FS: US $1, $2.50, $3.00 & $10 on eBay

On 10/12/2010 12:05 AM, tony cooper wrote:

Something that is "fabricated" is "made up" in the context you are
referring to. There's nothing fabricated about using the term the
grader uses. Using '"DETAILS" coin' is like referring to an '"AU"
coin': it places the coin in a particular class or group.

Not. The word "details" in numismatics has a positive connotation. Coins
with lots of details, with details not worn away, with preserved
details, are considered more desirable by collectors and have higher
market value, all other things being equal, than coins that circulated
such that some percentage of their details have disappeared.

When you replace the term "problem coin," which has a negative, and
accurate, connotation, with "details coin" or "'DETAILS' coin" or
whatever else you call want to call the damaged coins that you're
offloading, you're conveying sometime positive about something that
should be called by what it is, problem coin. Again, ANACS doesn't use
your euphemism, details coin, despite your contention that it does, but
it does use the term problem coin, which you don't.

Again, salesmanship. Happens all the time, of course, and nothing wrong
with it, so long as people can see through it, just as there's nothing
wrong with people pointing it out when they obverse it and want to
discuss it in a discussion group like this, despite your calling me
"psychotic" and all your other names for doing so.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:02:57 -0400, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

On 10/12/2010 12:05 AM, tony cooper wrote:

Something that is "fabricated" is "made up" in the context you are
referring to. There's nothing fabricated about using the term the
grader uses. Using '"DETAILS" coin' is like referring to an '"AU"
coin': it places the coin in a particular class or group.

Not. The word "details" in numismatics has a positive connotation. Coins
with lots of details, with details not worn away, with preserved
details, are considered more desirable by collectors and have higher
market value, all other things being equal, than coins that circulated
such that some percentage of their details have disappeared.

When you replace the term "problem coin," which has a negative, and
accurate, connotation, with "details coin" or "'DETAILS' coin" or
whatever else you call want to call the damaged coins that you're
offloading, you're conveying sometime positive about something that
should be called by what it is, problem coin. Again, ANACS doesn't use
your euphemism, details coin, despite your contention that it does, but
it does use the term problem coin, which you don't.

Take a look at the ads, Reid. The headlines read exactly what is on
the slab - AU-55 DETAILS - and that's what ANACS offers as the grade.
Further, the slab gives the reason for the "DETAILS" designation (ie:
Cleaned) and this information is repeated in the body of my ad.

It's immensely foolish for you to argue about this when you have been
provided with a photograph of the actual slabs using the actual
terminology used by the grader. Nowhere on the slab does "problem
coin" appear although viewer is told that there is a problem and the
problem is identified.

The ANACS site I linked to explained their use of "DETAILS".

Again, salesmanship.

The ads repeat what the grader, ANACS, has used. Nothing has been
embellished or added or omitted or changed. None of the puffery that
some use like "Trending up!" or other verbiage. No dancing icons or
flashy templates.

The term "details coin" was not used in the ads. It was used, with a
significant change, in the newsgroup. When you read ["DETAILS" coin]
that punctuation style identifies the group just as ["AU" coin] would
identify that coin in that group.

"DETAILS" is a logical term to use because it indicates that there's
something about the details that affects the grade. Rather than wear,
the details have been affected by cleaning or previous use in jewelry
or something else.

You are giving my use of the term "Goldsboro" - to mean someone who is
usually wrong in everything they say and make fools of themselves by
defending and compounding their errors - legs. It may become a
neologism before your use of "Bogo" does.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 10/12/2010 12:56 PM, tony cooper wrote:
You are giving my use of the term "Goldsboro" - to mean someone who is
usually wrong in everything they say

All this is interesting from many angles. First is the interest, and
humor, of Tony Cooper selling only problem coins on eBay, currently, and
many problem coins in the past, all in ANACS holders. Then there's the
euphemistic way he describes what he's doing, his saying that he's
selling details coins, not problem coins or damaged coins, but details
coins, because ANACS writes the word details on the coin slab for the
problem coins it grages, and even though ANACS calls these coins for
what they are, problem coins, this gives him legitimacy, he indicates,
in calling them details coins. Further dubiousness is his saying he's a
collector, not a dealer (after all, as he says, he has never owned a
coin store), but he has bought groups of coins from collectors in order
to obtain coins he wants, which is something that dealers do to earn
profits. It's not difficult all all for collectors to find want-list
coins without having to buy coins they don't want, either looking
yourself or by giving your want list to as many dealers as you'd like.

