Coin Dealer Ethics - Mis-Attributed Coin
Monday December 3, 2007
A friend of mine, Joseph, who collects ancient coins frequently buys his coins online from a marketplace called Vcoins. Vcoins has very strict policies regarding the sale of questionable material or engaging in nefarious practices, which their member dealers must abide by, and many dealers who apply to Vcoins are turned away because they lack a good reputation (or any reputation at all!) Therefore it was a real surprise when the following episode took place on Vcoins a couple of years ago.
An ancient coins dealer we'll call "Sami" would put 30 or 40 coins into the Vcoins auction each week, but never at rock-bottom opening bids. His opening bid was usually about the market value of the coin, and Sami was known as one of those guys from whom you probably wouldn't get any surprises, good or bad. His coins were virtually always correctly attributed (sometimes a challenge for ancient coins dealers) and accurately described, graded, and photographed. However, nobody is perfect, and one week he listed a coin that he identified as having been issued by the ancient Roman emperor Elagabalus. The coin was, in fact, a previously unknown tetradrachm (silver coin) of the Syrian ursurper Uranius Antoninus. The confusion in attributing the coin probably stemmed from the fact that usurpers often imitated the ruling emperor's portrait so his coinage would circulate and both coins would have had the Greek version of "Antoninus" on it.
Joseph, who is an expert in ancient Roman coins, especially of Elagabalus, saw the rarity right away, and after checking his numerous reference books, confirmed to himself that the coin was mis-attributed. If the coin was issued by Elagabalus, it was worth about $100, but having been issued by a very rare usurper, the coin was worth at least $1,000 or more. Joseph placed a proxy bid for $1,200 on the coin and won the auction for $130. He was so excited that he immediately posted in an ancient coin discussion forum about his great find and the amazing deal he got on it.
A couple of days later, Joseph got an email from the coin dealer, Sami, who told him that he was very sorry, but that he would have to refund the money because he had misplaced the coin and after looking everywhere for it, had given up ever finding it. Sami expressed his apologies and refunded the payment back through PayPal. Joseph was dumbfounded, and posted his sad tale to the discussion forum the next day. Speculation among the forum members was rife with conspiracy theories, the most popular being that maybe Sami had heard about the real value of the coin and didn't want to sell it so cheaply. Since Sami had an otherwise spotless reputation (other than being rather high-priced,) Joseph wrote the matter off to bad luck.
About 5 months later, a forum member posted an image of a Uranius Antoninus tetradrachm that had been put up for sale on eBay. The seller, who was Sami, described it properly this time as the issue of the Syrian usurper and set an opening bid of $1,000. Joseph recognized his coin immediately, and after comparing the images he had saved from the Vcoins auction and finding them to be identical (Sami hadn't even bothered to re-photograph the coin,) Joseph emailed Sami to claim the coin at the price he had won it for previously.
Sami refused to sell him the coin, claiming that too much time had gone by and that the coin had gone up in value in the interim. Sami invited Joseph to bid along with everyone else on eBay, again offering his seemingly sincere apology for the mix-up. Joseph complained to eBay, who (in typical fashion) ignored him other than to send an autoresponse email blathering about how eBay is just a marketplace and cannot involve itself in bidder disputes. Joseph then complained to Bill Puetz, the owner of the Vcoins service, who took the complaint very seriously and booted Sami off Vcoins for this and another similar offense where a mis-attributed coin that Sami claimed was "lost in the mail" showed up for sale on Sami's site for ten times the original price a few months later.
What do you think? Should Sami have been forced to sell the coin to Joseph at the original price? Was Vcoins too harsh in throwing Sami off its service? Share your thoughts via the "comments" link below.
Update - See what readers (and I) have to say in the follow-up about the mis-attributed coin.
An ancient coins dealer we'll call "Sami" would put 30 or 40 coins into the Vcoins auction each week, but never at rock-bottom opening bids. His opening bid was usually about the market value of the coin, and Sami was known as one of those guys from whom you probably wouldn't get any surprises, good or bad. His coins were virtually always correctly attributed (sometimes a challenge for ancient coins dealers) and accurately described, graded, and photographed. However, nobody is perfect, and one week he listed a coin that he identified as having been issued by the ancient Roman emperor Elagabalus. The coin was, in fact, a previously unknown tetradrachm (silver coin) of the Syrian ursurper Uranius Antoninus. The confusion in attributing the coin probably stemmed from the fact that usurpers often imitated the ruling emperor's portrait so his coinage would circulate and both coins would have had the Greek version of "Antoninus" on it.
Joseph, who is an expert in ancient Roman coins, especially of Elagabalus, saw the rarity right away, and after checking his numerous reference books, confirmed to himself that the coin was mis-attributed. If the coin was issued by Elagabalus, it was worth about $100, but having been issued by a very rare usurper, the coin was worth at least $1,000 or more. Joseph placed a proxy bid for $1,200 on the coin and won the auction for $130. He was so excited that he immediately posted in an ancient coin discussion forum about his great find and the amazing deal he got on it.
A couple of days later, Joseph got an email from the coin dealer, Sami, who told him that he was very sorry, but that he would have to refund the money because he had misplaced the coin and after looking everywhere for it, had given up ever finding it. Sami expressed his apologies and refunded the payment back through PayPal. Joseph was dumbfounded, and posted his sad tale to the discussion forum the next day. Speculation among the forum members was rife with conspiracy theories, the most popular being that maybe Sami had heard about the real value of the coin and didn't want to sell it so cheaply. Since Sami had an otherwise spotless reputation (other than being rather high-priced,) Joseph wrote the matter off to bad luck.
