Pain of disappointment - Flying Eagle crashes

Folks,
About a week ago a bunch of you were kind enough to comment on an eBay
purchase I was considering - a really lovely flying eagle cent. Go he

http://www.dogeared.com/eagle2.jpg

The image on the left was the one advertised; the one on the right is
much closer to the one I received. It's the same coin, but in real life
has more evident wear, is darker, and is splotchy (red and black
mostly). The reverse (not pictured) shows the same - er - degredation.

I haven't decided what to do (that is, whether to send it back). It will
probably not look so bad tomorrow; today I'm dealing with what I
projected it to be.

It makes a great lesson in the difference that lighting makes in a
photo. I have to assume that it was photographed under florescent light.

Yesterday I sent back an Illinois-Lincoln commem for the same reason -
looked fine in the photos, but in real life was a splotchy mess.

Ah, the trouble with buying sight-unseen - even when you think you can
see it.

Scot Kamins
--
"Speak your truth, even as your voice quakes."

"Scot Kamins" wrote in message
...
Folks,
About a week ago a bunch of you were kind enough to comment on an eBay
purchase I was considering - a really lovely flying eagle cent. Go he

http://www.dogeared.com/eagle2.jpg

The image on the left was the one advertised; the one on the right is
much closer to the one I received. It's the same coin, but in real life
has more evident wear, is darker, and is splotchy (red and black
mostly). The reverse (not pictured) shows the same - er - degredation.

I haven't decided what to do (that is, whether to send it back). It will
probably not look so bad tomorrow; today I'm dealing with what I
projected it to be.

It makes a great lesson in the difference that lighting makes in a
photo. I have to assume that it was photographed under florescent light.

Yesterday I sent back an Illinois-Lincoln commem for the same reason -
looked fine in the photos, but in real life was a splotchy mess.

Ah, the trouble with buying sight-unseen - even when you think you can
see it.

Scot Kamins

The auction photo sure is more flattering and attractive. If your
post-auction image indeed captures the true, in-person look of the coin, I
would return it-- assuming that was an option in the auction. If you
recall, I (and several others) would have done the BIN on that coin if you
decided not to. If I won it, I would have been as disappointed as you are
and would have returned it, saving my money for another try. Thanks for the
follow-up.

Bruce

I've been pimped a couple of times this way. Both times I contacted the
seller (in a civil manner), got permission to return, ate the return
postage, cried in my beer, and - then moved on, ultimately knowing I'd get
over it and feel better after a short time. My advice is that you follow a
similar path. Besides, there are other FEs out there, ya just gotta find
'em. As R. S. Yeoman so correctly observed, "The quest is the thing."

Bon courage!

"Scot Kamins" wrote in message
...
Folks,
About a week ago a bunch of you were kind enough to comment on an eBay
purchase I was considering - a really lovely flying eagle cent. Go he

http://www.dogeared.com/eagle2.jpg

The image on the left was the one advertised; the one on the right is
much closer to the one I received. It's the same coin, but in real life
has more evident wear, is darker, and is splotchy (red and black
mostly). The reverse (not pictured) shows the same - er - degredation.

I haven't decided what to do (that is, whether to send it back). It will
probably not look so bad tomorrow; today I'm dealing with what I
projected it to be.

It makes a great lesson in the difference that lighting makes in a
photo. I have to assume that it was photographed under florescent light.

Yesterday I sent back an Illinois-Lincoln commem for the same reason -
looked fine in the photos, but in real life was a splotchy mess.

Ah, the trouble with buying sight-unseen - even when you think you can
see it.

Scot Kamins
--
"Speak your truth, even as your voice quakes."

Scott Kamins writes:

Folks,
About a week ago a bunch of you were kind enough to comment on an eBay
purchase I was considering - a really lovely flying eagle cent. Go he

http://www.dogeared.com/eagle2.jpg

The image on the left was the one advertised; the one on the right is
much closer to the one I received. It's the same coin, but in real life
has more evident wear, is darker, and is splotchy (red and black
mostly). The reverse (not pictured) shows the same - er - degredation.

I haven't decided what to do (that is, whether to send it back). It will
probably not look so bad tomorrow; today I'm dealing with what I
projected it to be.

It makes a great lesson in the difference that lighting makes in a
photo. I have to assume that it was photographed under florescent light.

Yesterday I sent back an Illinois-Lincoln commem for the same reason -
looked fine in the photos, but in real life was a splotchy mess.

Ah, the trouble with buying sight-unseen - even when you think you can
see it.

Scot Kamins
--

I dunno, Scott. I like the look of the photo on the right better than the photo
to the left. Looks like a coin that was never messed with. That is, an olive
background with rust toning appearing on the surfaces. Looks completely
natural, and sure doesn't appear more worn than it appears on photo to left!

I think you'll regret returning it, but if it will make yoiu happy to return,
you're the boss. I just find the coin quite attractive. You can overscrutize a
coin to death you know. And you know, I'm about as picky as they come.


Ira Stein

Ira Stein wrote:

Scott Kamins writes:

Folks,
About a week ago a bunch of you were kind enough to comment on an eBay
purchase I was considering - a really lovely flying eagle cent. Go he

http://www.dogeared.com/eagle2.jpg

The image on the left was the one advertised; the one on the right is
much closer to the one I received. It's the same coin, but in real life
has more evident wear, is darker, and is splotchy (red and black
mostly). The reverse (not pictured) shows the same - er - degredation.

I haven't decided what to do (that is, whether to send it back). It will
probably not look so bad tomorrow; today I'm dealing with what I
projected it to be.
(snip)

I dunno, Scott. I like the look of the photo on the right better than the photo
to the left. Looks like a coin that was never messed with. That is, an olive
background with rust toning appearing on the surfaces. Looks completely
natural, and sure doesn't appear more worn than it appears on photo to left!

