A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Collecting newsgroups » Coins
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Coin returns and a question about toning



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 5th 03, 06:37 PM
Bill Krummel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coin returns and a question about toning

Today, I am having the fourth coin returned to me from an eBay auction sale.
This Maine commemorative half;

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3031730183

I honestly don't begrudge the buyer at all. I failed to mention in my
verbal description the surface marks on each side of the wreath on the
reverse. I thought I had mentioned them, and checked the auction site to
find that I hadn't. I think I mentioned them here, in a reply to Bob Rudd's
comments about the coin.

I am going to bite the bullet on this one, but may need some help to be fair
to myself.

First, when I relist, I am mentioning the surface marks and that I would not
grade the coin as a 64, as ICG did. Secondly, I may talk a little about the
toning on this coin. It is very hard to describe or image, very subtle
toning, and I have had thoughts that the toning is actually retoning from a
dip or some type of cleaning. I may mention this possibility in my auction
description.

So, two questions. Looking at the coin, does anyone have thoughts about
this toning - it is very light, pastel shades of pinkish/peach, yellow, and
blue. You do not even see the colors if looking at the coin from straight
on, you have to tilt the coin to see the colors. What is the likelihood
this is a retoning?

Should I mention my retoning theory in my auction description?


Other three coins returned;

Years ago, I used to sell at Coin Universe. I had a Walking Liberty half in
a PCGS MS65 slab. I thought it looked pretty nice. At that time, I did not
sell with low starts, but used reserves and this particular coin did not
sell during the auction. I had an offer after the auction was over with,
and the buyer received the coin and emailed me that he did not like the
milky spots on the coin, could he return it. I okayed the return, reviewed
the coin upon receipt and agreed with the buyer. Learned something.

Sold an unc Washington quarter that had die polish lines, which I had
mentioned in the auction description. Buyer emails me that the coin is not
uncirculated, has wear and scratches. I email back and explain that he is
seeing die polish lines, as I described in the auction. Buyer emails back,
insisting the coin is circulated and his local dealer backs him up. I email
back and tell him to return the coin for a refund. Buyer emails back and
says he was thinking more along the lines of renegotiating the price. I
email back and tell him to return the coin for a refund, which he did. I
sold the coin on eBay to an rcc'er, whose advice I sought. He verified
what I knew - late die state and die polish lines, but uncirculated and very
lustrous.

Earlier this year sold a high circulated grade, harder date IHC. Buyer
wanted to return it, no reason given. I okayed the return, relisted and
sold for 20% more than the original auction, with high feedback praise from
the newest buyer.

Bill



Ads
  #2  
Old July 5th 03, 07:22 PM
Stujoe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Bill Krummel spoke
thusly...


So, two questions. Looking at the coin, does anyone have thoughts about
this toning - it is very light, pastel shades of pinkish/peach, yellow, and
blue. You do not even see the colors if looking at the coin from straight
on, you have to tilt the coin to see the colors. What is the likelihood
this is a retoning?


I have no idea.

Should I mention my retoning theory in my auction description?


I know you are a 100% honest guy, Bill but I don't think you need to
unnecessarily hurt your auction unless you are more sure than
theories or guesses. I think I would rather send the coin to someone
(an rcc'er?) who could give you an expert, in hand, opinion than use
the death words of 'cleaned and retoned' in your auction.

Otherwise, I would describe it as best you can, image it as best you
can and list it describing the marks and what you grade it as.

--
Stu Miller
Read about Coins in the News:
http://www.thestujoecollection.com/news.htm
Director, RCC Mint
http://www.TheStujoeCollection.com/rccmint
  #3  
Old July 5th 03, 07:59 PM
Bill Krummel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Eric Tillery" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:37:05 -0500, "Bill Krummel"

wrote:

Today, I am having the fourth coin returned to me from an eBay auction

sale.
This Maine commemorative half;

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3031730183

I honestly don't begrudge the buyer at all. I failed to mention in my
verbal description the surface marks on each side of the wreath on the
reverse. I thought I had mentioned them, and checked the auction site

to
find that I hadn't. I think I mentioned them here, in a reply to Bob

Rudd's
comments about the coin.

I am going to bite the bullet on this one, but may need some help to be

fair
to myself.

