1814 Capped Bust being sold as a 1815/2 on eBay

The coin is identifiable by the A letter punched under the E in STATES. This is a 1814 O-108a. The only date it can be is 1814. But NGC received the submission as a 1815/2 and simply left "1815/2" on the flip, and the seller is taking advantage of this in order to misrepresent it and make a lot of money on a coin worth $60 at it's very best.

I messaged the seller all the information, giving him a chance to do the right thing and he responded, "Philadelphia mint reused the 1812 obverse die and the 1814 reverse die."

I reported the listing. If you want to join in, then that may save someone from wasting a boatload of money. And yes, I think NGC shares some of the blame on this one.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/162234828223?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

NGC says it can't read the date.

I'm reporting it.

 

Funny thing is, you don't have to see the date to know it's an 1814 in this case. If you know your capped halves.

 

NGC said illegible date. I think they did their duty. Passing it off as attributed in the listing is wrong.

 

Capped halves ain't my bag. Good thing for your sharp eyes.

 

Reported, thanks for sharing.

 

Yes, but they also (as CBD explained) left the claimed date on the bag, and because of that makes this one a toughie. It's a beyond moronic move IMO, and one that could set a not-so-good example for those looking for another shyster angle to play, adding only insult to injury. I certainly won't, nor is this meant to defend the seller in any way, but it can be damn hard to try to get someone to see something other than what they want to, especially when money is involved. This is a lose-lose all around.

That said, I very much agree that NGC shoulders a great deal of the blame for this one, and is a practice that needs to stop immediately.

 

Who would want that over 10 of Dan's high grade 64-d morgans right now

Much more profit to be made

 

Since I'd be getting roughly $140 in silver (AND NOTHING MORE) from 10 DC pieces... I'd take that over the $40-60 value of this piece.

 

Oh brother. Profit is profit man. You should know that.

Anyway, I'll pass this along to someone who can get it removed if his eBay contact agrees it should be

 

Another bad ebay seller! NGC shouldn't have included the 1815/2 date at all especially since they said the date was illegible, it don't make sense.

 

Gone

 

Another dream of a sudden score dashed!

 

My guess is it was a clerical error and this situation would be like a seller with a slabbed 93p morgan labeled as a 93s and is trying to sell it as a legitimate 93s

 

@Treashunt @okbustchaser would enjoy this thread.

 

Did you happen to have saved a picture of it? The listing is now gone..

 

That's the excuse the TPG would use, anyways.

 

Ah... no I didn't think about that.

 

What are the odds it reappears on eBay listed differently now?

 

And the excuse would more than likely be valid. I didn't see the pic, but if it were an E/A reverse then it would be considered a fairly obvious clerical error as it couldn't possibly be an 1815.