@pmh1nic said:
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because it's being represented as something it's not. That said, (properly) dipped coins are not universally regarded as damaged goods, so there are much worse deceptions perpetrated on beginners.
@jmlanzaf said:
Returning to the topic, I don't think it's true that a coin needs to be original to be attractive. There are all kinds of dipped bust halves, for example, that are quite attractive despite being "not original". You need to be original to achieve high Gem + grades but even that has exceptions for early U.S. type.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
The question was pretty specific with no adding premise. Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? I'll ask the question another way, have you ever seen a coin you know was dipped but could not point to some diagnostic "signature" that revealed to you dipping had occurred?
Yes
This isn't a cross examination but are you aware of any instance where a coin that was in a PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder was cracked out, submitted to one of these grading services and comes back as labbel cleaned?
I read an interesting paragraph regarding dipped coins
"Except when dipped coins are marketed to beginners as being original, there is no deception involved by those who dip or sell dipped coins. Certainly, experts are not deceived. Indeed, there is no need for a dipper to deceive experts at the PCGS or the NGC about dipped coins, as graders at these services often assign very high grades to coins that are obviously dipped."
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Not cleaned. But questionable color.
Any thoughts on the comment about marketing a dipped coin as original being deceptive?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@jmlanzaf said:
Returning to the topic, I don't think it's true that a coin needs to be original to be attractive. There are all kinds of dipped bust halves, for example, that are quite attractive despite being "not original". You need to be original to achieve high Gem + grades but even that has exceptions for early U.S. type.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
The question was pretty specific with no adding premise. Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? I'll ask the question another way, have you ever seen a coin you know was dipped but could not point to some diagnostic "signature" that revealed to you dipping had occurred?
Yes
This isn't a cross examination but are you aware of any instance where a coin that was in a PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder was cracked out, submitted to one of these grading services and comes back as labbel cleaned?
I read an interesting paragraph regarding dipped coins
"Except when dipped coins are marketed to beginners as being original, there is no deception involved by those who dip or sell dipped coins. Certainly, experts are not deceived. Indeed, there is no need for a dipper to deceive experts at the PCGS or the NGC about dipped coins, as graders at these services often assign very high grades to coins that are obviously dipped."
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
@crazyhounddog said:
That’s a good question for a great thread. In some cases I go for the most original look I can find. This is probably the best example I have in my collection.
This 1916 proof buffalo nickel has that look and then some and that’s exactly why I bought it.
I find this buffalo nickel extremely beautiful.
.
.
.
While I like your coin, your Forum manners can be improved.
You show disrespect for the OP by displaying a coin with eye appeal.
Totally contrary to the stated focus of the thread.
180 degrees OT.
Borderline trolling.
No attractive coins allowed.
Jeez
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@pmh1nic said:
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because it's being represented as something it's not. That said, (properly) dipped coins are not universally regarded as damaged goods, so there are much worse deceptions perpetrated on beginners.
But does the "being something it's not" change depending on the buyer? This writer seems to think so since he makes the distinction between marketing to a beginner versus marketing to a more experienced collector. How do you differentiate between the two?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@jmlanzaf said:
Returning to the topic, I don't think it's true that a coin needs to be original to be attractive. There are all kinds of dipped bust halves, for example, that are quite attractive despite being "not original". You need to be original to achieve high Gem + grades but even that has exceptions for early U.S. type.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
The question was pretty specific with no adding premise. Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? I'll ask the question another way, have you ever seen a coin you know was dipped but could not point to some diagnostic "signature" that revealed to you dipping had occurred?
Yes
This isn't a cross examination but are you aware of any instance where a coin that was in a PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder was cracked out, submitted to one of these grading services and comes back as labbel cleaned?
I read an interesting paragraph regarding dipped coins
"Except when dipped coins are marketed to beginners as being original, there is no deception involved by those who dip or sell dipped coins. Certainly, experts are not deceived. Indeed, there is no need for a dipper to deceive experts at the PCGS or the NGC about dipped coins, as graders at these services often assign very high grades to coins that are obviously dipped."
