Home› U.S. Coin Forum

Does a fingerprint on a coin make it circulated?

rec78rec78 Posts: 5,795 ✭✭✭✭✭
in U.S. Coin Forum
image

Does a fingerprint on a coin make it circulated?

Sign in to vote!
This is a public poll: others will see what you voted for.
«1

Comments

  • rec78rec78 Posts: 5,795 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes

    @TurtleCat said:
    A fingerprint is a fingerprint, not wear. If it is considered wear then all toning, dipping, and anything else that alters the surface of the coin would also be wear.

    Anything else that alters the surfaces is wear, in my opinion. Environmental damage alters the surfaces also. I do not consider any environmentally damaged coins to be unc., even though they may have been when they went into the environmental damaging place. My description of uncirculated is "As Minted".

    image
  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    The right answer is no.... However, for me, personally, the answer is yes.... I do not like fingerprints on coins. Cheers, RickO

  • jesbrokenjesbroken Posts: 10,386 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    Fingerprint could happen at the mint or anywhere and would have nothing to do with whether a coin was placed in circulation. Maybe making the Uncirculated or proof coin not MA but still not circulated.
    Jim


    When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln

    Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
  • JBKJBK Posts: 16,145 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    A new collector question/assumption. It was for me many years ago, anyway.

    "Uncirculated" is a grade or assessment of condition, not a status.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 14,367 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 8, 2021 3:32PM

    Here’s one definition I saw for “circulated”:
    “The general definition of the term ‘circulated,’ when used to label a coin, describes a coin that has entered the stream of commerce after having been issued for general circulation by a minting authority.”

    So a coin that meets the above conditions could be said to be circulated, even if it doesn’t acquire a fingerprint from being held. And it’s circulated, even if no wear is detectable and even if the coin would grade 60 or better. Said another way, many lightly circulated coins are graded as uncirculated, but they’re still circulated.😉

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • WalkerfanWalkerfan Posts: 9,619 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    It is a surface issue but not wear. Only wear makes a coin circulated.

    Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍

    My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):

    https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/

  • BAJJERFANBAJJERFAN Posts: 31,207 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Regardless, it gives a serious hit to desirability of some coins. It's something one can choose to live with tho.

    theknowitalltroll;
  • johnny9434johnny9434 Posts: 28,946 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sometimes

    A finger print just does not look good. Jmo

  • JBKJBK Posts: 16,145 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    @MFeld said:
    Here’s one definition I saw for “circulated”:
    “The general definition of the term ‘circulated,’ when used to label a coin, describes a coin that has entered the stream of commerce after having been issued for general circulation by a minting authority.”'

    No idea where that is from, but numismatically it is not correct. It sounds like a generic definition in laymen's terms.

    By that definition it could be argued that a new roll of coins "enters" the "stream of commerce" once the retailer picks it up from the bank, or once even the bank takes delivery, for that matter . Even if you wait until the roll is cracked open and dumped into the register it still does not apply from a numismatic perspective.

    Years ago as a young collector I refused to keep some blazing and flawless examples of new coins because they came to me in change from a cash register that had obviously been stocked with new rolls. I have always regretted that I had such a narrow definition of uncirculated back then,

  • ctf_error_coinsctf_error_coins Posts: 15,433 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sometimes

    Technically no but I voted sometimes :D

    I have seen MS coins with multiple dark ugly fingerprints that I could never buy nor really consider as a Mint State coin.

  • WalkerfanWalkerfan Posts: 9,619 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    @BAJJERFAN said:
    Regardless, it gives a serious hit to desirability of some coins. It's something one can choose to live with tho.

    Light ones that are difficult to see don't bother me, at all, but prominent ones are a deal-breaker for me.

    Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍

    My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):

    https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 14,367 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JBK said:

    @MFeld said:
    Here’s one definition I saw for “circulated”:
    “The general definition of the term ‘circulated,’ when used to label a coin, describes a coin that has entered the stream of commerce after having been issued for general circulation by a minting authority.”'

    No idea where that is from, but numismatically it is not correct. It sounds like a generic definition in laymen's terms.

