Mint and Stacks-Bowers partnership to fleece collectors 1 1

[RWB]

This might be of interest to some.

https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/breaking-news-mint-contracts-with-stack-s-bowers-for-auction

[zadok]

...nope, only a few narrow-minded wanna be's would even care....

[GoldFinger1969]

Just trying to create a market for a special product that to me is NOT that special.

Nothing illegal, they're just like Fred G. Sanford in his junk dealership trying to talk something up. 

[VKurtB]

On 7/22/2022 at 1:46 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Just trying to create a market for a special product that to me is NOT that special.

Nothing illegal, they're just like Fred G. Sanford in his junk dealership trying to talk something up. 

“Lamont, you big dummy…”

[CaptHenway]

"Fuh-leece Navidad!"

[Coinbuf]

People love a good song and dance.

[RWB]

On 7/22/2022 at 7:51 PM, Coinbuf said:

People love a good song and dance.

...but this has no tune or rhythm.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/22/2022 at 5:45 PM, VKurtB said:

“Lamont, you big dummy…”

I'm surprised you liked that show...... I heard the "G" in Fred G. Sanford stands for.....gold !!! 

"Uh oh....this is THE BIG ONE.....you hear that, Elizabeth....I'm coming to join you, honey....with a bunch of overpriced Mint collectibles !!!" 

[numisport]

So why can't the U.S. Mint market these themselves ? Just how many fleece collectors are out there ?

[RWB]

The Mint Marketing div. feels that they can turn greater profit by partnering with an established, broader-based coin seller and auctioneer. It gives them a wider venue and yet keeps the Mint within Congressional rules on advertising. But---this is just hearsay.....

Edited July 23, 2022 by RWB

[MarkFeld]

The thread title sounds libelous to me, so I will be reporting the post. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/24/2022 at 7:22 AM, MarkFeld said:

The thread title sounds libelous to me, so I will be reporting the post. 

It's harsh but I don't think libelous.  Doesn't meet the 3-pronged libel test.

Might be unfair or an exaggeration.  But definitely not libelous.

That said, it's the NGC Moderator's call.  

[MarkFeld]

On 7/24/2022 at 10:19 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

It's harsh but I don't think libelous.  Doesn't meet the 3-pronged libel test.

Might be unfair or an exaggeration.  But definitely not libelous.

That said, it's the NGC Moderator's call.  

As you said, it’s the moderator’s call, but I have no idea what part of a libel test you think hasn’t been met.

[RWB]

Just like the fleecing people take from TV coin sales, US Mint mark-ups on ugly commems and bullion NCLT. It's part of a class of behavior dependent on creating a false sense of "value" to make money from ignorance and "blindly-acting" followers. If the moderators feel that ANY thread title or content is objectionable, they can - should - remove it.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/24/2022 at 12:19 PM, MarkFeld said:

As you said, it’s the moderator’s call, but I have no idea what part of a libel test you think hasn’t been met.

Libel and slander and defamation involve 3 tests:  1....the person must be a PRIVATE figure (otherwise a much higher standard ensues for a public individual, i.e., Donald Trump, Joe Biden, your local elected officials)......2.....the statement must be MATERIALLY FALSE and the individual saying it must know it was such........and 3.....the statement must cause lasting harm to the individual.

I don't know if any of those 3 are met, and we are NOT dealing with an individual, but an entity:  the U.S. Mint.

Can you defame or slander the Mint ?

[MarkFeld]

On 7/24/2022 at 11:56 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Libel and slander and defamation involve 3 tests:  1....the person must be a PRIVATE figure (otherwise a much higher standard ensues for a public individual, i.e., Donald Trump, Joe Biden, your local elected officials)......2.....the statement must be MATERIALLY FALSE and the individual saying it must know it was such........and 3.....the statement must cause lasting harm to the individual.

I don't know if any of those 3 are met, and we are NOT dealing with an individual, but an entity:  the U.S. Mint.

Can you defame or slander the Mint ?

Businesses aren’t excluded from being plaintiffs in libel suits and the Mint wasn’t the only party mentioned.

[VKurtB]

Let’s take a look at the word “fleece”. It can unfortunately be accurately applied to at least a sizable minority, if not the outright majority of all numismatic transactions that take place in this country, the world, and particularly, over the Internet. Does it apply here? I dunno. Does the fact that you’re getting coins from the last 100 of Column A or the first 100 of Column B matter to you? I know for sure it does NOT matter a whit to me, but I think maybe it might matter to our hosts, given their proclivity to create special designations. Now, the Mint. They can’t even fairly distribute coins available in the hundreds of thousands. What Chance do they have with 100? No, this is the proper bailiwick of professional auctioneers. The buyers will determine the market. I will be on the sidelines. 

Edited July 24, 2022 by VKurtB

[zadok]

On 7/24/2022 at 2:09 PM, VKurtB said:

Let’s take a look at the word “fleece”. It can unfortunately be accurately applied to at least a sizable minority, if not the outright majority of all numismatic transactions that take place in this country, the world, and particularly, over the Internet. Does it apply here? I dunno. Does the fact that you’re getting coins from the last 100 of Column A or the first 100 of Column B matter to you? I know for sure it does NOT matter a whit to me, but I think maybe it might matter to our hosts, given their proclivity to create special designations. Now, the Mint. They can’t even fairly distribute coins available in the hundreds of thousands. What Chance do they have with 100? No, this is the proper bailiwick of professional auctioneers. The buyers will determine the market. I will be on the sidelines. 

...i merkin that motion....