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
That statement in bold is not correct. Toning does alter the metal. Toning is the result of a chemical reaction between silver and elements in the atmosphere. That reaction results in thin film interference seen as a change in color or what we call toning.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because it's being represented as something it's not. That said, (properly) dipped coins are not universally regarded as damaged goods, so there are much worse deceptions perpetrated on beginners.
But does the "being something it's not" change depending on the buyer? This writer seems to think so since he makes the distinction between marketing to a beginner versus marketing to a more experienced collector. How do you differentiate between the two?
@jmlanzaf said:
Returning to the topic, I don't think it's true that a coin needs to be original to be attractive. There are all kinds of dipped bust halves, for example, that are quite attractive despite being "not original". You need to be original to achieve high Gem + grades but even that has exceptions for early U.S. type.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
The question was pretty specific with no adding premise. Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? I'll ask the question another way, have you ever seen a coin you know was dipped but could not point to some diagnostic "signature" that revealed to you dipping had occurred?
Yes
This isn't a cross examination but are you aware of any instance where a coin that was in a PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder was cracked out, submitted to one of these grading services and comes back as labbel cleaned?
I read an interesting paragraph regarding dipped coins
"Except when dipped coins are marketed to beginners as being original, there is no deception involved by those who dip or sell dipped coins. Certainly, experts are not deceived. Indeed, there is no need for a dipper to deceive experts at the PCGS or the NGC about dipped coins, as graders at these services often assign very high grades to coins that are obviously dipped."
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
That statement in bold is not correct. Toning does alter the metal. Toning is the result of a chemical reaction between silver and elements in the atmosphere. That reaction results in thin film interference seen as a change in color or what we call toning.
It does not alter the metal in the way that we use “alteration” in reference to coins.
Anyway, in sum, you are once again arguing about the definition of a word, as you previously have with “original” and “luster”. I can understand that, but when others in this field use these words in a different sense than you do, then applying your definition of it to their usage is senseless. The intent is what matters. If their intent is to convey another meaning (and one is understood by most others because they understand the word in the same sense), then the application of one’s own separate meaning to that word is incorrect and impractical, and has no bearing on the actual content of their statement. If one says “an MS69 coin must have original luster” and means, “an MS69 coin must have surfaces that have not been damaged or artificially altered and thus reflect light in an intact way and to a full degree of intensity”, then applying one’s own separate interpretation of “original” to the statement to make it mean “an MS69 coin must appear exactly as it did when struck in every possible sense” is useless and incorrect. You may pick on the usage of word itself, but using a separate definition of the word within the provided context is wrong. And why just pick on that word? There are tons of words in our vocabularies that no longer fit their original definitions or are used loosely, in and outside of numismatics. For instance, we may describe a coin as “dipped”, but perhaps that coin wasn’t actually physically dipped in a substance but rather treated excessively using a qtip and a harsh cleaning substance. Does that matter? No. As long as we understand the intent, it’s fine. If we picked apart every piece of language like this, communication would be impossible.
@pmh1nic said:
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because it's being represented as something it's not. That said, (properly) dipped coins are not universally regarded as damaged goods, so there are much worse deceptions perpetrated on beginners.
But does the "being something it's not" change depending on the buyer?
No.
This writer seems to think so since he makes the distinction between marketing to a beginner versus marketing to a more experienced collector. How do you differentiate between the two?
His point is that a more experienced collector should be able to spot a dipped coin regardless of how the seller represents it.
I've owned this Peace Dollar for decades. I think it's original. Not special, perhaps. Certainly not worth a premium. As long as it's mine it will stay untouched, as a reminder.
Lance.
The ultimate in originality is when the coin pops out of the press. Of course, that's not how we use the term. There are a few early copper pieces with genuinely red surfaces and a few early silver coins with a flashy, white look. To most of us, they sort of look "wrong." They're original, but they don't look like the rest of their classmates. When a person actually does still look like a teenager at the 35th class reunion, it's a little creepy.