I think you'll regret returning it, but if it will make yoiu happy to return,
you're the boss. I just find the coin quite attractive. You can overscrutize a
coin to death you know. And you know, I'm about as picky as they come.

I agree with Ira. I didn't follow the auction, so I don'y know what you
paid but that's a nice high-end EF FE Cent that shows no sign of
cleaning, much nicer than I'd have expected from the image on the left.

Alan
'Would swap my F-15 in a heartbeat'

This is one of the rare times that I disagree with Ira.

I remember that coin from the auction -- the first time I looked at it I
suspected trouble. I don't blame Scott in being disappointed with it.

Ira has a point -- it does appear to be original, which is more than I would
have expected based on the auction photo. But I still think it's ugly. I
will admit, though, that I am also very picky. Sometimes too picky.

Scott, ya just have to go with what feels right. I've turned down some
pretty nice coins because they had a feature I wasn't happy with. Those
coins undoubtedly found VERY happy homes.

Good luck next time!

--Jeff (L.)



"Ira Stein" wrote in message
...
Scott Kamins writes:

Folks,
About a week ago a bunch of you were kind enough to comment on an eBay
purchase I was considering - a really lovely flying eagle cent. Go he

http://www.dogeared.com/eagle2.jpg

The image on the left was the one advertised; the one on the right is
much closer to the one I received. It's the same coin, but in real life
has more evident wear, is darker, and is splotchy (red and black
mostly). The reverse (not pictured) shows the same - er - degredation.

I haven't decided what to do (that is, whether to send it back). It will
probably not look so bad tomorrow; today I'm dealing with what I
projected it to be.

It makes a great lesson in the difference that lighting makes in a
photo. I have to assume that it was photographed under florescent light.

Yesterday I sent back an Illinois-Lincoln commem for the same reason -
looked fine in the photos, but in real life was a splotchy mess.

Ah, the trouble with buying sight-unseen - even when you think you can
see it.

Scot Kamins
--

I dunno, Scott. I like the look of the photo on the right better than the
photo
to the left. Looks like a coin that was never messed with. That is, an
olive
background with rust toning appearing on the surfaces. Looks completely
natural, and sure doesn't appear more worn than it appears on photo to
left!

I think you'll regret returning it, but if it will make yoiu happy to
return,
you're the boss. I just find the coin quite attractive. You can
overscrutize a
coin to death you know. And you know, I'm about as picky as they come.


Ira Stein

In article ,
ospam (Ira Stein) wrote:

I dunno, Scott. I like the look of the photo on the right better than the
photo
to the left. Looks like a coin that was never messed with. That is, an olive
background with rust toning appearing on the surfaces. Looks completely
natural, and sure doesn't appear more worn than it appears on photo to left!

Hmm. Perhaps I have to get over my leaning towards Things Clean &
Shiney. The coins IS 150 years old, after all.

I think you'll regret returning it, but if it will make yoiu happy to return,
you're the boss. I just find the coin quite attractive. You can overscrutize
a
coin to death you know. And you know, I'm about as picky as they come.

Yes, I had heard that. :-D

Thanks for the comments, Ira. As I sid, I'll probably feel better in the
morning.

Scot Kamins
--
"Speak your truth, even as your voice quakes."

In article ,
"James Higby" heezerbumfrool[at]hotmail[dot]com wrote:

Besides, there are other FEs out there, ya just gotta find
'em. As R. S. Yeoman so correctly observed, "The quest is the thing."

Thanks, James. I'll consider this.

Scot Kamins
--
"Speak your truth, even as your voice quakes."

In article ,
"Jeff Landon" wrote:

Scott, ya just have to go with what feels right. I've turned down some
pretty nice coins because they had a feature I wasn't happy with. Those
coins undoubtedly found VERY happy homes.

Thanks, Jeff.

Scot Kamins
--
"Speak your truth, even as your voice quakes."

Alan Williams wrote:

Ira Stein wrote:

Scott Kamins writes:

Folks,
About a week ago a bunch of you were kind enough to comment on an eBay
purchase I was considering - a really lovely flying eagle cent. Go he

http://www.dogeared.com/eagle2.jpg

The image on the left was the one advertised; the one on the right is
much closer to the one I received. It's the same coin, but in real life
has more evident wear, is darker, and is splotchy (red and black
mostly). The reverse (not pictured) shows the same - er - degredation.

I haven't decided what to do (that is, whether to send it back). It will
probably not look so bad tomorrow; today I'm dealing with what I
projected it to be.

(snip)

I dunno, Scott. I like the look of the photo on the right better than the photo
to the left. Looks like a coin that was never messed with. That is, an olive
background with rust toning appearing on the surfaces. Looks completely
natural, and sure doesn't appear more worn than it appears on photo to left!

I think you'll regret returning it, but if it will make yoiu happy to return,
you're the boss. I just find the coin quite attractive. You can overscrutize a
coin to death you know. And you know, I'm about as picky as they come.


I agree with Ira. I didn't follow the auction, so I don'y know what you
paid but that's a nice high-end EF FE Cent that shows no sign of
cleaning, much nicer than I'd have expected from the image on the left.

Alan
'Would swap my F-15 in a heartbeat'

I dig the "real" image myself. To me, the auction image looks like the
coin had been dipped somewhat recently.


--
Jason Craton ---- CONECA N-3407 --- WINS #5
---------------------------
Interested in error coins?
http://www.error-coins.com - A work in progress (lack of progress really).

Nick is a DICK!
Reid is a troglodyte!