Refunds on counterfeit and mis-attributed coins
1 1

74 posts in this topic

A dealer friend asked me to send in a large group of gold coins to NGC; one turned out to be a counterfeit, he bought it from a major show dealer who logs 10K miles a month on his car. The guy gave him his money back, no refund for the certification though. Is that the right thing to do? Also should counterfeits, especially gold coins be defaced so more people don't get bitten, as someone at Universal coin once told me they do. And what about mis-attributions? I bought a "1943/2" Jeff. nickel that the dealer mis-attributed. So ICG graded the coin AU58, but put a big red "Not 3/2" on the holder. They refunded me invoice fee, the $12 ICG fee and a few bucks shipping.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Refunding the money for a counterfeit coin, but not the cost of certification/grading, sounds fair to me. Why should a seller be obligated to pay for grading, unless that was part of the terms of sale?

 

I believe that an honorable dealer who sells a misattributed coin (at a price which corresponds to that misattribution) should refund the money in the event that it's determined the coin was misattributed. That said, I would not always automatically assume that the certification company was correct in their attribution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Refunding the money for a counterfeit coin, but not the cost of certification/grading, sounds fair to me. Why should a seller be obligated to pay for grading, unless that was part of the terms of sale?

 

I believe that an honorable dealer who sells a misattributed coin (at a price which corresponds to that misattribution) should refund the money in the event that it's determined the coin was misattributed. That said, I would not always automatically assume that the certification company was correct in their attribution.

 

I agree with this. I'll also add in regards to the counterfeit coin, the submitter is just as responsible for using his or her judgment in authenticating the coin as a dealer. I think a return for the purchase price and shipping (if applicable) is the appropriate remedy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who hold themselves out as professional. or expert. or other terms implying authority or knowledge, must be responsible for their decisions. The existence of authentication companies only makes that of greater importance since the professional coin seller ('dealer") has the option of obtaining an independent opinion on authenticity.

 

Refunding the cost of the coin is good and if the seller did not pay for authentication, and the coin was later found to be false, then the seller should also pay for the authentication opinion and postage. Title cannot be passed for a counterfeit.

 

As for destroying the counterfeit. That would be nice, but there are too many around for that to have any practical effect. If the Colorado Counterfeiter can keep making fakes, even after having some destroyed, it means neither hobby organizations nor law enforcement care about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this. I'll also add in regards to the counterfeit coin, the submitter is just as responsible for using his or her judgment in authenticating the coin as a dealer. I think a return for the purchase price and shipping (if applicable) is the appropriate remedy.

 

 

I disagree that the buyer is just as responsible for authenticating a coin. A smart investor would authenticate the coin her/himself however some investors seek dealers as experts. Experts must be held accountable in my opinion, and refund the money when they turn out to be wrong. As for the cost of certification and shipping I think that a reputable dealer would refund everything. Especially if the want the customer to come back!

Link to post
Share on other sites

When buying a coin from someone, one should be skeptical and question things on his or her own. It is obvious that the person selling you a coin has an inherent interest in the item and is not objective. I don't see any fiduciary duty owed to the collector, and the only obligation I think is owed is the return privilege, if any as agreed to prior to the transaction, or in this very limited set of circumstances, a refund when an item proves not to be genuine. The damages directly caused by the dealer would be the purchase price, and I don't think any compensation should exceed that amount.

 

For those claiming that authentication fees should be returned, what if the buyer was not convinced and submitted the coin multiple times? Would the dealer, under your theory, be required to pay all of the fees for each submission? Why is it that the entire burden is placed on the seller? Shouldn't buyers exercise some due diligence of their own? Caveat emptor!

 

P.S. Not every coin seller/dealer is an expert. Many of them sadly rely on labels and are just as inexperienced as the collectors they sell to (or at least it seems that way to me when I go to smaller coin shows and the last few times I went into a brick and mortar shop). Selling coins (being a "coin dealer") is not the same as holding oneself out as an expert on coin grading and authentication.

Edited by coinman_23885
Link to post
Share on other sites
... As for destroying the counterfeit. That would be nice, but there are too many around for that to have any practical effect. If the Colorado Counterfeiter can keep making fakes, even after having some destroyed, it means neither hobby organizations nor law enforcement care about it.

 

Who is this "Colorado counterfeiter" you speak of ?

What hobby organization are you talking about ?

