Let’s test your ethics: You go into a coin shop with a rare variety–say, a 1900-O/CC Morgan Dollar –but do not realize you have the overmintmark. You think it is just an almost uncirculated 1900-O. The price difference is significant at AU55: 1900-O, $65; 1900-O/CC, $450.

You don’t know that, either.

What should an ethical dealer do? If he belongs to the Professional Numismatists Guild, he must be truthful in “correctly grading and describing a coin’s condition, authenticity, and other material facts.” That means coin dealers should inform you about the overmintmark and pay wholesale price for the coin, roughly $385.

Now let’s switch roles. You are at a coin show and spot a dealer with a 1900-O Morgan selling for $75. Because you know varieties, you recognize this as a 1900-O/CC overmintmark. The dealer doesn’t. What should you do?

Give it some thought. We’ll revisit this scenario at the end of this article.

Let’s Talk Ethics

In addition to being a numismatist, I am a top ethicist with several books by Oxford University Press and other research publications.

I am concerned about the reputation of our hobby. We are coping with untold numbers of counterfeits, replicas, scams, social media hype, coin app hallucinations, microscope obsessions, and phishing expeditions, ruining the good name of coin collecting.

So I had an immediate negative reaction recently when I saw this post:

The author’s gloating about the price upset me as much as the “steal,” paying less than a dollar for a $40 coin. It prompted me to take a hard stance on his ethics, advising him to return it to the manager of Goodwill and let them know about the value.

He disagreed snarkily.

His feed erupted with others posting laughing emojis on my comment and most supporting the gloating buyer and denigrating Goodwill’s business practices. No one expressed concern about what he did.

I took a screenshot of the post, putting it on my feed. I was among friends here. But again, there was dissent.

To be sure, most agreed with me but some also criticized Goodwill, saying it deserves to be cheated. Some supported the gloating buyer because it was Goodwill’s responsibility–not his–to know what it had.

In ethics, this is known as “justification,” saying an action is okay–not because it is ethical–but because of distaste for the victim/loser (aka Goodwill).

So let’s eliminate Goodwill and restate the issue: What if the coin was in a Lutheran Church rummage sale?

Would you pay less than a buck for it … or tell the minister? If you yielded to temptation and took the coin, would you brag on Facebook that you effectively “stole” a $40 coin from a church?

This is known as situational ethics: it depends who the victim/loser is. Goodwill? Serves them right! Lutheran Church? Sure, but not Catholic. You get the idea.

Journalism embraces situational ethics. That’s not very encouraging. Some 36% of U.S. adults have no trust at all in the media with another 33% expressing “not very much” confidence.

So if you distrust the media and feel similarly, maybe you also should reconsider situational ethics. It’s never been very popular.

What about business ethics? Some remarked that Goodwill had the responsibility to know what it had. In other words, the seller should know the value of merchandise. If not, all bets are off.

Business ethics are about as popular as journalism ethics.

A significant portion of consumers actively consider and prioritize ethical practices in their purchasing decisions, with many willing to boycott brands that act unethically or pay more for products from ethically-minded companies.

Let’s talk about the Hobby

The topic here is “numismatic” ethics. There are three entities: buyer, seller, hobby.

Coin collecting doesn’t have a stellar reputation, either. First off, the industry is self-regulated. Those new to the hobby are particularly at risk of being taken advantage of by unscrupulous dealers who may rely on a buyer’s inexperience. Dealers must buy coins for less than they sell them to cover overhead. This prompts some to low-ball people, especially ones selling inherited collections.

Let’s Test Your Ethics

Remember the scenario mentioned at the beginning of this article? You know that a dealer has an 1900-O/CC rarity worth $450. But he hasn’t noticed the overmintmark and is selling the Morgan for $75.

Many will argue it is the dealer’s responsibility to know the value of their wares. After all, he is the seller and an expert. If he misses the overmintmark, fair game.

Not according to numismatic ethics.

You have three are choices:

1. Keep silent and buy the coin for $75. This is not considered ethical by most collectors. It exploits the dealer’s lack of knowledge for a significant personal gain and damages the reputation of the hobby.
2. Inform the dealer of the variety and offer a fair price. This is the most ethical approach. It builds trust within the numismatic community and demonstrates honesty.
3. Inform the dealer, but walk away. True, the collector misses out on a “steal,” but they have acted with integrity and respected the dealer’s right to full information.

Note again that there are three parties here: The customer, the dealer and the hobby.

Even Numismatic Nancy knows that:

Numismatic ethics requires us to use coin knowledge to inform others, not to to take advantage of them, including dealers. Even in online and estate auctions, I not only identify counterfeits for the seller but also varieties that they might have missed.

We embrace ethics to uphold the integrity of the hobby community of which we all are a part.