Seller ethics question

[red_spork]

15 hours ago, kirispupis said:

On the one hand, this does me absolutely no harm. I have no interest in buying the coin myself. Based on the fact that the coin is still for sale, I assume others interested in this area have come to the same conclusions as I.

This does make me wonder whether I can trust the seller as much and whether I should give future purchases more examination.

What are your thoughts? Should this concern me?

I've mostly stopped ever telling dealers about their attribution mistakes. Dealers make attribution errors in my favor just as often as they make ones not in my favor so encouraging them to look more closely at coins doesn't really help me and I pretty thoroughly check references before buying or bidding. I will usually tell other collectors should I spot an error but that's usually the extent of it.

Fakes are a different story. I report almost all of those unless the dealer or auction house is a regular source of problematic coins.

[DonnaML]

15 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

I don't think you can apply the same rule to all sales. If the seller is a dealer, they are the expert (or, at least have the opportunity to be). The buyer is whoever finds them, which could be someone with or without knowledge. It's the imbalance of power that creates the moral issue, not the 'effort'.

Legally, of course, both are expected to conduct due diligence.

FYI, at least under U.S. commercial law (and I suspect that UK and civil law aren't materially different), in a consumer transaction such as a coin purchase, the buyer is under no obligation to conduct due diligence. The situation is not analogous to that of one company purchasing another, and being provided access to the latter's books and records to conduct due diligence. Nor is there any obligation under the usual circumstances for the buyer to prove an intentional, material misrepresentation or his/her own justifiable reliance on that misrepresentation in making the purchase, i.e., the elements of common-law fraud. Rather, the situation is more akin to strict liability for breach of the implied warranty that the coin or other article is what it's represented to be.  Even absent fraudulent intent. (The breach still would have to be material in order to justify rescinding the transaction, I believe. For example, if the seller represents the coin to be 18.9 mm. and it's actually 18.8, I doubt that would suffice.)

Edited June 2, 2023 by DonnaML

[red_spork]

17 hours ago, Hrefn said:

Roughly speaking, buying a coin for a thousand dollars, turning around and selling it for a million dollars, would be impossible to morally justify, regardless of who was seller and who was purchaser.  

 

I would argue, especially as is the case with many specialists here, that even such an extreme example is not unjustifiable given the amount of effort that goes into coins as a hobby for many of us. I know many specialists who have put thousands of hours into learning everything there is to know about the series they collect, far more than any dealer has time to put towards a single series, and a lot of specialists cannot only correct identify coins, they can correctly describe those coins to potential purchasers as well, both of which are usually required to maximize return when you're cherrypicking rarities that a dealer(or sometimes an entire auction worth of customers) previously missed. I've never had a 1000x return on a coin but I have had a few coins that I bought relatively cheaply because they were a very rare type misattributed or in a few cases found a very worthwhile provenance for and sold in the 5-10x range and there are a few that I have no plans to sell but believe would probably reach 25x or more. I don't see anything wrong with that at all - I put in, as a conservative estimate, about 3500 hours over the past decade learning about coins and almost all of that learning about Roman Republic coins, talking to collectors, visiting public institutions to see their coins or libraries, tracking down and reading nearly every paper and reference work in my area of interest, watching the major auctions, etc. If I put the same amount of time towards a side business and made a million dollars doing it, few would question it.

That's a very roundabout way of saying I really see no problem with someone with expertise cherrypicking underpriced and/or misattributed coins and sometimes getting fabulous returns on them. If you've learned enough to do that you deserve whatever profits may come from it, it's honest work and especially in a situation where you're a buyer from someone who is offering up coins there is no way you're misrepresenting values or anything like that.

Edited June 2, 2023 by red_spork

[Hrefn]

2 hours ago, red_spork said:

 

    I would argue, especially as is the case with many specialists here, that even such an extreme example is not unjustifiable given the amount of effort that goes into coins as a hobby for many of us.

I think you and Aquinas are not so far apart in principle, but where you differ is in degree.  Expertise which is the fruit of years of study, purchase of expensive and scarce references, hours of internet auction site perusal, risking your own capital, and all the other costs of attaining the expertise you have acquired, can merit compensation, if I understand Aquinas aright.  