What coins were destroyed ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a tough judgment on dealer responsibilities based on levels of quality control. If they sell counterfeit coins occasionally as good and gradable coins unintentionally knowing that they will end up at a grading company, it will hurt their reputation. How much economic loss is suffered by them aside from refunding the invoice fee? Buyers become more leery and cynical, word may get around. If they sold someone a large group of gold coins where a bunch of $2 1/2 Indians or other coins know for higher than average %s of counterfeits turn out to be fake, clearly they need to be more careful especially about their sources. Great coins come from carefully assembled collections, generally fakes come from pawn shops and gold buyers. How tough is it to identify counterfeits? They can't weigh every coin if they are doing large business. What are reasonable refunds? It should be worked out between buyer and seller, they both may have to adjust whether they will be doing much business in the future with one another. Refunding certification fees would create more good will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the Mark camp.

I don't think that most dealers are the experts that keep being stated here. I've seen plenty of shows that the dealers were far from the expert and the buyer was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this. I'll also add in regards to the counterfeit coin, the submitter is just as responsible for using his or her judgment in authenticating the coin as a dealer. I think a return for the purchase price and shipping (if applicable) is the appropriate remedy.

 

 

I disagree that the buyer is just as responsible for authenticating a coin. A smart investor would authenticate the coin her/himself however some investors seek dealers as experts. Experts must be held accountable in my opinion, and refund the money when they turn out to be wrong. As for the cost of certification and shipping I think that a reputable dealer would refund everything. Especially if the want the customer to come back!

 

I disagree that the buyer is not just as responsible.

 

Coins are bought and sold, in or out of a TPG/4PG Holder all the time. The basis of the transaction is opinion. The opinion may or may not be correct, by either party to the transaction. The pricing is, in part, established by the difference of opinion, and a level of faith borne of many reasons: trust in the person/entity, trust in the TPG/4PG, self trust in grading skills (an opinion), etc. But, absolute fact it is not.

 

Forget the investor part for a moment, because if the basis of the purchase was indeed simply investment, then any disagreement of any responsibility on the part of the buyer fails as a logical defense, absent fraud.

 

The transaction is based on opinion of the coin by the seller and the buyer. It is not fact. It is not guaranteed to be correct.

 

How is a Buyer or Seller an Opinion Expert? Both may have various knowledge levels via experience with coins or studying coins, but there is something not quite right about the lack of finite fact (or guaranty/guarantee) that is assumed by a person stating: It is my expert opinion...or in my opinion as an expert..., etc.

 

If a Seller states " I am stating as fact that this coin is what I say it is and I guarantee that is what it is and I will be responsible if it is not for all costs to you and will refund all your money", you may (may) have a case that the buyer is not responsible.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
... As for destroying the counterfeit. That would be nice, but there are too many around for that to have any practical effect. If the Colorado Counterfeiter can keep making fakes, even after having some destroyed, it means neither hobby organizations nor law enforcement care about it.

 

Who is this "Colorado counterfeiter" you speak of ?

What hobby organization are you talking about ?

What coins were destroyed ?

 

Why are you asking?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this. I'll also add in regards to the counterfeit coin, the submitter is just as responsible for using his or her judgment in authenticating the coin as a dealer. I think a return for the purchase price and shipping (if applicable) is the appropriate remedy.

 

 

I disagree that the buyer is just as responsible for authenticating a coin. A smart investor would authenticate the coin her/himself however some investors seek dealers as experts. Experts must be held accountable in my opinion, and refund the money when they turn out to be wrong. As for the cost of certification and shipping I think that a reputable dealer would refund everything. Especially if the want the customer to come back!

 

I disagree that the buyer is not just as responsible.

 

Coins are bought and sold, in or out of a TPG/4PG Holder all the time. The basis of the transaction is opinion. The opinion may or may not be correct, by either party to the transaction. The pricing is, in part, established by the difference of opinion, and a level of faith borne of many reasons: trust in the person/entity, trust in the TPG/4PG, self trust in grading skills (an opinion), etc. But, absolute fact it is not.

 

Forget the investor part for a moment, because if the basis of the purchase was indeed simply investment, then any disagreement of any responsibility on the part of the buyer fails as a logical defense, absent fraud.

 

The transaction is based on opinion of the coin by the seller and the buyer. It is not fact. It is not guaranteed to be correct.

