What would you do?

In article , "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
wrote:
In article , "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
PC wrote:
As a dealer I would not expect someone to let me redeem myself from
such a mistake. As a collector I would wrestle with the ethics.



http://coins.about.com/b/2009/03/17/...d-1893-s-morga
n.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.

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


it's 11 sccording to that aquinas guy.

He was wrong. Modern string theory allows for seven or eight additional
dimensions, which would necessarily yield a very large number.

James


hmmm, yes, and if the ee smith star drive were used to accelerate a body to
almost light speed, smooth peanut butter would turn crunchy. correct?

in wrote:
In article , "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
in wrote:
In article , "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
in wrote:
In article , "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
PC wrote:
As a dealer I would not expect someone to let me redeem myself
from such a mistake. As a collector I would wrestle with the
ethics.




http://coins.about.com/b/2009/03/17/...d-1893-s-morga
n.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.

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


it's 11 sccording to that aquinas guy.

He was wrong. Modern string theory allows for seven or eight
additional dimensions, which would necessarily yield a very large
number.

James


hmmm, yes, and if the ee smith star drive were used to accelerate a
body to
almost light speed, smooth peanut butter would turn crunchy.
correct?

No question at all in my mind about that.

James


i bet you also know the orange peel jelly law of physics that turns
the peels
into chop-marked trade dollars?

Now that one I'm not familiar with.

James

In article , "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
wrote:
In article , "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
in wrote:
In article , "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
PC wrote:
As a dealer I would not expect someone to let me redeem myself
from such a mistake. As a collector I would wrestle with the
ethics.




http://coins.about.com/b/2009/03/17/...d-1893-s-morga
n.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.

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


it's 11 sccording to that aquinas guy.

He was wrong. Modern string theory allows for seven or eight
additional dimensions, which would necessarily yield a very large
number.

James


hmmm, yes, and if the ee smith star drive were used to accelerate a
body to
almost light speed, smooth peanut butter would turn crunchy. correct?

No question at all in my mind about that.

James


i bet you also know the orange peel jelly law of physics that turns the peels
into chop-marked trade dollars?

in wrote:
In article , "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
in wrote:
In article , "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
in wrote:
In article , "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
in wrote:
In article , "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
PC wrote:
As a dealer I would not expect someone to let me redeem myself
from such a mistake. As a collector I would wrestle with the
ethics.





http://coins.about.com/b/2009/03/17/...d-1893-s-morga
n.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.

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


it's 11 sccording to that aquinas guy.

He was wrong. Modern string theory allows for seven or eight
additional dimensions, which would necessarily yield a very large
number.

James


hmmm, yes, and if the ee smith star drive were used to accelerate
a body to
almost light speed, smooth peanut butter would turn crunchy.
correct?

No question at all in my mind about that.

James


i bet you also know the orange peel jelly law of physics that turns
the peels
into chop-marked trade dollars?

Now that one I'm not familiar with.

James


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?

I was under the impression that Cheops was a Pharaoh, complete with his own
pyramid. Shows you what I know.

James

In article , "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
wrote:
In article , "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
in wrote:
In article , "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
in wrote:
In article , "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
PC wrote:
As a dealer I would not expect someone to let me redeem myself
from such a mistake. As a collector I would wrestle with the
ethics.





http://coins.about.com/b/2009/03/17/...d-1893-s-morga
n.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.

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


it's 11 sccording to that aquinas guy.

He was wrong. Modern string theory allows for seven or eight
additional dimensions, which would necessarily yield a very large
number.

James


hmmm, yes, and if the ee smith star drive were used to accelerate a
body to
almost light speed, smooth peanut butter would turn crunchy.
correct?

No question at all in my mind about that.

James


i bet you also know the orange peel jelly law of physics that turns
the peels
into chop-marked trade dollars?

Now that one I'm not familiar with.

James


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?

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-)

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:28:13 -0500, "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:

wrote:
In article , "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:


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


it's 11 sccording to that aquinas guy.

He was wrong. Modern string theory allows for seven or eight additional
dimensions, which would necessarily yield a very large number.

But those dimensions are apparently very tiny--probably less than
one angel in size.

take care,
Scott
"measurements while you wait"

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
RWF wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
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!

Natalie Wood was an angel, and she definitely danced.

Perhap, perhaps not. Nevertheless, I strongly doubt she danced on the
head of a pin.

In article "Bruce Remick" 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?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

"Dik T. Winter" wrote in message
...
In article "Bruce Remick"
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!"