    By that definition it could be argued that a new roll of coins "enters" the "stream of commerce" once the retailer picks it up from the bank, or once even the bank takes delivery, for that matter . Even if you wait until the roll is cracked open and dumped into the register it still does not apply from a numismatic perspective.

    Years ago as a young collector I refused to keep some blazing and flawless examples of new coins because they came to me in change from a cash register that had obviously been stocked with new rolls. I have always regretted that I had such a narrow definition of uncirculated back then,

    I believe it was from Coin World and it sounds correct to me. It’s not incorrect, just because the word “circulated” is used differently for purposes of grading under the Sheldon scale.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • TurtleCatTurtleCat Posts: 4,628 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    I think most of us would find a fingerprint undesirable. I just don’t consider it wear.

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    No.

    Seems you need to be careful how you define wear. Seems that bags of Morgan Dollars... you know the ones from Carson City that the Government sold nearly 50 years ago may not meet your definition of "as minted" if that is the required and operative word for uncirculated. Clearly these coins left the mint intended to enter the stream of commerce and many sustained bag marks from the stage coaches and movement in general. And by the same logic that a fingerprint constitutes wear, the same can be said of those bag marks, toning or any type of color that resonates over time onto the surface of an otherwise uncirculated coin.

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • JBKJBK Posts: 16,145 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    @MFeld said:

    @JBK said:

    @MFeld said:
    Here’s one definition I saw for “circulated”:
    “The general definition of the term ‘circulated,’ when used to label a coin, describes a coin that has entered the stream of commerce after having been issued for general circulation by a minting authority.”'

    No idea where that is from, but numismatically it is not correct. It sounds like a generic definition in laymen's terms.

    By that definition it could be argued that a new roll of coins "enters" the "stream of commerce" once the retailer picks it up from the bank, or once even the bank takes delivery, for that matter . Even if you wait until the roll is cracked open and dumped into the register it still does not apply from a numismatic perspective.

    Years ago as a young collector I refused to keep some blazing and flawless examples of new coins because they came to me in change from a cash register that had obviously been stocked with new rolls. I have always regretted that I had such a narrow definition of uncirculated back then,

    I believe it was from Coin World and it sounds correct to me. It’s not incorrect, just because the word “circulated” is used differently for purposes of grading under the Sheldon scale.

    Then Coin World needs to find another line of work. That definition needlessly confuses people. In the most broadly general terms it describes the situation, but it quickly falls apart when applied to actual specific coins.

    Also, it is impossible to validate. Take a coin with no wear out of the cash register and submit it to a TPG and it will come back as uncirculated.

    Based on that definition, it could be argued that only coins sold directly by the Mint to collectors are truly uncirculated. It also means that a pocket piece carried by a collector who bought it from the mint is still "uncirculated" even if worn smooth, as long as it never "entered commerce".

    I prefer definitions which stand on their own. If "uncirculated" is nothing more than a statement of provenance then it is not a practical designation for coin collectors.

  • TurtleCatTurtleCat Posts: 4,628 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    @MFeld said:

    @JBK said:

    @MFeld said:
    Here’s one definition I saw for “circulated”:
    “The general definition of the term ‘circulated,’ when used to label a coin, describes a coin that has entered the stream of commerce after having been issued for general circulation by a minting authority.”'

    No idea where that is from, but numismatically it is not correct. It sounds like a generic definition in laymen's terms.

    By that definition it could be argued that a new roll of coins "enters" the "stream of commerce" once the retailer picks it up from the bank, or once even the bank takes delivery, for that matter . Even if you wait until the roll is cracked open and dumped into the register it still does not apply from a numismatic perspective.

    Years ago as a young collector I refused to keep some blazing and flawless examples of new coins because they came to me in change from a cash register that had obviously been stocked with new rolls. I have always regretted that I had such a narrow definition of uncirculated back then,

    I believe it was from Coin World and it sounds correct to me. It’s not incorrect, just because the word “circulated” is used differently for purposes of grading under the Sheldon scale.

    I believe it originated with the mint. Circulation strikes vs those for uncirculated sets. It really doesn’t matter too much, though. All that matters is how the adopted grading standard chooses to designate things.

