eBay's new policy for certified coins
Ned
When listing a certified coin, the coin must be certified by one of the
following authorized grading companies:
* Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC)
* Numismatic Conservation Services (NCS)
* Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS)
* Independent Coin Grading (ICG)
* ANACS
In addition, listings for certified coins:
* Must be assigned the appropriate grading attributes in each listing.
Sellers must select the appropriate grading attributes within the Sell
Your Item form, including "Grading Company," "Grade" and "Serial
Number" provided with that grading.
* The listing must include an image of the item, showing the coin in
its graded holder, front and back.
If the coin listed is not certified by one of the above authorized
grading companies, the coin is considered raw/uncertified and is
subject to additional requirements for their sale.
Bruce Remick
"Ned" <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
news:d8c25a76b5f6f29b...@pseudo.borked.net...
And violators of these rules may be reported to the ANA !!! Does ANA now
have an investigative, arrest, and prosecution division? Do you have to
join to be prosecuted?
So much for learning to properly grade your own coins if you ever expect to
sell them raw on eBay. Not allowed to mention the grade in the title.
Those PCI, SEGS, etc. slabbed coins you bought or sent in for grading are
now considered equal to "raw" in eBay's opinion, and the (non-Big 5) grading
company can't even be mentioned in the item description. I wonder if you're
allowed to show a photo of the coin in the slab, or if you have to black out
the slabber's name, or simply pretend the slab isn't really there?
The whole thing sounds like absurd overkill to me, and I suppose it will
take some more eBay fee increases to pay for the tools or staff to monitor
the tens of thousands of future coin auctions.
Bruce
Jon Purkey
<nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>When listing a certified coin, the coin must be certified by one of the
>following authorized grading companies:
>
>* Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC)
>* Numismatic Conservation Services (NCS)
>* Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS)
>* Independent Coin Grading (ICG)
>* ANACS
Why should it be up to eBay to decide what is and what isn't an
authorized grading company? Sure, there are some questionable graders,
but those five can't be the only good ones. Let it be up to the buyer
to decide how well they trust the grader that has graded the coin the
seller has for auction. Just make it mandatory that the grading
company be named and front and back photos of the slabbed coin be
included if the word "certified" is used anywhere in the auction.
Some of the rules I agree with, like no stock photos, but that rule
may only apply to replica coins. If so, I think it should be re-worded
to aplly to all coins being offered for sale.
Jim Seymour
> So much for learning to properly grade your own coins if you ever
> expect to sell them raw on eBay. Not allowed to mention the grade in
> the title.
It looks like you can mention the grade - just not the *numeric* grade.
Of course, they say nothing about "hype" grades - so expect to see a lot
more stuff like "Gem Brilliant Uncirculated". (Just like the old days).
> Those PCI, SEGS, etc. slabbed coins you bought or sent in for grading
> are now considered equal to "raw" in eBay's opinion
They had to draw the line somewhere - and I'd rather toss SEGS and PCI
out than include ACG, SGS, NumisTrust, or the thousand-or-so other
self-slabbers.
> and the (non-Big 5) grading company can't even be mentioned in the
> item description. [...]
That struck me as odd, too. You should be able to mention the grading
company in the description - even if it is just Joe-Bob's MS70-R-US.
> The whole thing sounds like absurd overkill to me, and I suppose it
> will take some more eBay fee increases to pay for the tools or staff
> to monitor the tens of thousands of future coin auctions.
Perhaps a little overkill is good now and then.
We've been griping about eBay's fraud policies for years - so in my
opinion, *something* is better than nothing.
If it's too much, then the pendulum will swing back a bit. But in the
mean time, if this crushes the business life out of the scammers, we're
*much* better off.
--
Jim Seymour
tony cooper
I don't agree with eBay's new rule, but I do see why eBay is trying to
impose a rule. The word "certified" can mislead a person that has no
familiarity at all with the coin field.
Yes, I know, people without any familiarity with coins, coin grading,
and coin grading services shouldn't be bidding on coins. But they do.
Just like the TV coin programs, eBay is a venue that can be accessed
by any idiot.
eBay's making an attempt to keep the word "certified" out of sight of
the uninformed buyer who can get stung by coins that are not graded
accurately and "certified" doesn't mean anything worthwhile.