First, when I relist, I am mentioning the surface marks and that I would

not
grade the coin as a 64, as ICG did. Secondly, I may talk a little about

the
toning on this coin. It is very hard to describe or image, very subtle
toning, and I have had thoughts that the toning is actually retoning from

a
dip or some type of cleaning. I may mention this possibility in my

auction
description.


This is the most likely reason the buyer is returning it. There is a $100

difference
in price between a 63 and a 64. Looks like your buyer bid about $20 over

63
money hoping for a true 64, when he received it and realized what you

already
knew, he sent it back.


So, two questions. Looking at the coin, does anyone have thoughts about
this toning - it is very light, pastel shades of pinkish/peach, yellow,

and
blue. You do not even see the colors if looking at the coin from

straight
on, you have to tilt the coin to see the colors. What is the likelihood
this is a retoning?


Not likely in an ICG slab. While they tend to be a bit liberal with their

grading,
they are very tight with toned coins, and have been known to BB a coin

even
naturally toned for "unattractive toning".

Should I mention my retoning theory in my auction description?


No, because it is only a theory. Just state that in your opinion it is a

63, describe
the toning to the best of your ability, and you should be fine.


Doggo - asking me to look at Anaconda's coin - and compare? Haha, hahahaha,
haha, haha, ha. Haha. Haha.

Stujoe and Eric - you both say about the same thing, and I agree. I like
Eric's suggestion about ICG standards and AT, in fact they returned a
Franklin half on me that I did not question and some still stand behind the
Franklin. Barring any further revelations, I will relist and mention my
opinion that the coin does not meet a technical 64 grade. Bill


  #4  
Old July 5th 03, 08:24 PM
Doggo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Krummel" wrote in message
...

"Eric Tillery" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:37:05 -0500, "Bill Krummel"

wrote:

snip


Doggo - asking me to look at Anaconda's coin - and compare? Haha,

hahahaha,
haha, haha, ha. Haha. Haha.

Stujoe and Eric - you both say about the same thing, and I agree. I like
Eric's suggestion about ICG standards and AT, in fact they returned a
Franklin half on me that I did not question and some still stand behind

the
Franklin. Barring any further revelations, I will relist and mention my
opinion that the coin does not meet a technical 64 grade. Bill


Bill,
I was using Anaconda as an example of someone who describes colors
nicely i.e..Italian sherbet
melange.

Ed


  #5  
Old July 5th 03, 09:17 PM
George D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill after reading this post and the answers to it I believe you have a person who used this auction
as a on approval source of coins.

Bill Krummel wrote:

Today, I am having the fourth coin returned to me from an eBay auction sale.
This Maine commemorative half;

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3031730183

I honestly don't begrudge the buyer at all. I failed to mention in my
verbal description the surface marks on each side of the wreath on the
reverse. I thought I had mentioned them, and checked the auction site to
find that I hadn't. I think I mentioned them here, in a reply to Bob Rudd's
comments about the coin.

I am going to bite the bullet on this one, but may need some help to be fair
to myself.

First, when I relist, I am mentioning the surface marks and that I would not
grade the coin as a 64, as ICG did. Secondly, I may talk a little about the
toning on this coin. It is very hard to describe or image, very subtle
toning, and I have had thoughts that the toning is actually retoning from a
dip or some type of cleaning. I may mention this possibility in my auction
description.

So, two questions. Looking at the coin, does anyone have thoughts about
this toning - it is very light, pastel shades of pinkish/peach, yellow, and
blue. You do not even see the colors if looking at the coin from straight
on, you have to tilt the coin to see the colors. What is the likelihood
this is a retoning?

Should I mention my retoning theory in my auction description?

Other three coins returned;

Years ago, I used to sell at Coin Universe. I had a Walking Liberty half in
a PCGS MS65 slab. I thought it looked pretty nice. At that time, I did not
sell with low starts, but used reserves and this particular coin did not
sell during the auction. I had an offer after the auction was over with,
and the buyer received the coin and emailed me that he did not like the
milky spots on the coin, could he return it. I okayed the return, reviewed
the coin upon receipt and agreed with the buyer. Learned something.

Sold an unc Washington quarter that had die polish lines, which I had
mentioned in the auction description. Buyer emails me that the coin is not
uncirculated, has wear and scratches. I email back and explain that he is
seeing die polish lines, as I described in the auction. Buyer emails back,
insisting the coin is circulated and his local dealer backs him up. I email
back and tell him to return the coin for a refund. Buyer emails back and
says he was thinking more along the lines of renegotiating the price. I
email back and tell him to return the coin for a refund, which he did. I
sold the coin on eBay to an rcc'er, whose advice I sought. He verified
what I knew - late die state and die polish lines, but uncirculated and very
lustrous.