Finally, as some kind of weird debating technique, he further makes
things up. In response to my saying he uses the fabricated euphemism
details coin, he falsely says that I've used the word cleaned to mean
that the surface of a coin has been melted, which I've never said or
implied and which on its face it patently absurd. And he calls me
psychotic and other names and tries to make fun of my last name by
misspelling it and by defining it as a new word that means someone who
is wrong in everything he says, as he just did, for the second time, above.

Far more interesting than this one individual selling his problem coins,
trying to justify himself, and saying really weird things is the bigger
picture, looking at how far people go in selling, how much they stretch
the truth, how long a distance they travel into the large gray area that
separates the totally truthful and forthcoming from the totally
dishonest and withholding. Despite his selling only problem coins, his
euphemizing, and the dubiousness of his claims, this Tony Cooper is not
in the extreme here, with some sellers doing far worse. On the other
hand, some sellers tell it like it is, are completely honest, don't play
games, use words and terms as they're commonly understood, and fully
disclose instead of trying to obfuscate.

As one example, such as seller, a local jeweler, just so happened to put
an ad in my local newspaper today offering to buy jewelry as well as
gold and silver coins. For the coins, they listed various denominations
and dates and gave a range of prices they would be willing to pay. In
the limited space they had, they included prices for only two "grades"
of these denominations and dates, "Used" and "New," and they specified
that the prices they quoted were "up to" prices.

Here's how their honesty stood out. In a box that was part of the ad,
titled "'Up To' Prices," and using typography that was similar in size
to that used for their prices (not overly small type), they defined
their "up to" prices in this way: "IMPORTANT: All prices are based on
rarity and condition. If an item is in poor condition, its value will be
low. If an item is very rare, and in superb condition, it might be worth
more than the "up to" price listed.... In most cases, the "up to" prices
listed in this advertisement are for items of exceptional rarity and
quality. Chances are, you will not have these items. But we are willing
to take the time to look at your items just in case, free of charge, and
give you our opinion."

Seems fair, and forthcoming. No euphemisms, obfuscation, hyperbole,
empty promises, and all the rest that you see, not rarely, when coins
are advertised and sold.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/2010 12:56 PM, tony cooper wrote:
You are giving my use of the term "Goldsboro" - to mean someone who is
usually wrong in everything they say

All this is interesting from many angles. First is the interest, and
humor, of Tony Cooper selling only problem coins on eBay, currently, and
many problem coins in the past, all in ANACS holders. Then there's the
euphemistic way he describes what he's doing, his saying that he's selling
details coins, not problem coins or damaged coins, but details coins,
because ANACS writes the word details on the coin slab for the problem
coins it grages, and even though ANACS calls these coins for what they
are, problem coins, this gives him legitimacy, he indicates, in calling
them details coins. Further dubiousness is his saying he's a collector,
not a dealer (after all, as he says, he has never owned a coin store), but
he has bought groups of coins from collectors in order to obtain coins he
wants, which is something that dealers do to earn profits. It's not
difficult all all for collectors to find want-list coins without having to
buy coins they don't want, either looking yourself or by giving your want
list to as many dealers as you'd like.

Finally, as some kind of weird debating technique, he further makes things
up. In response to my saying he uses the fabricated euphemism details
coin, he falsely says that I've used the word cleaned to mean that the
surface of a coin has been melted, which I've never said or implied and
which on its face it patently absurd. And he calls me psychotic and other
names and tries to make fun of my last name by misspelling it and by
defining it as a new word that means someone who is wrong in everything he
says, as he just did, for the second time, above.

