Someone went Nuclear over the Corporate eBay Offices today.......

April 22nd, 2014 - Mountain View, CA
Two "Nuclear Snipes" collided in the atmosphere over eBay Headquarters this afternoon as two very determined individuals took part in a Nuclear Exercise to determine exactly who was the better man. Two "Monstrous Bids" were placed at exactly 2 second before a listing for a supposed "Rare Sample Slab" listing ended thereby preventing counterbids such as what had occurred on 4/21 and earlier this morning. Obviously, both parties in the conflagration were convinced of the rarity of the item they sought!

Only one casualty was identified and whether he was killed outright or is in the local Credit Union recovering from wounds sustained in the fire fight is unknown. Reliable sources state that the last thing the casualty said before pressing that "RED" fire button was "I'm going to wipe this smug sucker off this listing if its the last thing I do! That slab is mine! NOT HIS! I-E-E-E-E! The source also stated that the coin would more than likely be returned to the original owner once the anesthesia of the Bidding War, wore off.

Interested parties watched in wonder as the Nuclear Encounter unfolded. They knew exactly what the outcome would be, they simply did not know how high the Nuclear Cloud would rise above the eBay Headquarters. All reports seem to indicate that the cloud was beyond what anybody had expected and that the effects will linger for days over the Mountain View based Auction Companies Headquarters. Customer Support is preparing to be called in at the last minute as it fully expects it will be needed to make an accurate determination on whether or not the casualty actually "meant" to key in the winning amount or did the "wrong" amount get entered by some unknown computer force.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1957-ROOSEV...12?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item4ad3be5bc4

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's really cool if you read it in Walter Cronkite's voice.

 

Am I missing something? It is a dime...a common one.

 

I guess if you keep repeating the phrase, "Buy the coin, not the slab", after enough times, you're bound to flip it around the odd time.

 

People collect sample slabs and will pay good money for them, regardless of what coin it holds.


And I was expecting to see a much higher winning bid with the way that post was written up.

 

Sample slabs are not very common, and there is a definite collector market for them. This one, if real, is a fairly early one. Perhaps Conder101 would be able to identify the approximate period of issue.

Chris

 

I hope the seller had a no return policy!

 

It's not the dime. It's the slab/label. I don't know the differences but here's a page that shows some http://www.sampleslabs.com/pcgs.html and I'm guessing this must be a PCGS 1 type which is somewhat rare to see.

 

I have been collecting PCGS sample since 2007, And as I look at that picture of the 1957 dime it looks like a proof. Can anyone tell me for certain that it is NOT a PROOF!
I look and look at it and it looks nicer then the common type 1 MS rattler. The picture on ebay are not that good but the third one makes it look like a proof.
The type 1.1 is a Proof. And I have seen a few different dates for that type.
But most common for the type 1 MS sample is the 1964-D and I can't recall ever seeing any other date.
Not saying that a type 1.1 should be more money but they just do not come up for sale much. I guess in 7 years I can only think of a few that have been sold. And the type 1 have come up quite a bit, Maybe more then 20 times or so in 7 years.

 

It sure looks like a proof.

Someone at CU told me that it was a 1.2

 

Yes it is early. It is the very first generation of sample slab. Unlike Cameron, I don't give different variety number just because the slab has a different coin in it. I don't know and exact date for these but they are probably from Feb 1986 through maybe late 1986. they were probably distributed at the Feb Lang beach, the August ANA, and the fall Long Beach. I don't know it they were used later than that, but I believe about that time they dropped the all Zeros format.

Yep you're missing something, it isn't the dime that is important, it's the slab. It ISN'T a common one.

 

Yep, mutual assured destruction... fer sure

 

So who was the guy bidding against you?

 

While I do have some sample slabs after getting my feet wet during the wave of interest that forming for these so many years ago, I gave that pursuit up after observing the darkened marks and singed hair on my hands from "other" CU Forums pursuits.

The only interest I had in the eBay listing was in observing exact how high the listing would go to satisfy the bidders desire to "win" since it was obvious that several people had really put on their thinking caps about how to bid.

The final value of the listing is nothing more than a testament to how listings can get way out hand for these "bidding wars" where at least two parties have made the conscious decision to win "at all costs". It says nothing with regard to the actual value of the slab, just the ignorance of the bidders during their "heated exchange".

 

It's a piece of plastic with no intrinsic value. I don't get the appeal, but then I don't get Beanie Babies, collector spoons or matchbook covers either. I guess if something can be collected, somebody will.

 

Well said. And the thing that bothers me is PCGS could re-print 1,000 of them tomorrow. What would that do to the value of the coin(slab) you just bought?

"Buy the coin, not the slab" is good advice IMO.

 

And a 93-S Morgan has the same intrinsic value as an 81-S Morgan,so why pay more for the 93-S?

What is the intrinsic value of an Old Master painting? $4 for the canvas and $15 for the oil paint? Where can I get a Rembrandt for $20?

What is the intrinsic value of a Micky Mantle rookie card? Cardboard is what $20 a ton?

 

Intrinsic value is the worst idea to ever invade economic thought. All value is subjective, including the value of money. Value is determined by human desire and planning only. Anyone who says anything different doesn't understand the slightest bit about economics. Every person has their own value for everything and these values change over time.

Prices only indicate that the seller values the item less than the money received and the buyer values it more than the money spent. The item has value only in the minds of people.

 

Whoa there, easy does it. All I said was that I don't get the appeal. People can (and do) collect whatever they want. Live and let live, I say.

As for your three examples: they're cute, but they don't render my statement that the holder is "a piece of plastic with no intrinsic value" untrue.