    Of course individuals are free to have their own standard and determine the relative difference from the generally accepted standard.

  • JimnightJimnight Posts: 10,846 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    No.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 14,367 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JBK said:

    @MFeld said:

    @JBK said:

    @MFeld said:
    Here’s one definition I saw for “circulated”:
    “The general definition of the term ‘circulated,’ when used to label a coin, describes a coin that has entered the stream of commerce after having been issued for general circulation by a minting authority.”'

    No idea where that is from, but numismatically it is not correct. It sounds like a generic definition in laymen's terms.

    By that definition it could be argued that a new roll of coins "enters" the "stream of commerce" once the retailer picks it up from the bank, or once even the bank takes delivery, for that matter . Even if you wait until the roll is cracked open and dumped into the register it still does not apply from a numismatic perspective.

    Years ago as a young collector I refused to keep some blazing and flawless examples of new coins because they came to me in change from a cash register that had obviously been stocked with new rolls. I have always regretted that I had such a narrow definition of uncirculated back then,

    I believe it was from Coin World and it sounds correct to me. It’s not incorrect, just because the word “circulated” is used differently for purposes of grading under the Sheldon scale.

    Then Coin World needs to find another line of work. That definition needlessly confuses people. In the most broadly general terms it describes the situation, but it quickly falls apart when applied to actual specific coins.

    Also, it is impossible to validate. Take a coin with no wear out of the cash register and submit it to a TPG and it will come back as uncirculated.

    Based on that definition, it could be argued that only coins sold directly by the Mint to collectors are truly uncirculated. It also means that a pocket piece carried by a collector who bought it from the mint is still "uncirculated" even if worn smooth, as long as it never "entered commerce".

    I prefer definitions which stand on their own. If "uncirculated" is nothing more than a statement of provenance then it is not a practical designation for coin collectors.

    How does your definition of “uncirculated” stand on its own when the same coin can be graded “uncirculated” one time and “almost uncirculated” another? You’re focused on the grading scale. And while that’s your prerogative, it doesn’t make other definitions wrong.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • abcde12345abcde12345 Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    @Jimnight said:
    No.

    :)

  • JBKJBK Posts: 16,145 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    @MFeld said:

    @JBK said:

    @MFeld said:

    @JBK said:

    @MFeld said:
    Here’s one definition I saw for “circulated”:
    “The general definition of the term ‘circulated,’ when used to label a coin, describes a coin that has entered the stream of commerce after having been issued for general circulation by a minting authority.”'

    No idea where that is from, but numismatically it is not correct. It sounds like a generic definition in laymen's terms.

    By that definition it could be argued that a new roll of coins "enters" the "stream of commerce" once the retailer picks it up from the bank, or once even the bank takes delivery, for that matter . Even if you wait until the roll is cracked open and dumped into the register it still does not apply from a numismatic perspective.

    Years ago as a young collector I refused to keep some blazing and flawless examples of new coins because they came to me in change from a cash register that had obviously been stocked with new rolls. I have always regretted that I had such a narrow definition of uncirculated back then,

    I believe it was from Coin World and it sounds correct to me. It’s not incorrect, just because the word “circulated” is used differently for purposes of grading under the Sheldon scale.

    Then Coin World needs to find another line of work. That definition needlessly confuses people. In the most broadly general terms it describes the situation, but it quickly falls apart when applied to actual specific coins.

    Also, it is impossible to validate. Take a coin with no wear out of the cash register and submit it to a TPG and it will come back as uncirculated.

    Based on that definition, it could be argued that only coins sold directly by the Mint to collectors are truly uncirculated. It also means that a pocket piece carried by a collector who bought it from the mint is still "uncirculated" even if worn smooth, as long as it never "entered commerce".

    I prefer definitions which stand on their own. If "uncirculated" is nothing more than a statement of provenance then it is not a practical designation for coin collectors.

    How does your definition of “uncirculated” stand on its own when the same coin can be graded “uncirculated” one time and “almost uncirculated” another? You’re focused on the grading scale. And while that’s your prerogative, it doesn’t make other definitions wrong.

