• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Raw coin auction

36 posts in this topic

"Charter Oak" runs these mainly raw coin auctions usually once a month. Their November auction is coming up in a few days: http://www.charteroakcoinauctions222.wizaweb.com/auction-list-1152015.html

 

My concern here is that buyers are being misled on grade as he is famous for buying "sliders", cleaned coins, etc. that he then sells as high grade coins. On ebay at least you cannot assign numerical grades to uncertified coins, but only use non-numerical terms like general grade levels as well as call a coin "Unc." or circulated.

 

His terms make it difficult for buyers to get objective opinions except from a local trusted dealer or serious collector they can show the coin to:

 

9. No lots may be returned by an email bidder without our permission. Request to return coins must be made in writing/email within

THREE days of receipt of coins. Authenticity concerns must be returned by no later than seven days after the auction.

 

And "floor bidders" are out of luck on their purchases:

 

10. NO lots may be returned by floor bidders except for authenticity and they must be returned no later than 7 days from the auction

 

date. ALL floor sales are final for any other reason!

 

11. Any claims involving errors in the catalog must be made within THREE days of

 

receipt of coins.

 

I have heard that many of the coins are getting purchased at high prices where unknowledgable buyers are getting caught up in the auction fervor.

 

What rights can buyers exercise outside of Charter Oaks cumbersome "terms of sale"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Connecticut State Regs on Auctioneers...

 

"Sec. 21-1. Penalty for selling at auction without license. Each person who exposes for sale by auction any goods or articles, except provisions, charcoal, wood, the products of a farm and secondhand household furniture, in any town, city or borough of which he is not a resident, without a license therefor from a majority of the selectmen of such town or from the authorities of such city or borough authorized by the charter or ordinances of such city or borough to issue such license, shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than sixty days or both. This section shall not apply to any auction conducted by or contracted for the state in accordance with any court order, under the provisions of section 54-36b or section 54-36c."

 

Unfortunately, Marion CT Municode is not available online...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think that there is no limit under the law for returns for counterfeits; his trying to impose such limits could subject him to serious jeopardy.

 

Also I have lost patience with raw coin con artists and have been thinking that just filing complaints with the state consumers rights agency is worth doing to get the con on record for the sake of other future buyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, Marion CT Municode is not available online...

 

Marion is a township in Hartford County. Here is the Municode page for Hartford:

https://www.municode.com/library/ct/hartford/codes/code_of_ordinances

(See Chapter 8 of Part I especially)

 

I definitely understand your line of thinking as I found it confusing at first too. In my state, cities and counties are independent and have their own municipal code so I often forget to check up on the specific county name first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, Marion CT Municode is not available online...

 

Marion is a township in Hartford County. Here is the Municode page for Hartford:

https://www.municode.com/library/ct/hartford/codes/code_of_ordinances

(See Chapter 8 of Part I especially)

 

I definitely understand your line of thinking as I found it confusing at first too. In my state, cities and counties are independent and have their own municipal code so I often forget to check up on the specific county name first.

 

Thank you... I didnt think about the county regs...

 

Here's the Hartford County Regs...

 

Sec. 8-7. - False representations by auctioneers.

 

"No auctioneer shall make any false representations as to the type, quality, condition, value or present or previous ownership of any watches, diamonds, jewelry, sterling silverware, clocks or any other goods commonly sold by jewelers which are offered for sale by him, or substitute another article for any article sold by him."

 

Could coins be considered "other goods commonly sold by jewelers ?"

 

I think so. But I am sure some will say no. I think it depends on if there are jewelers in Hartford County, CT that sell coins as well. The difficult will be showing that the statement was false as opposed to a matter of opinion. If he took a coin from a AU PCGS and advertised it as a BU coin, then I think thats a false statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a discussion of the law on grading standards, I'm not sure how the state would enforce this.

