or, at very least, will update their sets when reminded. Such a simple process would almost certainly eliminate most of the existing zombie sets and give active participants who actually own the coins registered their due. Everyone benefits by an honest game---certainly, the honest competitors and, even more, NGC. The more credible its registry program and the more people that believe in it and want to use it, the more prestigious NGC becomes in the public eye.

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

yeah, upon further reflection, i guess it could be considered an ethical issue. but i don't want to get into the semantics.

 

but Kaiser14, i think you're absolutely right that not having a level playing field is NO fun at all. and (hopefully) that's why we make some rules in the first place, to keep a level playing field.

 

but i think that part of the nature of competition is to challenge yourself to work within certain boundaries. so in a way, cheating the system, you sort of end up cheating yourself. so i want say, let the baby have his bottle. but, yeah, if everyone added coins to their sets that they really don't own, the registry would be ruined. and i don't want that to happen.

 

 

[coin928]

It is interesting to note that sometime after this journal post and the many follow up messages, NGC removed the Certification numbers for all set listings. You can't even see the cert. numbers in your own sets unless you edit the coin.

 

This is either a very interesting coincidence, or NGC's way of making it much more difficult to tell if someone is utilizing coins in their sets that they don't actually own.