    You know what it means, You are just trying to be argumentative as usual. :D

    Under the general (non-numismatic) definition you subscribed to, no coin that has been sent along the pipeline to be used in commerce is "uncirculated", and there is no way to call a coin "uncirculated" unless its chain of ownership and use can be tracked back to the moment of striking. Such an approach is impractical and nonsensical, not to mention impossible.

    I'll tell you what - let's adopt your definition and then demand that anyone who claims to have an uncirculated coin PROVE its provenance. Let's start with the big auction houses - anyone have a contact at Heritage? :*

  • MWallaceMWallace Posts: 4,294 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    No, but it makes it undesirable to me.

    http://www.SmallDollars.com
  • BAJJERFANBAJJERFAN Posts: 31,207 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JBK said:

    @MFeld said:
    Here’s one definition I saw for “circulated”:
    “The general definition of the term ‘circulated,’ when used to label a coin, describes a coin that has entered the stream of commerce after having been issued for general circulation by a minting authority.”'

    No idea where that is from, but numismatically it is not correct. It sounds like a generic definition in laymen's terms.

    By that definition it could be argued that a new roll of coins "enters" the "stream of commerce" once the retailer picks it up from the bank, or once even the bank takes delivery, for that matter . Even if you wait until the roll is cracked open and dumped into the register it still does not apply from a numismatic perspective.

    Years ago as a young collector I refused to keep some blazing and flawless examples of new coins because they came to me in change from a cash register that had obviously been stocked with new rolls. I have always regretted that I had such a narrow definition of uncirculated back then,

    It's the continued circulation of those same coins that keeps the fingerprints from becoming prominent.

    theknowitalltroll;
  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 14,367 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JBK said:

    @MFeld said:

    @JBK said:

    @MFeld said:

    @JBK said:

    @MFeld said:
    Here’s one definition I saw for “circulated”:
    “The general definition of the term ‘circulated,’ when used to label a coin, describes a coin that has entered the stream of commerce after having been issued for general circulation by a minting authority.”'

    No idea where that is from, but numismatically it is not correct. It sounds like a generic definition in laymen's terms.

    By that definition it could be argued that a new roll of coins "enters" the "stream of commerce" once the retailer picks it up from the bank, or once even the bank takes delivery, for that matter . Even if you wait until the roll is cracked open and dumped into the register it still does not apply from a numismatic perspective.

    Years ago as a young collector I refused to keep some blazing and flawless examples of new coins because they came to me in change from a cash register that had obviously been stocked with new rolls. I have always regretted that I had such a narrow definition of uncirculated back then,

    I believe it was from Coin World and it sounds correct to me. It’s not incorrect, just because the word “circulated” is used differently for purposes of grading under the Sheldon scale.

    Then Coin World needs to find another line of work. That definition needlessly confuses people. In the most broadly general terms it describes the situation, but it quickly falls apart when applied to actual specific coins.

    Also, it is impossible to validate. Take a coin with no wear out of the cash register and submit it to a TPG and it will come back as uncirculated.

    Based on that definition, it could be argued that only coins sold directly by the Mint to collectors are truly uncirculated. It also means that a pocket piece carried by a collector who bought it from the mint is still "uncirculated" even if worn smooth, as long as it never "entered commerce".

    I prefer definitions which stand on their own. If "uncirculated" is nothing more than a statement of provenance then it is not a practical designation for coin collectors.

    How does your definition of “uncirculated” stand on its own when the same coin can be graded “uncirculated” one time and “almost uncirculated” another? You’re focused on the grading scale. And while that’s your prerogative, it doesn’t make other definitions wrong.

    You know what it means, You are just trying to be argumentative as usual. :D

    Under the general (non-numismatic) definition you subscribed to, no coin that has been sent along the pipeline to be used in commerce is "uncirculated", and there is no way to call a coin "uncirculated" unless its chain of ownership and use can be tracked back to the moment of striking. Such an approach is impractical and nonsensical, not to mention impossible.