 

"There is a huge difference in the law between making a vague assertion about an item’s quality or its value and making a specific assertion about its condition. This goes for any object which can be moved, including coins (Article 2 of the UCC, which all 50 states have adopted in some form or another, and which governs the sale of such items, calls these “moveable goods,” as distinguished from the sale of services). For example, a seller who says that a car is in “great shape” or that a coin has “monster toning” is said to be “puffing,” that is, merely hyping his goods. If the car runs less than great, or the coin has only a little toning, the buyer cannot seek damages from the seller because the assertions were vague and not provable. The reason is obvious: everyone has their own conception of what it means for a car to be in “great shape” or for a coin to have “monster toning,” and there is and can be no uniform understanding of what these concepts mean. It would be unfair to hold someone responsible if another person didn't agree that the car was great or the coin had monster toning.

 

"Contrast that situation with one in which the seller says that his car “has a rebuilt engine and a new muffler.” That’s a specific representation capable of empiric proof. If, in fact, the car does not have a rebuilt engine or a new muffler, the seller can be liable for the damages caused by his misrepresentation. That also is a fair result, provided that the buyer actually relied on what the seller said when deciding to buy. (The legal term for this is called "detrimental reliance".)

 

"Now, there are certain fungible items in everday life that are bought and sold according to their condition or grade. Take beef, for example. Beef wholesalers sell their cuts to retailers according to a grading system set out by the USDA and known to all who are in the business. One type of beef has certain known characteristics and is priced accordingly. Another type of beef may be of a lesser quality, and therefore be of a lesser grade on the scale, and command a lesser price. Eggs are another example. grade A eggs have certain predetermined characteristics that distinguish them from other grades of eggs. If a seller of eggs says to a potentional buyer, “These twelve dozen eggs are all grade A,” and the eggs are a lesser grade, the seller is liable to the buyer. There is a whole body of law which addresses the sale and purchase of items that are valued according to a grading system, like beef and eggs.

 

"And coins. Like beef and eggs, coins are commonly bought and sold according to their grade. Yes, clearly there is a subjective element to grading coins, but that is true with grading eggs or beef or any number of other items, and there is a definitive standard against which any particular coin can be measured to determine its grade. Indeed, the graysheet prices coins sight unseen by saying that, in a given case, a particular year and mint of mercury dime is worth so-and-so. It simply cannot be denied that the coin industry relies on coin grading to determine value, just as cattle and poultry producers rely on their own grading system.

 

"Thus, a seller who says that a particular coin is in a particular grade has made a representation about that coin. The law calls what he said an “express warranty” that the coin is, in fact, the grade that the seller said it was. (UCC Article 2, § 2-313(1)(a) provides that “[a]ny affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis for the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation of promise.”) If the buyer buys the coin and finds that, in fact, it’s a lesser grade, and as long as the buyer relied on the seller’s representation regarding the grade in deciding to buy the coin, then the buyer has a legitimate claim for damages. (If the buyer did not rely on the seller’s misrepresentation, then the buyer has no claim, and rightly so.)

 

"The UCC provides a variety of remedies for a frustrated buyer (and also for sellers when the buyers refuse to buy). The underlying principle is that when a contract is breached, the non-breaching party is entitled to the “benefit of the bargain” he struck. In the case of a seller being the breaching party, the buyer can demand the money back (plus any “reasonably foreseeable” consequential damages), the buyer can “cover” (that is, go out into the market, buy the product, and then charge the purchase price to the original seller), or, perhaps most commonly, recover the difference between the item as warranted and as actually received (Article 2, § 2-714(2) of the UCC says, “[t]he measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference . . . between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted . . . .”)

 

"Thus, if a seller tells a buyer that a coin is, say, MS 65, and in fact the coin grades at MS 62, and the difference between MS 65 and MS 62 is $100, the buyer would be entitled to the lower-valued MS 62 and--note that I said "and"!--the additional $100 in order to permit the buyer to receive everything he bargained for. (Or the buyer could buy a “real” MS 65 and send the bill to the original seller, or the buyer could just demand his money back. Buyer chooses the remedy he desires.)

