I got ripped off in a Heritage sale!! My fault?

[James_OldeTowne]

This 1807 Bust half looks pretty nice on my screen - but looks like crud on my desk! Did I get screwed?

 

They said "this problem-free example",

... except that it does have a problem it's been polished.

 

They used terms like "Gorgeous rainbow pastels ", "beautifully toned example", "colorful",

... except that it's actually practically colorless, and the toning is NOT "beautiful"

 

They said "Extremely well detailed for a VF30"

... except that it's pretty average detail for a VF.

 

Of course, since it's a glorious "Signature Sale", there's no return policy....

 

One thing's for sure, it's NOT worth $546.25!!!!!!

 

Yes, I admit I bought it sight-unseen.

 

What do I do?

 

James

[goose3]

stick it on ebay!

[braddick]

That is disapointing as ANACS is usually pretty good about catching problems and placing the coin in a 'net' holder.

 

You're right though, Heritage's SCAN looks good and their description, tasty.

[gmarguli]

To me, the coin looks cleaned and retoned, but not polished. For a 200 year old coin, this is acceptable.

 

As for the grade, looks pretty solid at the VF30 level. I've seen worse in EF40 slabs.

 

And when an auction states "(colors) adorn the peripheries" it usually means specks of color - i.e. not much true color.

[Leothelion]

First off, if it's not what Heritage said about the coin then it's a legit return! I don't care if the prince of whales()sold the coin, Heritage misrepresented the coin!

As for ANACS, they must have thought since many coins that old have suffered some degree of cleaning, they refrained from netgrading it.

If they have a policy of no returns for this type of auction then they should avoid adding descriptions.

Another thought, IMO, aside from the cleaning, this coin looks much closer to the ANACS VF grade than what Pcgs graded that 1827 Bust half EF40!

As for what you paid, I only have a 1998 redbook (how reliable is that) so you may have paid close to EF money but these old coins have gone up 25% since so you just might be within $50 of it's true value.

 

Leo

[HaydenTubbs]

It looks pretty good in Heritage's scan,but if it's polished as you said,you got ripped.I've always thought ANACS was moderately good at catching problems.

[Hoot]

It's a nicely detailed coin, and I think I'd just let it sit for a good long while (if you're wanting it for a collection). A velvet tray in the window sill or a Wayte Raymond album would be good places for the coin for the next couple of years. After that, re-evaluate.

 

Hoot

[TomB]

To me, the image of the coin is screaming that it was dipped and or cleaned and that it is since retoning. It also looks like a VF30 when you consider that it's an 1807. Remember, the 1807 halves are not struck like the remainder of the series. The image on my screen makes the coin look as though it would be extremely unattractive, apparently just as it looks in-hand.

 

Funny thing is that I sold an ANACS VF30 1807 CBH in Baltimore for $320 and the coin was a gorgeous and completely original piece.

[James_OldeTowne]

The weird thing is, early last year, I cherry-picked an ANACS F-15 1807 half, immediately cracked it out and offered it in inventory as VF-30 (the danged thing had luster!). It sold within a week, and I pocketed nearly $300. So I admit that I got greedy and thought this might be another undergrade.

 

To tell you the truth, I agree that the detail actually is about VF-30 - in fact possibly a bit better. I just wish that Heritage would have refrained from so much poetry in describing this coin, when all it did was mislead me (and apparently, other bidders as well).

 

It was definitely polished, though lightly, and as is often the case, the cleaning made the surfaces more susceptible to toning, and so the coin acquired a bit of color. But what litte "color" there is really isn't all that their description made it out to be.

 

I've made a call to their customer service and complained, but I'm sure that, me being a very small fish in a huge pond, my voice didn't carry much weight.

 

James

[James_OldeTowne]

Braddick, actually, I have no complaint with ANACS. The coin actually is net-graded, as it does have XF detail. They took ten points off the technical grade to reflect the fact that it's been lightly polished.

 

My complaint is with Heritage, who should not have augmented ANACS' grade in that manner. If I were selling the coin - and I have done this in the past with certified coins from ANY company - I'd have mentioned that the coin was cleaned and net-graded in my opinion.

 

I just think that the Heritage "no-returns" policy sucks when I bought the coin based on their praise of the coin, which went over and beyond the third-party (and therefore unbiased) opinion.

 

James

[michael]

i think based on the way the description was written

 

 

 

you should have an option of a full 100% refund due to the above being not properly described in the auction

 

michael

[PovertyRow]

Bottom line?

 

They call it a " problem-free example"

 

So is it problem-free? I think not.

[reid1836]

Judging from the photo. I would have steered away from this one. My experience has been that a coin with as much sheen as that one exhibits has most definitly been cleaned. The central details are a dead give away. As to whether it has been polished ? I`d have to agree to some extent. Looks as though a soft cloth was the culprit. I`m surprised ANACS would let this slide ! Minute hairlines seen only under 10x magnification I would go along with. Considering the age of the coin and the number of different hands and collections it might have rested in, in that amount of time.

I would go along with the idea of placing it in an album that known to tone silver coins at an accelerated rate as was suggested previously. At least the coin may pick up some desirable coloring in the process. At any rate you win some, you loose some, and in between you get educated !

[braddick]

I still have a quarrel with ANACS. ANACS uses a 'net grade' system. If they place a coin in a 'problem free' holder instead of a net grade holder it should be assumed the coin is problem free.

 

As guilty as Heritage is, I wouldn't completely let ANACS off the hook. In essence, net grading a coin by dropping it ten points and placing it in their problem free holder isn't playing fair.

 

ANACS needs to play by their own rules.

[EZ_E]

I still have a quarrel with ANACS. ANACS uses a 'net grade' system. If they place a coin in a 'problem free' holder instead of a net grade holder it should be assumed the coin is problem free.