    I'll tell you what - let's adopt your definition and then demand that anyone who claims to have an uncirculated coin PROVE its provenance. Let's start with the big auction houses - anyone have a contact at Heritage? :*

    As you know, it’s not my definition. It’s a definition, that is technically correct, even if impractical and disliked by you. And I understand that it won’t work for thIs industry’s grading purposes. I’m not being anymore argumentative than you are, and please feel free to have the last word.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Namvet69Namvet69 Posts: 9,205 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    No but their presence is not welcome. Peace Roy

    BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 35,556 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    You can actually circulate a coin and it still be uncirculated.

  • CoinJunkieCoinJunkie Posts: 8,772 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    Not according to TPG standards.

    My Roosevelt Dime Registry Set
  • AUandAGAUandAG Posts: 24,849 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    There are prints on GSA CC dollars that circulated from west to east but never got out of their bags.....at least most didn't.

    bob :)

    Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 35,556 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    @rec78 said:

    @TurtleCat said:
    A fingerprint is a fingerprint, not wear. If it is considered wear then all toning, dipping, and anything else that alters the surface of the coin would also be wear.

    Anything else that alters the surfaces is wear, in my opinion. Environmental damage alters the surfaces also. I do not consider any environmentally damaged coins to be unc., even though they may have been when they went into the environmental damaging place. My description of uncirculated is "As Minted".

    This is not true within the hobby: toning alters the surface more than a fingerprint but is not considered wear. Environmental damage is not considered wear either and it isn't evidence of circulation. Take a proof-70 coin direct from the Mint and bury it in the ground and it will accrue environmental damage but no "wear".

    You can use "as minted" if you want, but no one else knows what that means. We are not free to redefine terms and expect them to have meaning.

    This is more than an academic argument. If I list a coin with a fingerprint on eBay and call it gem uncirculated, are you going to file a complaint? If you buy a PCGS MS69 slabbed coin with a fingerprint, are you going to request that they meet their guarantee?

  • MrEurekaMrEureka Posts: 24,362 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Before I answer, tell me if a coin that grades VG is in very good condition, and if a Proof proves anything at all.

    Andy Lustig

    Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.

    Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
  • 1630Boston1630Boston Posts: 14,108 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    no
    .

    Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb, Ricko

    Bad transactions with : nobody to date

  • koynekwestkoynekwest Posts: 10,048 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    Of course not.

  • PerryHallPerryHall Posts: 46,608 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    If a newly minted coin enters circulation and is removed from circulation before there is any wear, is it considered circulated or uncirculated?

    Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
    "Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
    "Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire

  • OnastoneOnastone Posts: 4,071 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes

    Isn't the presence of a fingerprint the first stage of circulation? What point do you consider the circulation to start? Two fingerprints? Three? If I pass a sparkly new coin around a group of 100 people, and they very carefully touch just the edge and leave no trace of fingerprints, is that uncirculated? Of course a worn coin is easily distinguished as circulated, but you have to draw the line somewhere. To me, a fingerprint indicates circulation has begun.

    A coin mixed in a bag from the mint gets tossed around for decades and has the presence of many bag marks. That coin taken out, with gloves, untouched, is considered uncirculated but is really showing signs of wear. (as @coinkat said already)

    I am just surprised how the majority here and the TPG's agree to NO...although fingerprints on a coin drive almost all of you crazy. I must change my way of thinking and try to redefine my definition of circulated.

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    In my view, a fingerprint is simply not wear from circulation nor can that be a measure that somehow changes the status of a coin from uncirculated to circulated. As an example, I have an 1860 British half cent that most would agree is red or more likely RB as it features a fingerprint that would make everyone here cringe. However... it is still red or RB, uncirculated with no signs of wear.

    In our definitions of circulated and uncirculated, it seems that the most obvious is left out of the equation... coins were meant to be handled if for no other reason than for them to fulfill their intended purpose whether that be for commerce or to be admired.

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • coastaljerseyguycoastaljerseyguy Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    No - I believe every classic uncirculated coin has been touched by human hands, whether from personnel at the mints, bank personnel or us collectors. The early Morgan master collectors who bot and sold hundreds of bags probably looked at every coin to pick out and collect the gems. Coins were either handled carelessly or with great care, but they were handled, even if not in true commerce. No one here would say there are no uncirculated coins by the strictest definition, just undesirable unc coins.

  • BroadstruckBroadstruck Posts: 30,497 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    Just mishandled.

