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

I re-read that. Maybe you could add that the date "appears" doubled."

If you are like me and probably a lot of us numismatists here, we speak in our own language. It is very easy to forget what a non-numismatist or a novice may or may not already know -- or even assume -- when buying a coin. In my opinion, the eBay ad we are discussing is just an example of honest oversight, at the worst. That's not always the case with sellers on eBay, but I understand what you were probably thinking. "Poorman's double die" automatically conjures up an image for you, me, and most of reading this - we know EXACTLY what that coin is -- and is not.

I have come across many people, not in the coin realm, who say the coin they have "looks good." Well, to you and me, that coin probably looks rather ugly -- and worn nearly flat (as in "Good" grade)....I have to remember when speaking or writing to a non-numismatist that their definition of "good" is probably shiny (maybe even cleaned) coin with average details....probably somewhere between "Fine" to Extremely Fine" (and maybe cleaned, wiped, or whizzed), depending on the coin in question!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm not trying to shoot the messenger, I am , however trying to educate people and change the message If the message has been wrong for years, there's nothing wrong with changing it.

 

Once I see a dealer or a seller on e-bay with something like that I don't bother looking at his/her other items. It tells me he doesn't know what he's doing. Of course maybe I should look.

 

WE change it because YOU think it is wrong. Why not YOU change because WE think it is right?

 

Rockdude makes an interesting point that can go to the heart of this thing.

If a "real" collector sees a listing for a 1955 "Poorman's double(d) die, he knows what it is and likely knows enough to walk away from the listing and anything else that dealer is selling.

What does that mean? That indicates that the "target audience" would be people who don't know what they are doing. If they are the "target audience" it becomes even more important that the title of a listing be correct.

 

Simple... because it is wrong....and I stick to my ethics. It's not that I think it is wrong, it happens to actually, really, conclusively, be wrong.

Answer one question....is the coin a doubled die?

If not, it is wrong to call it one. That's an easy call.

If it is not a doubled die than it is wrong to call it a "1955 poorman's doubled die".

So, I don't change because my assessment is correct.

 

You are missing the whole concept of this Bill, and I don;t mean to be disrespectfull Why do we have to change this.?

This has been established in the late fifties. I don't know why you are getting so upset with just one coin that has been labeled this, it's the only example in exsistance

There are no other coins that are labled in this manner there was a purpose for this particular coin. The 1955 doubled die is the king so whoever labeled this in the first place came up with this idea for coin collectors, that could not afford the king and you know all of us wish we could, so it was done for that purpose.

Now if there were other examples like this then i could understand being concered about it, but not to get upset over just one coin that you think Bill, was labeled wrong, and the majority doesn't.
Jazzcoins joe

 

It says under Captainkirks avatar that he owns a 1973 Buick Riviera. For many years, I owned a 1963 Buick Wildcat.

I am sure that CaptainKirk would think a seller was nuts if he listed a Riviera or a Wildcat as a Pontiac I know I would try to teach the seller the difference between a Buick and a Pontiac.

We just have a responsibility as collectors who are supposed to be educated to some degree in numismatics to be accurate.

 

That is an opinion, not a fact. So far, the opinion poll favors calling it a "1955 poorman's doubled die" penny.

 

Just coins,

I completely understand your point. I understand why the coin was called what it was called.

There was a progression of things that led to it.

The "real" 1955 Doubled Die was discovered.
It cost money.

Then a deceptive dealer, came up with he name "1955 Poorman's Doubled Die"...Why, because he could then market common cents for 5 bucks a piece. So the original concept was deceptive.

It did catch on as a way to fill a hole in a coin album. But the coin is not a doubled die.

Now fast forward to today. Our group on this forum knows whats going on with coins to a pretty good degree.

Do you know, however, how many people have had coins passed down to them or have seen these mislabeled 1955 coins that really think that they are doubled dies? This is only a guess but probably millions. Those people think that the coin they have which is a 25 cent coin is worth hundreds, if not thousands of dollars.

Do you know how many times I've had to tell people that the 1955 cent in there album is not "the big one" even though they thought it was for years? hundreds...

The assumption that everyone knows what the coin is because we do, is not a fair assumption.

What I am saying is that if someone has a coin album and they want to believe that their 1955 cent that was struck with a deteriorated die is a doubled die, that's their choice.

