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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 05:54 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 |