Are you talking about me? Not sure if serious or not. I don't own the coin, I was just reporting its discovery. (From 1 year and 1 day ago. )
It's definitely for real. It's listed as WDDO-002 here: http://doubleddie.com/1169840.html Oh, and I wouldn't take $50 for it if it was mine. They were selling for $150+ a few months ago.
Then there's always the guy who takes up the page by accidentally posting the same long post 3 times.... I actually almost read each one thinking it was a different post....
Those were probably fake sales made by the perpetrator to get you to believe it is that valuable. If not, then those were some real suckers buying them.
I still can't tell if you're being serious...part of me says no because of the absurdity of the claim with the evidence provided.
I hope so! Here's another, recent sale, from another LCR member, for $116! http://m.ebay.com/itm/321735843340?nav=SEARCH
A part of me is half joking, but I am serious when I say those are real suckers spending $150 for a 2014 penny. That's the real absurdity here (in this thread). I don't care who or what book says it's a major doubled die. To begin with, it doesn't even look doubled in magnified photos. Even if there was, what makes it so "major"? It's certainly not the amount of doubling. So is it rarity? Don't see how that could be known yet considering it's a 2014 cent.
Does it really make them a sucker if they know full well what they are paying for? Isn't the whole point of collecting that it's entirely subjective? This is one of the strongest doubled dies of the single-squeeze hubbing era with few examples known.
That's the problem here. Their perception. They believe they are buying something special. It's nothing major when you have to pull out a 60x loupe to see it (which you still can't I might add).
It's quite visible with a 5x loupe I would imagine, since I can see the 2011-1DO-004 quite clearly with that, and this 2014 is on-par with, if not stronger than, the 2011. YOU may believe that doubled dies like this are not special, but many die variety collectors do.
I've said this before, and I stand by it. If one of those was lying in a take-a-penny tray, I would know it as soon as glanced at it. If you can't see that, you better only be looking for the '55, '72 or the '83 DDR, because you aren't seeing any others.
Now those I can see being collectible since they are clearly visible ('55, '72 and '83). The other ones are just silly.
Before we talk a price, lets talk about the grade, it has to be at least an MS-65, then I'd be interested in one at that price, but thats the only way, and good luck on finding a MS-65 ...
I do see a difference, but wouldn't there be many differences in many different spots among virtually all same type coins? What makes this one so special that some (very few actually) would pay over $100 for it? I just don't get why breaking things down to the such small differences is exciting or special. Like I said before, every coin has a different and unique thing if you keep zooming in far enough.
I don't really understand what you are talking about here. This is like saying, "I don't understand why that MS67 Morgan is so much more expensive than the XF45. It's such a small difference."
MS67 and XF45 is not a small difference. It should be a very clear difference and throughout most or all of the coin. It's also not the same in that one is dealing with wear and the other is small inconsistencies in manufacturing. With that said, I am on record as saying the difference between one grade and the next on the Sheldon scale is stupid and too insignificant. I have bashed the difference between 69 and 70 plenty of times, for example. Especially the absurdity in the differences in price. I have even gone as far as to propose a new scale. Here it is again (some of you have seen this before)... In my scale the difference in wear/condition is very general. Leaving the collector some room to determine what they believe the grade is to them and not someone else's opinion which has been shown to heavily influence (a lot of times inaccurately) price. The scale should act more like a guide and less like an absolute value. My scale also removes confusing terminology like About Uncirculated (AU) - which actually has wear and signs of circulation. Another example, extra fine (EF), sounds like very high quality when it's not even uncirculated. In my view, there are two major categories to describe a coins condition... Uncirculated and Circulated. Within circulated, I feel Fine, Average and Poor do a good job of classifying a coins condition with, again, the exact level (and price) being determined by the viewer.
Thanks, you made my point for me. There is no "small" difference in the two images above either. It may be more like the difference between an MS65 and a F12. Oh, and I definitely agree with your scale. God knows there shouldn't be a difference in price between an MS60 and MS68. They look pretty much the same.