I think most of us would agree that a dealer who took advantage of a naïf seller, say giving $5 apiece for a collection of 100 Athenian tetradrachms, would be reprehensible.  Now say you walked into a coin shop and 100 “replica” tetradrachms were for sale for $5 apiece, and you could tell they were real.  Should you buy them all, and say nothing?  Or tell the dealer he has genuine coins?   

Personally, I would very tempted to cherry pick a few before telling the dealer he was grossly underpricing real coins.   But that is because I am not a saint.   

 

 

[John Conduitt]

23 minutes ago, Hrefn said:

I think you and Aquinas are not so far apart in principle, but where you differ is in degree.  Expertise which is the fruit of years of study, purchase of expensive and scarce references, hours of internet auction site perusal, risking your own capital, and all the other costs of attaining the expertise you have acquired, can merit compensation, if I understand Aquinas aright.  

I think most of us would agree that a dealer who took advantage of a naïf seller, say giving $5 apiece for a collection of 100 Athenian tetradrachms, would be reprehensible.  Now say you walked into a coin shop and 100 “replica” tetradrachms were for sale for $5 apiece, and you could tell they were real.  Should you buy them all, and say nothing?  Or tell the dealer he has genuine coins?   

Personally, I would very tempted to cherry pick a few before telling the dealer he was grossly underpricing real coins.   But that is because I am not a saint.   

If I go on VCoins and a dealer is selling $1000 coins for $5, I'm going to buy them all. They are in the business of buying and selling, so I know they are making a profit. Where did they get them from? By buying them for $5, I'm keeping the dealer from committing an Aquinian sin themselves, and I can sleep well in that knowledge.

Edited June 2, 2023 by John Conduitt

[red_spork]

2 hours ago, Hrefn said:

Now say you walked into a coin shop and 100 “replica” tetradrachms were for sale for $5 apiece, and you could tell they were real.  Should you buy them all, and say nothing?  Or tell the dealer he has genuine coins?   

Personally, I would very tempted to cherry pick a few before telling the dealer he was grossly underpricing real coins.   But that is because I am not a saint.   

I'd be buying the whole lot at the dealer's asking price. He's presumably happy to get his asking price for the coins and move the whole lot and I have no duty to inform him. If he's worth building a relationship with I might tell him but that's less an ethics discussion and more a strategy discussion.

[Rand]

18 hours ago, red_spork said:

Fakes are a different story. I report almost all of those unless the dealer or auction house is a regular source of problematic coins.

When I have itchy fingers to write to an auction house about another common fake on their listing, I think about the coin being also seen by …

• Peer experts from other auctions and dealers,
• Presidents and members of numismatic societies,
• Teams of organisations fighting fake coins (e.g., Anti-Counterfeiting Task Force),
• Leaders and members of numismatic trade associations,
• Numismatic academic professors, lecturers and fellows who published expertly and elegantly in the field,
• Curators of museum coin collections...

Who am I to keep challenging the sellers? A little collector at the bottom of the experts' chain.

A fellow enthusiast collector who did not learn about common fakes and bought the coin may

• later learn about fakes and return it to a reputable seller for a refund
• not to learn about them, enjoy believing in proud ownership of an ancient artefact and resell it honestly through another auction house, now with the added value of ex-provenance.

Plenty of other ways exist to make a dent for a better world. I sleep well.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Rand

[Roman Collector]

I find V-Coins sellers to be much more responsive to messages about inaccurate attributions and concerns about authenticity than auction firms. That being said, if I find an overlooked rare variety misattributed by a dealer or auction firm, I don't inform the dealer -- I just buy the coin as quickly as possible. That's the advantage of my in-depth knowledge of my specialty. That's what "cherry-picking" is all about. But if I already have an example of the coin in question or am not interested in the coin, I'll send a note to the effect of, "You've misattributed the coin as such and such, but it's really a much scarcer variety, such and such." Sometimes I get a big "thank you" and sometimes I hear crickets.



