What would you do?
PC
mistake. As a collector I would wrestle with the ethics.
http://coins.about.com/b/2009/03/17/coin-dealer-ethics-overlooked-1893-s-morgan.htm
The scenario for this week's Coin Dealer Ethics question was originally
published in Numismatic News in mid-January. Ever since then, the scenario
has been debated in the News' Letters to the Editor section virtually every
week, with many weeks having several letters about this interesting
situation. I thought that my readers might enjoy discussing it, too, since
it seems to resonate with lots of people. You can read the entire original
article about the overlooked 1893-S Morgan Dollar, but I'll distill the
essential facts, as I see them, here.
In 2005, Dave Lembke bought a few small piles of Morgan Dollars from his
local coin dealer for $7 to $9 each, a price that was just a little over the
silver value of the coins at the time. He took the Morgans home and stashed
them in his safe until he had time to check them for VAMs. (VAMs are popular
Morgan Dollar die varieties.) On December 24, 2005, Dave had some time to
look at the Morgans, and was amazed to discover that one of them was a rare
and valuable 1893-S.
He took the coin to the dealer he bought it from for $7, asking the dealer
how much he would pay for it. In Dave's account, he admits that he didn't
want to tell the dealer that the coin had been sold by him for $7, because
he didn't want to make the dealer "hang himself." The dealer offered $2,100
for the 1893-S Morgan if it was certified as being genuine.
Dave sent the coin in for grading, and it came back graded "VF Details Net
F-15" (which means the coin had some surface damage that prevented it from
attaining a full, unqualified VF grade, in this case a minor surface scratch
and some edge dings.) The important news was that the rare 1893-S Morgan
Dollar was genuine.
Although he held onto the coin for awhile, Dave eventually sold it to buy
his wife a better car. He took it to a second coin dealer to get another
offer, and the dealer agreed to pay Dave $3,150 for the coin, which Dave
accepted.
The bottom line is that Dave turned a $7 investment into a $3,150 sale,
primarily because the dealer who sold the coin had overlooked it when he
sold it.
Numismatic News readers have brought up a number of points while discussing
this little adventure. Some readers took Dave to task for not being honest
with the first dealer. They thought he should have taken the coin back and
admitted that it was in the batch, since no dealer in his right mind would
have sold an 1893-S Morgan for $7. Other readers were more annoyed at Dave
for not wanting to tell the dealer where he got the coin, considering this
to be a form of lying. At least one person thought it was wrong to offer the
coin for sale back to the same dealer he got it from under these
circumstances.
Taking the other side of things, a couple of readers felt that Dave had done
nothing wrong at all; the dealer should have known what he was selling. Some
readers even thought the first dealer was a crook, offering more than $1,000
less than others would pay for the coin, so he deserved what he got by
selling the $7 Morgan.
Interestingly, among the Numismatic News readers who took the time to write
a Letter to the Editor, most of them believed that Dave was in the wrong for
one reason or another.
What do you think? Should Dave have fessed up and returned the coin? Or was
it the dealer's loss for not checking his junk silver more carefully before
selling it? Share your comments below, and next week I'll do a follow-up
column quoting some of the more interesting reader responses.
Jan
You didn't say how long of a time period between buying the coin and
discovery, but there is something obviously missing.
The coin dealer was at fault for obviously not checking his stock. Since he
didn't call Dave or when he saw him say he was missing a 1893s then
obviously the dealer bought all the morgans from someone and didn't even
look at them. If he did I am positive when he saw 1893 he would have looked
at the reverse. Therefore, since the dealer didn't lose anything because he
didn't know what he bought, he bought the lot for face value and sold it for
face value. The dealer lost no money. It is the dealers loss that he didn't
check the coins. Dave should feel no remorse
"PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> wrote in message
news:gpr3m2$pt5$1...@news.motzarella.org...
Bruce Remick
I'd side with Dave. Assuming he bought them as bullion coins and the dealer
was selling them as such. If one looks back a few decades, when all types
of people were selling their silver during the boom, would the typical
dealer recontact a seller if what the seller cashed in turned out to be a
rare silver teapot or say an 1893-S dollar? Unlikely. Most would feel that
the buyer got what he wanted from the sale.
