Dealer Buy-Back Prices

[MarkFeld]

I skimmed over each post to the thread and did not see a single instance of bullying or a threat.

 

I did see where a poster said that if he had been the dealer in question, he would sue the OP. But seeing as how he isn't that dealer, that certainly wasn't a threat.

 

Based on your previous reply, I don't expect it, but I believe even more strongly than before, that you owe the forum members an apology.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Sorry, if it sounds harsh but this situation could have been avoided by only buying coins that the buyer can afford to keep. This doesn't seem to be the situation with the OP.

 

As for the dealer, I only buy occasionally from them and I am not a "preferred customer" with any of them. The reason I am not is because for the coins I collect, only a few carry anything I want to buy and only on occassion and for those I would like to buy the most, predominantly at stupid money prices which will leave the buyer hopelessly "buried".

 

I can see some dealers have a strong enough business to buyback coins on the terms specificed here, but I still wouldn't expect it. If meant literally, i also don't see that any dealer would buy back at 90% unless the current price was the same or higher versus the original one.

 

I think your assumption of the situation, via buying only what can afford to be kept, while maybe generally helpful advice, it is not relevant. Everybody and anybody can experience a life changing economic event.

 

The point of the Thread was and is fairness and equity in a transaction, and what constitutes a reasonable business/customer relationship expectation that both parties can see a road to future relationships.

 

Contrary to your experiences and assumptions of what a Dealer would do, I have encountered many persons over the years that would and did buy back @ 90%. In fact, I witnessed one such transaction this past Saturday at a Show. It was an EAC type transaction, and neither Party consulted a green, gray, blue yellow or purple sheet. The one fellow gave 95% back of the amount he had previously sold it for. Since I know both individuals, this was not a friend helping a friend issue or a questionable value issue or a market drop or gain issue. Then again, most of the EAC persons are a little nutty.....so maybe this was not a good example.

 

The continuing references that

[Walkerfan]

Thank You Walkerfan. I just wish more here felt the way you do, which is the truth.

 

I'm a U.S. Navy Retired Senior Chief who enjoys coins. Only 2% of the total military service ever achieves the level I have. But now with my Mom passing and the verbiage I've read here, I can not continue to be a part of this forum. Time to move on and make my way elsewhere. I most enjoy the history behind the coins. That's why I've been doing research for six years on the early classic commemorative coin series.

 

Thanks to all who have helped me along the way. Roger Burdette, Mark Feld, too many others to name. I cherish the time we've had together.

 

 

You are VERY welcome, Leeg. I've enjoyed having you here very much. Always appreciated your input. You have been here a long time----almost twice as long as me. I really hope that you stay. I would be VERY sad to see you go, as the result of the actions of an avaricious dealer and some empty threats by a few internet bullies. Please reconsider.

 

Please either point out the threats and Internet bullies you referenced or apologize to the posters of this thread.

 

Seriously? Don't make me laugh. I am not going to spell out the obvious.

 

Yes, I'm serious - I saw no bullying or threats and apparently, neither did another poster, who commented on the same subject. If it's so "obvious", it should be quick and easy for you to point out.

 

I don't have to explain myself to you nor am I turning this thread into a flame war.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I skimmed over each post to the thread and did not see a single instance of bullying or a threat.

 

I did see where a poster said that if he had been the dealer in question, he would sue the OP. But seeing as how he isn't that dealer, that certainly wasn't a threat.

 

Based on your previous reply, I don't expect it, but I believe even more strongly than before, that you owe the forum members an apology.

 

Normally I would concur. However ( I have decided to give "but" a rest for a little while), the Poster you referred to used the outing of the Dealer as the thrust of the reply Post, and indeed continued the soliloquy to a boring level. To a reasonable unaware of intent person, it could be interpreted as a little threatening. How the heck would Mr. Lee know Mr. Cal, and whether or not he had other reasons for even bringing up the lawsuit silliness. It seemed to be steeped in the adventures and unfortunate experience that Mr. Cal had.

 

I really did not detect anything directly threatening either, but I would be apt to interpret some of what was posted as indirect bullying. I sort of detected the same in 3 Posters, although I would like to think that was not their intent. We all get a little carried away sometimes.

 

As to Mr. Lee deciding to take a break, certain posting replies can cause such a reaction, when a person is grieving, and has a feeling he is being judged in the negative, and I note that he stated 3 times he was not outing the Dealer, and was encouraged, so to speak, by other Posters to do so. He capitulated, in an "among friends" manner. Right or wrong.........and I don't particularly detect a vicious intent by Mr.Lee in the outing, and note that he clarified his experience with the Dealer and his regard for the Dealer in a later Post.....it is not an outing of the nature that would require a Law School Class on the differences between Libel and Slander (of which the examples given were neither, as you are aware, Mark).

 

It has also been my experience that Senior Master Chiefs don't back down from anything, including Admirals and Generals, and have a heightened sense of fairness and equity and an expectation of comradeship, and all that word means, in their relationships with persons. The only time I saw a Senior Master Chief retreat, was because his child was very ill.

 

Mr. Lee shared an experience. He was interested in opinions from the Comradeship he has had on the Boards. In some ways, he was broadsided a little.

[MarkFeld]

Thank You Walkerfan. I just wish more here felt the way you do, which is the truth.

 

I'm a U.S. Navy Retired Senior Chief who enjoys coins. Only 2% of the total military service ever achieves the level I have. But now with my Mom passing and the verbiage I've read here, I can not continue to be a part of this forum. Time to move on and make my way elsewhere. I most enjoy the history behind the coins. That's why I've been doing research for six years on the early classic commemorative coin series.

 

Thanks to all who have helped me along the way. Roger Burdette, Mark Feld, too many others to name. I cherish the time we've had together.

 

 

You are VERY welcome, Leeg. I've enjoyed having you here very much. Always appreciated your input. You have been here a long time----almost twice as long as me. I really hope that you stay. I would be VERY sad to see you go, as the result of the actions of an avaricious dealer and some empty threats by a few internet bullies. Please reconsider.

 

Please either point out the threats and Internet bullies you referenced or apologize to the posters of this thread.

 

Seriously? Don't make me laugh. I am not going to spell out the obvious.

 

Yes, I'm serious - I saw no bullying or threats and apparently, neither did another poster, who commented on the same subject. If it's so "obvious", it should be quick and easy for you to point out.

 

I don't have to explain myself to you nor am I turning this thread into a flame war.

I didn't say that you did have to explain yourself - I requested it, knowing that you didn't have to do so.

 

And as far as flame wars, you are the one who said "..empty threats by a few internet bullies". Of course, you can't back that up, so you wont explain yourself.

[MarkFeld]

I skimmed over each post to the thread and did not see a single instance of bullying or a threat.