When we say original, I think what we really mean is "It looks appropriate for its age and suspected storage conditions." Unless you have an unbroken, completely reliable chain of custody, it's of course impossible to know for sure. Those who look at thousands of coins for a living get a feel for what they're "supposed to look like." When something else shows up, it's suspect.
Here are some that might be food for though. First, one that strikes me as original and attractive. The dime has layers of patina, the design is accentuated by the toning, and there's quite a bit of original mint luster everywhere but the high points.
This coin is perhaps an interesting one to discuss. Reeded-edge half dollars are a reasonably difficult coin to collect in BU grades. This coin is attractive (to some), but not original at all. To a specialist like TomB who prizes originality, it's borderline hideous. I imagine it has been dipped (and stripped) and has come back with pleasant-enough toning. CAC liked it. It's not one that everyone will like. C'est la vie.
This dime is plausibly original (or original enough) but not really excelling in the eye-appeal category. It's a tough enough early type, so I forgive it easily.
Is this one original? Possibly, but likely not. Still, who cares. It's pretty interesting if you ask me. Secondary toning can be really nice.
And finally, here's one that I think just screams original and beautiful. Luster on this coin is otherworldly. It's certainly been left alone for over 20 years. Anyone who thinks a blast white 132 year-old coin would look better than this is smoking something different than I am.
@jmlanzaf said:
Returning to the topic, I don't think it's true that a coin needs to be original to be attractive. There are all kinds of dipped bust halves, for example, that are quite attractive despite being "not original". You need to be original to achieve high Gem + grades but even that has exceptions for early U.S. type.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
The question was pretty specific with no adding premise. Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? I'll ask the question another way, have you ever seen a coin you know was dipped but could not point to some diagnostic "signature" that revealed to you dipping had occurred?
Yes
This isn't a cross examination but are you aware of any instance where a coin that was in a PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder was cracked out, submitted to one of these grading services and comes back as labbel cleaned?
I read an interesting paragraph regarding dipped coins
"Except when dipped coins are marketed to beginners as being original, there is no deception involved by those who dip or sell dipped coins. Certainly, experts are not deceived. Indeed, there is no need for a dipper to deceive experts at the PCGS or the NGC about dipped coins, as graders at these services often assign very high grades to coins that are obviously dipped."
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
That statement in bold is not correct. Toning does alter the metal. Toning is the result of a chemical reaction between silver and elements in the atmosphere. That reaction results in thin film interference seen as a change in color or what we call toning.
It does not alter the metal in the way that we use “alteration” in reference to coins.
Anyway, in sum, you are once again arguing about the definition of a word, as you previously have with “original” and “luster”. I can understand that, but when others in this field use these words in a different sense than you do, then applying your definition of it to their usage is senseless. The intent is what matters. If their intent is to convey another meaning (and one is understood by most others because they understand the word in the same sense), then the application of one’s own separate meaning to that word is incorrect and impractical, and has no bearing on the actual content of their statement. If one says “an MS69 coin must have original luster” and means, “an MS69 coin must have surfaces that have not been damaged or artificially altered and thus reflect light in an intact way and to a full degree of intensity”, then applying one’s own separate interpretation of “original” to the statement to make it mean “an MS69 coin must appear exactly as it did when struck in every possible sense” is useless and incorrect. You may pick on the usage of word itself, but using a separate definition of the word within the provided context is wrong. And why just pick on that word? There are tons of words in our vocabularies that no longer fit their original definitions or are used loosely, in and outside of numismatics. For instance, we may describe a coin as “dipped”, but perhaps that coin wasn’t actually physically dipped in a substance but rather treated excessively using a qtip and a harsh cleaning substance. Does that matter? No. As long as we understand the intent, it’s fine. If we picked apart every piece of language like this, communication would be impossible.
I won't argue the issue of change because the change in the metal is a fact of chemistry. The evidence that a chemical change has occurred is visible.