 

"As sellers, you might say that grading standards are too subjective and that PCGS or some other reputable grading service might grade a coin MS 65 one day and the same coin MS 64 or MS 66 the next. this is a fair argument, but against a properly-prepared plaintiff it won't carry the day. Yes, there is an element of subjectivity in grading, and yes, PCGS's and others' results might vary, even for the same coin, but how are you going to prove it? PCGS won’t submit an affidavit on your behalf that they sometimes grade the same coin differently. The best you’ll be able to do is to take the stand in your own defense (or hire another coin dealer to act as an expert) and try to explain why a definitive coin grading system can’t really be adhered to or followed accurately, all this after the court has heard from the disappointed buyer who has presented compelling evidence of his own about how the entire coin industry relies on the grading system. I contend that that's not a situation most sellers would like to be in.

 

"When (if) you represent that a particular coin is a particular numerical grade, you have made an express warranty that the coin is, in fact, the grade you represented it to be, and if it isn’t, you can be held liable for damages. Beware, especially if you live within New York, Connecticut, or Vermont (the three states comprising the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit).

 

"(Note well, too, that may be just the beginning. If the plaintiff proves that it was more likely than not that you had a “bad” motive in making your representation, you can be found liable for multiple damages *and* costs and the plaintiffs’ attorneys fees! Not to mention criminal liability!)

 

"But don’t despair. As sellers there are things you can do to limit your exposure. You can disclaim warranties in your sales receipt, for example (although this is a bit tricky to do legally–the UCC has several sections on exactly how it must be done to be valid), or you can assert that the grade is merely your opinion of the coin’s grade and that the seller should not rely on anything you say about the grade. You also could say that a coin was “probably” or “likely” a particular grade. Or you could just say that it’s “premium” or “gem” or “high quality” or use other “puffing” language. Just be careful, that’s all.

https://forums.collectors.com/messageview.aspx?catid=26&threadid=295472&highlight_key=y&keyword1=Another%20Court%20Case%20involving%20Grading

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, Marion CT Municode is not available online...

 

Marion is a township in Hartford County. Here is the Municode page for Hartford:

https://www.municode.com/library/ct/hartford/codes/code_of_ordinances

(See Chapter 8 of Part I especially)

 

I definitely understand your line of thinking as I found it confusing at first too. In my state, cities and counties are independent and have their own municipal code so I often forget to check up on the specific county name first.

 

Thank you... I didnt think about the county regs...

 

Here's the Hartford County Regs...

 

Sec. 8-7. - False representations by auctioneers.

 

"No auctioneer shall make any false representations as to the type, quality, condition, value or present or previous ownership of any watches, diamonds, jewelry, sterling silverware, clocks or any other goods commonly sold by jewelers which are offered for sale by him, or substitute another article for any article sold by him."

 

Could coins be considered "other goods commonly sold by jewelers ?"

 

I think so. But I am sure some will say no. I think it depends on if there are jewelers in Hartford County, CT that sell coins as well. The difficult will be showing that the statement was false as opposed to a matter of opinion. If he took a coin from a AU PCGS and advertised it as a BU coin, then I think thats a false statement.

 

What about the fact that the same coin can be graded by PCGS as AU on one occasion, but uncirculated, on another? Calling a coin uncirculated, which PCGS graded AU is not necessarily making a false statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone who has bought and sold coins, cracking out likely upgrades has stories to tell about upgrades. Early holders were famously tightly or strictly graded. No question. NGC is more steady in its grading over the years IMO.

 

What we see with the raw coin sellers are unreasonable grading standards which no grading service would stand behind. And with CC Morgans I cannot remember hearing of a slider going high mint state, they are generally easy to grade. So statistically if you see certain patterns on grades assigned with the raw coin people where everything grades under what they assign where there is a financial incentive, with the coins that don't matter being thrown into the mix to make it look like it is a normal operation, and nothing grading over what they assign--then you have a rigged and biased operation.

 

In fairness there are some variations in grading standards and styles between the top two services, but they have guarantees that go with their high assigned grades and recourse. Anacs and Icg may give a point or two extra in some cases, because their graders are told they need to provide options to submitters, but those coins are discounted in the marketplace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, Marion CT Municode is not available online...

 

Marion is a township in Hartford County. Here is the Municode page for Hartford:

https://www.municode.com/library/ct/hartford/codes/code_of_ordinances

(See Chapter 8 of Part I especially)

 

I definitely understand your line of thinking as I found it confusing at first too. In my state, cities and counties are independent and have their own municipal code so I often forget to check up on the specific county name first.

