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

I came into this conversation late, so excuse me for not being on time. My thought is if it is labeled as a POOR MAN'S DOUBLE DIE, then with that title alone should be a clue for anyone wanting to buy one. It is not a true 1955 DD. Plain and simple. I posted a coin on here in the past and told people what I sold it for. A couple of posters said it was unethical for me to do so. The way I see it is, If you are know your coins and want to buy on E-bay ,then you should know what you are buying. If "Joe Blow" buys a coin that is labeled right and is not satisfied with it later because he did not have the knowledge before buying it, then as a seller "I" would tell them to send it back(with their own postage) and I would refund it. But, I would also tell them not to buy from me in the future because they are wasting my time with their ignorance and should start reading books on the subject before coming back to my store or website. :whistle:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It would be interesting to know where the term came from.
I looked at a few books and sites and found almost nothing of the history of it's name.

I'm going to guess it came from a dealer in the north east to promote the coin.
I know someone that knows this but I'm not sure I can reach him.
I'll bet some of you here can guess who I'm thinking of. I'll let you know.

 

In his book 'Looking Through Lincoln Cents' Charles Daughtrey mentions that the origin is not known, however he say's it possibly started with dealers who had these coins and were offering these as the poor man's version of the real doubled die.

 

I actually looked at C.D.'s book first. He is a member here (coppercoins).
Looked at Lange, Breen, Taylor and learned very little.
If I'm really lucky I may get an email with the real information.

 

It really doesn't matter who came up with the term since it was well in use already. Do some google and find some examples. It is entrenched in the language like "Dude".

unfortunately.


http://www.cracked.com/article_14910_mello-yello-go-bots-top-10-poor-mans-versions.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OPQqH3YlHA

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/a+poor+man%27s+something.html

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6597

Jim

 

How about David Lange in "The Complete Guide to Lincoln Cents". Yes, it is listed there under the doubled die obverse.

 

As long as you list it ethically, I don't see a problem. Some younger collectors may not be familiar with the term "Poor Man's Double Die". I don't believe in "buyer beware" when it comes to coins. Sellers (imo) have a responsibility to list their coins in the most ethical, unambiguous manner possible.

I would list the Fivaz-Stanton code of this variety and clearly state that this is NOT the well-known, expensive variety of 1955 Doubled Die. I would list the relative values of the two varieties as listed in the Cherry-Picker's Guide to further highlight the differences.

 

There is no Fivas/Stanton code for a PMDD because it's not a variety.

There is no Fivas/Stanton code for a PMDD because it's not a variety.

 

Ahhh...I'm on travel and don't have my books handy..thanks! The concept is still the same, make sure the buyer is 100% aware of what they are buying.

There's no amount of money in the world equal to the value of your soul.

 

We know it's not a variety but it is and error bhp3rd .

I have to say something it would be wise to change the terminology on this particular coin like Bill said Foundinrolls it would stop the confusion for the ones that don't really know about this coin ,and would help the coin world .

There should be a poll on ,should we change the terninology of the 1955 poormans doubled die and I vote yes it will help the coin world if we can turn it around it would serve a good purpose for all of us collectors etc etc


The only thing how do we make this known any ideas ?

Mabe Bill should write a column in coin world about this that is a suggestion and a start

JC
JC

 

That's correct.

Ebay may pull an auction if values are listed.
I could be wrong on that but thought that was a rule.

 

It's wrong, a lie and a deception and here is why.

It's wrong, a lie and a deception and here is why. You guys come on even on this thread we have experienced numimatics that still, to this day thought it was some kind of doublED die - it is not!!!

1. It's not (the 1955-P) so called "poor mans doubled/double die" a variety. A die variety can be traced to one die or hubb - this coin cannot.
2. It's not even an error because it's not a one time minting mishap.
3. It's not a "double" die because there is no such correct term - worded this way, (double) that phrase means nothing.
4. It's not a re-punched date, re-engraved date, re-cut date, a doubled, a double, overdate, double date, D/D, doubled D, DDO, or anyother kind of name suggesting a die desiganation.
5. Finally it's not a doublED die either - of course you all should know that by now, it never was nor ever will be.