Regarding the usage of words, I'm using the words as they would be understood by 99% of the population. Using these words in the twisted fashion that they are used in numismatics is a marketing ploy. The words become meaningless if both a coin with toned surfaces and a coin with brilliant luster can both be referred to as have fully original luster. In my opinion it's an irrational use of the words that would not be acceptable when talking about toning, oxidation, etc. as in applies to metals in general. And changing the grading standards to ignore this change was really unnecessary.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@lkeigwin said:
I've owned this Peace Dollar for decades. I think it's original. Not special, perhaps. Certainly not worth a premium. As long as it's mine it will stay untouched, as a reminder.
Lance.
I understand what you mean by original but would you describe it as having "fully original mint luster"?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because it's being represented as something it's not. That said, (properly) dipped coins are not universally regarded as damaged goods, so there are much worse deceptions perpetrated on beginners.
But does the "being something it's not" change depending on the buyer?
No.
This writer seems to think so since he makes the distinction between marketing to a beginner versus marketing to a more experienced collector. How do you differentiate between the two?
His point is that a more experienced collector should be able to spot a dipped coin regardless of how the seller represents it.
Your comments defy logic. If it's not acceptable to describe the coins as original to a beginner it's an admission that something has altered the coin from its original state. The fact that one person recognizes the alternation and the other person does not doesn't change the fact that the alteration has occurred.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@jmlanzaf said:
Returning to the topic, I don't think it's true that a coin needs to be original to be attractive. There are all kinds of dipped bust halves, for example, that are quite attractive despite being "not original". You need to be original to achieve high Gem + grades but even that has exceptions for early U.S. type.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
The question was pretty specific with no adding premise. Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? I'll ask the question another way, have you ever seen a coin you know was dipped but could not point to some diagnostic "signature" that revealed to you dipping had occurred?
Yes
This isn't a cross examination but are you aware of any instance where a coin that was in a PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder was cracked out, submitted to one of these grading services and comes back as labbel cleaned?
I read an interesting paragraph regarding dipped coins
"Except when dipped coins are marketed to beginners as being original, there is no deception involved by those who dip or sell dipped coins. Certainly, experts are not deceived. Indeed, there is no need for a dipper to deceive experts at the PCGS or the NGC about dipped coins, as graders at these services often assign very high grades to coins that are obviously dipped."
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
That statement in bold is not correct. Toning does alter the metal. Toning is the result of a chemical reaction between silver and elements in the atmosphere. That reaction results in thin film interference seen as a change in color or what we call toning.
It does not alter the metal in the way that we use “alteration” in reference to coins.
Anyway, in sum, you are once again arguing about the definition of a word, as you previously have with “original” and “luster”. I can understand that, but when others in this field use these words in a different sense than you do, then applying your definition of it to their usage is senseless. The intent is what matters. If their intent is to convey another meaning (and one is understood by most others because they understand the word in the same sense), then the application of one’s own separate meaning to that word is incorrect and impractical, and has no bearing on the actual content of their statement. If one says “an MS69 coin must have original luster” and means, “an MS69 coin must have surfaces that have not been damaged or artificially altered and thus reflect light in an intact way and to a full degree of intensity”, then applying one’s own separate interpretation of “original” to the statement to make it mean “an MS69 coin must appear exactly as it did when struck in every possible sense” is useless and incorrect. You may pick on the usage of word itself, but using a separate definition of the word within the provided context is wrong. And why just pick on that word? There are tons of words in our vocabularies that no longer fit their original definitions or are used loosely, in and outside of numismatics. For instance, we may describe a coin as “dipped”, but perhaps that coin wasn’t actually physically dipped in a substance but rather treated excessively using a qtip and a harsh cleaning substance. Does that matter? No. As long as we understand the intent, it’s fine. If we picked apart every piece of language like this, communication would be impossible.
I won't argue the issue of change because the change in the metal is a fact of chemistry. The evidence that a chemical change has occurred is visible.