It should be noted that coins "certified" by companies other than
PCGS, NGC, ANACS, IGC, and NCS can still be listed as long as a
numeric grade is not in the title and the grading company is not
listed in the title or description. There doesn't seem to be a
prohibition on an image of a coin in a slab of a non-authorized
service.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
RF
> eBayhttp://301url.com/cch
>
> When listing a certified coin, the coin must be certified by one of the
> following authorized grading companies:
>
> * Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC)
> * Numismatic Conservation Services (NCS)
> * Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS)
> * Independent Coin Grading (ICG)
> * ANACS
Which glaringly omits ICCS, the major certification/grading service of
Canadian coins.
eBay is out of control and is getting worse by the day.
Hopefully it won't be too long until a new online auction service
comes along offering the ease and simplicity eBay once featured.
RF
Oh yeah, and since when did ICG become a major grading service?
The coins I've seen graded by them are frequently over-graded.
Bruce Remick
"Jim Seymour" <nnt...@thentao.com> wrote in message
news:46F41FDD...@thentao.com...
> Bruce Remick wrote:
>> So much for learning to properly grade your own coins if you ever expect
>> to sell them raw on eBay. Not allowed to mention the grade in
>> the title.
>
> It looks like you can mention the grade - just not the *numeric* grade.
>
> Of course, they say nothing about "hype" grades - so expect to see a lot
> more stuff like "Gem Brilliant Uncirculated". (Just like the old days).
You may be right. But if I have educated myself to the degree that I can
tell my raw coin is VF20, I should be able to say that in my auction title
without risking my eBay account. The buyer will always be the final judge.
Even now, I find myself being outbid on raw VF20's by people who apparently
believe the coins are EF40. The new rule won't change that.
>
>> Those PCI, SEGS, etc. slabbed coins you bought or sent in for grading
>> are now considered equal to "raw" in eBay's opinion
>
> They had to draw the line somewhere - and I'd rather toss SEGS and PCI out
> than include ACG, SGS, NumisTrust, or the thousand-or-so other
> self-slabbers.
I thought the biggest problem with coins on eBay was with altered and
counterfeit coins. As I read it, this new set of rules won't, in
themselves, eliminate phoney raw Chinese trade dollar or altered 1932-D
quarter auctions. The onus will usually remain on the educated (or not)
bidder with an after the fact complaint.
Furthermore, eBay's new Big-5 TPG's aren't the only legitimate companies
that authenticate coins and refuse and return the bogus ones. Their grading
may be more inconsistent than the Big-5, but that's not an issue for eBay to
judge. The grading opinions of several of the Big-5 are not above frequent
question either, so it should not be up to eBay to bless some companies and
demean others. Makes me suspicious as to where they got their "advice".
>
>> and the (non-Big 5) grading company can't even be mentioned in the
>> item description. [...]
>
> That struck me as odd, too. You should be able to mention the grading
> company in the description - even if it is just Joe-Bob's MS70-R-US.
Agreed, if a seller is being open and truthful-- supposedly what eBay always
demands. Otherwise, it can be like hiding an important fact from potential
bidders.
>
>> The whole thing sounds like absurd overkill to me, and I suppose it will
>> take some more eBay fee increases to pay for the tools or staff to
>> monitor the tens of thousands of future coin auctions.
>
> Perhaps a little overkill is good now and then.
>
> We've been griping about eBay's fraud policies for years - so in my
> opinion, *something* is better than nothing.
>
> If it's too much, then the pendulum will swing back a bit. But in the
> mean time, if this crushes the business life out of the scammers, we're
> *much* better off.
I'm having a hard time picturing eBay rescinding any of these new policies.
I don't really see how they will eliminate fraud involving altered or
counterfeit coins. The scammers simply have a new set of published
guidelines to work around. I also wonder how the average eBay coin seller
will learn about all these new rules.
I don't use eBay's "Sell Your Item" form to post my eBay auctions, so I now
wonder if they will refuse my coin auctions submitted via Vendio because I
haven't filled in specific items required in that eBay form. I'll find out
soon, I guess.
Bruce
tony cooper
wrote:
>You may be right. But if I have educated myself to the degree that I can
>tell my raw coin is VF20, I should be able to say that in my auction title
>without risking my eBay account.
