Ethics question: Should we "out" misattributed coins where the current attribution favors the seller?

[John Conduitt]

1 hour ago, Rand said:

This topic raises a broader question about how dealers describe coins. Common issues include overgrading and assigning various degrees of rarity to rather common coins.

I recently discovered that a few of my best condition coins from top auction houses (e.g., choice extremely fine, almost FDC) were brushed. In all fairness, I did not notice this myself when handling them.

It is common for auctions to say something like, ‘Author XYZ only recorded three examples’. This may be true, but if the book was published 50+ years ago, the available numbers could be completely different now.

Also, a previous thread discussed what to do when a seller misses a true rarity. I do not think many collectors contact dealers about this.

I don’t think my brain even registers a grade in an auction listing. They’re pointless when you have a photo in front of you. Rarity is interesting in that it is in the eye of the beholder. If you distinguish dies, bust styles, legend spacing, exact letters, reverses with spear up or down or with a point, or just take all of that as one type, rarity can go from unique to very common for the same coin. An auction house is looking for a selling point so will of course go with the former. As a buyer you need to do your research as they are not wrong in saying that.

[Rand]

29 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

I don’t think my brain even registers a grade in an auction listing.

Mine does. Even though I have bought coins in the whole range of grades, I prefer well-preserved (ideally mint state) coins and would rather have a worn one than an 'improved' coin. Some problems, such as bent coins, can be difficult to appreciate from photos. I do put a degree of trust in the dealer's description as I hardly ever buy in person (I wish I did).

29 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

As a buyer you need to do your research as they are not wrong in saying that.

This is what I do, learning from my mistakes. It does not mean misleading rarity attribution should be encouraged. Even though any coin description could be narrowed down to make it very rare, the rarity is typically assumed to refer to the type rather than variety or die pair (unless specified). Rarity assigment can be subjective, but is not uselless - helping collecters to spot uncommon types, especially if there are similar common once.

Edited March 27 by Rand

[idesofmarch01]

What if someone started a topic titled:

"I think I've discovered a misattributed coin in an auction.  Here's my research and logic."

Would anyone seriously object to such a thread?  Probably not.  The above title itself implies that the author: (1) is not accusing the auction house of bad faith or incompetence; (2) has researched the issue and is ready to present supporting facts and logic; and (3) allows for the possibility that he/she could be wrong about the his/her conclusion.

I think the issue in this topic comes from the use of the phrase "... "out" misattributed coins..." which seems to imply that the auction house is absolutely wrong, and there is no room for possible disagreement on the facts and logic.  But reasonable people can, in good faith, disagree on facts and conclusions.  Why not just present the facts dispassionately and objectively, and let others draw their own conclusions?

 

[kirispupis]

10 minutes ago, idesofmarch01 said:

What if someone started a topic titled:

"I think I've discovered a misattributed coin in an auction.  Here's my research and logic."

Would anyone seriously object to such a thread?  Probably not.  The above title itself implies that the author: (1) is not accusing the auction house of bad faith or incompetence; (2) has researched the issue and is ready to present supporting facts and logic; and (3) allows for the possibility that he/she could be wrong about the his/her conclusion.

I think the issue in this topic comes from the use of the phrase "... "out" misattributed coins..." which seems to imply that the auction house is absolutely wrong, and there is no room for possible disagreement on the facts and logic.  But reasonable people can, in good faith, disagree on facts and conclusions.  Why not just present the facts dispassionately and objectively, and let others draw their own conclusions?

 

Fair enough. I'm of the opinion that the auction house is incorrect here, but recognize that others may not agree (though no one else has yet disagreed since the specific coin was mentioned).

I initially hesitated at mentioning the exact coin because it's not very nice to post a live listing IMHO. I must admit that when I learned a coin I bought was discussed on a German ancients forum before it sold, I was a bit pissed. That discussion may have cost me more. Thus why I initially asked before the exact coin was added.

If others do not like the progression or tone of this thread, I have no issues with admins removing it.

[John Conduitt]

10 hours ago, Rand said:

This is what I do, learning from my mistakes. It does not mean misleading rarity attribution should be encouraged. Even though any coin description could be narrowed down to make it very rare, the rarity is typically assumed to refer to the type rather than variety or die pair (unless specified). Rarity assigment can be subjective, but is not uselless - helping collecters to spot uncommon types, especially if there are similar common once.

You can find such differences between entries in RIC - sometimes a slightly different bust style gets a new reference number, where you need one of each in front of you to even tell the difference e.g. Maximian ‘larger bust’ from Londinium; while sometimes the same number covers busts wearing a helmet or not with a spear or shield or not, facing left or right or seen from the front or behind e.g. several coins of Constantine I or Probus. I can’t remember which emperor it was but I was looking at some solidi the other day which RIC separated based on style but were so similar they couldn’t even provide a single difference in the written description. One of those is of course rarer than the other. So even establishing what a type is (and therefore rarity) can be very subjective.

Edited March 28 by John Conduitt

[Rand]

I agree with all this. My first post was about assigning high rarity status to coins that are not rare. It reads to me that collecting coins is not for dummies, and one must become an expert collector before buying them. This would be like only mechanics should buy a car, and it is ok for a seller to describe them the way they want - description is subjective anyway. Personally, I respect dealers describing coins accurately and going into a variety of details, if relevant.

[John Conduitt]

2 hours ago, Rand said:

I agree with all this. My first post was about assigning high rarity status to coins that are not rare. It reads to me that collecting coins is not for dummies, and one must become an expert collector before buying them. This would be like only mechanics should buy a car, and it is ok for a seller to describe them the way they want - description is subjective anyway. Personally, I respect dealers describing coins accurately and going into a variety of details, if relevant.

I don't know that you have to be an expert. But as with a car, you should learn that this model has a 1.4 litre engine and this one 1.6, and another was a limited edition with a turbo and ceramic brakes. Even though they all look the same, you should know how those aspects affect the price and whether you want to pay more for them. I'm not saying a dealer can misrepresent a coin, but they can say 'extremely rare variety' for a small difference on a common coin and it is up to the buyer to know why that makes it rare and whether it is worth paying for.

[Rand]

2 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

another was a limited edition with a turbo and ceramic brakes

Haha. This a very good point. I certainly not a mechanic and not into cars and feel that I keep buying not the best tires and breaks - whatever service advises. I shall perhaps spend less time reading about coins and more about tires.