Compromising Originality...

coinkat · February 12, 2006 10:10AM

This post will hopefully spark a discussion about a very difficult question... At what point do you compromise originality and settle for a coin that in fact has been dipped or enhanced? Obviously, price and rarity are very much a part of the thought process as well as the eye appeal or lack thereof...

I think this is a very fair question for several collectors and dealers that regularly post here...

DUIGUY · February 12, 2006 10:22AM

Gobroke dollars , er I mean Gobrecht dollars .

fc · February 12, 2006 10:25AM

i think that I compromise for originality when the coin exceeds
the price of 500 dollars.

if I can buy a mint state example for 200-350, darn right I will.
but once over that price threshhold, i look for something more in
a coin.

for example, no motto earlier pieces that have mintages of
less than 100,000 or populations of NGC/PCGS graded coins
of only a 100-200 coins in all grades.

i simply cannot afford a MS61 1844P half eagle. So i bought a low AU.

edited the date of the above coin. doh.

stman · February 12, 2006 11:28AM

In the Capped Bust series, since so many have been "Boinked" with this can be tough. I own some that I know are not completely original. These days with this series I just go by how original it may look. More original than not, less original etc. etc. I recently acquired that 1811 CBH I showed on here, and while it is not original it has other attributes that made the coin desirable. It is completely unc, with no cabinet friction/rub/wear whatsoever.... with a sharp strike and very eye-appealing. So in this case I compromised originality. With so many CBH in mint-state holders with obvious rub/wear it was a great find as far as I'm concerned.

I also commend you for your continuing quest to try and get an "original surfaces" designation. It probably will never happen, but at least it reminds folks of what some of us feel is important in collecting. Now I'm not talking about compromising to the point I'm going to like those dipped CBH with white centers and the vibrant "Blue" around the periph that so many folks on here seem to really like.

291fifth · February 12, 2006 12:01PM

You shouldn't, period. I feel that the market for coins with problems of any sort is going to shrink in the near future.

rainbowroosie · February 12, 2006 12:02PM

I'd rather pay the extra $$$$$

RedTiger · February 12, 2006 12:17PM

Considering the most recent estimates of 50% to 90% of pre-1934 coins having been messed with, I just usually go with market acceptable. Nice original coins usually trade for a high premium. They are not so easy to find, or separate from the artificially toned or dipped or treated coins.

A recent post about large quantities of Redfield Morgan dollars being dipped has me wondering if I can spot original from dipped under the best of circumstances. I would swear up and down that my Redfield is original, but the seed of doubt is now there.

susanlynn9 · February 12, 2006 12:27PM

<< <i>In the Capped Bust series, since so many have been "Boinked" with this can be tough. I own some that I know are not completely original. These days with this series I just go by how original it may look. More original than not, less original etc. etc. I recently acquired that 1811 CBH I showed on here, and while it is not original it has other attributes that made the coin desirable. It is completely unc, with no cabinet friction/rub/wear whatsoever.... with a sharp strike and very eye-appealing. So in this case I compromised originality. With so many CBH in mint-state holders with obvious rub/wear it was a great find as far as I'm concerned.

I also commend you for your continuing quest to try and get an "original surfaces" designation. It probably will never happen, but at least it reminds folks of what some of us feel is important in collecting. Now I'm not talking about compromising to the point I'm going to like those dipped CBH with white centers and the vibrant "Blue" around the periph that so many folks on here seem to really like.

>>

I am in complete agreement. I collect BHD's and many have been cleaned and messed with. Fortunately, these coins wear well so, unless it's been blatantly polished or harshly cleaned, they're still good eye candy (in my opinion).

TheRegulator · February 12, 2006 12:49PM

I think it depends on your collecting goals.

If your goal is to "complete" a set by assembling a designated grouping of dates/mintmarks and there are a few set-stoppers that are pretty much unattainable, then I could see someone purchasing an unoriginal piece. But I don't think any collector should ever settle for the simple reason that it means they are spending money on a piece with which they are not 100% satisfied.

For me, here are two areas of interest and what they have taught me...

Minnesota Obsolete Notes- Forget ever putting together a "complete" set. Even if you had unlimited financial resources, you may not have the opportunity to acquire all the desired pieces. And then what do you do about the pieces that were known to exist but are presently unknown in any condition? Many pieces are absolute dogs with tons of problems, but I would be more than happy to have a few nice, original pieces that are a pleasure to own.

Lincoln Cent Die Varieties- I have fun going to local coin shows hunting for and cherrypicking RPMs, BIEs and such from dealer stock. There's no way you could ever complete a collection of Lincoln cent die varieties, and more are always being discovered. But it's fun to go out there and hunt then down and get a nice cherrypick now and then.