 

Thank you... I didnt think about the county regs...

 

Here's the Hartford County Regs...

 

Sec. 8-7. - False representations by auctioneers.

 

"No auctioneer shall make any false representations as to the type, quality, condition, value or present or previous ownership of any watches, diamonds, jewelry, sterling silverware, clocks or any other goods commonly sold by jewelers which are offered for sale by him, or substitute another article for any article sold by him."

 

Could coins be considered "other goods commonly sold by jewelers ?"

 

I think so. But I am sure some will say no. I think it depends on if there are jewelers in Hartford County, CT that sell coins as well. The difficult will be showing that the statement was false as opposed to a matter of opinion. If he took a coin from a AU PCGS and advertised it as a BU coin, then I think thats a false statement.

 

What about the fact that the same coin can be graded by PCGS as AU on one occasion, but uncirculated, on another? Calling a coin uncirculated, which PCGS graded AU is not necessarily making a false statement.

 

Thats why we have judges and juries...

 

I suppose if the coin cracked out was an AU58 and sold as a slider low BU then the buyer might have a hard time proving his case. However if the coin was an AU53 cracked and sold raw as BU, MS63 or MS65 then it might not be that tough. Law is a matter of degree and based on reasonableness.

 

I believe it would be a rare instance that either PCGS/NGC graded an AU53 coin MS63 even by mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of his provisions are no different from what the major auctioneers were doing in the pre certification days. Any successful floor bidder had no right to return a coin because of disputes about grading. The assumption was that they had seen the lots beforehand and knew what they were bidding upon.

 

Misattributions for another matter. There was a limited amount of time that a buyer could file a claim.

 

The really legitimate auction houses did make authenticity an unconditional guarantee that did not have a time limit with one exception. If you cut the item out of the auctioneer's holder, which was a sealed PVC pouch back in the 1970s, the guarantee came to an end. This provision was reasonable in my opinion. Once the item was out of the original packaging, who could say that it was the same piece?

 

This auction is really no different from the sales I used to attend when I lived in New Jersey in the 1970s. Caveat Emptor (Let the buyer beware.) was the basis for the auctions, which sometimes were nothing more than rigged retail sales with phantom bidders and high reserves.

 

One dealer who was sitting on the back row during one of these sales told me a story of when he held up his hand to bid. The bid immediately when higher from the floor, except that no one seemed to be bidding from the floor. The dealer's only conclusion was that he was bidding against the back wall that was behind him !!! hm:)(shrug)

 

I agree that this guy is probably running a shady operation, but some people are just too stupid, greedy and gullible to survive financially, and there is not a lot we can really do about it. You can't fix stupid. :insane: Just look at the number of bids that obvious counterfeits get on eBay until the auction is (We hope.) shut down.

 

Recently there has been a rash of rare Carson City Mint coins on eBay that were getting multiple bids well below their market value. The catch was these coins were from the CC mint ... in Canton, China. :insane:

 

Some of these people get what they deserve because they bid out of greed and ignorance. There is always some fools out there who think that they can buy a coin that is worth thousands for a few hundred. I have run into a number of them, and some of the times when I have tried to help them, a few have snapped back at me. When they do that, my opinion is to hell with them. :devil: If you are going to bite the hand that is trying to help you, then it makes no sense for an expert to take that kind of abuse.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, Marion CT Municode is not available online...

 

Marion is a township in Hartford County. Here is the Municode page for Hartford:

https://www.municode.com/library/ct/hartford/codes/code_of_ordinances

(See Chapter 8 of Part I especially)

 

I definitely understand your line of thinking as I found it confusing at first too. In my state, cities and counties are independent and have their own municipal code so I often forget to check up on the specific county name first.

 

Thank you... I didnt think about the county regs...

 

Here's the Hartford County Regs...

 

Sec. 8-7. - False representations by auctioneers.

 

"No auctioneer shall make any false representations as to the type, quality, condition, value or present or previous ownership of any watches, diamonds, jewelry, sterling silverware, clocks or any other goods commonly sold by jewelers which are offered for sale by him, or substitute another article for any article sold by him."

 

Could coins be considered "other goods commonly sold by jewelers ?"