I agree with you. If you want to find something positive about the
rule, though, it may increase the number of people who will actually
click the title and look at the listing. These would be the people
who would normally not look at a listing for a VF20, but - on seeing
the coin - would think "Hey, that's a pretty nice coin".
OK, I'm reaching, but I'm in a glass half-full mood.
>Makes me suspicious as to where they got their "advice".
>
You don't think "Power Sellers" who only offer slabbed coins had
anything to do with it?
OK, I'm in a glass half-full conspiracy mood.
>I also wonder how the average eBay coin seller
>will learn about all these new rules.
>
Some competitor will report them.
>I don't use eBay's "Sell Your Item" form to post my eBay auctions, so I now
>wonder if they will refuse my coin auctions submitted via Vendio because I
>haven't filled in specific items required in that eBay form. I'll find out
>soon, I guess.
Dunno about Vendio, but TurboLister has the drop-down for
certification information.
Rob Fleece
now considered equal to "raw" in <eBay's opinion
Looks like it's time for a class action lawsuit against "the venue"
Bruce Remick
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vlp8f3l41p8p350jq...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:24:07 -0400, "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>You may be right. But if I have educated myself to the degree that I can
>>tell my raw coin is VF20, I should be able to say that in my auction title
>>without risking my eBay account.
>
> I agree with you. If you want to find something positive about the
> rule, though, it may increase the number of people who will actually
> click the title and look at the listing. These would be the people
> who would normally not look at a listing for a VF20, but - on seeing
> the coin - would think "Hey, that's a pretty nice coin".
>
> OK, I'm reaching, but I'm in a glass half-full mood.
>
>>Makes me suspicious as to where they got their "advice".
>>
> You don't think "Power Sellers" who only offer slabbed coins had
> anything to do with it?
>
> OK, I'm in a glass half-full conspiracy mood.
>
Up until now, I maintained a passive attitude that it's eBay's toy and they
have the right to make the rules. While that's still the case, they're
taking some of the fun out of the auction experience, especially for the
occasional seller, with this batch of new rules. The new rules now require
the seller to meet specific criteria when crafting an auction, subject to
penalties, while apparently doing nothing to eliminate the bogus items. The
main focus seems to be on proper grading.
I wonder if ebay has developed similar new rules for auctions of all other
collectibles that typically are graded and subject to counterfeit, not to
mention other types of valuables.
Bruce
Jon Purkey
>Which glaringly omits ICCS, the major certification/grading service of
>Canadian coins.
>eBay is out of control and is getting worse by the day.
>Hopefully it won't be too long until a new online auction service
>comes along offering the ease and simplicity eBay once featured.
Hopefully other graders that authenticate coins (both foreign and US)
will be added to the list in time. To me, certification means that the
coin is genuine. If a grader does not check whether or not a coin is
counterfeit then I agree it should not be on the list. But otherwise,
I think it should be up to the buyer to decide if the actual grade on
the slab is accurate, whether it has been graded by PCGS or HCGS
(Hallmark Coin Grading Service). Not sure if the later authenticates,
though they certainly do over grade.
Ken Barr
<rem...@cox.net> wrote:
[snip]
>
> I wonder if ebay has developed similar new rules for auctions of all
> other
> collectibles that typically are graded and subject to counterfeit, not
> to mention other types of valuables.
They have. A buddy of mine sells autographed sports
memorabilia and there is a long list of "Unacceptable
Authenticators" that has been in place for several years.
http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/autographs.html
Other "specialty areas" have their own sets of acceptable
and unacceptable authenticators (Beanie Babies, stamps,
etc.).
--
Ken Barr Numismatics k...@kenbarr.com
P. O. Box 32541 website: http://www.kenbarr.com
San Jose, CA 95152 (souvenir cards, MPC, Hickey Bros tokens)
408-272-3247 Next show: Fairfield CC September 9 (tentative, no table)
Reid Goldsborough
<nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>eBay http://301url.com/cch
This is a VERY good change. I don't understand the complaining at all
-- except the omission of the (very small but respected) Canadian
grading company ICCS.