Heres what it really is: It's a coin (1955-P) Lincon Cent that is/was struck with worn out and overpolished dies. Simply put the so called PMDD is a coin that lacked good quality control and is a coin even when BU looks awful because the design has been partly obliterated by over use.
All it is and all it ever will be is a pitifully struck coin or in southern terms "a BU piece of junk. The shame of the mint is they coined junk that year and with a coin (the Lincoln Cent) that is so beautiful when struck up nice.

So all this over a ""piece of junk" coin - what have we become when we try and defend this as any kind of die variety, error or a coin worth any premieum when it really is a mislabled piece of junk???

Plus the original thing I called the man on had nothing to do with any Ebay posting, any question about how to post or should we post. It had to do with what he said, he said he listed it as a double die to get more people to see his listing. he said that in CoinTalk.

Those of you that are defending the right of a seller to list a PMDD, whether worded right, (really there is no right) or wrong are not thinking clearly and your not seeing the "big picture". The reason your not thinking clearly must be because you have never had to tell a new person to the hobby, excited about his eBay purchase, that he in fact has nothing but a coin struck from worn out dies and then watch the light of enthusiasum drain from his/her eyes. I have, in fact I do it most every month 1 or 2 times. Then, and only then will you understand why it's wrong - IT DOES MORE DAMAGE THAN GOOD!!!!!. Why on earth are we defending this practice, that is based on lies, deceptions, mis-guilded information and historical bull*&@# - - for the right of a seller to sell a .35 cent coin for $4 - is that enough of a reason to continue a practice that at the very best confuses, leaves doubt and spreads wrong information about doubllED die in general??? How many new people have left the hobby after an encounter with so called, die experts selling this stuff???
Learning about doublED dies and other die varieties is hard and complicated enough without supporting phrases for the 1950's that were made up by some dealer to profit from peoples ignorance.
To those that say, "well they should know if they read the description or by the price", they don't always, they don't often. Many times I have had disscussions with seasoned coin dealers and collectors, many on Ebay where after numerous emails, and when I am about to give up trying to explaine I finally say, "you do no a doublED die is not a double struck coin don't you"? to have them respond, "no, I sort of thought that's what it really was".

So ask your self what you are defending here, why are you defending it and is it, in the big picture, really worth it. Or isn't it time to put and end to this because, as I hope I have pointed out - the means just do not justify the ends. Yes a seller may list a PMDD on Ebay and word everything right but what have we gained as a hobby - or hom many more will we lose???

 

You can only list values, whether it be conjecture, or from a price guide - IF - it is encapsulated by one of their approved grading services. In any other case, they'll pull it if they see it.

 

The actual rule reads;

 

Rlm, you are correct, I shouldn't paraphrase eBay's policy. On that note I am including ta copy of rules pertaining to "Raw and uncertified coins" only.

 

This is problem correct as Potter told me the same thing this am

This is problably correct as Potter told me the same thing this am.
He also metioned it happened in 1955 or soon after.

 

My conclusion i thing this terminology on this coin should be changed. I do feel it would solve all the poorman's doubled die listings on ebay and we should try and report these individuals that still do it/


As i said early in the thread we need to follow up on this and change this ridiculous mistake that some unknowledgable dealer started or whoever the culprit was

it's time for a change

Now guys lets come up with some suggestions and turn this thread around.
The thread is getting worn down like die deterioration.LIKE THE 1955 POORMANS DIE DETERIORATION DOUBLING ERROR

THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD REALLY CALL THIS POOR LIITLE PROBLEMATIC COIN.
Jazzcoins Joe

 

Die deterioration doubling is inherent in the extended use of dies and is more or less considered normal for coins struck with worn dies. This form of doubling is not recognized as varieties or errors by the upper-tier grading services. Collect these forms of doubling if you are so compelled but don't pay premium prices for them.

 

True. The term double is just slang. It's been around forever.
It's like the poorman's term, folks will probably never stop using it.

 

Well, should we just continue using the wrong term even after we learn the correct

Well, should we just continue using the wrong term even after we learn the correct one? It's just another part of the problem. When folks really lean why it's a doublED die instead of a double die they may even begin to understand why. In other words it's the die not the coin we are first talking about - it's a doublED die that struck the coin - this is key to getting this stuff right. Are we to expect people are too lazy to add an "D" to the word? If so we are going to raise a generation of coin people who are less than prepared to be knowlegable about a very precise subject.
You can perpetuate the problem or try and help - which are you going to be???