1921 Peace Dollar High Relief Purchase (diy restore project)

It seems to fall in the old argument of caveat vendor and caveat emptor. In both cases, is the one with superior knowledge obligated by law or ethics to share that knowledge? The same applies to cherry picking by grade or variety.

I've found most collectors share such knowledge freely, but would we expect our Doctors and Lawyers to do the same after their costs in time and money to secure this knowledge? No. We expect to pay for that service and to have confidence in the services rendered.

But ethics (or morality) did not seem to be a high priority in my chosen specialty. Two of the biggest names in the specialty were an unrepentant pedophile and a kleptomaniac. And yet most collectors are of the highest character.

This and similar boards testify to the willingness of people to help each other. And I'm glad to participate, perhaps too much at times with speculation rather than knowledge.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Sorry, I feel we have an obligation to disclose activities that might be illegal, or at the least, deceptive. If a collector wanted to conserve an obviously cleaned, conserved coin for himself, it is fine. We can experiment all we want. The minute those coins are marketed, the responsibility to disclose defects become the responsibility of the seller, as far as I am concerned. To me, this is the underbelly of coin collecting. If one looks at the most honorable and professional dealers on eBay, they will mention that a coin is cleaned. That should be our standard as numismatists.

 

I put you in the caveat vendor column. I do not disagree with your position. I just wonder where you draw the line.

Intentional deception seem easy enough to throw in. How about suspicion? How about every coin you market becoming extra very rare? How about basic cherry picking of a coin that you think is better than marketed or advertised if you are a buyer?

The world is full of greater and greater standards or lesser and lesser standards depending on your point of view.

I prefer the golden rule, but I do not always live up to those standards when searching for, and sometimes finding rare varieties.

Am I ethically charged with a responsibility of disclosing my suspicion it is a rare variety or is simply accepting a sellers offer relieve me of moral and ethical accountability? Can I make a counter-offer based on my suspicion without disclosing why I am interested?

I just know at times I feel guilty when my suspicions are confirmed and I have obtained a rarity and no feelings of remorse when it is not.

 

The problem is, most of the collectors on this board are, on the average, experienced. The majority of them can tell a coin’s status, and/ or rarity, or lack thereof. On eBay, most buyers are probably not as sophisticated, nor do they have the resources or knowledge base to make enlightened decisions regarding coin purchases. Thus, we as knowledgeable individuals have a higher responsibly to help the more naive individuals in the marketplace. It is kind of like a lawyer, with clients who have ignorance of the law. Are they not obligated to disclose potential pitfalls to individuals less skilled in the law?

 

So, did your ebay listing say it was a cleaned coin?

 

As CLIENTS, they are paying for the knowledge you have obtained and have a fiduciary duty to look out for the CLIENT.

But that does not extend to the average Joe on the street. They legally rip them off all the time. That's how they make most of their money. It seems wrong to me, but that is often LEGAL and they exploit the loopholes. The first question a Judge ask is did you hire them?

But there is a higher duty and obligation. But where does it start and where does it end?