 

I think so. But I am sure some will say no. I think it depends on if there are jewelers in Hartford County, CT that sell coins as well. The difficult will be showing that the statement was false as opposed to a matter of opinion. If he took a coin from a AU PCGS and advertised it as a BU coin, then I think thats a false statement.

 

What about the fact that the same coin can be graded by PCGS as AU on one occasion, but uncirculated, on another? Calling a coin uncirculated, which PCGS graded AU is not necessarily making a false statement.

 

Thats why we have judges and juries...

 

I suppose if the coin cracked out was an AU58 and sold as a slider low BU then the buyer might have a hard time proving his case. However if the coin was an AU53 cracked and sold raw as BU, MS63 or MS65 then it might not be that tough. Law is a matter of degree and based on reasonableness.

 

I believe it would be a rare instance that either PCGS/NGC graded an AU53 coin MS63 even by mistake.

 

I agree. But I was commenting on what I felt to be an overly broad comment, which read "If he took a coin from a AU PCGS and advertised it as a BU coin, then I think thats a false statement."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One night at a club meeting a guy showed up a "1796 Bust Dollar" he had bought off the Internet. The thing was a naked eye counterfeit because the bust of Ms. Liberty was off-center to the left, which is well known 1795 variety.

 

I told him it was a counterfeit and explained why. He got pissed at me. :mad: I asked what he'd paid, and he said $200. It was useless at that point to try to explain to him that people usually don't sell $10,000 coins for $200. He figured that he had gotten the deal of the century. :ohnoez:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A buyer claims the coin he received is not the one imaged in the auction catalog, and the seller is trying to rip him off. The seller claims the coin sent to the buyer was the one imaged in the auction catalog, and the buyer is trying to rip him off.

 

Which one switched the coin, and how do you prove it?

 

It is a raw coin, with an estimated value of around $1000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A buyer claims the coin he received is not the one imaged in the auction catalog, and the seller is trying to rip him off. The seller claims the coin sent to the buyer was the one imaged in the auction catalog, and the buyer is trying to rip him off.

 

Which one switched the coin, and how do you prove it?

 

It is a raw coin, with an estimated value of around $1000.

 

I think the buyer would have the burden to show that the coin received was different from the one photographed in the catalog. And that the credibility of the parties would come into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a determination would be made based on assumptions.

 

It would be interesting to see how it would turn out with a well-respected and wealthy collector as the buyer, and an equally respected and wealthy auction company as the seller. Both would have much to lose, and it could be that neither was responsible or directly responsible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a determination would be made based on assumptions.

 

It would be interesting to see how it would turn out with a well-respected and wealthy collector as the buyer, and an equally respected and wealthy auction company as the seller. Both would have much to lose, and it could be that neither was responsible or directly responsible.

 

I wouldn't characterize it as "assumptions".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a determination would be made based on assumptions.

 

It would be interesting to see how it would turn out with a well-respected and wealthy collector as the buyer, and an equally respected and wealthy auction company as the seller. Both would have much to lose, and it could be that neither was responsible or directly responsible.

 

I wouldn't characterize it as "assumptions".

 

 

 

 

If proof is absent - what else is left? Credibility can be lost, making it nothing more than an assumption to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a determination would be made based on assumptions.

 

It would be interesting to see how it would turn out with a well-respected and wealthy collector as the buyer, and an equally respected and wealthy auction company as the seller. Both would have much to lose, and it could be that neither was responsible or directly responsible.

 

I wouldn't characterize it as "assumptions".

 

 

 

 

If proof is absent - what else is left? Credibility can be lost, making it nothing more than an assumption to begin with.

 

I take "assumption" to mean "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof". If there were a situation in which it was one person's word against another's, hopefully nothing would be assumed and a decision would be made based upon whatever evidence was presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a determination would be made based on assumptions.

 

It would be interesting to see how it would turn out with a well-respected and wealthy collector as the buyer, and an equally respected and wealthy auction company as the seller. Both would have much to lose, and it could be that neither was responsible or directly responsible.

 

I wouldn't characterize it as "assumptions".

 

 

 

 

If proof is absent - what else is left? Credibility can be lost, making it nothing more than an assumption to begin with.