 

I did see where a poster said that if he had been the dealer in question, he would sue the OP. But seeing as how he isn't that dealer, that certainly wasn't a threat.

 

Based on your previous reply, I don't expect it, but I believe even more strongly than before, that you owe the forum members an apology.

 

Normally I would concur. However ( I have decided to give "but" a rest for a little while), the Poster you referred to used the outing of the Dealer as the thrust of the reply Post, and indeed continued the soliloquy to a boring level. To a reasonable unaware of intent person, it could be interpreted as a little threatening. How the heck would Mr. Lee know Mr. Cal, and whether or not he had other reasons for even bringing up the lawsuit silliness. It seemed to be steeped in the adventures and unfortunate experience that Mr. Cal had.

 

I really did not detect anything directly threatening either, but I would be apt to interpret some of what was posted as indirect bullying. I sort of detected the same in 3 Posters, although I would like to think that was not their intent. We all get a little carried away sometimes.

 

As to Mr. Lee deciding to take a break, certain posting replies can cause such a reaction, when a person is grieving, and has a feeling he is being judged in the negative, and I note that he stated 3 times he was not outing the Dealer, and was encouraged, so to speak, by other Posters to do so. He capitulated, in an "among friends" manner. Right or wrong.........and I don't particularly detect a vicious intent by Mr.Lee in the outing, and note that he clarified his experience with the Dealer and his regard for the Dealer in a later Post.....it is not an outing of the nature that would require a Law School Class on the differences between Libel and Slander (of which the examples given were neither, as you are aware, Mark).

 

It has also been my experience that Senior Master Chiefs don't back down from anything, including Admirals and Generals, and have a heightened sense of fairness and equity and an expectation of comradeship, and all that word means, in their relationships with persons. The only time I saw a Senior Master Chief retreat, was because his child was very ill.

 

Mr. Lee shared an experience. He was interested in opinions from the Comradeship he has had on the Boards. In some ways, he was broadsided a little.

 

John, I might agree with you, but for the comment "...empty threats by a few internet bullies". Even if one could reasonably interpret the poster about whom you wrote as having implied some type of vague threat, I saw no comments from other posters which might qualify as the same. And to me "a few" indicates a number greater than two.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I skimmed over each post to the thread and did not see a single instance of bullying or a threat.

 

I did see where a poster said that if he had been the dealer in question, he would sue the OP. But seeing as how he isn't that dealer, that certainly wasn't a threat.

 

Based on your previous reply, I don't expect it, but I believe even more strongly than before, that you owe the forum members an apology.

 

Normally I would concur. However ( I have decided to give "but" a rest for a little while), the Poster you referred to used the outing of the Dealer as the thrust of the reply Post, and indeed continued the soliloquy to a boring level. To a reasonable unaware of intent person, it could be interpreted as a little threatening. How the heck would Mr. Lee know Mr. Cal, and whether or not he had other reasons for even bringing up the lawsuit silliness. It seemed to be steeped in the adventures and unfortunate experience that Mr. Cal had.

 

I really did not detect anything directly threatening either, but I would be apt to interpret some of what was posted as indirect bullying. I sort of detected the same in 3 Posters, although I would like to think that was not their intent. We all get a little carried away sometimes.

 

As to Mr. Lee deciding to take a break, certain posting replies can cause such a reaction, when a person is grieving, and has a feeling he is being judged in the negative, and I note that he stated 3 times he was not outing the Dealer, and was encouraged, so to speak, by other Posters to do so. He capitulated, in an "among friends" manner. Right or wrong.........and I don't particularly detect a vicious intent by Mr.Lee in the outing, and note that he clarified his experience with the Dealer and his regard for the Dealer in a later Post.....it is not an outing of the nature that would require a Law School Class on the differences between Libel and Slander (of which the examples given were neither, as you are aware, Mark).

 

It has also been my experience that Senior Master Chiefs don't back down from anything, including Admirals and Generals, and have a heightened sense of fairness and equity and an expectation of comradeship, and all that word means, in their relationships with persons. The only time I saw a Senior Master Chief retreat, was because his child was very ill.

 

Mr. Lee shared an experience. He was interested in opinions from the Comradeship he has had on the Boards. In some ways, he was broadsided a little.

 

John, I might agree with you, but for the comment "...empty threats by a few internet bullies". Even if one could reasonably interpret the poster about whom you wrote as having implied some type of vague threat, I saw no comments from other posters which might qualify as the same. And to me "a few" indicates a number greater than two.

 

Yes, "...empty threats by a a few internet bullies..." would not have been the phrasing I would have used, but (SEE HOW I WAS ABLE TO SNEAK "BUT" IN THERE?) I think it was more along the lines of emphasizing a position in a personal experience manner. I hope the choice of words were not intended to be malicious or that there truly was an interpretation of actual threat. The internet bully thing, I get that. Not all choose phrase and word combinations that Mom would approve. It can still sting, though, when the timing is not the best for the receiver of the message. Even Senior Master Chiefs can capitulate in such a combination of circumstances. I am not offended by the Mr. Walker Post, and I believe both you and I have witnessed far worse. However, an apology for the choice of phraseology because of personal passion would not be an unreasonable request or response, and would add to the civility we all try to strive for on the Boards.

[MarkFeld]

I skimmed over each post to the thread and did not see a single instance of bullying or a threat.

 

I did see where a poster said that if he had been the dealer in question, he would sue the OP. But seeing as how he isn't that dealer, that certainly wasn't a threat.

 

Based on your previous reply, I don't expect it, but I believe even more strongly than before, that you owe the forum members an apology.

 

Normally I would concur. However ( I have decided to give "but" a rest for a little while), the Poster you referred to used the outing of the Dealer as the thrust of the reply Post, and indeed continued the soliloquy to a boring level. To a reasonable unaware of intent person, it could be interpreted as a little threatening. How the heck would Mr. Lee know Mr. Cal, and whether or not he had other reasons for even bringing up the lawsuit silliness. It seemed to be steeped in the adventures and unfortunate experience that Mr. Cal had.

 

I really did not detect anything directly threatening either, but I would be apt to interpret some of what was posted as indirect bullying. I sort of detected the same in 3 Posters, although I would like to think that was not their intent. We all get a little carried away sometimes.

 

As to Mr. Lee deciding to take a break, certain posting replies can cause such a reaction, when a person is grieving, and has a feeling he is being judged in the negative, and I note that he stated 3 times he was not outing the Dealer, and was encouraged, so to speak, by other Posters to do so. He capitulated, in an "among friends" manner. Right or wrong.........and I don't particularly detect a vicious intent by Mr.Lee in the outing, and note that he clarified his experience with the Dealer and his regard for the Dealer in a later Post.....it is not an outing of the nature that would require a Law School Class on the differences between Libel and Slander (of which the examples given were neither, as you are aware, Mark).