 

How is a Buyer or Seller an Opinion Expert? Both may have various knowledge levels via experience with coins or studying coins, but there is something not quite right about the lack of finite fact (or guaranty/guarantee) that is assumed by a person stating: It is my expert opinion...or in my opinion as an expert..., etc.

 

If a Seller states " I am stating as fact that this coin is what I say it is and I guarantee that is what it is and I will be responsible if it is not for all costs to you and will refund all your money", you may (may) have a case that the buyer is not responsible.

 

 

+1

 

And dispute the way it is portrayed, the issue of authenticity is not always clear cut. There are very, very deceptive Trade Dollars, for instance that could cut either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
... As for destroying the counterfeit. That would be nice, but there are too many around for that to have any practical effect. If the Colorado Counterfeiter can keep making fakes, even after having some destroyed, it means neither hobby organizations nor law enforcement care about it.

 

Who is this "Colorado counterfeiter" you speak of ?

What hobby organization are you talking about ?

What coins were destroyed ?

 

It's probably the guy who found a loophole in the law and doesn't want to put the word "COPY" on his copies because he would lose business. Oh, that's right! It isn't a copy because he changed one digit on the date.

 

"MK DTHOID UI KXC M QDMIXK. UKICDMV, UC'I M WUD VQDIIDV OL CX IOUC CED XHHMIUXK."

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't weigh every coin if they are doing large business.

 

There's an easy way around this. Weigh the coins in aggregate.A bad coin or two or three should show up if coins are weighed in aggregate and then checked against specs for what they should weigh.

 

My troy weight set has capability to weigh seven double eagles in aggregate.

Fifty-six quarter eagles could be weighed at the same time.

 

It would be possible to identify one or more fakes being in an aggregate group of gold coin of the same denomination by doing careful weight measurement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They can't weigh every coin if they are doing large business.

 

There's an easy way around this. Weigh the coins in aggregate.A bad coin or two or three should show up if coins are weighed in aggregate and then checked against specs for what they should weigh.

 

My troy weight set has capability to weigh seven double eagles in aggregate.

Fifty-six quarter eagles could be weighed at the same time.

 

It would be possible to identify one or more fakes being in an aggregate group of gold coin of the same denomination by doing careful weight measurement.

 

Possible, but certainly not foolproof. Metal content/wt. can be mimicked and plated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be possible to identify one or more fakes being in an aggregate group of gold coin of the same denomination by doing careful weight measurement.

Assuming the weight of the fakes is off. A lot of fake gold is the right weight and fineness, think of the Middle East fakes of the 50's and 60's. With bullion gold the fakes are usually off weight, but you can't count on numismatic gold to be wrong.

 

 

A refund for the purchase price of the fake pretty much obligatory since you can't transfer good title. Refunded grading fees is a bit of a gray area. Probably they wouldn't HAVE to do that, but personally I would, for a single submittal attempt. You make multiple attempts to get it through the others are on you.

 

As for misattributions, why didn't the buyer confirm the attribution? Some has been said about the dealer being the "expert" and that by representing himself as such he should stand good for them if he is wrong. But in this hobby most everyone looks to the TPG's as the ultimate experts and until very recently PCGS wouldn't guarantee their attributions. NGC still doesn't guarantee theirs.

 

Personally once again I would guarantee my attributions, but I wouldn't automatically guarantee a TPG attribution unless I confirmed it. (In which case it would once again be MY attribution.)

 

As for defacing counterfeits, that is up to the dealer once he refunds you. If you expect a refund you need to return it in the same condition it was in when you got it. You deface it and then ask for a refund, sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
... As for destroying the counterfeit. That would be nice, but there are too many around for that to have any practical effect. If the Colorado Counterfeiter can keep making fakes, even after having some destroyed, it means neither hobby organizations nor law enforcement care about it.

 

Who is this "Colorado counterfeiter" you speak of ?

What hobby organization are you talking about ?

What coins were destroyed ?

 

Why are you asking?

 

On another forum RWB once wrote:

“I can muster all the hearsay, innuendo, assumption, gossip, rumor, allusion and insinuation you want to obfuscate the facts … and, I can do it at only $300 an hour, too!”

 

The pattern continues, apparently.

I believe I know who he is referencing in the above post, as well as which hobby organization. I have no idea what destroyed coins he is talking about.