Were I Dave, I wouldn't have gone back to the dealer at all with the coin--
either for an estimate of to gloat over his good fortune. This type of
situation happens all the time in the collectibles market. If a dealer
choses to put the same types of items he deals in up for sale without first
inspecting them, that's simply a poor business practice.
Dave wins this time, IMO.
I have to wonder though how he would have reacted had he first spread the
Morgans out on the counter in front of his local dealer to inspect them
before buying, and there was an 1893-S. Would he have pointed it out to his
dealer as a possible oversight? I might have in that case.
RWF
>> Or was it the dealer's loss for not checking his junk silver more
>> carefully before selling it? Share your comments below, and next week
>> I'll do a follow-up column quoting some of the more interesting
>> reader responses.
Dealer should have checked the coins BEFORE he sold them. It's his tough
luck that he didn't.
Normally it's the dealer who is screwing the uninformed seller and
offering lowball payment for rare coins.
The dealer was a crook anyway for offering only $2100.
Mr. Jaggers
If such an event ever impinges upon my life, I will decide at that future
time what action to take, based on the unique set of circumstances
surrounding it. Meanwhile, I will continue my inquest into the number of
angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
James
som...@some.domain
RWF
news:gpr8v...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> If such an event ever impinges upon my life, I will decide at that
> future time what action to take, based on the unique set of
> circumstances surrounding it. Meanwhile, I will continue my inquest
> into the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
Angels don't dance!
Mr. Jaggers
He was wrong. Modern string theory allows for seven or eight additional
dimensions, which would necessarily yield a very large number.
James
Mr. Jaggers
Natalie Wood was an angel, and she definitely danced.
James
som...@some.domain
almost light speed, smooth peanut butter would turn crunchy. correct?
Mr. Jaggers
No question at all in my mind about that.
James
som...@some.domain
into chop-marked trade dollars?
Mr. Jaggers
Now that one I'm not familiar with.
James
som...@some.domain
government spec. a equal part of klinks constant. you know, there is no radio
in the coffee pot?
Mr. Jaggers
I was under the impression that Cheops was a Pharaoh, complete with his own
pyramid. Shows you what I know.
James
Jud
some...@some.domain wrote:
> it's a side effect of the cheops principal, ie, a elephant is a mouse built to
> government spec. a equal part of klinks constant. you know, there is no radio
> in the coffee pot?
Hey! You got any more of that stuff you are smoking? 8-)
Scott Stevenson
But those dimensions are apparently very tiny--probably less than
one angel in size.
take care,
Scott
"measurements while you wait"
RWF
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
Perhap, perhaps not. Nevertheless, I strongly doubt she danced on the
head of a pin.
Dik T. Winter
...
> I'd side with Dave. Assuming he bought them as bullion coins and the dealer
> was selling them as such. If one looks back a few decades, when all types
> of people were selling their silver during the boom, would the typical
> dealer recontact a seller if what the seller cashed in turned out to be a
> rare silver teapot or say an 1893-S dollar? Unlikely. Most would feel that
> the buyer got what he wanted from the sale.
Indeed. If Dave came back stating that the dealer made an error, would the
dealer go back to the person whom he bought it from?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
mazorj
"Dik T. Winter" <Dik.W...@cwi.nl> wrote in message
news:KGrD8...@cwi.nl...
> In article <mI8wl.96125$rb1....@newsfe02.iad> "Bruce Remick"
> <rem...@cox.net> writes:
> ...
> > I'd side with Dave. Assuming he bought them as bullion coins and
> > the dealer
> > was selling them as such. If one looks back a few decades, when
> > all types
> > of people were selling their silver during the boom, would the
> > typical
> > dealer recontact a seller if what the seller cashed in turned out
> > to be a
> > rare silver teapot or say an 1893-S dollar? Unlikely. Most would
> > feel that
> > the buyer got what he wanted from the sale.
>
> Indeed. If Dave came back stating that the dealer made an error,
> would the
> dealer go back to the person whom he bought it from?
If he couldn't identify the seller, the question is moot. If he could
identify the seller, the answer would be a resounding...
"Of course not!"