 

I take "assumption" to mean "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof". If there were a situation in which it was one person's word against another's, hopefully nothing would be assumed and a decision would be made based upon whatever evidence was presented.

 

 

 

 

All the evidence presented points to "one persons word against another's", which relies entirely on the assumed credibility of the two concerns involved.

 

Assuming, of course, that no other evidence comes to light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a determination would be made based on assumptions.

 

It would be interesting to see how it would turn out with a well-respected and wealthy collector as the buyer, and an equally respected and wealthy auction company as the seller. Both would have much to lose, and it could be that neither was responsible or directly responsible.

 

I wouldn't characterize it as "assumptions".

 

 

 

 

If proof is absent - what else is left? Credibility can be lost, making it nothing more than an assumption to begin with.

 

I take "assumption" to mean "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof". If there were a situation in which it was one person's word against another's, hopefully nothing would be assumed and a decision would be made based upon whatever evidence was presented.

 

 

 

 

All the evidence presented points to "one persons word against another's", which relies entirely on the assumed credibility of the two concerns involved.

 

Assuming, of course, that no other evidence comes to light.

 

I guess where we differ is on "assumed credibility". I would hope credibility would be established, rather than assumed. But I realize that might be unrealistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One night at a club meeting a guy showed up a "1796 Bust Dollar" he had bought off the Internet. The thing was a naked eye counterfeit because the bust of Ms. Liberty was off-center to the left, which is well known 1795 variety.

 

I told him it was a counterfeit and explained why. He got pissed at me. :mad: I asked what he'd paid, and he said $200. It was useless at that point to try to explain to him that people usually don't sell $10,000 coins for $200. He figured that he had gotten the deal of the century. :ohnoez:

 

That is an example of unteachable collectors who have neither the intelligence, knowledge or ability to properly collect. And if he bought through ebay or with a credit card he could get his money back.

 

The problem with many of the raw coin sellers is they are not permitting a reasonable way to get proper judgments on grade objectively. I asked a Parsippany dealer a while back if I could run his coin by the show manager to get Joe's opinion; he said no, he didn't respect his grading ability. Obviously the guy did not want people to get a second opinion; second and third grade judgments are vital to ascertain grade and value, that is why you have three graders and a finalizer and then quality control people make sure the grade is right. What do you have with the raw coin people? One guy in charge who has enormous incentives to skew the grades. And in an auction setting how are you expected to be able to accurately grade coins with overhead lighting and a setting of the auction guy's choosing, ideal for hype. Plus with supposed out of auction room "bids" you can shill the auction claiming that there are other bids out there. How could real bids be verified with only one or two people privy to the insider information?

 

And on the original auction lot holder requirement, NGC and PCGS insists on removing coins from any submitted holders so the coin can be graded raw. I have been able to get ICG to keep coins in the original 2X2 unless the coin meets some pre-determined minimum.

 

But with the time constraints on mail bids it would be nearly impossible to get an accurate assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Charter Oak" runs these mainly raw coin auctions usually once a month. Their November auction is coming up in a few days: http://www.charteroakcoinauctions222.wizaweb.com/auction-list-1152015.html

 

My concern here is that buyers are being misled on grade as he is famous for buying "sliders", cleaned coins, etc. that he then sells as high grade coins. On ebay at least you cannot assign numerical grades to uncertified coins, but only use non-numerical terms like general grade levels as well as call a coin "Unc." or circulated.

 

His terms make it difficult for buyers to get objective opinions except from a local trusted dealer or serious collector they can show the coin to:

 

9. No lots may be returned by an email bidder without our permission. Request to return coins must be made in writing/email within

THREE days of receipt of coins. Authenticity concerns must be returned by no later than seven days after the auction.

 

And "floor bidders" are out of luck on their purchases:

 

10. NO lots may be returned by floor bidders except for authenticity and they must be returned no later than 7 days from the auction

 

date. ALL floor sales are final for any other reason!

 

11. Any claims involving errors in the catalog must be made within THREE days of

 

receipt of coins.

 

I have heard that many of the coins are getting purchased at high prices where unknowledgable buyers are getting caught up in the auction fervor.