 

"Counterfeiting" is a very serious charge to accuse someone of. If such false accusations were shown to damage the reputation of an individual or company, the person making those false charges could be liable for damages.

 

Let's see if RWB will clarify his statement.

 

Edited by dcarr
Link to post
Share on other sites
... As for destroying the counterfeit. That would be nice, but there are too many around for that to have any practical effect. If the Colorado Counterfeiter can keep making fakes, even after having some destroyed, it means neither hobby organizations nor law enforcement care about it.

 

Who is this "Colorado counterfeiter" you speak of ?

What hobby organization are you talking about ?

What coins were destroyed ?

 

It's probably the guy who found a loophole in the law and doesn't want to put the word "COPY" on his copies because he would lose business.

 

You sound like a communist. Any businessperson in a capitalist system would try to get and do as much business as possible.

 

As for the supposed "loophole" you mention, there doesn't seem to be any problem with "hobo" nickel carving, or the Smithsonian Institution endorsing and selling a modern re-make of an 1876 Union pattern coin that says "1876", "United States of America" and "One Hundred Dollars" on it (but nowhere does it say "COPY").

 

Oh, that's right! It isn't a copy because he changed one digit on the date.

 

You almost got that right. It isn't a copy because it is an altered (defaced) coin. And the alteration gives the coin an apparent date that was never issued for that type.

 

"MK DTHOID UI KXC M QDMIXK. UKICDMV, UC'I M WUD VQDIIDV OL CX IOUC CED XHHMIUXK."

 

?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
... As for destroying the counterfeit. That would be nice, but there are too many around for that to have any practical effect. If the Colorado Counterfeiter can keep making fakes, even after having some destroyed, it means neither hobby organizations nor law enforcement care about it.

 

Who is this "Colorado counterfeiter" you speak of ?

What hobby organization are you talking about ?

What coins were destroyed ?

 

Why are you asking?

 

On another forum RWB once wrote:

“I can muster all the hearsay, innuendo, assumption, gossip, rumor, allusion and insinuation you want to obfuscate the facts … and, I can do it at only $300 an hour, too!”

 

The pattern continues, apparently.

I believe I know who he is referencing in the above post, as well as which hobby organization. I have no idea what destroyed coins he is talking about.

 

"Counterfeiting" is a very serious charge to accuse someone of. If such false accusations were shown to damage the reputation of an individual or company, the person making those false charges could be liable for damages.

 

Let's see if RWB will clarify his statement.

 

Oh, I understand...that issue again. I recall going thru this a couple of months ago. I thought all that was pretty well worked over and nothing more worth wringing from the subject.

 

The damages thing, I seem to also recall something about that subject in the last couple of months being discussed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "loop-hole" in the counterfeiting laws. They are clear, and have been tested thousands of times. Obviously, there is a moral hole in the minds of counterfeiters and insufficient legal enforcement of the laws -- regardless of the source of fakes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no "loop-hole" in the counterfeiting laws. They are clear, and have been tested thousands of times. Obviously, there is a moral hole in the minds of counterfeiters and insufficient legal enforcement of the laws -- regardless of the source of fakes.

 

What about a clarification to your prior post ?

Who is this "Colorado counterfeiter" you speak of ?

What hobby organization are you talking about ?

What coins were destroyed ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
... As for destroying the counterfeit. That would be nice, but there are too many around for that to have any practical effect. If the Colorado Counterfeiter can keep making fakes, even after having some destroyed, it means neither hobby organizations nor law enforcement care about it.

 

Who is this "Colorado counterfeiter" you speak of ?

What hobby organization are you talking about ?

What coins were destroyed ?

 

It's probably the guy who found a loophole in the law and doesn't want to put the word "COPY" on his copies because he would lose business.

 

You sound like a communist. Any businessperson in a capitalist system would try to get and do as much business as possible.

 

"MK DTHOID UI KXC M QDMIXK. UKICDMV, UC'I M WUD VQDIIDV OL CX IOUC CED XHHMIUXK."

 

?

 

Go ahead! Call me whatever you want. I can take it. It's you who is taking offense. Maybe it is for good reason.

 

What? Does your sense of logic escape you? It figures!

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
... As for destroying the counterfeit. That would be nice, but there are too many around for that to have any practical effect. If the Colorado Counterfeiter can keep making fakes, even after having some destroyed, it means neither hobby organizations nor law enforcement care about it.

