Possibly the most ridiculous posting on ebay?

ok. with that mentality, i have a penny that is totally smooth. barely recognizable as a wheat cent. cannot even read the year. should i sell it as a 09 s vdb?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That isn't a correct analogy...you are misinterpreting what I said. Read my post again. I said "while a lower grade may make a doubled die harder to spot it doesn't change the fact that it is a doubled die". What this means is that many doubled dies can still be identified in a low grade, and the fact that they are in a low grade and don't show doubling to the extent that a BU example would doesn't change the fact that it is still a doubled die. If you can't identify it as a doubled die, then you don't have any proof that it is one. Simple as that. But many G04 doubled dies can still be identified as such.

But again, this has nothing to do with the seller's listings, as any comparison to the reference numbers he provides shows identifiable and matching doubling. I don't see him posting worn down coins and just slapping a "DDO" title on the listing.

 

nope. i read what you wrote, you misunderstand what i meant...it is unverifiable

 

How is it unverifiable? The doubling matches the listing he referenced. The mintmark is also in the same position as the referenced doubled die, so that can be used as a marker to verify it. Unless you have solid evidence to disprove the seller, I stand by the seller in their attribution of the coin.

 

No it isn't, you are incorrect, non_cents is spot on. I would re-read all of his posts, you might learn something.

 

The OP should change his thread title to: Probably the most ridiculous posting on coin talk.

 

I don't think what is being discussed between the CT members is the same point. It is correct to say once a double die coin, always a doubled die coin. It is also logical to say, if the doubling is no longer visable because the coin is heavily worn, and therefor cannot support the claim; that to is accurate. Rysherm is referring to his example of a G-4 coin with an error that started off as minute as seen on the eBay coin. Non-cents is talking about the same coin from eBay and that the picture submitted is not deceiving, because it is not a G-4 coin. In essence, they are both correct. IMHO.

 

And could you clarify this part of your post? I don't quite understand what you mean by "a G-4 coin with an error that started off as minute as seen on the eBay coin".

If a coin is so worn that it cannot be positively identified as a doubled die, then it should not be attributed as such. I understand and agree with that. I just fail to see the relevancy in post 16. I don't see how it relates to the seller's listings.

 

Pic looks like a Cuban missile site,,,,,

 

Well all i got to say and i'm not trying to be nasty but you better check on Coppercoins and see it for yourself..I would not list anything on ebay unless it was the real deal unless YOU do not know what you are looking at..

 

You better check on Coppercoins.com for the coin i have on ebay.It is the real deal unless you don't know what you are looking at..

 

Your second statement to rysherm is the beginning of your understanding. Your almost there. Reread it and think it through. I have said it as plainly as I can. Maybe his photograph is of poor quality and it is something that is easier to spot on the coin itself.(?)

 

Just send him this message..
I SEE NOTHING...NOTHING!!!!!!!!

 

Do you not see the same anomaly present on his coin that can be seen in this link? http://coppercoins.com/lincoln/diestate.php?date=1937&die_id=1937s1do005&die_state=mds

It is a doubled eyelid. You can see a dot where the arrow is pointing. That is the doubling.

 

It must be his photograph then. I see it in the link you posted.

 

To me the extra eyelid stands out just like on coppercoins

 

that was exactly my point.

 

i thought the smooth as a copper planchet sold as an s-vdb analogy was sufficient...noncents you have no vision

 

Actually, with some coins there is. Maybe you can't prove it with all of them...because that is the real point, right? Can you prove a coin was a DDO if it is so worn? I think this question is one that would have to be asked about specific coins...I doubt a blanket answer exists for all DD coins. Many of them do have known die markers (other than their obvious doubling) that can help you identify them once the doubling is gone. If the coin has known markers like this, then yes it could be identified.

A similar example would be a 1916 Standing Liberty Quarter. Very rare coin and the date is on a higher point where it easily gets worn. On many low grade examples, the coins are worn to the point where the date is invisible...but there are known markers to distinguish the rare 1916 from the common 1917. The same thing is true of many well studied DD coins.

 

Here's probably the most honest / the worst marketing listing on ebay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ABSOLUTE-WO...6257334?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item2c7c6fb7b6