When someone lists a coin, targeting people who don't know what a doubled die is, something is unfair if they call it a doubled die.

So while I see your point, there is a reason to teach people what it is and try to get them listed correctly when they are sold.

Believe me when I tell you, it is not just the one coin that troubles me. I could and have looked at eBay listings and reported hundreds of items that were mis-represented. I used to be a part of a group that was tasked to do that until eBay decided to side more with the scammers than the legitimate sellers on eBay.

This is why even though there are some good dealers still on eBay, ebay has become a place for counterfeiters to prosper as well as those who slab their own coins and then to a smaller degree those who simply list things with inaccurate titles and descriptions.

It all bothers me as someone who likes to watch out for others. I know that I am only one small person who is trying to make a difference but if a few things get more accurate or if I've saved someone from making an expensive, or even a cheap mistake on eBay, then I think I've done a good thing. (I hope)

 

rim's cents, it isn't an opinion...it's a well known fact.

I can give you a list of people who know it's die deterioration and not a doubled die and those well respected people in the error and die variety fields will not be amongst those people in the poll who would call it a doubled die.

 

I am not saying what caused it is an opinion, rather what it is called. Regardless of who you think would vote which ever way, it is obviously an opinion. It is not a penny either, but................

 

"There are no other coins that are labled in this manner"
http://cgi.ebay.com/1953-UNC-Poor-M...l?hash=item3a4f03aa55&_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116
There are no other coins that are labled in this manner?

 

I think if a novice knows about the 1955 doubled die ,the real one that is

I am pretty sure he also knows about the poormans doubled die since the coin is the most popular doubled die in exsistance, an i;m pretty sure the Majority of beginners would do research on the subject.

When i was a beginner t age 14 the first coin i new about of course was the 55 doubled die every body was searching for that baby in the late fifties.

What i'm getting at i also new about the 1955 poormans doubled die at that age and being a beginner with that said, I think we could go on to another topic or another thread this thread has reached it's peak.
JC

As far as the one on ebay the 1953 poormans doubled die stated that has not been established because nobody knows about a 1953 poor mans doubled die they are not recgonized. That's false advertisment and the seller should be punished for that totally, a different thing altogether Rockdude.

And Rockdude there is not a major 1953 doubled die so there;s no such coin as a 1953 poormans doubled die ,and all of us expert collectors no that.

 

The term "Poorman's Double Die" doesn't just apply to the 55 evidently. here is an Ebay listing by a B & M store for a 1969-S. It is difficult to expect collectors to be more ethical than dealers who should know better, IMO. But I have never seen a 55 listed as "Deteriorated Die 55" whereas I have seen many "Poorman's " from ebay, to forums BST, to the Big adazines.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1969-S-Lincoln-Cent-Poormans-Double-Die-Gem-BU_W0QQitemZ120370706714QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCoins_US_Individual?hash=item1c06a7391a&_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116

 

Like I said before Jim that's is not considered the king of the doubled dies the 1969 S poorans doubled die that is also false asvertisement and again us expert collectors know that too.The other poormans doubled dies are just false advertisement because they were not original recgonized like the 55 poormans doubled die
JC

 

I agree. The name was given over 50 years back and is part of the history of collecting Lincoln cents.

Should we also change the names of these coins?
The spiked chin half cent.
The Jefferson head large cent.
The comet large cent.
The Bugs Bunny half.
All of these names are technically wrong.
It's not a spike, it's not Jefferson, it's not a comet or a bunny.

These were descriptive names given to coins and are a part of history.
Sure the Poor man's double die name is wrong but it was given as a descriptive name. It and the others had nothing to do with facts and I'm sure few have the opinion, they should be changed.

 

There is still one difference. Those descriptive terms indicate what an anomaly on a coin looks like.

They do not label a coin as a particular and understood die variety (doubled die) when it isn't.

And JC,,,No, it doesn't make sense to continue.

Thanks,
Bill

 

Well instead of all this bickering lets just wait and see how the voting comes across. I respect what you are saying Foundinrolls your point does make alot of sense ,but as so many said here on the forum this was named a long time ago and it will remain like this, because it;s already been established in the coin world .

I have to agree with you through the individual that started this did not do justice for the coin world he was not a bright individual, but there is nothing we could do about the terminology used in this particular case it;s already sketched in stone .

JAZZCOINS:smile