Regarding the usage of words, I'm using the words as they would be understood by 99% of the population. Using these words in the twisted fashion that they are used in numismatics is a marketing ploy. The words become meaningless if both a coin with toned surfaces and a coin with brilliant luster can both be referred to as have fully original luster. In my opinion it's an irrational use of the words that would not be acceptable when talking about toning, oxidation, etc. as in applies to metals in general. And changing the grading standards to ignore this change was really unnecessary.
It doesn’t matter how any of the non-numismatically inclined population would treat the word, because that’s how it is used in the world of numismatics, and it is not a marketing ploy. There was a need for a word indicating a coin is unmolested, and “original” fit the bill. So be it. The grading standards were never changed to ignore this change because the change never took place. “Original” has meant this in the world of numismatics since grading began. It was the intent in the ANA guide you quoted in the other thread. You are applying a definition to the word that has never functionally been used to describe coins.
As demonstrated with the coins posted above, “original” doesn’t even mean “without wear”. A coin with fully original luster must of course be mint state, because wear affects luster in a significant way, but a coin that is described as “original” in a general sense is a coin that has not been damaged or artificially altered. A coin graded XF40 can be original, and a coin graded MS67 can be original. I have never met someone who used “original” in any other sense in regards to coins, and it’s a very useful word in this way.
@BryceM said:
Ha, the old, "what does original signify" thread.
The ultimate in originality is when the coin pops out of the press. Of course, that's not how we use the term. There are a few early copper pieces with genuinely red surfaces and a few early silver coins with a flashy, white look. To most of us, they sort of look "wrong." They're original, but they don't look like the rest of their classmates. When a person actually does still look like a teenager at the 35th class reunion, it's a little creepy.
When we say original, I think what we really mean is "It looks appropriate for its age and suspected storage conditions." Unless you have an unbroken, completely reliable chain of custody, it's of course impossible to know for sure. Those who look at thousands of coins for a living get a feel for what they're "supposed to look like." When something else shows up, it's suspect.
Here are some that might be food for though. First, one that strikes me as original and attractive. The dime has layers of patina, the design is accentuated by the toning, and there's quite a bit of original mint luster everywhere but the high points.
This coin is perhaps an interesting one to discuss. Reeded-edge half dollars are a reasonably difficult coin to collect in BU grades. This coin is attractive (to some), but not original at all. To a specialist like TomB who prizes originality, it's borderline hideous. I imagine it has been dipped (and stripped) and has come back with pleasant-enough toning. CAC liked it. It's not one that everyone will like. C'est la vie.
This dime is plausibly original (or original enough) but not really excelling in the eye-appeal category. It's a tough enough early type, so I forgive it easily.
Is this one original? Possibly, but likely not. Still, who cares. It's pretty interesting if you ask me. Secondary toning can be really nice.
And finally, here's one that I think just screams original and beautiful. Luster on this coin is otherworldly. It's certainly been left alone for over 20 years. Anyone who thinks a blast white 132 year-old coin would look better than this is smoking something different than I am.
These are some wonderful coins. The 1889 is exceptional with a lot of luster. In my opinion it doesn't need the hyperbole "fully original mint luster" attached to it to enhance its value. It's quite obvious the luster is not as full as when the coin was struck but it's still a beautiful specimen.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@BryceM said:
Ha, the old, "what does original signify" thread.
The ultimate in originality is when the coin pops out of the press. Of course, that's not how we use the term. There are a few early copper pieces with genuinely red surfaces and a few early silver coins with a flashy, white look. To most of us, they sort of look "wrong." They're original, but they don't look like the rest of their classmates. When a person actually does still look like a teenager at the 35th class reunion, it's a little creepy.
When we say original, I think what we really mean is "It looks appropriate for its age and suspected storage conditions." Unless you have an unbroken, completely reliable chain of custody, it's of course impossible to know for sure. Those who look at thousands of coins for a living get a feel for what they're "supposed to look like." When something else shows up, it's suspect.
Here are some that might be food for though. First, one that strikes me as original and attractive. The dime has layers of patina, the design is accentuated by the toning, and there's quite a bit of original mint luster everywhere but the high points.