About 5 months later, a forum member posted an image of a Uranius Antoninus tetradrachm that had been put up for sale on eBay. The seller, who was Sami, described it properly this time as the issue of the Syrian usurper and set an opening bid of $1,000. Joseph recognized his coin immediately, and after comparing the images he had saved from the Vcoins auction and finding them to be identical (Sami hadn't even bothered to re-photograph the coin,) Joseph emailed Sami to claim the coin at the price he had won it for previously.
Sami refused to sell him the coin, claiming that too much time had gone by and that the coin had gone up in value in the interim. Sami invited Joseph to bid along with everyone else on eBay, again offering his seemingly sincere apology for the mix-up. Joseph complained to eBay, who (in typical fashion) ignored him other than to send an autoresponse email blathering about how eBay is just a marketplace and cannot involve itself in bidder disputes. Joseph then complained to Bill Puetz, the owner of the Vcoins service, who took the complaint very seriously and booted Sami off Vcoins for this and another similar offense where a mis-attributed coin that Sami claimed was "lost in the mail" showed up for sale on Sami's site for ten times the original price a few months later.
What do you think? Should Sami have been forced to sell the coin to Joseph at the original price? Was Vcoins too harsh in throwing Sami off its service? Share your thoughts via the "comments" link below.
Update - See what readers (and I) have to say in the follow-up about the mis-attributed coin.
Comments
What do I think?
Sami should have been forced to sell the coin to Joseph at the original price. The same way ebay auction bids are binding contracts for buyers, so too for sellers.
Vcoins was not too harsh in throwing Sami off its service. Just the right consequence for his shenanigans.
This one is a no brainer. Vcoins should have required Sami to either sell the coin to Joseph at the agreed price or kicked him off.
Situations like this show how unreliable user feedback systems are in rooting out dishonest dealers. Sami probably had good ratings on 99% of his deals that went smoothly, but that does not tell you how Sami will act when there is a problem. That I do not crash my car 99% of the time that I drive to work does not make me a good driver. In this case he took short term gain over reputation, figuring that the probability of getting caught was minimal. Having gotten caught, I would make him pay a steep price.
I once bought a $3 gold piece on Yahoo at about 30% less than market value: skeptical, but reassured by the dealers 99% feedback rating. When it arrived I determined that it was likely counterfeit and immediately asked for a refund. Messages were ignored, so I filed a complaint with Yahoo and sent it to ANACS for certification. They confirmed “not genuine”, at which point I again emailed the dealer. He agreed to take the coin back…but never refunded my money! Eventually, I noticed the same coin for sale at a private auction in Conneticut: he was now trying to resell the same coin, knowing that it was counterfeit, and having never refunded my money. I contacted the local police, showed up at the auction and confronted him. Initally he denied everything, but eventually confessed that it might be the same coin and agreed to refund my money with “something for my trouble”. I chose instead to file a criminal complaint. It took 6 months to get my money back when he pled no contest, but at least he now has a criminal record and was put on probation.
What did Yahoo do? nothing. He stopped selling under the original screen name: the negative comments by me and others were hurting his sales. When he started selling under another name I informed Yahoo, with offers of documentation, but they did nothing.
Yahoo auctions are now gone, and this dealer now runs his own internet auctions on his own web site. I doubt his ethics have changed much, but now there is no one to check up on him.
Somewhat of a rambling answer, but the bottom line: a crook is a crook. Penalties should be severe, because the only way to stop this behavior is to drive the crooks out.
What Sami got was deserved. How much better off Sami would have been had he/she just took the deal for $130! Sami wouldn’t have been booted from Vcoins, the buyer would have been ecstatic, and Sami would have kept making money! Make the deal, write it off and learn from your mistakes. Greed does not pay off in the long haul. What comes around-goes around!
I think he should have had to sell the coin to Joseph at the price he won it at. People like Sami make it very hard for trusting people to want to go out there and buy. Very Sad!!!!
If I had walked into a brick and mortar, and picked it up and paid him $130 that would have been the end of it. No second chance. Would he get away with it at a Stacks auction? Any online auction house depends on people getting what they paid for at the price they paid. I don’t think vcoins had a choice. They booted Sami and in the process picked up a new buyer–ME. So ALL the honest dealers make out on the action.
If you are going to “Cherry Pick” on the Internet, keep your mouth shut (or hands off the keyboard) until you have the coin in your hand. All of this could have been avoided.
Also, see the “Cherry Picking” discussion a few months ago. Just because we are communicating on the Internet does not give us the right to throw good manners and human kindness out-the-window. Let’s not be rude by flaunting other people’s mistakes in their face.
Vcoin was right in tossing Sami. In my opinion, Joseph did not deserve the coin because of his lack of human relations skills (flaunting Sami’s mistake on a discussion board).
One doesn’t need to be a legal scholar to realize Joseph should have his coin at the price he originally paid. Sami’s actions are indefencable, and brings a good case for reinstating the tried and true practice of tar and feathering so to mark him as the crook he is for the rest of his life. It’s to bad there isn’t a way that people who pull stunts like this can’t be prevented from engaging in running a business at all. He obviously has no ethics and should not be allowed to be in a position that allows him to screw people over at will.
Although the exact words Joseph used to tell of his good fortune were not reveled, and there are many possible versions that could make him more or less culpable, it seems there may be at least a case to be made for his lack of tactfulness and timing, and it could very well be that he’s a big mouth braggart who needs to learn a few things about the broad reach of the Internet. But to say he doesn’t deserve what is rightfully his due to his indiscretion is a stretch.
Sami should have sold the coin at the auction price. It’s totally his fault for misattributing it. Furthermore, the actions he took following the auction exposed him publicly to be a liar. Now, in this industry, dishonesty is not something you want to be known for. In other words, this is what he valued his reputation at, and it seems like a very low price indeed.