 

It has also been my experience that Senior Master Chiefs don't back down from anything, including Admirals and Generals, and have a heightened sense of fairness and equity and an expectation of comradeship, and all that word means, in their relationships with persons. The only time I saw a Senior Master Chief retreat, was because his child was very ill.

 

Mr. Lee shared an experience. He was interested in opinions from the Comradeship he has had on the Boards. In some ways, he was broadsided a little.

 

John, I might agree with you, but for the comment "...empty threats by a few internet bullies". Even if one could reasonably interpret the poster about whom you wrote as having implied some type of vague threat, I saw no comments from other posters which might qualify as the same. And to me "a few" indicates a number greater than two.

 

Yes, "...empty threats by a a few internet bullies..." would not have been the phrasing I would have used, but (SEE HOW I WAS ABLE TO SNEAK "BUT" IN THERE?) I think it was more along the lines of emphasizing a position in a personal experience manner. I hope the choice of words were not intended to be malicious or that there truly was an interpretation of actual threat. The internet bully thing, I get that. Not all choose phrase and word combinations that Mom would approve. It can still sting, though, when the timing is not the best for the receiver of the message. Even Senior Master Chiefs can capitulate in such a combination of circumstances. I am not offended by the Mr. Walker Post, and I believe both you and I have witnessed far worse. However, an apology for the choice of phraseology because of personal passion would not be an unreasonable request or response, and would add to the civility we all try to strive for on the Boards.

 

John, you set an excellent example for the pursuit of civility, even if/when you resort to "but" Thank you, as always.

[Walkerfan]

"You--- Please either point out the threats and Internet bullies you referenced or apologize to the posters of this thread.

 

ME---Seriously? Don't make me laugh. I am not going to spell out the obvious.

 

 

You--Yes, I'm serious - I saw no bullying or threats and apparently, neither did another poster, who commented on the same subject. If it's so "obvious", it should be quick and easy for you to point out.

 

Me--I don't have to explain myself to you nor am I turning this thread into a flame war.

 

You--I didn't say that you did have to explain yourself - I requested it, knowing that you didn't have to do so. And as far as flame wars, you are the one who said "..empty threats by a few internet bullies". Of course, you can't back that up, so you wont explain yourself. "

 

I was going to write a more respectful reply, until I saw this......You are so full of BS. You want to publicly call me out? I don't back down, either.

 

I skimmed over each post to the thread and did not see a single instance of bullying or a threat.

 

I did see where a poster said that if he had been the dealer in question, he would sue the OP. But seeing as how he isn't that dealer, that certainly wasn't a threat.

 

Based on your previous reply, I don't expect it, but I believe even more strongly than before, that you owe the forum members an apology.

 

Normally I would concur. However ( I have decided to give "but" a rest for a little while), the Poster you referred to used the outing of the Dealer as the thrust of the reply Post, and indeed continued the soliloquy to a boring level. To a reasonable unaware of intent person, it could be interpreted as a little threatening. How the heck would Mr. Lee know Mr. Cal, and whether or not he had other reasons for even bringing up the lawsuit silliness. It seemed to be steeped in the adventures and unfortunate experience that Mr. Cal had.

 

I really did not detect anything directly threatening either, but I would be apt to interpret some of what was posted as indirect bullying. I sort of detected the same in 3 Posters, although I would like to think that was not their intent. We all get a little carried away sometimes.

 

As to Mr. Lee deciding to take a break, certain posting replies can cause such a reaction, when a person is grieving, and has a feeling he is being judged in the negative, and I note that he stated 3 times he was not outing the Dealer, and was encouraged, so to speak, by other Posters to do so. He capitulated, in an "among friends" manner. Right or wrong.........and I don't particularly detect a vicious intent by Mr.Lee in the outing, and note that he clarified his experience with the Dealer and his regard for the Dealer in a later Post.....it is not an outing of the nature that would require a Law School Class on the differences between Libel and Slander (of which the examples given were neither, as you are aware, Mark).

 

It has also been my experience that Senior Master Chiefs don't back down from anything, including Admirals and Generals, and have a heightened sense of fairness and equity and an expectation of comradeship, and all that word means, in their relationships with persons. The only time I saw a Senior Master Chief retreat, was because his child was very ill.

 

Mr. Lee shared an experience. He was interested in opinions from the Comradeship he has had on the Boards. In some ways, he was broadsided a little.

 

It seems that some other forum members do agree. Nutmeg coin was smart and he saw what was going on, also.

 

The 'libel' comment was ridiculous and made by someone who doesn't even understand the definition of the word. What Leeg wrote was not libelous. He was sharing a business experience and had paperwork (proof) to back it up. That is no different than what Consumer Reports provides and is NOT illegal. It obviously intimidated and rattled Leeg. Leeg acted in good faith and has been a fantastic board member. He doesn't need to deal with this after his mother has just passed! This is my LAST post on the matter!

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

You--- Please either point out the threats and Internet bullies you referenced or apologize to the posters of this thread.

 

ME---Seriously? Don't make me laugh. I am not going to spell out the obvious.

 

 

You--Yes, I'm serious - I saw no bullying or threats and apparently, neither did another poster, who commented on the same subject. If it's so "obvious", it should be quick and easy for you to point out.

 

Me--I don't have to explain myself to you nor am I turning this thread into a flame war.

 

You--I didn't say that you did have to explain yourself - I requested it, knowing that you didn't have to do so.

 

And as far as flame wars, you are the one who said "..empty threats by a few internet bullies". Of course, you can't back that up, so you wont explain yourself. [

 

I was going to write a more respectful reply, until I saw this......You are so full of BS. You want to publicly call me out? I don't back down, either.

 

I skimmed over each post to the thread and did not see a single instance of bullying or a threat.

 

I did see where a poster said that if he had been the dealer in question, he would sue the OP. But seeing as how he isn't that dealer, that certainly wasn't a threat.

 

Based on your previous reply, I don't expect it, but I believe even more strongly than before, that you owe the forum members an apology.

 

Normally I would concur. However ( I have decided to give "but" a rest for a little while), the Poster you referred to used the outing of the Dealer as the thrust of the reply Post, and indeed continued the soliloquy to a boring level. To a reasonable unaware of intent person, it could be interpreted as a little threatening. How the heck would Mr. Lee know Mr. Cal, and whether or not he had other reasons for even bringing up the lawsuit silliness. It seemed to be steeped in the adventures and unfortunate experience that Mr. Cal had.