 

What rights can buyers exercise outside of Charter Oaks cumbersome "terms of sale"?

On the face of it, I have no problem with these terms and conditions. They appear to be clearly stated, and if certain bidders decide to go crazy anyhow, and bid far in excess of the value of the offered items ... well, at some point, "personal responsibility" HAS to come into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly there is a lot of misrepresentation in the field of numismatics; every seller wants to make a profit. However there should be rules in the hobby to protect collectors from unscrupulous sellers. The PNG code of ethics speaks to some of these concerns: http://www.pngdealers.org/png-code-of-ethics With raw or improperly certified coins you have the whole gamut of problems, overgraded, damaged, cleaned, whizzed, counterfeit, doctored, puttied, AT'd coins and there are many other problems potentially where the only thing you have is the seller's word. Dishonesty is inexcusable in this or any other good historical hobby and frankly I would like to see those damaging the hobby through misrepresentation driven from the hobby or at least drawn into the courts to answer for their dishonesty. If people are getting raped they will only stop the serial crooks if they take action with the evidence. I have heard of a number of affluent collectors who wised up to how they had been ripped off by various dealers, finally got legal with the crooks, got most of their money back and never returned to the hobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of his provisions are no different from what the major auctioneers were doing in the pre certification days.

A lot of them are no different from what the major auctioneers are doing TODAY. If you reaaly read the terms or sale by the major auction houses you will find them to be very similar to his.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of his provisions are no different from what the major auctioneers were doing in the pre certification days.

A lot of them are no different from what the major auctioneers are doing TODAY. If you reaaly read the terms or sale by the major auction houses you will find them to be very similar to his.

 

Really, are you kidding me?

 

No significant auction company sells raw coins; HA, Stacks Bowers, GC, etc.. And ebay will not allow numerical grades in their listings for uncertified coins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of his provisions are no different from what the major auctioneers were doing in the pre certification days.

A lot of them are no different from what the major auctioneers are doing TODAY. If you reaaly read the terms or sale by the major auction houses you will find them to be very similar to his.

 

Really, are you kidding me?

 

No significant auction company sells raw coins; HA, Stacks Bowers, GC, etc.. And ebay will not allow numerical grades in their listings for uncertified coins.

 

That is incorrect. HA sells uncertified coins in "gallery sales" and I believe that other major auction companies do, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of his provisions are no different from what the major auctioneers were doing in the pre certification days.

A lot of them are no different from what the major auctioneers are doing TODAY. If you reaaly read the terms or sale by the major auction houses you will find them to be very similar to his.

 

Really, are you kidding me?

 

No significant auction company sells raw coins; HA, Stacks Bowers, GC, etc.. And ebay will not allow numerical grades in their listings for uncertified coins.

 

That is incorrect. HA sells uncertified coins in "gallery sales" and I believe that other major auction companies do, as well.

 

That's interesting, are there links to those? Also roughly what percentage of Heritage's sales are in raw coins and how do they get listed or described, and which numismatist is responsible for those listings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not kidding.

 

You will find a few raw coins in the major companies auctions, and Goldbergs has quite a few raw coins. But the major companies use those terms for SLABBED coins, plus one extra, A clause that states that TPG graded coins MAY NOT BE RETURNED FOR ANY REASON other than authenticity.

 

Now they do tend to be a little flexible on their rules, but as written if you buy a slabbed coin from one of the major firms it is yours. If you have looked at coins during lot viewing, it is not returnable. If someone else looked at the lots and bid on your behalf, you can't return them (and since your proxie views lots he can't return them either.) If there is a problem other than authenticity, take it up with the grading service. For one other their few raw coins you have three days to get permission in writing to return it.

 

Really I don't see a lot of difference in the terms of sale between the big boys and the house mentioned in the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's apples and oranges between "Charter Oak" and HA, uncertified ("MS66++") and certified coins with two real companies standing behind auction items. Oh, and by the way all of the "Charter Oak" results are now down the memory hole a few days after the auction and the guy who runs it said results are not available to make room for the next month. When someone who bought a counterfeit gold coin from them tried to return it later, that was denied, Fred said that he didn't know who the consignor was. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites