Is it wrong to sell a "poor man's double die' cent on ebay?

See my post for the truth.

See my post for the truth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Not so with this seller, he calls it doubLED.
http://cgi.ebay.com/1955-Poor-Mans-...dual?hash=item45ee60f747&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

 

See my post for the truth.

See my post for the truth.

 

This what I would post on eBay.
1955 Poor mans Doubled Die Not $5000.00 coin but a other die variety of the 1955

 

Thanks Jello The end of this story i would say ,but it's not a variety it's an error ,that's were the seller did make a mistake.
JAZZCOINS:hail:

 

Here's another that's deceptive, when does it stop? You look at the 'poormans' and see what they call doubled and then look at these, how is the newbie suppose to know? Their not going to take the time to look it up. http://cgi.ebay.com/very-STRONG-DOU...dual?hash=item4a9b21cafb&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

 

For the 100th time it's not whatever he has on eBay it's what he stated on CoinTalk

For the 100th time it's not whatever he has on eBay it's what he stated on CoinTalk.

 

I would think the newbie will have knowledge on this specfic coin if he's interested in a Richmans Doubled die ,otherwise he wouldn't be interested in a poormans doubled die in the first place. I hate repeating myself but this is a very popular coin it has been around for years and the 1955 douibled die is the king of all doubled dies see what i'm getting at here.

JC

 

That is exactly what I said, but I never said I didn't use 'poor man's' , I DID.

 

This is the auction in question. I titled it like this, because that's what I've always called these coins. Sorry I couldn't post a link to my own auction, I had to wait for someone else to post it.

 

Of course it's not wrong to sell one. But that's not the important/right/fair question to ask. Is it wrong to list one as a "doubled die"? Absolutely. It should be described (including in the listing title) accurately.

 

Several times it has been suggested that a "newbie" should be aware of what he is buying. That is valid to a point. At the same time, the "advertising" of a coin on ebay should be accurate. Selling one of these things as a "poorman's doubled die" by someone who knows better is deceptive, pure and simple.

It also does a complete disservice to the "newbie" to sell him something that is not what it is advertised to be.

It is the same in any field.

My brother buys, sells and restores 1969-1972 Chevys. He knows the difference between an SS and a wannabee, kit car. He would never sell a wannabe as a real SS. Why??? because he knows the difference, he knows what an SS is and he knows what a wannabee, pieced together SS clone looks like.

An average person buying an SS Chevelle would not have the knowledge that my brother has about what is real and what is not. My brother would still never sell a clone as real SS even though the average buyer would never know all the details that distinguish one vehicle from the other. The reason boils down to ethics.

It is no different on a smaller scale with this coin. Saying it's always been called something bears no weight since the seller knows exactly what the coin is. Saying that the buyer should know what it is has some merit but at the same time, even the law allows the buyer to count on representations of a "professional" seller with respect to the description of an item on eBay or anyplace else.

Since this "dealer" has actual knowledge that the coin is not as advertised. The dealer is pulling the wool over the eyes of the buyer. In any other venue, that would be called a scam. Since we have become so used to scams on eBay, some people figure that a few more won't hurt.

On a smaller level this is no different than selling an SS clone as an SS Chevelle. It's no different than selling a 1972 Machine doubled cent as a doubled die.

People come here to get free verdicts as to what their coins are. Some collect them and that's OK. Some place the coins on eBay whether they like what they hear on these forums or not.

There are people here that offer totally incorrect opinions as to what coins are. I really think that it makes sense for me to think about my involvement with analyzing coins here on this forum. People hear what they want to hear anyway and they do what they want to do whether they like the response or not.

There are people here who are consistently wrong in their judgements of coins, I might leave it to them for awhile.

You folks that are right, many times should think about whether you want to give free and accurate advice to those who would still sell things improperly on eBay or elsewhere. To continue analyzing coins for some of the people here could become "contributory negligence" by aiding these people in the sales of their coins.

I guess I am letting off a little bit of steam but this thread irks me.

Thanks,
Bill

 

I totally agree with Condor what he is saying As long it is properly described there is no harm to any one on ebay. I guess the polls speak for itself.and so far the majority voted NO.
JC

 

There's nothing wrong with selling the coin most of us call the "1955 'poorman's' double die." I also don't believe there is anything wrong with using this term in eBay advertising. I DO believe, however, there is something wrong in not describing somewhere in the eBay advertisement that this coin is not "THE" rare 1955 double-die many collectors would love to own.