 

Who is this "Colorado counterfeiter" you speak of ?

What hobby organization are you talking about ?

What coins were destroyed ?

 

It's probably the guy who found a loophole in the law and doesn't want to put the word "COPY" on his copies because he would lose business.

 

You sound like a communist. Any businessperson in a capitalist system would try to get and do as much business as possible.

 

"MK DTHOID UI KXC M QDMIXK. UKICDMV, UC'I M WUD VQDIIDV OL CX IOUC CED XHHMIUXK."

 

?

 

Go ahead! Call me whatever you want. I can take it. It's you who is taking offense. Maybe it is for good reason.

 

What? Does your sense of logic escape you? It figures!

 

I don't see you accusing the Smithsonian Institution of being greedy and taking advantage of a "loophole" by endorsing and selling the 1876 Union coins that do NOT have "COPY" on them. And you have not made any similar accusations about our hosts certifying them. NGC and the Smithsonian both made more from the pieces than they would have if they had been marked "COPY". But I did notice that both times I've posted about them, you have apparently ignored it. Why is that ?

 

union_smithsonian_obv.jpg

union_smithsonian_rev.jpg

union_smithsonian_doc.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why talk about the Smithsonian or NGC when we have you lurking around? You seem to prefer demeaning other entities in order to take the pressure off yourself. Is there something "we should analyze" about you?

 

By the way, I don't believe that Roger mentioned anyone by name, so you must be feeling guilty about something. Perhaps you should discuss it with your "tech support".

 

One more thing! What was the question mark (?) about?

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why talk about the Smithsonian or NGC when we have you lurking around? You seem to prefer demeaning other entities in order to take the pressure off yourself. Is there something "we should analyze" about you?

 

By the way, I don't believe that Roger mentioned anyone by name, so you must be feeling guilty about something. Perhaps you should discuss it with your "tech support".

 

One more thing! What was the question mark (?) about?

 

Chris

 

Chris, if you don't have a problem with the Smithsonian and NGC, your criticisms do seem inconsistent. And if you do have a problem with them, you've kept it to yourself.

 

Personally, I do have a problem with them, as well as Mr. Carr's creations. And that 's whether they're deemed to be legal or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why talk about the Smithsonian or NGC when we have you lurking around? You seem to prefer demeaning other entities in order to take the pressure off yourself. Is there something "we should analyze" about you?

 

By the way, I don't believe that Roger mentioned anyone by name, so you must be feeling guilty about something. Perhaps you should discuss it with your "tech support".

 

One more thing! What was the question mark (?) about?

 

Chris

 

Chris, if you don't have a problem with the Smithsonian and NGC, your criticisms do seem inconsistent. And if you do have a problem with them, you've kept it to yourself.

 

Personally, I do have a problem with them, as well as Mr. Carr's creations. And that 's whether they're deemed to be legal or not.

 

Mark, whether I take issue with the Smithsonian, NGC or even ANACS for that matter is not the point. The fact is that Mr. Carr is the one who finds it necessary to use these platforms to justify his actions to protect his source of income. I do not care for his copies (or whatever term he chooses to call them) and whenever I happen to be participating on a forum where he has the audacity to use his invective to demean and discredit others who do not agree with him, like Michael Jackson said, "I'll Be There!"

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why talk about the Smithsonian or NGC when we have you lurking around? You seem to prefer demeaning other entities in order to take the pressure off yourself. Is there something "we should analyze" about you?

 

By the way, I don't believe that Roger mentioned anyone by name, so you must be feeling guilty about something. Perhaps you should discuss it with your "tech support".

 

One more thing! What was the question mark (?) about?

 

Chris

 

Chris, if you don't have a problem with the Smithsonian and NGC, your criticisms do seem inconsistent. And if you do have a problem with them, you've kept it to yourself.

 

Personally, I do have a problem with them, as well as Mr. Carr's creations. And that 's whether they're deemed to be legal or not.