The problem of people getting cheated by self-slabbers and other
bottom-dwelling "grading and authentication" services has been huge
for years. These companies, in the vast majority of cases, seem to be
set up solely to give unscrupulous sellers a way to make their
overgrading seem legitimate (there are no doubt exceptions). Untold
numbers of people have been cheated out of untold amounts of money,
which they typically realize only when they or their heirs try to sell
their "certified" MS-69 and are told it's really an MS-62 or AU-58, as
understood by the legitimate market. Yes, those getting cheated are
typically those who don't know better, but this includes grandmothers,
kids, and other new collectors.
There no doubt are some legitimate attempts to start new grading
companies, separate from PCGS, NGC/NCS (I believe there's a
relationship between these two, or was, but I may be wrong about
this), ANACS, and ICG. All of these were once new themselves. But the
abuses, the cheating, and the fraud are a far more weighty factor, I
believe, than the potential unfairness of leaving out a legitimate
start-up in a market that already has plenty of competition and
choice.
--
Email: reid...@removethisnetaxs.com (delete "remove this")
Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
ltl...@hotmail.com
May be eBay should post requirements for any grading company
to be considered as authorized.
Or some coin associations can hold coin testing events where a group
of experts will determine whether there are discrepancies of coins
from
various grading companies.
Bruce Remick
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190498399.4...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 21, 3:37 pm, Jon Purkey <room321_em...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:36:27 -0600 (MDT), Ned
>>
>> <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>> >When listing a certified coin, the coin must be certified by one of the
>> >following authorized grading companies:
>>
>> >* Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC)
>> >* Numismatic Conservation Services (NCS)
>> >* Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS)
>> >* Independent Coin Grading (ICG)
>> >* ANACS
>>
>> Why should it be up to eBay to decide what is and what isn't an
>> authorized grading company? Sure, there are some questionable graders,
>> but those five can't be the only good ones. Let it be up to the buyer
>> to decide how well they trust the grader that has graded the coin the
>> seller has for auction. Just make it mandatory that the grading
>> company be named and front and back photos of the slabbed coin be
>> included if the word "certified" is used anywhere in the auction.
>>
>> Some of the rules I agree with, like no stock photos, but that rule
>> may only apply to replica coins. If so, I think it should be re-worded
>> to aplly to all coins being offered for sale.
>
> "Why should it be up to eBay to decide what is and what isn't an
> authorized grading company? "
>
> May be eBay should post requirements for any grading company
> to be considered as authorized.
Actually, the issue should involve authentication, not grading. Grading is
subjective. Authenticity is not. And far more than the Ebay-5 TPG's are
recognized as legitimate companies for authenticating coins. As for
grading, individual Ebay-5 companies often disagree within *themselves* when
it comes to consistent reliable grading.
Bruce
Bruce Remick
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgold...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3miaf3trmv5n75ejb...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:36:27 -0600 (MDT), Ned
> <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>
>>eBay http://301url.com/cch
>
> This is a VERY good change. I don't understand the complaining at all
> -- except the omission of the (very small but respected) Canadian
> grading company ICCS.
>
> The problem of people getting cheated by self-slabbers and other
> bottom-dwelling "grading and authentication" services has been huge
> for years. These companies, in the vast majority of cases, seem to be
> set up solely to give unscrupulous sellers a way to make their
> overgrading seem legitimate (there are no doubt exceptions). Untold
> numbers of people have been cheated out of untold amounts of money,
> which they typically realize only when they or their heirs try to sell
> their "certified" MS-69 and are told it's really an MS-62 or AU-58, as
> understood by the legitimate market. Yes, those getting cheated are
> typically those who don't know better, but this includes grandmothers,
> kids, and other new collectors.
An odd change, IMO. All the "self-slabbers" have to do now is to crack the
coins out of their slabs they had waiting for auction and put the coins up
raw with whatever exaggerated description they want, as long as they don't
mention one of the sacred Sheldon grades. None of the new rules screen out
raw altered or counterfeit coins. The onus is still on the bidder to
recognize counterfeits and to identify those raw coins that are overgraded
or cleaned.
A seller can still offer a coin enslabbed and graded by a non-Ebay-5
company, but can't mention the name of the company, even if that company
guarantees (at least) the authenticity of each coin it slabs. The whole
mess was poorly thought out by the eBay people, and it's not clear to me
what their goal was.