Far more interesting than this one individual selling his problem coins,
trying to justify himself, and saying really weird things is the bigger
picture, looking at how far people go in selling, how much they stretch
the truth, how long a distance they travel into the large gray area that
separates the totally truthful and forthcoming from the totally dishonest
and withholding. Despite his selling only problem coins, his euphemizing,
and the dubiousness of his claims, this Tony Cooper is not in the extreme
here, with some sellers doing far worse. On the other hand, some sellers
tell it like it is, are completely honest, don't play games, use words and
terms as they're commonly understood, and fully disclose instead of trying
to obfuscate.

As one example, such as seller, a local jeweler, just so happened to put
an ad in my local newspaper today offering to buy jewelry as well as gold
and silver coins. For the coins, they listed various denominations and
dates and gave a range of prices they would be willing to pay. In the
limited space they had, they included prices for only two "grades" of
these denominations and dates, "Used" and "New," and they specified that
the prices they quoted were "up to" prices.

Here's how their honesty stood out. In a box that was part of the ad,
titled "'Up To' Prices," and using typography that was similar in size to
that used for their prices (not overly small type), they defined their "up
to" prices in this way: "IMPORTANT: All prices are based on rarity and
condition. If an item is in poor condition, its value will be low. If an
item is very rare, and in superb condition, it might be worth more than
the "up to" price listed.... In most cases, the "up to" prices listed in
this advertisement are for items of exceptional rarity and quality.
Chances are, you will not have these items. But we are willing to take the
time to look at your items just in case, free of charge, and give you our
opinion."

Seems fair, and forthcoming. No euphemisms, obfuscation, hyperbole, empty
promises, and all the rest that you see, not rarely, when coins are
advertised and sold.

Stepping down from your pulpit, would you have been mislead by any of Tony's
auctions. Was there any doubt about what was being offered? Any attempt to
disguise the items or their condition? With the high price of gold,
wouldn't this be an opportune time to cull some damaged gold coins from
one's holdings, especially on eBay? Is it really any of your concern what
Tony chooses to sell on eBay? If he did indeed receive more than spot
price for those coins, that's likely a lot more than a dealer would have
offered. The fact that they were in ANACS slabs assures a potential
collector/speculator that they were genuine, regardless of the individual
coin faults. You're simply jousting at windmills again, Reid.

On 10/13/2010 8:36 AM, Bremick wrote:
Stepping down from your pulpit, would you have been mislead by any of Tony's

I didn't say I'd be misled. I was commenting on what he does -- selling
only damaged coins or primarily damaged coins -- and how he
characterizes what he does, saying he sells details coins. I also said
this wasn't the worst thing done by those selling coins. But it is
interesting and funny and worth commenting on, which is the reason I have.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Oct 13, 9:26*am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

"I was commenting on what he does -- selling only damaged coins or
primarily damaged coins -- and how he characterizes what he does,
saying he sells details coins."

Yes, so you say. But Mr. Remick is directing your attention to the
actual observables. What you say he does is an inference you have
drawn. Elaboration on the inferences you have drawn may be amusing
for some, but it is conclusions in advance of the facts.

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 10/13/2010 8:36 AM, Bremick wrote:
Stepping down from your pulpit, would you have been mislead by any of
Tony's

I didn't say I'd be misled. I was commenting on what he does -- selling
only damaged coins or primarily damaged coins -- and how he characterizes
what he does, saying he sells details coins. I also said this wasn't the
worst thing done by those selling coins. But it is interesting and funny
and worth commenting on, which is the reason I have.

So what is your personal beef with Tony choosing to sell his damaged coins
on eBay? You seem to be the only one who finds all this "interesting" to
the extent you apparently researched to see what else he has put up for
auction. Are you suggesting that he has some sinister motive for selling
primarily damaged coins? If his auctions weren't misleading in any way, how
would you propose he unload these coins? He quoted what was on the label,
described the coin, and provided clear photos. What else is lacking?

