What's the Word - Gullible? Careless? Naive? an 1822 Dime that isn't...

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Eduard, Apr 19, 2019.

  1. Eduard

    Eduard Supporter**

    To be fair to the seller, he did warn bidders during the auction that it might not be a rare 1822 dime after all.

    It is clearly not. It still sold for close to $800.....

    https://www.ebay.com/itm/1822-Cappe...144116?hash=item2157c05874:g:kN8AAOSw7DFcnU0n

    If you have that much money for a dime, why not just do a little research to verify what a real 1822 CBD looks like ?!

    Just compare the date position on a genuine example:

    1822 dime VG OBV1 N - 1.jpg


    The seller does not accept returns.
     
    Seattlite86 and Legomaster1 like this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Legomaster1

    Legomaster1 Cointalk Patron

    I agree, surprising that a person who is eager to dump over $700 on a coin don't care much for research. Or, if not research, why not just look closer at the coin?Anyone can tell it's not an 1822. (The curve on the fourth digit is much higher than that on the 2).
     
    Hookman and Eduard like this.
  4. Legomaster1

    Legomaster1 Cointalk Patron

    Altogether, even if a coin is a key date, I would stay away from poor condition key dates. Such coinage is expensive in good condition, but, if buying a rare coin, why not buy one where one can at least discern the year?
     
    JeffC and Eduard like this.
  5. Eduard

    Eduard Supporter**

    As you point out, @Legomaster1, the fourth digit does not even look like a '2'.
    It is possibly an 1823 but have not checked as the condition of the coin is very poor.
     
    Legomaster1 and Seattlite86 like this.
  6. Seattlite86

    Seattlite86 Outspoken Member

    Concur on the last digit being a 3. I think they worked it a bit and then accelerated the “circulation” to make it look like a well circulated 1822.
     
    Eduard likes this.
  7. Eduard

    Eduard Supporter**

    Yes, that possibility cannot be discarded, unfortunately.

    The 1822 is THE key in the series and collector demand is high. Enough to cause some people to use this to their advantage to deceive eager buyers. No saying this is what happened here - but a general statement based on what I have seen over the years with this date.
     
    Seattlite86 likes this.
  8. Hookman

    Hookman Well-Known Member

    It's obvious to me that it is an 1823. No manipulation is apparent. The last digit is a three.
    Yes, it is very worn, but still obvious.
    Some people believe what they want to believe.
    Some people have more money than brains.

    BTW, I don't collect these, so just what is the difference in value between the two?
     
    Dave Waterstraat, Jaelus and Eduard like this.
  9. Eduard

    Eduard Supporter**

     
  10. Hookman

    Hookman Well-Known Member


    ^^^^^JESUS !!^^^^^
     
  11. johnmilton

    johnmilton Well-Known Member

    Sometimes wishing it were true trumps logic and good sense. You see it all the time on eBay when people bid on obvious counterfeits.
     
    Obone and Eduard like this.
  12. FooFighter

    FooFighter Just a Knucklehead Coin Hunter

  13. Mainebill

    Mainebill Bethany Danielle

    Obvious 1823. All 23s are overdates 3/2. Someone just paid almost $800 for a $25 coin
     
    Hookman, Seattlite86 and Eduard like this.
  14. NSP

    NSP Well-Known Member

    It appears to be the most expensive lowball 1823/2 JR-3 ever sold. You’d think that people with enough money to buy an 1822 would do their due diligence to confirm that it is actually an 1822.
     
  15. messydesk

    messydesk Well-Known Member

    The seller even states he's been told that it's an 1823 but is selling it as a '22 since that's how he bought it. I'm just wondering where these bidders are when I sell stuff that's accurately described. They deserve the "no returns" policy, even though there's really no such thing as disallowing returns on eBay.
     
  16. Dave Waterstraat

    Dave Waterstraat Well-Known Member

    What P.T. Barnum allegedly said....
     
    Paddy54 likes this.
  17. Conder101

    Conder101 Numismatist

    It doesn't really matter what the fourth digit is, it clearly isn't an 1822. There is only one variety in 1822 and it has the left edge of the curl slightly to the right of the center of the last 2. On the Ebay coin it is to the left of the left edge of the final digit. You don't have to even know what that digit is to know it isn't a 2.
     
    Hookman likes this.
  18. Hookman

    Hookman Well-Known Member

    I learn something new everyday.
     
  19. slackaction1

    slackaction1 Supporter! Supporter

    Its amazing what you learn just reading threads..
     
  20. NSP

    NSP Well-Known Member

    Here are the seller’s images of the OP coin from the eBay listing for posterity’s sake after the eBay listing disappears in the future. You can tell that the date is too far to the right to be 1822.

    09A7A194-32A8-445A-9B2D-31F93D6B5EB4.jpeg

    66787E08-96A4-47BB-82EF-542D9DCA8A21.jpeg
     
    Eduard and Legomaster1 like this.
  21. Mainebill

    Mainebill Bethany Danielle

    The top of the last digit is clearly a 3
     
    Hookman likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page