Bruce
Bruce
tony cooper
wrote:
>An odd change, IMO. All the "self-slabbers" have to do now is to crack the
>coins out of their slabs they had waiting for auction and put the coins up
>raw with whatever exaggerated description they want, as long as they don't
>mention one of the sacred Sheldon grades.
I don't understand how this changes anything for raw coins. People
have been putting up exaggerated descriptions for raw coins since the
first coin listed on eBay. The new rule stops the seller from using a
low tier grading service to give credence to exaggeration by putting a
higher grade than deserved on a coin, and announcing that exaggerated
grade in the title line and in the description.
The missing part of the new rule is that the seller can still (as far
as I can tell) display the exaggerated grade of the low-tier slabber
by using an image of the slabbed coin.
>None of the new rules screen out raw altered or counterfeit coins. The onus is still on the bidder to recognize counterfeits and to identify those raw coins that are overgraded
>or cleaned.
The eBay rules already prohibited counterfeit coins. The rule is
there http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/currstamps.html and has been
there as long as I can remember. It wouldn't help to re-write it. If
someone is going to disregard a long-standing rule, they are going to
disregard a new rule.
>
>A seller can still offer a coin enslabbed and graded by a non-Ebay-5
>company, but can't mention the name of the company, even if that company
>guarantees (at least) the authenticity of each coin it slabs. The whole
>mess was poorly thought out by the eBay people, and it's not clear to me
>what their goal was.
>
I'm not saying that the new rule is a great thing, but I do see what
they were trying to accomplish. They are trying to protect the
neophyte coin buyer from thinking that "certification" and listed
grade means something when the certifier is not one that grades
accurately.
I don't see how this new rule is going to negatively affect the
experienced or knowledgable coin seller or buyer. If anything, it
will help the experienced seller who *is* using a reputable service
because these will be the only ads that can claim certification and
grade in the title and description.
The knowledgeable and experienced buyer won't be affected at all.
That buyer never relied on the certification and grading of a lower
tier slab before the rule went into effect.
Frank Provasek
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=230171864043
Is properly represented, according to ebay. It is graded Very Good, but
there is no number in the grade.
If you listed it as About Good-3, you could lose your ebay account for
violation of the new "trust and safety" rules for coins...
Frank Provasek
authentication, even if you disagree with their grading. It's certainly
unfair to lump them in with raw coins from China!
Frank Provasek
numerical grades in the titles for raw coins, that it is more important to
show a good picture of the plastic rather than a good picture of the coin,
that we cannot mention retail or wholesale values of raw coins, or even the
government issue price (I was told by a clueless ebay rep that mentioning
that a 1963 Proof Set was issued at $2.10 was a violation unless ALL 5 coins
were in approved slabs!)
And a crook can steal pictures of both sides of a slabbed coin (in an
approved slab) from a dealer or auction website, collect the money, deliver
nothing to the winning bidder, all while FULLY COMPLYING with ebay's new
"trust and safety" rules.
Why doesn't Ebay offer a checkbox to "show only listings from ANA members"?
No seller would be forced to join the ANA. No buyer would be limited to
buying ONLY from ANA members. Sellers could list coins as they best see fit,
based on their experience and reputation.
I posted this suggestion on the pcgs.com forum and the replies were very
negative:
--
ana dose not mean a thing, some of the very worst sellers are ana members.
--
Any body with a little money can pay for a membership. That doesn't mean
they know any thing about coins.
--
Anybody who is expelled or resigns from the ana membership can apply for
another membership under a different name. if John Eric Smith gets expelled,
he can apply for membership under J. Eric Smith
--
As long as there's an exclude ana button
--
So rather than exclude those who refuse to collude in your little
anticompetitive scheme, there should be an option to exclude those who
participate.
I don't need protection from myself. I need protection from you and your
cohorts.
--
If NGC is not accepted into the PCGS registry set, why does the world see
these two grading companies as equal ? ESPECIALLY on EBAY
--
what irrelevant discipline could be applied........you mean......expulsion
from the ana? No not that!
--
Allen Hager was a member of the ANA, would you buy an ACG graded coin
because he displays the ANA logo.