 

I really did not detect anything directly threatening either, but I would be apt to interpret some of what was posted as indirect bullying. I sort of detected the same in 3 Posters, although I would like to think that was not their intent. We all get a little carried away sometimes.

 

As to Mr. Lee deciding to take a break, certain posting replies can cause such a reaction, when a person is grieving, and has a feeling he is being judged in the negative, and I note that he stated 3 times he was not outing the Dealer, and was encouraged, so to speak, by other Posters to do so. He capitulated, in an "among friends" manner. Right or wrong.........and I don't particularly detect a vicious intent by Mr.Lee in the outing, and note that he clarified his experience with the Dealer and his regard for the Dealer in a later Post.....it is not an outing of the nature that would require a Law School Class on the differences between Libel and Slander (of which the examples given were neither, as you are aware, Mark).

 

It has also been my experience that Senior Master Chiefs don't back down from anything, including Admirals and Generals, and have a heightened sense of fairness and equity and an expectation of comradeship, and all that word means, in their relationships with persons. The only time I saw a Senior Master Chief retreat, was because his child was very ill.

 

Mr. Lee shared an experience. He was interested in opinions from the Comradeship he has had on the Boards. In some ways, he was broadsided a little.

 

It seems that some other forum members do agree. The 'libel' comment was ridiculous and made by someone who doesn't even understand the definition of the word. What Leeg wrote was not libelous. He was sharing a business experience and had paperwork (proof) to back it up. That is no different than what Consumer Reports provides and is NOT illegal. It obviously intimidated and rattled Leeg. Leeg acted in good faith and has been a fantastic board member. He doesn't need to deal with this after his mother has just passed! This is my LAST post on the matter!

 

 

 

No one accused Leeg of libel; his comments aren't even close.

[MarkFeld]

"You--- Please either point out the threats and Internet bullies you referenced or apologize to the posters of this thread.

 

ME---Seriously? Don't make me laugh. I am not going to spell out the obvious.

 

 

You--Yes, I'm serious - I saw no bullying or threats and apparently, neither did another poster, who commented on the same subject. If it's so "obvious", it should be quick and easy for you to point out.

 

Me--I don't have to explain myself to you nor am I turning this thread into a flame war.

 

You--I didn't say that you did have to explain yourself - I requested it, knowing that you didn't have to do so. And as far as flame wars, you are the one who said "..empty threats by a few internet bullies". Of course, you can't back that up, so you wont explain yourself. "

 

I was going to write a more respectful reply, until I saw this......You are so full of BS. You want to publicly call me out? I don't back down, either.

 

I skimmed over each post to the thread and did not see a single instance of bullying or a threat.

 

I did see where a poster said that if he had been the dealer in question, he would sue the OP. But seeing as how he isn't that dealer, that certainly wasn't a threat.

 

Based on your previous reply, I don't expect it, but I believe even more strongly than before, that you owe the forum members an apology.

 

Normally I would concur. However ( I have decided to give "but" a rest for a little while), the Poster you referred to used the outing of the Dealer as the thrust of the reply Post, and indeed continued the soliloquy to a boring level. To a reasonable unaware of intent person, it could be interpreted as a little threatening. How the heck would Mr. Lee know Mr. Cal, and whether or not he had other reasons for even bringing up the lawsuit silliness. It seemed to be steeped in the adventures and unfortunate experience that Mr. Cal had.

 

I really did not detect anything directly threatening either, but I would be apt to interpret some of what was posted as indirect bullying. I sort of detected the same in 3 Posters, although I would like to think that was not their intent. We all get a little carried away sometimes.

 

As to Mr. Lee deciding to take a break, certain posting replies can cause such a reaction, when a person is grieving, and has a feeling he is being judged in the negative, and I note that he stated 3 times he was not outing the Dealer, and was encouraged, so to speak, by other Posters to do so. He capitulated, in an "among friends" manner. Right or wrong.........and I don't particularly detect a vicious intent by Mr.Lee in the outing, and note that he clarified his experience with the Dealer and his regard for the Dealer in a later Post.....it is not an outing of the nature that would require a Law School Class on the differences between Libel and Slander (of which the examples given were neither, as you are aware, Mark).

 

It has also been my experience that Senior Master Chiefs don't back down from anything, including Admirals and Generals, and have a heightened sense of fairness and equity and an expectation of comradeship, and all that word means, in their relationships with persons. The only time I saw a Senior Master Chief retreat, was because his child was very ill.

 

Mr. Lee shared an experience. He was interested in opinions from the Comradeship he has had on the Boards. In some ways, he was broadsided a little.

 

It seems that some other forum members do agree. Nutmeg coin was smart and he saw what was going on, also.

 

The 'libel' comment was ridiculous and made by someone who doesn't even understand the definition of the word. What Leeg wrote was not libelous. He was sharing a business experience and had paperwork (proof) to back it up. That is no different than what Consumer Reports provides and is NOT illegal. It obviously intimidated and rattled Leeg. Leeg acted in good faith and has been a fantastic board member. He doesn't need to deal with this after his mother has just passed! This is my LAST post on the matter!!!

 

 

 

I'd love to know what I posted that was "BS", but I guess you won't be telling me, since you said you wont be posting to this thread again.

 

Again, I took issue with your comment "empty threats by a few internet bullies...", which, at its best, was an exaggeration.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

You--- Please either point out the threats and Internet bullies you referenced or apologize to the posters of this thread.

 

ME---Seriously? Don't make me laugh. I am not going to spell out the obvious.

 

 

You--Yes, I'm serious - I saw no bullying or threats and apparently, neither did another poster, who commented on the same subject. If it's so "obvious", it should be quick and easy for you to point out.

 

Me--I don't have to explain myself to you nor am I turning this thread into a flame war.

 

You--I didn't say that you did have to explain yourself - I requested it, knowing that you didn't have to do so.

 

And as far as flame wars, you are the one who said "..empty threats by a few internet bullies". Of course, you can't back that up, so you wont explain yourself. [

 

I was going to write a more respectful reply, until I saw this......You are so full of BS. You want to publicly call me out? I don't back down, either.

 

I skimmed over each post to the thread and did not see a single instance of bullying or a threat.

 

I did see where a poster said that if he had been the dealer in question, he would sue the OP. But seeing as how he isn't that dealer, that certainly wasn't a threat.

 

Based on your previous reply, I don't expect it, but I believe even more strongly than before, that you owe the forum members an apology.

 

Normally I would concur. However ( I have decided to give "but" a rest for a little while), the Poster you referred to used the outing of the Dealer as the thrust of the reply Post, and indeed continued the soliloquy to a boring level. To a reasonable unaware of intent person, it could be interpreted as a little threatening. How the heck would Mr. Lee know Mr. Cal, and whether or not he had other reasons for even bringing up the lawsuit silliness. It seemed to be steeped in the adventures and unfortunate experience that Mr. Cal had.

