diff --git a/tests/elabissues/overload_with_list_coercion.lean b/tests/elabissues/overload_with_list_coercion.lean
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..2c8abef46a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/elabissues/overload_with_list_coercion.lean
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+structure Var : Type := (name : String)
+instance Var.nameCoe : HasCoe String Var := ⟨Var.mk⟩
+
+structure A : Type := (u : Unit)
+structure B : Type := (u : Unit)
+
+def a : A := A.mk ()
+def b : B := B.mk ()
+
+def Foo.chalk : A → List Var → Unit := λ _ _ => ()
+def Bar.chalk : B → Unit := λ _ => ()
+
+open Foo
+open Bar
+
+/- The following succeeds: -/
+#check Foo.chalk a ["foo"] -- succeeds
+
+/-
+The following application fails, due to a curious interaction
+between coercions and ad-hoc overloading.
+-/
+#check chalk a ["foo"] -- fails
+
+/-
+Note that the first argument clearly distinguishes the two
+`chalk` applications, and there are no coercions in play for the first argument.
+
+I am not arguing that we should support this case, merely logging that it surprised me,
+and that I can not employ an otherwise desirable use of overloading because of it.
+
+Note: it works if `Foo.chalk` takes `A` and `Var` and we pass `a` and `"foo"`.
+-/