Earlier this year sold a high circulated grade, harder date IHC. Buyer
wanted to return it, no reason given. I okayed the return, relisted and
sold for 20% more than the original auction, with high feedback praise from
the newest buyer.

Bill


--
George D
Phoenix, AZ

AAA, AARP, ANA, NRA, RCC ?+1, PIA, PIAAZ, GATF 85006-3032-18-4

The reward for a good deed is to have done it.

Please use this address to mail me. Or remove the arizona in the link.
Remember there is no Arizona.


ALL emails incoming and outgoing are run thru Norton and AVG anti virus.
  #6  
Old July 5th 03, 09:32 PM
Bill Krummel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Doggo" wrote in message
...

"Bill Krummel" wrote in message
...

"Eric Tillery" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:37:05 -0500, "Bill Krummel"

wrote:

snip


Doggo - asking me to look at Anaconda's coin - and compare? Haha,

hahahaha,
haha, haha, ha. Haha. Haha.

Stujoe and Eric - you both say about the same thing, and I agree. I

like
Eric's suggestion about ICG standards and AT, in fact they returned a
Franklin half on me that I did not question and some still stand behind

the
Franklin. Barring any further revelations, I will relist and mention

my
opinion that the coin does not meet a technical 64 grade. Bill


Bill,
I was using Anaconda as an example of someone who describes colors
nicely i.e..Italian sherbet
melange.

Ed


Two thoughts. It takes a very special coin to be able to do that, with the
accompanying price tag that is outside my financial abilities, or.........
it is just marketing one's coin, although I really like the Italian Sherbert
Melange dollar. Still, it's all subjective and I bet some would call the
Morgan dollar a sick, yellow fever dog. If I do go flowery with my terms,
it would come across like I am a slickster. And, maybe it should (with my
coins, i.e.) Bill


  #7  
Old July 5th 03, 09:41 PM
Bill Krummel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"George D" wrote in message
...
Bill after reading this post and the answers to it I believe you have a

person who used this auction
as a on approval source of coins.



Well, that happens. I think it happened on the IHC I described below. I
don't think it happened with the Maine half. I think the buyer thought the
same thing I did - that it is not a 64 - and did not want to pay high money
for a 63. Heck, I may end up keeping this Maine - I don't have one in my
collection and I will say this Maine grows on me. Bill


Bill Krummel wrote:

Today, I am having the fourth coin returned to me from an eBay auction

sale.
This Maine commemorative half;

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3031730183

I honestly don't begrudge the buyer at all. I failed to mention in my
verbal description the surface marks on each side of the wreath on the
reverse. I thought I had mentioned them, and checked the auction site

to
find that I hadn't. I think I mentioned them here, in a reply to Bob

Rudd's
comments about the coin.

I am going to bite the bullet on this one, but may need some help to be

fair
to myself.

First, when I relist, I am mentioning the surface marks and that I would

not
grade the coin as a 64, as ICG did. Secondly, I may talk a little about

the
toning on this coin. It is very hard to describe or image, very subtle
toning, and I have had thoughts that the toning is actually retoning

from a
dip or some type of cleaning. I may mention this possibility in my

auction
description.

So, two questions. Looking at the coin, does anyone have thoughts about
this toning - it is very light, pastel shades of pinkish/peach, yellow,

and
blue. You do not even see the colors if looking at the coin from

straight
on, you have to tilt the coin to see the colors. What is the likelihood
this is a retoning?

Should I mention my retoning theory in my auction description?

Other three coins returned;

Years ago, I used to sell at Coin Universe. I had a Walking Liberty

half in
a PCGS MS65 slab. I thought it looked pretty nice. At that time, I did

not
sell with low starts, but used reserves and this particular coin did not
sell during the auction. I had an offer after the auction was over

with,
and the buyer received the coin and emailed me that he did not like the
milky spots on the coin, could he return it. I okayed the return,

reviewed
the coin upon receipt and agreed with the buyer. Learned something.

