What's the ethical thing to do?

medoraman is correct.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well.... This is all speculation until the coin is confirmed at a Matte proof by a reputable grading service. It seems like ANACS did not feel that it was... if it goes in a Matte proof slab... then is the time to question the ethics. I'd bet it's not a matte proof.

 

Btw, nice to see you back man.

 

I won't get into lawyer's jobs, but the only way I could possibly see even a debate would be if this were a 2 way street. i.e. if the coin were determined not to be as valuable, the seller would have to take it back. Maybe you have run into such cases, but the only time I am aware of such would be for counterfeits. If you sell a car and when driven off the lot, it totally falls apart, the buyer looses because it is an as is sale (unless the seller is required to warranty something by law).

 

Very true. I was going to mention that earlier. Everything I have said is predicated upon a coin being recognized as a matte proof.

 

Aside from mentioning that the coin might be a well struck 1916 business strike coin, I have stayed out of this thread because in some ways the details given have the flavor of a red herring.

If this is an old ANACS slab then I would assume either from when the ANA owned the company or at least while the small white holder was still in use. The ANA sold ANACS in the late 1980s or very early 1990s while the small white holder was in use until approximately 2005. If it was certified while ANACS was still an ANA entity then I would be inclined to think it a business strike coin, while later on I have no real feel other than my initial reaction that it be a well struck business strike. One issue brought up is some type of guarantee by ANACS, but I do not know of any guarantee that ANACS does or did offer, so this may be a moot point. The topic of the larger debate is the idea that the dealer owes the seller money. An important point that is left out is whether or not the seller was the original submitter of the coin and if the seller originally purchased the coin raw as a matte proof. If the seller purchased the coin already slabbed as a business strike or if the seller submitted the coin as a business strike then I see no reason for the dealer to be compelled to share any potential profit with the seller. In this case it would be nice for the dealer to include some extra funds in the event of a score, but I do not think it unethical if the dealer chose not to do so. After all, the seller would have flipped the coin without ever knowing what he truly had and, as such, never paid a premium for what the coin might truly be and never did the required homework to find out more. Lastly, many folks think that all dealers have an upper hand in their knowledge with respect to collectors, but this is not necessarily the case. A dealer has generalized knowledge along a broad spectrum and might specialize in one or two niche areas. However, a dedicated collector may know substantially more than most dealers about his chosen niche, which should place the dedicated collector in an advantageous position.

 

The dealer, on first examining the coin, might have thought it could be a proof but I don't think there are many dealers that would be willing to stick their neck out and offer the seller proof money.
Given that, if the dealer tells the seller that he might have a matte proof, and a much more valuable coin than what the slab said, what's to prevent the seller saying "thank you very much for the info" and walking out the door with the coin. Now the seller has used the dealers expertise for his own gain. I wouldn't expect a dealer to take a chance on that happening, nor could we expect him to.

 

Perhaps this shows the man has poor judgement. From your words, I think you believe the dealer really would have been able to tell a non-mpl in a mpl slab and not do the deal, and would have been a good enough dealer to not rely on that slab's label.... therefore, it should also be reversed, that the dealer should have (or actually did look at the coin) and realize the opportunity he had. So, the dealer was not too ethical in your opinion, and his second mistake was asking someone to help authenticate it prior to breaking it free and submitting it as mpl. Because he presumed that you would not care if he bought it at the lower price, regardless of his expertise.

 

Was there ever a doubt? :too-funny:

 

If the opposite were true, an MS-66 RD in a ANACS holder identifying it as a Matte Proof, then I think the ANACS warranty should apply, however their warranty expressly excludes copper and copper-nickel coins.

 

So now its the "little old lady" card.

You folks really need to wake up.

"Legally Presumed"...........I haven't heard this one before.

Personally, I think your position is well stated.

It's ok for you to take advantage of a dealer because "he should have known better" but its not ok for a dealer to make a profit off of your mistakes. Presuming, of course, that you do know better.

No advantage was taken for the coin in the OP since the detailed examination occured after the fact.

 

Seven pages of posts and no one has mentioned that this proves how crazy the US coin market is. If professionals can barely tell the difference between two types of coin strike of one coin type how can they be valued so differently? Because the market is whacked for high-end coins of hard-to-distinguish varieties! Any collector participating in the market at that level is likely to get burned.

 

I don't know where you are getting a warranty from. ANACS has none (at least from this era). The sale is "as is". That is no warranty either way.

 

My apologies, I meant "guarantee", not "warranty":

http://www.anacs.com/contentPages/Guarantee.aspx

 

They might as well have no guarantee, since it's pretty much worthless anyway...

 

Ethics based on presumptions are just so confusing. Now I'm not going to know how to treat my closest dealer who knows less than I do about Lincoln Cent varieties.

 

Seller's loss - Dealer's gain. Dealer paid fair price for a slabbed certified coin. Everyone was happy at transation. If dealer finds a fault in the certified coin he should not have to track down the seller to the ends of earth to make amends. After all, it could have gone the other way as well. If he sends it in for a re-evaluation it could come back as an MS64 or less.

Dave

 

The ANACS policies are only in effect for coins certified after the old holders were retired, so the policy is moot. Additionally, the policy specifically excludes copper, bronze and copper-nickel coinage so it never applied to Lincoln cents. Lastly, the ANACS policy also notes that mechanical errors (aka clerical errors) are exempt from the policy, which again would negate any claim for this coin. Three strikes and you're out.

 

Good to be back!

 

Well - this post help me make up my mind. And I agree with Doug. Buyers gain and sellers loss. My local shop does not attribute coins when they come in the door (some of major varieties they will). Now once I sell them a large cent if they discover it is an NC coin - good for them. I should have known that myself. At the same time you can cherry pick this dealer and he told me he welcomes it - mainly because it generates return customers. I know for a fact if I sold them a lincoln at MS66 - they would just glance at the coin, go look it up and offer a price. I have watched them work and have sold quite a few coins with them. Now if later on they really study it and find it is an MPL - again good for them. I have also heard that sometimes at shows dealers will walk around and cherry pick other dealers - I see nothing wrong with that. Too me this is not the same as an old lady coming in, selling silver and getting 10% of melt. This is only my opinion.