 

I really did not detect anything directly threatening either, but I would be apt to interpret some of what was posted as indirect bullying. I sort of detected the same in 3 Posters, although I would like to think that was not their intent. We all get a little carried away sometimes.

 

As to Mr. Lee deciding to take a break, certain posting replies can cause such a reaction, when a person is grieving, and has a feeling he is being judged in the negative, and I note that he stated 3 times he was not outing the Dealer, and was encouraged, so to speak, by other Posters to do so. He capitulated, in an "among friends" manner. Right or wrong.........and I don't particularly detect a vicious intent by Mr.Lee in the outing, and note that he clarified his experience with the Dealer and his regard for the Dealer in a later Post.....it is not an outing of the nature that would require a Law School Class on the differences between Libel and Slander (of which the examples given were neither, as you are aware, Mark).

 

It has also been my experience that Senior Master Chiefs don't back down from anything, including Admirals and Generals, and have a heightened sense of fairness and equity and an expectation of comradeship, and all that word means, in their relationships with persons. The only time I saw a Senior Master Chief retreat, was because his child was very ill.

 

Mr. Lee shared an experience. He was interested in opinions from the Comradeship he has had on the Boards. In some ways, he was broadsided a little.

 

It seems that some other forum members do agree. The 'libel' comment was ridiculous and made by someone who doesn't even understand the definition of the word. What Leeg wrote was not libelous. He was sharing a business experience and had paperwork (proof) to back it up. That is no different than what Consumer Reports provides and is NOT illegal. It obviously intimidated and rattled Leeg. Leeg acted in good faith and has been a fantastic board member. He doesn't need to deal with this after his mother has just passed! This is my LAST post on the matter!

 

 

 

No one accused Leeg of libel; his comments aren't even close.

 

As clarification, and only to help, by using your Post as an example of how we all sometimes misinterpret what the intent of a Post is or what was posted, or miss the inference being made by a Post:

 

Mr. Cal clearly defined his position why he would sue if he were the Dealer, via his interpretation that this was a Case of Libel and that he or the Dealer or whomever would surely win with no effort. He opined as to why it was Libel and not Slander.

 

I suspect you missed these parts of the many Posts.

[Afterword]

Sorry for your loss, Leeg.

 

It is difficult for me to imagine you are quitting the forum because of anything said in this thread, but, regardless, you can always return at any time.

[coinman_23885]

Thanks for pointing that out John; I didn't see that part of the conversation. I thought it was someone reading other comments taken out of context (e.g. my criticism of a poster's encouragement to use review sites and my caution in being very careful into what is posted on those sites).

 

The OP's comments are not even close to being libelous IMO.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Thanks for pointing that out John; I didn't see that part of the conversation. I thought it was someone reading other comments taken out of context (e.g. my criticism of a poster's encouragement to use review sites and my caution in being very careful into what is posted on those sites).

 

The OP's comments are not even close to being libelous IMO.

 

You are very welcome, and I agree with your legal assessment. Thus my commentary to Mr. Mark that the situation is neither Libel nor Slander.

 

I am probably going to get sued for that.......

[coinman_23885]

I am probably going to get sued for that.......

 

 

Interestingly, I have noticed that message board posters here have become increasingly litigious in the last few months. I wonder what the cause of this is or whether it existed all along, and I wasn't paying attention.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I am probably going to get sued for that.......

 

 

Interestingly, I have noticed that message board posters here have become increasingly litigious in the last few months. I wonder what the cause of this is or whether it existed all along, and I wasn't paying attention.

 

I also had the same thought.

 

I came to the conclusion it was your fault, which would rightfully exonerate me of any responsibility of any nature for any thing/action/uttering/opinion/influence that could be construed as exerted, or intended to be in any manner, for the purpose of changing any thing/action/uttering/opinion/influence. (That should do it....taking it over to the Clerk now....).

[MJ]

Bizarre thread

 

I read zero bullying

 

Lee, I think this is a great time to take a break.

 

Mark

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Bizarre thread

 

I read zero bullying

 

Lee, I think this is a great time to take a break.

 

Mark

 

What is bizarre? I mean in the manner of difference from any other Thread.

 

Bullying is a matter of interpretation, and assumption of intent, and timing and individual vulnerability and is as vastly different as there are personalities.

 

I could state that it is bizarre to interpret the Thread as bizarre. That does no it make it so.

 

Bizarre is one of those words, that in the context you are using, is signalling individuals and participants as not meeting some predetermined state of reasonableness that you may have established for your own clarity and position and interpretation of what the norm is.

 

If all you determined from all that was written is that the Thread in entirety is bizarre and there was no bullying, and that the OP should take a break (because of the bizarre nature of the Thread?) then what is the point of commenting, other than to opine on superiority of self?

[MJ]

Bizarre thread

 

I read zero bullying

 

Lee, I think this is a great time to take a break.

 

Mark

 

What is bizarre? I mean in the manner of difference from any other Thread.

 

Bullying is a matter of interpretation, and assumption of intent, and timing and individual vulnerability and is as vastly different as there are personalities.

 

I could state that it is bizarre to interpret the Thread as bizarre. That does no it make it so.

 

Bizarre is one of those words, that in the context you are using, is signalling individuals and participants as not meeting some predetermined state of reasonableness that you may have established for your own clarity and position and interpretation of what the norm is.

 

If all you determined from all that was written is that the Thread in entirety is bizarre and there was no bullying, and that the OP should take a break (because of the bizarre nature of the Thread?) then what is the point of commenting, other than to opine on superiority of self?

 

Man I hate debating you

 

1) Bizarre as in even more so then other threads. Open for interpretation

 

2) I detected no bullying. My opinion.

 

3) As for Lee taking time off----- I've sensed he hasn't been himself for awhile. Taking a break can be good for the soul.

 

Mark

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Bizarre thread

 

I read zero bullying

 

Lee, I think this is a great time to take a break.

 

Mark

 

What is bizarre? I mean in the manner of difference from any other Thread.

 

Bullying is a matter of interpretation, and assumption of intent, and timing and individual vulnerability and is as vastly different as there are personalities.

 

I could state that it is bizarre to interpret the Thread as bizarre. That does no it make it so.

 

Bizarre is one of those words, that in the context you are using, is signalling individuals and participants as not meeting some predetermined state of reasonableness that you may have established for your own clarity and position and interpretation of what the norm is.

 

If all you determined from all that was written is that the Thread in entirety is bizarre and there was no bullying, and that the OP should take a break (because of the bizarre nature of the Thread?) then what is the point of commenting, other than to opine on superiority of self?