 

I do not like the Smithsonian pieces either, but I think they are legally and materially distinguishable from Carr's work. The Smithsonian pieces were at least approved by and/or legitimated by a government body/organization whereas I do not believe that Carr's pieces are. His work effectively destroys the original coin and the new coin produced is no more genuine (in my opinion), than if I melted down 90% silver and produced my own 90% planchets and starting counterfeiting 1893-S Morgan Dollars and what not. (And to anticipate Mr. Carr's arguments - I do not see changing the date as legitimating the pieces in any way and as I have already discussed ad nauseam in another 30 page or so thread. The plain meaning of the language used in the relevant legal authorities speaks for itself).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why talk about the Smithsonian or NGC when we have you lurking around? You seem to prefer demeaning other entities in order to take the pressure off yourself. Is there something "we should analyze" about you?

 

By the way, I don't believe that Roger mentioned anyone by name, so you must be feeling guilty about something. Perhaps you should discuss it with your "tech support".

 

One more thing! What was the question mark (?) about?

 

I made no statements of judgment or opinion regarding the Smithsonian/NGC $100 Union. I only stated the facts that the thing looks just like a plausible original legal-tender coin, but isn't. And it doesn't have "COPY" on it.

 

What entities, other than perhaps you (my apologies), have I demeaned here ?

 

PS:

The question mark was in regards to the meaning (if any) of your code:

"MK DTHOID UI KXC M QDMIXK. UKICDMV, UC'I M WUD VQDIIDV OL CX IOUC CED XHHMIUXK."

Edited by dcarr
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why talk about the Smithsonian or NGC when we have you lurking around? You seem to prefer demeaning other entities in order to take the pressure off yourself. Is there something "we should analyze" about you?

 

By the way, I don't believe that Roger mentioned anyone by name, so you must be feeling guilty about something. Perhaps you should discuss it with your "tech support".

 

One more thing! What was the question mark (?) about?

 

Chris

 

Chris, if you don't have a problem with the Smithsonian and NGC, your criticisms do seem inconsistent. And if you do have a problem with them, you've kept it to yourself.

 

Personally, I do have a problem with them, as well as Mr. Carr's creations. And that 's whether they're deemed to be legal or not.

 

I do not like the Smithsonian pieces either, but I think they are legally and materially distinguishable from Carr's work. The Smithsonian pieces were at least approved by and/or legitimated by a government body/organization whereas I do not believe that Carr's pieces are. His work effectively destroys the original coin and the new coin produced is no more genuine (in my opinion), than if I melted down 90% silver and produced my own 90% planchets and starting counterfeiting 1893-S Morgan Dollars and what not. (And to anticipate Mr. Carr's arguments - I do not see changing the date as legitimating the pieces in any way and as I have already discussed ad nauseam in another 30 page or so thread. The plain meaning of the language used in the relevant legal authorities speaks for itself).

 

Not even the US Mint can issue a new legal-tender coin (commemorative or otherwise) without Congressional authorization. The Smithsonian did not obtain Congressional authorization for that $100 Union "coin". So it is not legal tender.

 

Regarding over-strikes on legal-tender US coins -

the law does not stipulate, nor has it ever been established what severity of defacement will nullify the legal-tender status of a coin. All we know is that the US Mint will redeem mutilated coins, separated by denomination, and pro-rated by total weight. This applies to any "current" coins, even those melted together in a lump, so long as they can be identified as US Mint products. But yes, I am aware of the recent situation where it was found that a Chinese company was sending mutilated counterfeit coins to the US Mint for redemption.

Edited by dcarr
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why talk about the Smithsonian or NGC when we have you lurking around? You seem to prefer demeaning other entities in order to take the pressure off yourself. Is there something "we should analyze" about you?

 

By the way, I don't believe that Roger mentioned anyone by name, so you must be feeling guilty about something. Perhaps you should discuss it with your "tech support".

 

One more thing! What was the question mark (?) about?

 

I made no statements of judgment or opinion regarding the Smithsonian/NGC $100 Union. I only stated the facts that the thing looks just like a plausible original legal-tender coin, but isn't. And it doesn't have "COPY" on it.

 

What entities, other than perhaps you (my apologies), have I demeaned here ?

 

PS:

The question mark was in regards to the meaning (if any) of your code:

"MK DTHOID UI KXC M QDMIXK. UKICDMV, UC'I M WUD VQDIIDV OL CX IOUC CED XHHMIUXK."

 

The "code" happens to be a cryptogram that I found in a puzzle magazine. It's easy enough to solve.

 

I don't accept your apology. You didn't offer it when you made certain comments on another forum, so why should I accept it now? No, I don't intend to waste my time telling you what comments you made.

 

Chris

 

Edited by cpm9ball
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1