You seem quite hung up on the term "details" and the fact that he used that
term in his auctions. Since ANACS includes that term, where appropriate,
following the grade on the top line of their slab label, calling one or a
group of ANACS-slabbed problem coins "Detail coins" would seem to be an
obvious choice of words to most people. But obviously it's interesting and
funny to you.

On Oct 13, 11:24*am, "Bremick" wrote:
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message

...

On 10/13/2010 8:36 AM, Bremick wrote:
Stepping down from your pulpit, would you have been mislead by any of
Tony's

I didn't say I'd be misled. I was commenting on what he does -- selling
only damaged coins or primarily damaged coins -- and how he characterizes
what he does, saying he sells details coins. I also said this wasn't the
worst thing done by those selling coins. But it is interesting and funny
and worth commenting on, which is the reason I have.

So what is your personal beef with Tony choosing to sell his damaged coins
on eBay? *You seem to be the only one who finds all this "interesting" to
the extent you apparently researched to see what else he has put up for
auction. *Are you suggesting that he has some sinister motive for selling
primarily damaged coins? *If his auctions weren't misleading in any way, how
would you propose he unload these coins? *He quoted what was on the label,
described the coin, and provided clear photos. *What else is lacking?

You seem quite hung up on the term "details" and the fact that he used that
term in his auctions. *Since ANACS includes that term, where appropriate,
following the grade on the top line of their slab label, calling one or a
group of ANACS-slabbed problem coins "Detail coins" would seem to be an
obvious choice of words to most people. * But obviously it's interesting and
funny to you.

No, the terms "net" and "details" in this context are only meaningful
to some of the numismatic cognescenti.

There might be 20 to 50 thousand coin people in the USA who instantly
understand the reference, MOL. I doubt more.

However, the seller is simply trolling for someone who isn't
knowledgeable.

Reed has an incredibly hard time spitting out the obvious, but it
doesn't make him wrong - this time.

oly

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:14:03 -0700 (PDT), oly wrote:

You seem quite hung up on the term "details" and the fact that he used that
term in his auctions. *Since ANACS includes that term, where appropriate,
following the grade on the top line of their slab label, calling one or a
group of ANACS-slabbed problem coins "Detail coins" would seem to be an
obvious choice of words to most people. * But obviously it's interesting and
funny to you.

No, the terms "net" and "details" in this context are only meaningful
to some of the numismatic cognescenti.

What title or wording would you suggest that I should have used in the
ads? What do you think I should have added to the eBay listing that
was not there?


There might be 20 to 50 thousand coin people in the USA who instantly
understand the reference, MOL. I doubt more.

However, the seller is simply trolling for someone who isn't
knowledgeable.

Reed has an incredibly hard time spitting out the obvious, but it
doesn't make him wrong - this time.

oly

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Oct 13, 1:57*pm, tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:14:03 -0700 (PDT), oly wrote:
You seem quite hung up on the term "details" and the fact that he used that
term in his auctions. *Since ANACS includes that term, where appropriate,
following the grade on the top line of their slab label, calling one or a
group of ANACS-slabbed problem coins "Detail coins" would seem to be an
obvious choice of words to most people. * But obviously it's interesting and
funny to you.

No, the terms "net" and "details" in this context are only meaningful
to some of the numismatic cognescenti.

What title or wording would you suggest that I should have used in the
ads? *What do you think I should have added to the eBay listing that
was not there?



There might be 20 to 50 thousand coin people in the USA who instantly
understand the reference, MOL. *I doubt more.

However, the seller is simply trolling for someone who isn't
knowledgeable.

Reed has an incredibly hard time spitting out the obvious, but it
doesn't make him wrong - this time.

oly

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

As I've stated, my essential gripe is that you listed/referenced your
auctions on RCC. I don't think your prices are right or fair either,
but I'd happily never know that if you didn't link your auctions to a
post on RCC.

I come back to this thread, reluctantly, because Reed can't zero in on
certain obvious things. "Net" and "details" are insider terms and the
unwashed laymen are going to learn them the hard way if they buy
cleaned and damaged coins at lofty prices. That's the problem with
using those euphemistic terms in an auction forum where laymen might
be tempted to bid/ buy.

oly