Simply just "split plating" where the copper plating pulled away from the D mintmark exposing the zinc planchet (not die deterioration)- and of course blurry pictures when you try to use the "zoom picture" feature so the uninformed collector can't tell what actually is going on. http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-1992-D-Lincoln-Cents-w-Die-Deterioration-Doubling-Roll-Find-/390943085054
I see nothing wrong here. He has 18k 100% feedback and is accurately describing the coin. If he put $1m price on the coin I would not knock him as one can ask whatever they like for whatever they have. That's free enterprise. Now if someone pays 1m (or $25) that's on them. Collectors are making a small shift to wanting extreem examples of strike "errors" once thought worthless. Just search for machine doubling coins and you'll see they can sell in the $50+/- range while being accurately described. Are some newbies being fooled because they don't know the difference between md/spd and hub doubling? Sure. But I think a small shift and acceptance of non-true hub doubling is taking place in the hobby. That said though who wants exposed zinc on zlincolns?
Die deterioration is precise and correct? read up- Below is a 1992D and a with commonly seen Plating Split-Doubling on the MM. The black arrows in the photo show the splits while the white arrows show mild Machine Doubling that has also occurred.
Nothing to us true collectors unless we wanted an example *now* for a few bucks as we know what exposed zinc does to a zlincoln. At $25 he's hoping for a newbie that thinks it's more special than it is but he's describing it somewhat correctly so if he gets it good for him. Technically it's split plate doubling but die deterioration doubling is close enough that I don't have a problem with it personally
One cent whether it's purely split plating or die wear is involved too. These are not value-added errors, they're ugly production variances.