 

Man I hate debating you

 

1) Bizarre as in even more so then other threads. Open for interpretation

 

2) I detected no bullying. My opinion.

 

3) As for Lee taking time off----- I've sensed he hasn't been himself for awhile. Taking a break can be good for the soul.

 

Mark

 

No debate was intended. I saw an opportunity to illustrate how things can be misinterpreted. I was sincere in my question of bizarre. I agree that bizarre is open to interpretation, and can easily be misinterpreted. Not exactly a choice I would make, but I think I already demonstrated why.

 

Your opinion is as valid as anyone that voices an opinion.

 

Mr. Lee has made a determination. It is just unfortunate that the determination was a result of replies that were not quite phrased in a manner that Mr. Lee could interpret as well meaning.

 

Please don't take offense.

[Calamerica]

Thanks for pointing that out John; I didn't see that part of the conversation. I thought it was someone reading other comments taken out of context (e.g. my criticism of a poster's encouragement to use review sites and my caution in being very careful into what is posted on those sites).

 

The OP's comments are not even close to being libelous IMO.

 

This kind of thinking is EXACTLY why the USA has so many "lawsuits"; no one understands a Tort from a Tart.

 

The OP libeled that Dealer in a most disparaging way, despite the too-late apology from LeeG.

 

I should have known that there are some here that can't or REFUSE to see that here. I feel right at home back on the Comics side; those guys/gals can't get a headway of reason if you waterboarded it into most of them...

 

And very few even understand that there was no prior agreement BETWEEN LEEG AND THAT DEALER, who should have not been named.

 

We have "calling-out" by LeeG, and many agreeing with him. Government Socialist mentality. Hey, the Big Shot Dealer can afford to GIVE LeeG money for this supposedly "overpaid for" copper. But LeeG helped shovel dirt on his grave here with his " The coin was the higher variety/special variety" and I looked up several price guide/ranges and he did NOT overpay for that coin. And the fact that the Dealer gave him 76% of the transaction, ORIGINAL PRICE PAID is deemed irrelevant. Only the Looters in Baltimore think that " hey, this so-and-so" I am now taking for centuries of unjustness is my ticket to steal/loot/throw rocks at the Police".

 

I don't know who Mark Feld is, but LeeG said he was one that was "supportive" of his cause, and now Mark Feld has taken his rightful stand, and is also being "called-out" by Walker, who was the poster with his "empty threats from Internet bullies".

 

These Forums are black & white, folks. Nutmeg Coin and his Ms. Sterber case, the three pages of the nine paged brief state LIBEL and not Slander as the case, but hey, Nutmeg is trying to beat me in the head with the syntax/interpretation. At any rate, that man who disparaged Ms. Sterber will lose his case once jurisdiction is settled.

 

I could go on and on, but this thread, as I said earlier, is ugly, and will get uglier.

 

This Thread was also temporarily removed, but put back when I was at work yesterday. Next time the Mods will vaporize it.

 

CAL who should have known better to speak out about unjust treatment of a Seller...

[World Colonial]

I think your assumption of the situation, via buying only what can afford to be kept, while maybe generally helpful advice, it is not relevant. Everybody and anybody can experience a life changing economic event.

 

The point of the Thread was and is fairness and equity in a transaction, and what constitutes a reasonable business/customer relationship expectation that both parties can see a road to future relationships.

 

Contrary to your experiences and assumptions of what a Dealer would do, I have encountered many persons over the years that would and did buy back @ 90%. In fact, I witnessed one such transaction this past Saturday at a Show. It was an EAC type transaction, and neither Party consulted a green, gray, blue yellow or purple sheet. The one fellow gave 95% back of the amount he had previously sold it for. Since I know both individuals, this was not a friend helping a friend issue or a questionable value issue or a market drop or gain issue. Then again, most of the EAC persons are a little nutty.....so maybe this was not a good example.

 

The continuing references that

 

Yes, since my comment is "after the fact", I agree it is a form of "Monday morning quarterbacking.

 

I am also aware that life can change unexpectedly and I didn't elaborate because I don't want to appear insensitive but let me explain even though I presume you understand my point.

 

There is a difference between having the money to buy the coin and the financial stability to keep what you own. I believe that collectors (and people in general) who appear to be conservative financially are aware of the first one but very often not the second. I would say that many are overly optimistic about how unstable life can actually be and specifically, how it will affect them.

 

This is what I believe might have happened in this particular case. Let's face it, spending $2,000 for a coin is more than most collectors ever spend. It is relatively "low" by the standards of the current (and in my opinion, frequently utterly absurd) US price level but more than probably 99% of all US collectors have or ever will spend on a single coin in their entire life in 2015 money.

 

I am able to buy coins at this price level if I chose to do so. I do not even though I believe under most circumstances (certainly all the conventional ones held by practically evreyone on this board) the (supposed) probability is low that I will become a forced seller.

 

I don't do it because I consider it financially imprudent and I don't see that most coins, whether those I collect or those bought by others here, have particularly favorable "investment" prospects either.

 

As for dealer practices, I didn't say 90% buybacks do not ever happen. What I was trying to say is that absent prior experience or a pre-arranged agreement, it isn't something I would assume, especially in a distress sale which is exaclty what was described here.

[Calamerica]

Thanks all for your input on this.

 

 

 

The truth is that I got a phone call about the coin with an offer of $1,400. I told the customer service person that my mother had passed away and that I needed $1,589 to cover the cremation expenses so I could bring my Mother back home.

 

The customer service person talked to this coin dealer and the best he could do was $1,450.

 

Of course I had to accept the offer because I am not a rich man and the priority was to bring my mother home.

 

I probably might have over paid for the coin but it is the rarer variety and a very tough series to find nice and I did not expect to sell it so soon.

Life goes on.

 

 

This is why I believe 100% that the price LeeG paid for that coin is irrelevant;

[Calamerica]

I think your assumption of the situation, via buying only what can afford to be kept, while maybe generally helpful advice, it is not relevant. Everybody and anybody can experience a life changing economic event.

 

The point of the Thread was and is fairness and equity in a transaction, and what constitutes a reasonable business/customer relationship expectation that both parties can see a road to future relationships.

 

Contrary to your experiences and assumptions of what a Dealer would do, I have encountered many persons over the years that would and did buy back @ 90%. In fact, I witnessed one such transaction this past Saturday at a Show. It was an EAC type transaction, and neither Party consulted a green, gray, blue yellow or purple sheet. The one fellow gave 95% back of the amount he had previously sold it for. Since I know both individuals, this was not a friend helping a friend issue or a questionable value issue or a market drop or gain issue. Then again, most of the EAC persons are a little nutty.....so maybe this was not a good example.

