ICCS MS 64 Dollar

I agree that Coin Cabinet is a pretty good operation. I have dealt with them a number of times and have generally been pleased with my purchases. I'm not saying they are very much at fault, but they do have a duty to accurately describe the coins they sell. They are a bit guilty of a lie by omission here.

Say you were a newbie buyer who had never seen an ICCS certificate with the words "Harshly Cleaned" on it. How could you know that that's what this specific certificate says based on the few out of focus letters of text that are visible ("Harsh.....ned". If coin cabinet had stated simply "The ICCS certificate says 'Harshly Cleaned'" OR showed a full picture of the certificate, I would have no problem with them listing this coin at any asking price with best offer.

Although it's not a requirement on ebay.ca, it is worth noting that listing a TPG coin on ebay.com requires a full shot of both sides of the certified holder. That way all problems and text on the holder are fully visible and not hidden or cropped from view.

I too prefer to take my chances with ICCS, probably 'cause I like the holders, I'm still learning lots about grading and overall they are doing a much better job than I can.

Lets bash PCGS for a bit....there are lots of coins slabbed in this type of holder that I could fill a few holes with, but sellers are asking the same prices for these overgraded coins as a similar graded ICCS. Take it out of a PCGS slab and ICCS downgrades it. Repeat over and over.

So I avoid anything graded PCGS unless crossgraded or super cheap.

CCCS has nice looking slabs though... :)

Has anyone ever considered the possibility that the grade was a typo, and this was not intentional? It happens with ICCS, and all the third party grading companies. I have seen a 1949 MS-65 dollar in a ICCS flip labelled 1948. I have seen a 1996 twoonie, in a 1936 ICCS flip. I have seen wrong denominations and spelling typos in the comments... It happens. Why not a typo in the grade?

So if it's a typo then it becomes a dealer just trying to get the best he can for a problem coin?

Interesting thread. First on dealer ethics (being one). I don't believe the ICCS coin in question and how it was listed was in any way unethical. There was nothing hidden or skewed about this listing. As mentioned here before the coin is clearly shown, described as cleaned, showed the holder and priced at trends with an offer option on it. Sure the "harshly" could have been emphasized in the listing but frankly form a point of value of a higher end collectible coin it's really irrelevant to what level it was cleaned. It's perplexing to me as to why anyone would jump on this listing as some sort of dealer fraud. You have many options before you buy a coin. Ask for pictures, ask questions, research, etc...All before you make a conscious decision to offer and/or purchase an item. On top of that most large dealers will have a no questions ask return policy. So what exactly is the issue here? On the topic of grading. The pros and cons of the way ICCS grades have been discussed here at nauseum. I deal with many ICCS coins, one of the very few complaints I may have is grading consistency with problem coins. Some are "commented" as was the case with this one and some just net graded. I would like to one day better understand ICCS' methodology in that area. This is a problem far less seen with PCGS and/or NGC grading methodology which achieves far more consistency. This coin would not be numerically graded by either NGC or PCGS. Secondly, the age old "myth" that ICCS is far stricter on coin grading Canadian coins (at least in today's grading world) is just that, a myth. I've posted many "at par" cross grades between US TPGs and ICCS on this forum and although it does happen (both ways), it certainly doesn't happen with any consistency. Last but not least, reading some of the comments, why is the assumption made that someone got ripped off? Do you really think a novice would by a $1500.00 coin? Maybe someone needed it for their "range" and money wasn't an issue. The fact is that only than the two WILLING parties making the deal know and making up assumptions about it is unfair.

I believe Sleezy was term used. My eyes may be failing me however I don't see the word fraud used anywhere other than from you.

"Last but not least, reading some of the comments, why is the assumption made that someone got ripped off?"

Are you trying to say this was a good deal?
Would you purchase this coin for your own collection at the sold price point?... Thank you.
It doesn't matter how we dissect this, there are no winners.

I've been following this and I can see both sides, but I tend to agree with TheCoinHunter. We don't know what communication went on between buyer & seller, perhaps better pictures were requested and delivered, and the buyer is perfectly happy. Also the discussions around "buyer will find out when they try to sell" discounts the possibility that this coin will sit in a collection for 30 years, being enjoyed, and then passed on to grandchildren who will have no knowledge of price paid, and by then collectors may have a different attitude towards cleaning, just as they had 40 years ago. I guess my point is that not everybody is in this to flip coins for profit.

The same seller currently has a PCGS MS63 BIN $900 US. It has an obvious rim dent, although relatively minor. Where do you draw the line with emphasizing flaws in your listing? Is the seller obligated to say "rim dent"?