--
the ANA is a joke and its members are sad.
KC Jones
HCGS - is that the greeting card company? ;-)
Anyway, I agree that ICCS should be added to the approved list of
groups. It is a highly regarded service in Canada, though NGC and
PCGS are supposedly also experts in Canadian coins as well.
KC
KC Jones
furiously and emitted this blurb of contemporary wisdom:
Don't think this is a billboard for ICG, because it is not, but ICG
has THE top numismatist in the world working for it (JP Martin) and
another who is arguably in the top ten (Mike Fahey), along with 2
senior graders that are very experienced. I have submitted some coins
to them for grading and I was a bit disappointed with some of the
over-conservative grades I received, but accepted them. I prefer the
top two myself, but I am really surprised that ICG doesn't get more
respect in the numismatic world.
As with all of the top four, I have seen over-graded and under-graded
coins from each.
Regards
KC
Ira
Overall, I think it's a very good thing. It bothers me not that bottom
feeder grading companies will no longer get prominent
positioning in the eBay auctions. Some of tehse companies only exist
to serve the dishonest eBay sellers. Look at the company in Arizone, I
think, that would hawk $100,000 retail value of coins and sell the
lots for $3000-$4000,
when the bulk of the coins would be cerified by NTC, PCI, or the like.
The "retai" value would be derived by looking up the price of a MS-67
on teh PCS price Guide for say an NTC graded coin at that grade. It
would not be unlikely for the latter coin to actually have a retail
value of $50 or les, whereas the same grade in a PCGS holder might
pring $5000
or more. There are countless other examples of that.
I've had folks bring me dozens of such coins that have been purchsed
on eBay for thousands of dollars, and when I look at them and tell the
collector the truth, he gets furious with me, often says I don't know
what I'm talking about. Any policy that would cut down on this sort of
misrepresentation is a welcome change in my book.
Ira
Bruce Remick
If eBay's "authorized" five TPG's are so reliable, why formalize the auction
requirements for coins slabbed by them -- at least two photos, front, back,
full slab -- grading attributes listed and itemized in the eBay form.
Sellers already choose to provide most of these things in their auctions if
they hope to attract bidders. Why make their omission subject to penalty?
Any piece of overgraded junk can still be auctioned on eBay as raw or
slabbed with simple wordsmithing to satisfy the new rules. My gripe is that
little has really changed, yet sellers are now subject to penalties if they
happen to omit something from the eBay checklist or use the wrong words in a
coin auction. I do agree that the rules will affect the self-slabbers in
that they can no longer claim outright that their coin is "certified", even
though they can include a photo of the coin housed in one of their slabs
with a Sheldon grade printed on the label. Big improvement? The uninformed
will not likely be aware of eBay's "certified" exclusivity guidelines and
will still think they're getting that self-slabbed Unc 1909-SVDB at a steal.
I also agree that the knowledgeable and experienced buyer won't be affected
at all. But I presume that's not who the new rules were crafted to protect.
Selecting only five grading services as "authorized" while excluding all
others implies that the grades assigned by any of the five services are
unquestioned and reliable. We all know that's subject to debate. If I were
running one of the non-selected TPG's, I would be checking to see if I had
any legal recourse against eBay.
Bruce
note.boy
ebay apply the golden rule.
The one with the most gold makes the rules. Billy
note.boy
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:UpiJi.12651$OD5....@newsfe22.lga...
It's a step in the right direction to protect ignorant collectors who assume
that a coin that's slabbed, even by a self grader, is an accurately graded
coin.
One step taken, 999,999 to go. Billy
RF
> I'm not saying that the new rule is a great thing, but I do see what
> they were trying to accomplish. They are trying to protect the
> neophyte coin buyer from thinking that "certification" and listed
> grade means something when the certifier is not one that grades
> accurately.
My slant on this is that:
1: eBay shouldn't decide which TPG outfits are acceptable
2: I don't need a paternalistic corporation to "protect" me
3: I didn't see that there was such a problem to begin with
4: ICG is acceptable but ICCS is not? From what I've seen, ICG
consistently overgrades coins while ICCS is extremely conservative.
5: Anyone who doesn't know what they are bidding on deserves whatever
they get.