 

The continuing references that

 

Yes, since my comment is "after the fact", I agree it is a form of "Monday morning quarterbacking.

 

I am also aware that life can change unexpectedly and I didn't elaborate because I don't want to appear insensitive but let me explain even though I presume you understand my point.

 

There is a difference between having the money to buy the coin and the financial stability to keep what you own. I believe that collectors (and people in general) who appear to be conservative financially are aware of the first one but very often not the second. I would say that many are overly optimistic about how unstable life can actually be and specifically, how it will affect them.

 

This is what I believe might have happened in this particular case. Let's face it, spending $2,000 for a coin is more than most collectors ever spend. It is relatively "low" by the standards of the current (and in my opinion, frequently utterly absurd) US price level but more than probably 99% of all US collectors have or ever will spend on a single coin in their entire life in 2015 money.

 

I am able to buy coins at this price level if I chose to do so. I do not even though I believe under most circumstances (certainly all the conventional ones held by practically evreyone on this board) the (supposed) probability is low that I will become a forced seller.

 

I don't do it because I consider it financially imprudent and I don't see that most coins, whether those I collect or those bought by others here, have particularly favorable "investment" prospects either.

 

As for dealer practices, I didn't say 90% buybacks do not ever happen. What I was trying to say is that absent prior experience or a pre-arranged agreement, it isn't something I would assume, especially in a distress sale which is exaclty what was described here.

 

A great post! Another voice of reason!

 

CAL who sees light at the end of the tunnel...

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Thanks for pointing that out John; I didn't see that part of the conversation. I thought it was someone reading other comments taken out of context (e.g. my criticism of a poster's encouragement to use review sites and my caution in being very careful into what is posted on those sites).

 

The OP's comments are not even close to being libelous IMO.

 

This kind of thinking is EXACTLY why the USA has so many "lawsuits"; no one understands a Tort from a Tart.

 

The OP libeled that Dealer in a most disparaging way, despite the too-late apology from LeeG.

 

I should have known that there are some here that can't or REFUSE to see that here. I feel right at home back on the Comics side; those guys/gals can't get a headway of reason if you waterboarded it into most of them...

 

And very few even understand that there was no prior agreement BETWEEN LEEG AND THAT DEALER, who should have not been named.

 

We have "calling-out" by LeeG, and many agreeing with him. Government Socialist mentality. Hey, the Big Shot Dealer can afford to GIVE LeeG money for this supposedly "overpaid for" copper. But LeeG helped shovel dirt on his grave here with his " The coin was the higher variety/special variety" and I looked up several price guide/ranges and he did NOT overpay for that coin. And the fact that the Dealer gave him 76% of the transaction, ORIGINAL PRICE PAID is deemed irrelevant. Only the Looters in Baltimore think that " hey, this so-and-so" I am now taking for centuries of unjustness is my ticket to steal/loot/throw rocks at the Police".

 

I don't know who Mark Feld is, but LeeG said he was one that was "supportive" of his cause, and now Mark Feld has taken his rightful stand, and is also being "called-out" by Walker, who was the poster with his "empty threats from Internet bullies".

 

These Forums are black & white, folks. Nutmeg Coin and his Ms. Sterber case, the three pages of the nine paged brief state LIBEL and not Slander as the case, but hey, Nutmeg is trying to beat me in the head with the syntax/interpretation. At any rate, that man who disparaged Ms. Sterber will lose his case once jurisdiction is settled.

 

I could go on and on, but this thread, as I said earlier, is ugly, and will get uglier.

 

This Thread was also temporarily removed, but put back when I was at work yesterday. Next time the Mods will vaporize it.

 

CAL who should have known better to speak out about unjust treatment of a Seller...

 

Don't be silly.

 

Be nice.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I think your assumption of the situation, via buying only what can afford to be kept, while maybe generally helpful advice, it is not relevant. Everybody and anybody can experience a life changing economic event.

 

The point of the Thread was and is fairness and equity in a transaction, and what constitutes a reasonable business/customer relationship expectation that both parties can see a road to future relationships.

 

Contrary to your experiences and assumptions of what a Dealer would do, I have encountered many persons over the years that would and did buy back @ 90%. In fact, I witnessed one such transaction this past Saturday at a Show. It was an EAC type transaction, and neither Party consulted a green, gray, blue yellow or purple sheet. The one fellow gave 95% back of the amount he had previously sold it for. Since I know both individuals, this was not a friend helping a friend issue or a questionable value issue or a market drop or gain issue. Then again, most of the EAC persons are a little nutty.....so maybe this was not a good example.

 

The continuing references that

 

Yes, since my comment is "after the fact", I agree it is a form of "Monday morning quarterbacking.

 

I am also aware that life can change unexpectedly and I didn't elaborate because I don't want to appear insensitive but let me explain even though I presume you understand my point.

 

There is a difference between having the money to buy the coin and the financial stability to keep what you own. I believe that collectors (and people in general) who appear to be conservative financially are aware of the first one but very often not the second. I would say that many are overly optimistic about how unstable life can actually be and specifically, how it will affect them.

 

This is what I believe might have happened in this particular case. Let's face it, spending $2,000 for a coin is more than most collectors ever spend. It is relatively "low" by the standards of the current (and in my opinion, frequently utterly absurd) US price level but more than probably 99% of all US collectors have or ever will spend on a single coin in their entire life in 2015 money.

 

I am able to buy coins at this price level if I chose to do so. I do not even though I believe under most circumstances (certainly all the conventional ones held by practically evreyone on this board) the (supposed) probability is low that I will become a forced seller.

 

I don't do it because I consider it financially imprudent and I don't see that most coins, whether those I collect or those bought by others here, have particularly favorable "investment" prospects either.

 

As for dealer practices, I didn't say 90% buybacks do not ever happen. What I was trying to say is that absent prior experience or a pre-arranged agreement, it isn't something I would assume, especially in a distress sale which is exaclty what was described here.

 

Thank you for your clarification. It is helpful to the discussion, and is not subject to interpretation as disparaging commentary.

[Calamerica]

Thanks for pointing that out John; I didn't see that part of the conversation. I thought it was someone reading other comments taken out of context (e.g. my criticism of a poster's encouragement to use review sites and my caution in being very careful into what is posted on those sites).

 

The OP's comments are not even close to being libelous IMO.

 

This kind of thinking is EXACTLY why the USA has so many "lawsuits"; no one understands a Tort from a Tart.

 

The OP libeled that Dealer in a most disparaging way, despite the too-late apology from LeeG.

 

I should have known that there are some here that can't or REFUSE to see that here. I feel right at home back on the Comics side; those guys/gals can't get a headway of reason if you waterboarded it into most of them...

 

And very few even understand that there was no prior agreement BETWEEN LEEG AND THAT DEALER, who should have not been named.

