Are These To Good To Be Real?

Thank you g048406 for finding the coins pictures and the info on them. How did you find them so quickly?

I found these coins at the PCGS pay website - "coinfacts". PCGS now gives detailed descriptions for their slabbed coins and info on the coins auction history.
To supply a 2 dimensional picture of a coin, without mentioning the coins known "short comings", is intentional deception. In this case, a Third Party has spotted problems with the coin. This seller is aware of the problems. I have no problem with him disagreeing and cracking the coins out, BUT, he has an obligation to disclose the fact that a TPG had stated otherwise. If the seller doesn't want to play be ebay's rules, then he shouldn't sell on ebay.

Actually, it is very profitable. The coins are cracked-ou of problem holders and sold as problem-free coins. The 1799 dollar in question, was purchased for $3000 as a PCGS EF-tooled and had been bid to $6000+ just 1 day into the auction before the listing was cancelled.

Thanks for that. Good info

Nice detective work!

Nice detective work! As I would never buy a raw coin online from an untrusted source at any serious price levels, I am safe. But it was really neat seeing the entire thing settled out and made sense of.

As for the moral end of this, no it is not ok to make a business out of selling known bad material deceptively.

People were ignorant to buy snake oil and think it could do everything advertised. It doesn't mean it is acceptable to sell it.

To the OP: IMHO-I certainly hope you don't bid on these types of coins raw on ebay, as in one way or another you will likely not get what you paid for.

Ben, are you saying that it's okay for the seller to be dishonest, because the onus lies upon the buyer? That's ridiculous. If someone is caught being dishonest, they should pay the penalty.

Ben, the seller is aware that the coin is a problem coin. This problem may be overt (as in the gouged coin) or a little less obvious, and in the latter case, "less obvious" is even more problematic because the best photographer can still only provide a representation of the coin, not the coin itself, for study. To pretend these coins are problem-free is just . . . it's not even just "wrong," it goes beyond that in some subtle way I can't quite find words for. It's like an "UNSEARCHED ROLL VDB ON END!" but times a thousand, because of the sums involved. It's like I was saying earlier in the Westminster Mint thread--there's a line between "required" and "ethical and courteous" and you should jump over that line into "ethical" every time.

Yes, you should do your homework, certainly. But all it takes is giving the seller the benefit of the doubt--"all of the devices are right, all of the right diagnostics are there, that dullness could be a bad light source"--and boom, you're done.