Bruce Remick
"note.boy" <note...@naespamntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:CCsJi.1928$Qd2....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
Even with the new rules, how is an ignorant bidder to know that an auction
featuring a coin slabbed by a company other than one of the eBay-5 is not
accurately graded when he sees a photo of the coin in a slab with MS67 on
the label? The implication is that the coin is certified, even though the
seller may not be allowed to use that particular word. Most ignorant
collectors won't be aware of eBay's latest efforts to tighten the list of
authorized TPG's and probably will not be aware of the differences among the
various companies.
This one step doesn't seem to be very well thought out.
Bruce
tony cooper
wrote:
>
>If eBay's "authorized" five TPG's are so reliable, why formalize the auction
>requirements for coins slabbed by them -- at least two photos, front, back,
>full slab -- grading attributes listed and itemized in the eBay form.
>Sellers already choose to provide most of these things in their auctions if
>they hope to attract bidders. Why make their omission subject to penalty?
My auctions show front and back of the coin before slabbing, and front
only of the slabbed coin. I'm going to have to revise my format to
comply with the requirement for an image of the back of the slab. I
don't see why an image of the back of the slab is beneficial since I
show the both sides of the coin before it was slabbed. No biggie,
though.
>I also agree that the knowledgeable and experienced buyer won't be affected
>at all. But I presume that's not who the new rules were crafted to protect.
>Selecting only five grading services as "authorized" while excluding all
>others implies that the grades assigned by any of the five services are
>unquestioned and reliable. We all know that's subject to debate.
Yeah, but we know that in a sample of 100 slabbed coins from the five
approved graders, and 100 slabbed coins from the rest of the pack,
that the first group will have far, far fewer overgrades. And, the
overgrades in the first group will be mostly one level and not two or
three levels.
What's that saying about a journey and the first steps?
There is one thing we can be thankful for: eBay has not purchased GEC
or HCGS. Had they done so, one of those would be the *only* approved
grading company.
Bruce Remick
Yeah, I guess we have something to be thankful for. I gotta stop letting
this all bother me. ;>)
Bruce
Bill Spock
<any legal recourse against eBay.
they already are......stand by for a class-action lawsuit
Jon Purkey
wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:36:40 GMT, Jon Purkey
><room32...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:31:24 -0700, RF <fwd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Which glaringly omits ICCS, the major certification/grading service of
>>>Canadian coins.
>>>eBay is out of control and is getting worse by the day.
>>>Hopefully it won't be too long until a new online auction service
>>>comes along offering the ease and simplicity eBay once featured.
>>
>>
>>Hopefully other graders that authenticate coins (both foreign and US)
>>will be added to the list in time. To me, certification means that the
>>coin is genuine. If a grader does not check whether or not a coin is
>>counterfeit then I agree it should not be on the list. But otherwise,
>>I think it should be up to the buyer to decide if the actual grade on
>>the slab is accurate, whether it has been graded by PCGS or HCGS
>>(Hallmark Coin Grading Service). Not sure if the later authenticates,
>>though they certainly do over grade.
>>
>
>HCGS - is that the greeting card company? ;-)
I assume so. I first saw an HCGS coin when shopping for a Barber Dime.
There was a 1911 graded MS-63 (or 64) by HCGS that barely looked EF in
the pictures. It sold for just over $60. Guess people were seeing
something that I wasn't.
zeek
--
Russ and Donna
Orlando
-unknown
"Ira" <ir...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1190542990.8...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
tony cooper
wrote:
>I don't sell, just buy, but I wonder about this. If I found a certified coin certified MS-70 by SMIAC(Screw Me In the Ass Corp) the seller can't describe it as a "MS-70" But can he photo the entire slab?
This seems to be a loophole. I see nothing in the new rule about what
the image can be of.
>If so and a prospective buyer can't see it he has no business collecting/buying.
That's a bit harsh. A frequent topic in this newsgroup is the
situation where someone inherits a coin collection and comes here to
ask about what to do with it. Someone invariably suggests that the
person become a collector himself.
Assuming that some people do do this, you have a neophyte collector
who hasn't yet learned the ropes, and the pitfalls, of coin
collecting. Sure, they can read books and find sources of information
on the hobby, but there is one, whole, helluva lot of ground to cover.