 

We have "calling-out" by LeeG, and many agreeing with him. Government Socialist mentality. Hey, the Big Shot Dealer can afford to GIVE LeeG money for this supposedly "overpaid for" copper. But LeeG helped shovel dirt on his grave here with his " The coin was the higher variety/special variety" and I looked up several price guide/ranges and he did NOT overpay for that coin. And the fact that the Dealer gave him 76% of the transaction, ORIGINAL PRICE PAID is deemed irrelevant. Only the Looters in Baltimore think that " hey, this so-and-so" I am now taking for centuries of unjustness is my ticket to steal/loot/throw rocks at the Police".

 

I don't know who Mark Feld is, but LeeG said he was one that was "supportive" of his cause, and now Mark Feld has taken his rightful stand, and is also being "called-out" by Walker, who was the poster with his "empty threats from Internet bullies".

 

These Forums are black & white, folks. Nutmeg Coin and his Ms. Sterber case, the three pages of the nine paged brief state LIBEL and not Slander as the case, but hey, Nutmeg is trying to beat me in the head with the syntax/interpretation. At any rate, that man who disparaged Ms. Sterber will lose his case once jurisdiction is settled.

 

I could go on and on, but this thread, as I said earlier, is ugly, and will get uglier.

 

This Thread was also temporarily removed, but put back when I was at work yesterday. Next time the Mods will vaporize it.

 

CAL who should have known better to speak out about unjust treatment of a Seller...

 

Don't be silly.

 

Be nice.

 

Silly? I am as serious as a heart attack.

 

Be nice? To whom? Hard to be nice when the world does not see things as they should be. And I am not the one getting hurt, the previously well-thought of Dealer got hurt, imo.

 

Disappointing to see the great Coinees slamming that Dealer over making that deal for 76% buyback instead of the 90%. LeeG was LUCKY the Dealer even gave him the time of day in his hour of need, and my father 's favorite saying is this:

 

NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED.

 

That is what upset me here about the LeeG vs. Dealer case.

 

I feel bad for LeeG's situation re: parent BUT

 

His lack of planning does NOT make it an emergency for that dealer.

 

This SHOULD end this case here, but my past experience knows that it will not. Maybe Walker, who says he does not back down, can at least explain what it is he is not backing down from.

 

Can't play nice when the other side throws a real punch in a slap fight.

 

CAL who tries to reason, but when that fails...

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Thanks all for your input on this.

 

 

 

The truth is that I got a phone call about the coin with an offer of $1,400. I told the customer service person that my mother had passed away and that I needed $1,589 to cover the cremation expenses so I could bring my Mother back home.

 

The customer service person talked to this coin dealer and the best he could do was $1,450.

 

Of course I had to accept the offer because I am not a rich man and the priority was to bring my mother home.

 

I probably might have over paid for the coin but it is the rarer variety and a very tough series to find nice and I did not expect to sell it so soon.

Life goes on.

 

 

This is why I believe 100% that the price LeeG paid for that coin is irrelevant;

 

Your agenda is noted.

 

Your expertise in the market value area may be subject to interpretation, though, as is your assumption of persons and their intent and knowledge. This is supported by your admitted lack of knowledge of Mark Feld.

 

My suggestion is that whenever you have the need or feel the overwhelming pressure to be discourteous and accusatory and superior in knowledge of numismatics and business and Law, call on me. I am glad to be a target, and help you get through things. That way, you don't have to shotgun silliness.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Thanks for pointing that out John; I didn't see that part of the conversation. I thought it was someone reading other comments taken out of context (e.g. my criticism of a poster's encouragement to use review sites and my caution in being very careful into what is posted on those sites).

 

The OP's comments are not even close to being libelous IMO.

 

This kind of thinking is EXACTLY why the USA has so many "lawsuits"; no one understands a Tort from a Tart.

 

The OP libeled that Dealer in a most disparaging way, despite the too-late apology from LeeG.

 

I should have known that there are some here that can't or REFUSE to see that here. I feel right at home back on the Comics side; those guys/gals can't get a headway of reason if you waterboarded it into most of them...

 

And very few even understand that there was no prior agreement BETWEEN LEEG AND THAT DEALER, who should have not been named.

 

We have "calling-out" by LeeG, and many agreeing with him. Government Socialist mentality. Hey, the Big Shot Dealer can afford to GIVE LeeG money for this supposedly "overpaid for" copper. But LeeG helped shovel dirt on his grave here with his " The coin was the higher variety/special variety" and I looked up several price guide/ranges and he did NOT overpay for that coin. And the fact that the Dealer gave him 76% of the transaction, ORIGINAL PRICE PAID is deemed irrelevant. Only the Looters in Baltimore think that " hey, this so-and-so" I am now taking for centuries of unjustness is my ticket to steal/loot/throw rocks at the Police".

 

I don't know who Mark Feld is, but LeeG said he was one that was "supportive" of his cause, and now Mark Feld has taken his rightful stand, and is also being "called-out" by Walker, who was the poster with his "empty threats from Internet bullies".

 

These Forums are black & white, folks. Nutmeg Coin and his Ms. Sterber case, the three pages of the nine paged brief state LIBEL and not Slander as the case, but hey, Nutmeg is trying to beat me in the head with the syntax/interpretation. At any rate, that man who disparaged Ms. Sterber will lose his case once jurisdiction is settled.

 

I could go on and on, but this thread, as I said earlier, is ugly, and will get uglier.

 

This Thread was also temporarily removed, but put back when I was at work yesterday. Next time the Mods will vaporize it.

 

CAL who should have known better to speak out about unjust treatment of a Seller...

 

Don't be silly.

 

Be nice.

 

Silly? I am as serious as a heart attack.

 

Be nice? To whom? Hard to be nice when the world does not see things as they should be. And I am not the one getting hurt, the previously well-thought of Dealer got hurt, imo.

 

Disappointing to see the great Coinees slamming that Dealer over making that deal for 76% buyback instead of the 90%. LeeG was LUCKY the Dealer even gave him the time of day in his hour of need, and my father 's favorite saying is this:

 

NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED.

 

That is what upset me here about the LeeG vs. Dealer case.

 

I feel bad for LeeG's situation re: parent BUT

 

His lack of planning does NOT make it an emergency for that dealer.

 

This SHOULD end this case here, but my past experience knows that it will not. Maybe Walker, who says he does not back down, can at least explain what it is he is not backing down from.

 

Can't play nice when the other side throws a real punch in a slap fight.

 

CAL who tries to reason, but when that fails...

 

Don't be silly. And, calm down. You are going to code out.

 

I know the world is against you, but just hang on. Focus on me, and leave all other names to the 4 winds.