The only sets I want to complete are my circulation sets, especially my Jefferson and Kennedy folders...

Numismatics is fun and I want to keep it that way. I've wasted money on coins that I knew I would never be completely happy with, and I just hate that feeling. That's why I don't settle. I'm Okay with the notion that I won't "complete" my sets. It's still fun.

AuldFartte · February 12, 2006 12:54PM

Original surfaces are, of course, preferred. But if the "problem" is an old, light (not harsh) cleaning, but has retoned, I can overlook it. I'll look for overall eye appeal, quality of the strike, etc., and I'll be happy to get the coin

CTcollector · February 12, 2006 12:57PM

Never. The right coin is worth the wait or extra $$$. Just think ahead of what will be desireable in the future......

TAClough · February 12, 2006 12:58PM

<< <i>i simply cannot afford a MS61 1944P half eagle. So i bought a low AU. >>

I didn't realize that the U.S. made any Half Eagles in 1944. I thought we were off of the gold standard by then.

Tim

stman · February 12, 2006 1:05PM

I also believe many collectors and dealers think certain coins are "original" when they are not. I can look at and have a couple CBH that while they are original looking....and probably to many they would think they indeed are original, IMO I can tell they are not. Also in my previous post I'm not talking about accepting something with problems, obvious hairlines etc. I'm just looking at this in reality is all. Of course the subject of what's "Original" and what's not comes into play. That's why I kinda have a scale in my own mind of how original looking is it.

291fifth · February 12, 2006 7:54PM

The rule for this market should be: "If in doubt, pass."

ColonialCoinUnion · February 12, 2006 10:05PM

<< <i>At what point do you compromise originality and settle for a coin that in fact has been dipped or enhanced? >>

If you simply must have a coin to fill a slot in a set you are building, then I could see making a compromise for just 2 reasons:

1) Price - with the a compromised coin being the only one you can afford, and

2) Availability - with a compromised coin being the only one you can buy

darktone · February 12, 2006 10:48PM

In the series I collect $5 and $10 libs are almost alway's cleaned to some extent- I would say 95% under the grade of MS64 in mint state grades are not original. I would rather have the bagged mark original mint state coin any day over the MS62 coin that some novice say's looks better than my MS65-MS66 coins.

Gemineye · February 12, 2006 11:34PM

I think the compromise will be up to the individual on how one values their collection or series.If one is of high value and
the collector can afford an undoctored coin it would seem foolish to purchase such.
If another collector has waited a long period of time and NOT of considerable means and comes across a coin that would say fill in a key spot but has been doctored a bit ....then the judgement IMO would be to fill it.

......JMHO.................................

coppercoins · February 13, 2006 3:18AM

I would like to meet anyone who can detect "originality" without flaw, 100% of the time. That's the first issue..

Second issue, if "originality" means leaving something on the coin that is eating it away, I would want to remove it, and sooner than later. A lot of people have a skewed vision of "originality" versus "environmental damage" and see them as one in the same. This is far from the case in reality. If an "original" coin is not being subjected to damage by leaving chemicals on the coin that will eat at it, then I don't care if the "original skin" is there...but if the coin is being damaged by people's insistence for lack of luster and "color" that supposedly makes the coin "attractive", then I am against it.

Of course as with all other details in this hobby, each coin is a case unto itself that has to be determined by a discerning eye with experience...but I can say that a number of the "original" coins I have seen in photos on this board are in reality "damaged" coins that continue to rot away with each passing day the owner leaves the "attractive color" on them. No specifics, no examples, I'm not into nitpicking individual coins, especially without being able to observe them in person.

coinkat · February 13, 2006 9:24AM

Coppercoins:

THE TPG COMPANIES ARE NOT EVEN 100% ACCURATE ALL THE TIME GRADING OR EVEN IDENTIFYING VARIETIES AS IT IS...I agree that perhaps 100% of the time is a tough standard, but it is worth the effort, even if it is not perfect. The reason is simple... more original coins will be preserved as original and based on the remaining population of original coins, I would rather do something to preserve and recognize what is left than stand idle and witness the slaughtering....perhaps you disagree and that is fine. This really and truly is the last chance to do something that will has a lasting impact on the direction of numismatics.

I agree that coins that have PVC issues need help as I indicated in RYK'S THREAD regarding his 1856-d 1/2 eagle... please do not confuse restoration due to environmental contamination issues with those that enhance coins for profit. Frankly, your analysis is rather short sided... I have coins with color and toning that date back well before the birth of Ben Franklin, the Glorious Revolution and before the age of Cromwell... Some range from 300 years in age to the days the vikings had control of England... and for the record, these coins are doing quite well and look terrific.

Compromising Originality...

Comments

Leave a Comment