Few are patient enough to hold off on adding to the collection until
they have read up on everything about the subject. So they have an
inherited half-filled Dansco album of Peace Dollars and start looking
around eBay to find fillers for the holes.
At this point, the neophyte might have done some reading on grading,
but he hasn't yet chanced upon the reading material that tells him
that just because SIMAC says it's an MS-70 doesn't mean that it's an
MS-70.
eBay's new rule isn't going to stop this neophyte from getting bit in
the ass on the SIMAC coin because the slabbed image is there showing
the MS-70 grade, but it might, just might, save him from opening the
ad because "Certified MS-70" isn't in the title.
>Another question: can sellers attach a number to grade with raw coins? If not them 5 grading companies have got to be happy.
Can't you research your own question? Click eBay>Help>enter "Selling
Coins">Examples and the answer is clearly spelled out under "Raw and
uncertified coins".
gogu
news:1190552295.8...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 22, 11:14 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not saying that the new rule is a great thing, but I do see what
>> they were trying to accomplish. They are trying to protect the
>> neophyte coin buyer
Hmmm...so why there are not similar rules about the neophyte trying to buy a
used car?...
>> from thinking that "certification" and listed
>> grade means something when the certifier is not one that grades
>> accurately.
If he can't make the distinction then he/she probably deserves to be
cheated.
First buy the book and then buy the coin, says a fellow rcc-er in his sig...
> My slant on this is that:
> 1: eBay shouldn't decide which TPG outfits are acceptable
Quite true.
Including some companies in the "acceptable" team can be perceived as
leading the buyers and/or an unfair competition.
In a free market economy this may lead to a lawsuit for damages.
> 2: I don't need a paternalistic corporation to "protect" me
True.
When you decide to buy something you have to do first your research.
If you don't read the book then you can't complain.
> 3: I didn't see that there was such a problem to begin with
> 4: ICG is acceptable but ICCS is not? From what I've seen, ICG
> consistently overgrades coins while ICCS is extremely conservative.
ICG is so an so (older slabs better), I never heard of ICCS.
ICGS (Canadian) OTOH is a respectable company but it's not included!
> 5: Anyone who doesn't know what they are bidding on deserves whatever
> they get.
Quite true.
That said, I'd never buy a slabbed coin that is not certified by PCGS, NGC
or ANACS.
Some may object but about taste, de gustibus non disputandum est...
rgrds
--
E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure
in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi
puttane! F.d.A
Coins, travels and more:
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb120/golanule/
http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html
Jim Seymour
> ICG is so an so (older slabs better), I never heard of ICCS.
> ICGS (Canadian) OTOH is a respectable company but it's not included!
I think you have this backwards.
As far as I can tell, there is no "ICGS", but "ICCS" is a respected
Canadian coin slabber.
--
Jim Seymour
gogu
news:46F946A...@thentao.com...
Yeah, mea culpa Jim!
And think that I am collecting such slabbed coins;-)
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb120/golanule/Canadian%201%20ICCS%20graded%201935-1969/
--
E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure
in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi
puttane! F.d.A
Coins, travels and more:
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb120/golanule/
http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html
> --
> Jim Seymour
tony cooper
<golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote:
>If he can't make the distinction then he/she probably deserves to be
>cheated.
Anyone who thinks that any other person "deserves to be cheated" is,
in my opinion, about as untrustworthy as anyone can get.
KC Jones
pecked furiously and bombarded us with this bit of intellect:
Ditto that. Authentication is the key. Grading varies even between
the top services. A friend of mine has a 1897O Morgan that looks just
like a mint picture - not a scratch and nary a mark on it. MS62 from
both main services. Ridiculous. I'm tight on my grading opinion and
i'd give it a conservative 65. Scary to think what could happen if
eBay would decide to buy a TPG and make it the only authorized one.
KC
Gary Dorman
"RF" <fwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190417130.8...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Oh yeah, and since when did ICG become a major grading service?
> The coins I've seen graded by them are frequently over-graded.
>
Are you not aware that none other than J.P. Martin, who taught the ANA
grading course at Colorado Springs for many years, is the principal grader
and stockholder of ICG?