 

 

[Hrefn]

3 hours ago, Roman Collector said:

I find V-Coins sellers to be much more responsive to messages about inaccurate attributions and concerns about authenticity than auction firms. That being said, if I find an overlooked rare variety misattributed by a dealer or auction firm, I don't inform the dealer -- I just buy the coin as quickly as possible. That's the advantage of my in-depth knowledge of my specialty. That's what "cherry-picking" is all about. But if I already have an example of the coin in question or am not interested in the coin, I'll send a note to the effect of, "You've misattributed the coin as such and such, but it's really a much scarcer variety, such and such." Sometimes I get a big "thank you" and sometimes I hear crickets.



 

 

I would love it if dealers would reward people who correct their attribution of a coin, or point out a fake.  For obvious reasons such corrections are a very valuable service, and the person providing it generally has expertise.  Employing such a person as a researcher or cataloguer would be expensive;  if she or he provides such a service out of benevolence, it would seem mete and just to give tangible thanks.  Even a $10 coupon…..but instead crickets.  

Thomas Aquinas would not approve, I don’t think.  

[Deinomenid]

3 hours ago, Hrefn said:

I would love it if dealers would reward people who correct their attribution of a coin, or point out a fake.

Not in my experience. I was  usually ignored (no reply) though sometimes along with the radio-silence the description is changed or VERY rarely withdrawn. So I gave up. One recent  example was a 100k plus coin that was clearly heavily tooled and aside from mentioning  in to a few  forum members here just out of  interest when it was listed, there seemed little  point in me engaging with the auction. Apparently it took an extremely senior coin grading specialist's opinion to persuade them, but even that was weeks after it was "common" knowledge.

There was an amazing (to me) example of scholarship on this forum a few months ago when a member realized that some Bactrian coins  for sale with a Scandinavian house had been stolen a long time ago and alerted the house  who responded properly by withdrawal but to me that was worthy of a real $ reward.

 

[Rand]

This is a well-known fake, published by Sear, which production started in 1960th and is not uncommon on the market.

 

This is a piece of the American Numismatic Society with provenance to 1967 (I think it was from Newman collection, but cannot find this record now). It was recently re-photographed to update the Byzantine coin catalogue.

Shall contact the ANS?

I do keep the ANS in the highest regard as experts and leaders in numismatic research. I would not want to unnecessarily distract them or embarrass myself.

 

Edited June 4, 2023 by Rand

[Roman Collector]

1 hour ago, Rand said:

This is a well-known fake, published by Sear, which production started in 1960th and is not uncommon on the market.

 

This is a piece of the American Numismatic Society with provenance to 1967 (I think it was from Newman collection, but cannot find this record now). It was recently re-photographed to update the Byzantine coin catalogue.

Do I need to contact the ANS?

I do keep the ANS in the highest regard as experts and leaders in numismatic research. I would not want to unnecessarily distract them or embarrass myself.

 

You should absolutely let them know.

[maridvnvm]

I find the response to fake notifications in auctions and on VCoins to be very variable. Mostly I get nothing back, sometimes I get "thank you for your notification" at which point I watch to see if the coin is removed, more often than not I don't get any response at all. I saw a well published fake of Probus sell through a "reputable" auction house and make Eur 70 plus fees. This is much more than I am getting for similar real coins in equivalent or better condition.

[Rand]

6 hours ago, Roman Collector said:

You should absolutely let them know.

Given the excellence and popularity of their online collection, I hoped for the answer that the coin’s authenticity has been long queried and cleared (the main reason I was not sure about contacting them over the years).

I wrote to them today and will share the outcome.

Previously I felt museums did not welcome unsolicited advice (another reason I was not sure about contacting them) - could be due to my poor communication skills.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Rand

[Rand]

On 6/4/2023 at 5:55 PM, Rand said:

Given the excellence and popularity of their online collection, I hoped for the answer that the coin’s authenticity has been long queried and cleared (the main reason I was not sure about contacting them over the years).

I wrote to them today and will share the outcome.

Previously I felt museums did not welcome unsolicited advice (another reason I was not sure about contacting them) - could be due to my poor communication skills.

Just got a response from the ANS, which was fast, friendly and appropriate, with further review requested.

 

‘Thank you for reaching out, and not a bother at all! I’ve just been able to inspect our coin in person, and I feel fairly confident that the ANS specimen is not struck from the same dies as the published fake you provided, but as I am by no means an expert in Byzantine coinage, I have added a note to our internal database with information re: this known fake for further Curatorial review.’