 

As guilty as Heritage is, I wouldn't completely let ANACS off the hook. In essence, net grading a coin by dropping it ten points and placing it in their problem free holder isn't playing fair.

 

ANACS needs to play by their own rules.

 

I agree with your statement, Braddick. That is why I do not by ANACS sight-unseen.

[JamminJ]

What do I do?

 

You got blinded by dollar signs, gambled and lost. Take your lumps and move on.

 

-JamminJ

[DirtyGoldMan]

After a similar experience, I have sworn off buying Heritage coins sight unseen.

 

Here's mine:

Link

 

The lamination strip is barely visible in the photo. With the coin in hand, it is impossible for me to imagine photographing it without it showing up more obvious.

 

I took my lumps and am moving on, as someone offered. I suggest you do the same.

[Gunsmoke]

Two questions: What is a lamination strip and two, it stated it in the description and on the label so why were you upset?

[goose3]

SageRed

 

call me crazy or stupid but that coin is holdered as a "MINT ERROR". Didn't you in fact pay FOR the Mint Error aka Lamination??

 

I would think that if it was more prominent in hand, then you'd be pleasantly surprised.

[DirtyGoldMan]

Didn't you in fact pay FOR the Mint Error aka Lamination??

 

Of course I knew about it. I was buying it for the coin, though, not the error. A little lamination adds some charm to the coin. You can barely see the lamination in the photo. A large lamination from one side of the coin to the other through the primary focal areas does not. I should have known better. It was in the "Post Auction Bargain" offering--you know, where the coins that are dogs and those with ridiculously high reserves end up.

 

From the PCGS "lingo" section:

 

lamination

A thin piece of metal that has nearly become detached from the surface of a coin. If this breaks off, an irregular hole or planchet flaw is left.

[bigd5]

I agree with what Greg and TomB said. The coin looks like it was cleaned at one time, and is now retoning. As far as the grade, for an early date, it's more than acceptable.

 

A coin like this won't get net graded, a majority of the time, by Anacs, and won't get a bodybag by NGC or PCGS the majority of the time.

 

All the services slab coins that have marginal problems. The question always is (with the services anyway) "is the coin market acceptable?"

 

Like that rationale or not, that's the basis for grading coins like this.

 

There are thousands of examples floating around out there, in ALL holders, similar to this coin.

 

Two quick examples that come to mind quickly:

 

A nice looking ms/65 Buffalo nickel with a huge rim ding. It was almost comical looking at that in a holder. The dealer/seller of that coin was sending it back to NGC. It was offered as a "bargain" at 30% under bid though.

 

A rare date Morgan in a pcgs au/58 (?) holder. The dealer that owned this coin was all excited about it as it looked "unc" in every way imaginable. He's trying to sell the coin to another dealer, and the potential buying dealer states "the coin is bent". Well, a brief back and forth occurs and the dealer who owns the coin cracks the coin out of the holder and then proceeds to pull a minor nutty, as the coin is in fact "bent".

 

I feel it's naive of us to single out any major TPG for this sort of thing. Each one of those services miss stuff. Those mentioned problems make me always think that the "multiple graders look at every coin, then the finalizer" is a load of [#@$%!!!]. I find it extremely difficult to believe that a bent coin goes through 3 professional graders without getting recognized. Same goes for the rim ding.

 

I feel with the amount of coins flying through the services, one person is grading your coins, and they are getting a brief look see before they finally end up in the slab. I can picture a certain colored sticker on "worthy" coins that should get a second look.

 

I could be dead wrong, but that's the only way to describe some of the bologna you see out there.

 

Ok, that's my end of the week morning tangent.

 

Happy New Year all!

[braddick]

A hard rubber mallet and two peices of plywood will cure the bend in that Morgan.

 

Or, a commerical vice with two straps of leather will also do the trick.

Outside of that, I can't blame anyone for being bummed out at what each and every Service returns sometimes.

 

Grade 50,000 coins a month and 20, or more are bound to be returned with problems/errors or issues of some sort. We don't hear so much about the 49,980 but will the twenty.

[EZ_E]

When I was still a newby I had bought an 1861 NTC AU-55 Seated Liberty dollar. Its details were awesome with apparent original surfaces. I even got PCGS to slab it as XF-45 (which was a net grade). As many of you know, this is a great date and very scarce in higher grades since most of them were melted in 1862. However, the following problems exist with the coin: There are rim disturbances (fairly severe) from either a vice (not tooled or filled) or from being dropped and the surfaces had been very briefly dipped in bleach in order to give it a more original looking surface (whoever did this certainly knew what they were doing since bleach will turn silver totally black in no time at all). This information was gleened from the instructor of an ANA Grading Seminar which I had attended. So, was the coin market acceptable, especially for such a scarce date? Maybe but I traded it off so there's my answer to the question. It is kind of like the 1885 Trade dollar that just sold for over a million. Since it is such a great rarity with but five known, NGC just upgraded it to a PR 63 Cameo. This is a real stretch, IMHO, since King Farouk hairlined it like a big dawg. If a common date Morgan looked like this then it would most likely be body bagged. So, the moral of this story? TPG services should never be taken as gospel, only as a guide. For me, the ANA seminar was priceless and I highly recommend it. Anyway, this is my trime's worth...

[Count_Erfit]

I also viewed that coin as the date intrigues me for some reason.

 

I was put off by:

 

1. It was from Heritage and their "loading, loading" imaging ticks me off.

2. It was from Heritage and "buyer premiums" tick me off.

3. It was from Heritage and non-returnable.

4. The centers of the coin in the image just looked ..."off"...as in sumpin not rite

5. It was from Heritage.

 

But it was an 1807 so I hadda look.