I say leave the term "poorman's double die" alone; that name is going to stick from here on through eternity. But anyone who sells this coin in a non-numismatic forum (like eBay) must describe exactly what is being sold and explain WHY this coin is not the famous '55 double die.

 

I knew what a "poor man's double die" when I was 10. I do not care if it is or is not a double die, that is what it has been called at least since 1956. That is the common and generally accepted vernacular. So long as misdescribing the coin, so........ If everything had to be named technically proper, we could not sell;

candy corn - it is not corn
teddy bears - they are not bears let alone teddies
nickels - they are 75% copper. They ought to be called coppers.
pennies - oops, I had better not start that one

 

I agree, Even the phrase 'poorman's doubled die' implies a 1955, although there are many other years with the same effect on the last digit. I also agree that I should add information in my listing stating that it is NOT a real 1955 doubled die, I will admit that I did not consider how ignorant a buyer could be, and it is never my intention to rip off anybody. Although, at less than 3 dollars, it should be obvious. I will revise my auction immediately.

 

This is how my auction now reads, please let me know if this is adequate.
'You are bidding on a 1955 poor man's doubled die Lincoln cent, This is not a real doubled die cent, those cost hundreds of dollars, these are just mechanical doubling or die deterioration on the last 5. No other devices are doubled. The last 5 is pretty strongly doubled, but not because of an error in the die. Also, there is an area on the top of the head that is struck through a small round piece of copper, which is folded over. I hope you can see this in the pictures. Shipping is in a PADDED envelope. Click HERE to see my other auctions. '

 

Hi,

That's where we disagree. No one is getting ripped of buying candy corn, no matter what they call it....Corn or not.

Believe it or not, new collectors that were not playing with coins in the fifties and sixties, have no idea what a "poormans" double(d) die is. They see one of these things and think it is something special and valuable.

Heck, dealers think machine doubled junk coins are doubled dies. I see them at every show and when you try to educate a dealer in a nice way about machine doubling they look at you cross-eyed and worse, they keep a $2.00 buffalo nickel marked at $100.00.

If you know what a coin is and you label it as anything else, no matter what it was called in the past. You are attempting to deceive.

Most people who gravitate to coin forums have some knowledge about coins in general. But believe me when tell you that huge numbers of dealers and collectors are clueless about errors and die varieties and coins struck by worn dies.

Instead of propagating bad terminology we should be using proper terminology and teaching about what has been mis-represented for years.

That will lessen the problem for legitimate dealers who don't attempt to rip people off with misleading labeling.

If this thing is not a double(d) die , which it isn't then it shouldn't be called one.

Whether you see it or not, people are getting ripped off by poor descriptions and poor titles on eBay.

Again, If a coin is listed as "what it is" sell a million of them. If it is listed as what it is not, something is wrong.

We were all bothered by the guy selling Wide AM and Narrow AM cents that were identified incorrectly. Why is this any different, because the 1955 cent is not as expensive?

As my daddy used to say..."It's the principle of the thing". The value of the coin doesn't matter. The inaccurate listing matters but what's one more bad listing on eBay...

My ethics don't change from a 10 cent item to a multi thousand dollar item. It's a matter of doing what is right and up front. I am bothered that even 30% of the posters here think that it is OK, just because it is not a huge issue.

Somebody could sit there and list these cents all day as they are that common. If someone took a thousand of these things ($10.00 face) and sold each for $20.00 a piece, listing them as something they are not thereby turning that ten bucks into $20,000.00, would you applaud that person or be bothered that 1000 collectors got ripped off.

I side with the collectors and it is a shame that there are people who would applaud the rip offs.

Sorry to be Blunt,

Bill

Thanks,
Bill

 

Nope, because you still call it a doubled die and it isn't. You are moving in the right direction though and I applaud that.

What if I had a listing that said 1957 Cameo Proof Franklin half. Then when you get to the listing it states that the coin is an uncirculated 1957 half. I could put in my listing that it really isn't a proof but it is uncirculated....BUT...I got more people to look at my coin...

The title for the item is misleading and incorrect. It is a manipulation attempting to get more people to look at the coin. Misleading = Not right. Simple...

Thanks,
Bill

 

What I was trying to say is that to most people, it is a "poor man's double die". You don't shoot the messenger if you don't like the message.