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/24/2022 at 2:09 PM, VKurtB said:

Let’s take a look at the word “fleece”. It can unfortunately be accurately applied to at least a sizable minority, if not the outright majority of all numismatic transactions that take place in this country, the world, and particularly, over the Internet. Does it apply here? I dunno. Does the fact that you’re getting coins from the last 100 of Column A or the first 100 of Column B matter to you? I know for sure it does NOT matter a whit to me, but I think maybe it might matter to our hosts, given their proclivity to create special designations. Now, the Mint. They can’t even fairly distribute coins available in the hundreds of thousands. What Chance do they have with 100? No, this is the proper bailiwick of professional auctioneers. The buyers will determine the market. I will be on the sidelines. 

Fleeced would apply to the thousands of dollars my father spent on tin-plated coins commemorating the president, WW II, Korea, etc.

Probably spent close to $3,000 buying coins which might have $100 worth of metal on them.  I'm letting the company sweat the money he/we owes them so they don't try any telemarketing again with my father or our family.

[Henri Charriere]

On 7/24/2022 at 7:22 AM, MarkFeld said:

The thread title sounds libelous to me, so I will be reporting the post. 

FYI:  Buried somewhere in the mile-long Guidelines is a provision specifically prohibiting members from announcing an act intended to encourage the recruitment of possibly "similarly-minded" members to engage in similar such conduct.  

[Henri Charriere]

On 7/24/2022 at 12:37 PM, RWB said:

If the moderators feel that ANY thread title or content is objectionable, they can - should - remove it.

In the Good Book, it states , in substance, You may not remove the ancient landmarks.

[Henri Charriere]

On 7/25/2022 at 6:37 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

In the Good Book, it states , in substance, You may not remove the ancient landmarks.

Quick face-saving edit... In the Good Book, it states:  "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set." Poverbs 22:28.  A fair reading of this verse may be interpreted to mean the classic words of @RWBas set forth in threads, must remain inviolate, forever.

[MarkFeld]

On 7/25/2022 at 5:26 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

FYI:  Buried somewhere in the mile-long Guidelines is a provision specifically prohibiting members from announcing an act intended to encourage the recruitment of possibly "similarly-minded" members to engage in similar such conduct.  

I didn’t post with the idea of encouraging others to make similar reports. However, I’d still like to see you back up your comment by posting the provision you’re speaking of. If you can’t or won’t, I’m going to operate under the belief that either you misconstrued it or are full of bologna.

[Henri Charriere]

@MarkFeld:

First and foremost, I appreciate the honor you've accorded me by acknowledging, i.e., honoring me with a reply. I had to consult a concordance to locate and provide an accurate transliteration of the "ancient landmark" quotation, but will clear my calendar of pressing matters to attend to your request. The pleasure is all mine.  🐓 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/25/2022 at 7:46 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

@MarkFeld:

First and foremost, I appreciate the honor you've accorded me by acknowledging, i.e., honoring me with a reply. I had to consult a concordance to locate and provide an accurate transliteration of the "ancient landmark" quotation, but will clear my calendar of pressing matters to attend to your request. The pleasure is all mine.  🐓 

I got as far as "First and foremost...." 

[Henri Charriere]

@MarkFeld:

After spending the better part of the past hour poring over the "NGC Chat Boards Terms of Use and Rules," I cannot in good conscience state that the provision I found may be applicable to you in any reasonable way, shape or form.

#6 - "Your conduct," states, in pertinent part: "You agree that our web site may expose you to content that may be objectionable or offensive," but being a member in long-standing as well as a consummate gentleman, I am obligated to take your word that there was no intent on your part to incite others to pursue a similar contemplated course of action.

I, myself, was bum-rushed by a group of similarly disaffected individuals, seemingly simultaneously, who apparently using PM, or cell numbers exchanged amongst themselves some time earlier, succeeded in mounting a well-coordinated attack on me resulting in my dismissal.

If you can find it in your heart to forgive me for casting wholly unwarranted aspersions on your good name and character, I would be very much obliged.  I stand corrected and sincerely apologize.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Quintus Arrius
Die polishing: insufficient groveling.

[Henri Charriere]

On 7/25/2022 at 10:32 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I got as far as "First and foremost...." 

That bad, huh? I deeply miss @MAULEMALL!

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/25/2022 at 10:40 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

That bad, huh? I deeply miss @MAULEMALL!

Borrowed from a classic line from "Get Smart" that I haven't seen in decades but never forgot ! 

[MarkFeld]

On 7/25/2022 at 9:37 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

@MarkFeld:

After spending the better part of the past hour poring over the "NGC Chat Boards Terms of Use and Rules," I cannot in good conscience state that the provision I found may be applicable to you in any reasonable way, shape or form.

#6 - "Your conduct," states, in pertinent part: "You agree that our web site may expose you to content that may be objectionable or offensive," but being a member in long-standing as well as a consummate gentleman, I am obligated to take your word that there was no intent on your part to incite others to pursue a similar contemplated course of action.

I, myself, was bum-rushed by a group of similarly disaffected individuals, seemingly simultaneously, who apparently using PM, or cell numbers exchanged amongst themselves some time earlier, succeeded in mounting a well-coordinated attack on me resulting in my dismissal.

If you can find it in your heart to forgive me for casting wholly unwarranted aspersions on your good name and character, I would be very much obliged.  I stand corrected and sincerely apologize.

Thank you.

[VKurtB]

On 7/25/2022 at 9:37 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

"You agree that our web site may expose you to content that may be objectionable or offensive,"

In fact, I can pretty much guarantee it.