    To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
  • astroratastrorat Posts: 9,221 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Uncirculated is an archaic term for grading (yet in our vernacular), since it is relatively meaningless from a preservation standpoint. Coins put into circulation and removed quickly, before showing wear, are considered "uncirculated."

    Numismatist Ordinaire
    See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 14,367 ✭✭✭✭✭

    How do you define "circulated"? That should go a long way in determining the answer to your question, because the word means different things to different people.

    As I tried to explain in an earlier post in this thread, "circulated" with respect to the Sheldon grading scale isn't the same thing as "circulated" in the sense of coins actually circulating (but not initially showing wear).

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • HydrantHydrant Posts: 7,773 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    No

  • oih82w8oih82w8 Posts: 12,471 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would think that anytime a coin is displaced from the original container it was in, is considered circulated. It may not show wear, but it is circulated. Fingerprints would be indicative of circulation.

    oih82w8 = Oh I Hate To Wait _defectus patientia_aka...Dr. Defecto - Curator of RMO's

    BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
  • JBKJBK Posts: 16,145 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    I generally dislike these purely academic discussions. They don't solve anything and just muddy the waters for any newbies who are following along. I regret participating but I won't delete any posts as I think that is cheating. :p

    A friend has a perfect expression for such mental exercises but it is a little too indelicate for the forum so I won't use it.

    As many have said, a fingerprint can make coin undesirable, aside from any impact on condition or status.

  • BuffaloIronTailBuffaloIronTail Posts: 7,519 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    @PerryHall said:
    No. Wear makes makes it circulated.

    A fingerprint on an obviously uncirculated coin means that someone didn't handle it in the proper way.

    Pete

    "I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
  • BryceMBryceM Posts: 11,844 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    The results of the poll speak for themselves. I'm not sure I've ever seen 9 out of 10 people agree on anything here before.

    This is perhaps the most unifying thread I've ever seen.

    ;)

  • BuffaloIronTailBuffaloIronTail Posts: 7,519 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    @Jimnight said:
    No.

    No.

    Pete

    "I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 35,556 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    @Onastone said:
    Isn't the presence of a fingerprint the first stage of circulation? What point do you consider the circulation to start? Two fingerprints? Three? If I pass a sparkly new coin around a group of 100 people, and they very carefully touch just the edge and leave no trace of fingerprints, is that uncirculated? Of course a worn coin is easily distinguished as circulated, but you have to draw the line somewhere. To me, a fingerprint indicates circulation has begun.

    A coin mixed in a bag from the mint gets tossed around for decades and has the presence of many bag marks. That coin taken out, with gloves, untouched, is considered uncirculated but is really showing signs of wear. (as @coinkat said already)

    I am just surprised how the majority here and the TPG's agree to NO...although fingerprints on a coin drive almost all of you crazy. I must change my way of thinking and try to redefine my definition of circulated.

    1. "circulated" is not that literal in the parlance. It refers to EVIDENCE of wear, not actual circulation.
    2. How do you know it isn't a fingerprint from the minter?
  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 34,606 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No

    A fingerprint does not make a coin a circulated piece if it has no wear and all of the luster, but it can take a lot points away from the MS grade if it's really obvious. If coin was an MS-65 and it gets a big ugly fingerprint on it, it's an MS-60 so far as I'm concerned. Gem grade coins don't have any big distractions.

    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
  • DreamcrusherDreamcrusher Posts: 210 ✭✭✭✭

    If you believe that a fingerprint alters the surface then the vast majority of Morgan dollars (which have been dipped) are not uncirculated. Luster is created by metal flow at the Mint and can never be recreated. Every dip wears a portion of the peaks of luster away. I am with the still uncirculated but undesirable crowd.

  • fathomfathom Posts: 1,818 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You can split hairs until the cows come home but the marketplace will determine.

    That's really what matters.

    The coin will be discounted accordingly and the nomenclature becomes meaningless.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Format
SpoilerCodeQuote
Heading 2Heading 1
Emoji
:):D:(;):/:o:s:p:'(:|B):#:*<3o:)>:)
Url
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Home • U.S. Coin ForumComment As ...