Sold an unc Washington quarter that had die polish lines, which I had
mentioned in the auction description. Buyer emails me that the coin is

not
uncirculated, has wear and scratches. I email back and explain that he

is
seeing die polish lines, as I described in the auction. Buyer emails

back,
insisting the coin is circulated and his local dealer backs him up. I

email
back and tell him to return the coin for a refund. Buyer emails back

and
says he was thinking more along the lines of renegotiating the price. I
email back and tell him to return the coin for a refund, which he did.

I
sold the coin on eBay to an rcc'er, whose advice I sought. He verified
what I knew - late die state and die polish lines, but uncirculated and

very
lustrous.

Earlier this year sold a high circulated grade, harder date IHC. Buyer
wanted to return it, no reason given. I okayed the return, relisted and
sold for 20% more than the original auction, with high feedback praise

from
the newest buyer.

Bill


--
George D
Phoenix, AZ

AAA, AARP, ANA, NRA, RCC ?+1, PIA, PIAAZ, GATF 85006-3032-18-4

The reward for a good deed is to have done it.

Please use this address to mail me. Or remove the arizona in the link.
Remember there is no Arizona.


ALL emails incoming and outgoing are run thru Norton and AVG anti virus.



  #8  
Old July 6th 03, 04:46 AM
Bill Krummel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cliff" wrote in message
...
"Bill Krummel" wrote:


"George D" wrote in message
...
Bill after reading this post and the answers to it I believe you have a

person who used this auction
as a on approval source of coins.



Well, that happens. I think it happened on the IHC I described below. I
don't think it happened with the Maine half. I think the buyer thought

the
same thing I did - that it is not a 64 - and did not want to pay high

money
for a 63. Heck, I may end up keeping this Maine - I don't have one in my
collection and I will say this Maine grows on me. Bill


Bill,
Have you thought about crossing it over to PCGS or ANACS? Might help
sale-ability or perhaps come back with the grade you are expecting.
Just a thought.
Cliff


Dang, Cliff. You just showed how I can't think for myself ( I should have
thought of this already). I'll do my first crack out and ship it to PCGS.
It will either come back bodybagged or MS62, whatcha want to bet. I'm even
nervous about a 63, but, who am I do be so wildly second guessing ICG's 64?
I did that $25 special that was advertised in Coin World and I wasn't sure
what coins I was going to ship, other than a raw Antietam. The Maine, will
be #2. Thanks, Bill


  #10  
Old July 6th 03, 05:12 AM
Bill Krummel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Coinsrus" wrote in message
...
From: George D writes;




Bill after reading this post and the answers to it I believe you have a
person who used this auction
as a on approval source of coins.


============================
earlier i wrote in another thread, that some people will try to use

liberal
return policies as an approval source, which amounts to a financial
oppurtunity. in other words the buyer is trying to use Bill's money to

make a
profit, only to return same if unsaleable.

imho, bill will do what's right for him.

best regards,
mark


You know, I have only had four returns, out of probably 500-600 sales going
back to 1998 at Coin Universe. Of those four returns, I only think one had
the potential to have been using me as a purchase on approval. With this
Maine half, it has it's strong points and it has it's weaknesses. I think
the weaknesses overpower the strengths and I was not surprised that the
buyer wanted to return it. I also think I should have made mention of the
distracting surface marks on the reverse. They show in the image, but the
marks on the right do not show that well.

I'm really looking forward to trying a submission to PCGS. I am already
imagining my verbal description for my next listing of this coin. "I bought
this coin as an ICG MS64, but I really didn't think it was good enough coin
to be a 64, so I broke it out and submitted to PCGS. PCGS has rendered
their opinion, and here it is, a .......???" Not your everyday marketing
hype. Unless PCGS gives it a 64. Bill


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: 1992 DC Comics "Batman Returns" 16-PRISM Sticker Set J.R. Sinclair Cards:- non-sport 0 November 2nd 04 06:54 AM
FS: 1992 O-Pee-Chee "Batman Returns" 10-Card SubSet J.R. Sinclair Cards:- non-sport 0 July 21st 04 07:36 AM
FS: 1992 Topps "Batman Returns" Official Poster Magazine Series J.R. Sinclair Cards:- non-sport 0 June 28th 04 05:34 AM
FS: 1992 Topps "Batman Returns" Official Poster Magazine Series Jim Sinclair Cards:- non-sport 0 August 10th 03 07:35 AM
FS: 1992 DC Comics "Batman Returns" 16-PRISM Sticker Set Jim Sinclair Cards:- non-sport 0 August 9th 03 03:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.