This coin is perhaps an interesting one to discuss. Reeded-edge half dollars are a reasonably difficult coin to collect in BU grades. This coin is attractive (to some), but not original at all. To a specialist like TomB who prizes originality, it's borderline hideous. I imagine it has been dipped (and stripped) and has come back with pleasant-enough toning. CAC liked it. It's not one that everyone will like. C'est la vie.
This dime is plausibly original (or original enough) but not really excelling in the eye-appeal category. It's a tough enough early type, so I forgive it easily.
Is this one original? Possibly, but likely not. Still, who cares. It's pretty interesting if you ask me. Secondary toning can be really nice.
And finally, here's one that I think just screams original and beautiful. Luster on this coin is otherworldly. It's certainly been left alone for over 20 years. Anyone who thinks a blast white 132 year-old coin would look better than this is smoking something different than I am.
These are some wonderful coins. The 1889 is exceptional with a lot of luster. In my opinion it doesn't need the hyperbole "fully original mint luster" attached to it to enhance its value. It's quite obvious the luster is not as full as when the coin was struck but it's still a beautiful specimen.
It is not being described in this way, and you are misinterpreting the intent, and again, it does not matter what your personal definition of “original” is in this context.
To add on to what I wrote before (the bulk of which you conveniently ignore, much as you consistently ignore intent (big picture) over word usage (small picture)) the reason why “original” in the form you use it has never been adopted by the numismatic community is that it is functionally useless for multiple reasons. It is impossible to tell what nicks and hits on a coin were a result of coins banging into each other at the mint or were acquired post-mint, so we cannot tell if coins are truly as they left the mint. If we consider even marks that appeared at the mint to make a coin unoriginal, then only perfect (MS70/PR70) coins could be called original. Functionally, that means only modern proofs and specially struck pieces could ever be called original, and no pieces struck for circulation (there are exactly zero circulation strike coins currently graded MS70 by NGC or PCGS).
@jmlanzaf said:
Returning to the topic, I don't think it's true that a coin needs to be original to be attractive. There are all kinds of dipped bust halves, for example, that are quite attractive despite being "not original". You need to be original to achieve high Gem + grades but even that has exceptions for early U.S. type.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
The question was pretty specific with no adding premise. Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? I'll ask the question another way, have you ever seen a coin you know was dipped but could not point to some diagnostic "signature" that revealed to you dipping had occurred?
Yes
This isn't a cross examination but are you aware of any instance where a coin that was in a PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder was cracked out, submitted to one of these grading services and comes back as labbel cleaned?
I read an interesting paragraph regarding dipped coins
"Except when dipped coins are marketed to beginners as being original, there is no deception involved by those who dip or sell dipped coins. Certainly, experts are not deceived. Indeed, there is no need for a dipper to deceive experts at the PCGS or the NGC about dipped coins, as graders at these services often assign very high grades to coins that are obviously dipped."
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
That statement in bold is not correct. Toning does alter the metal. Toning is the result of a chemical reaction between silver and elements in the atmosphere. That reaction results in thin film interference seen as a change in color or what we call toning.
It does not alter the metal in the way that we use “alteration” in reference to coins.
Anyway, in sum, you are once again arguing about the definition of a word, as you previously have with “original” and “luster”. I can understand that, but when others in this field use these words in a different sense than you do, then applying your definition of it to their usage is senseless. The intent is what matters. If their intent is to convey another meaning (and one is understood by most others because they understand the word in the same sense), then the application of one’s own separate meaning to that word is incorrect and impractical, and has no bearing on the actual content of their statement. If one says “an MS69 coin must have original luster” and means, “an MS69 coin must have surfaces that have not been damaged or artificially altered and thus reflect light in an intact way and to a full degree of intensity”, then applying one’s own separate interpretation of “original” to the statement to make it mean “an MS69 coin must appear exactly as it did when struck in every possible sense” is useless and incorrect. You may pick on the usage of word itself, but using a separate definition of the word within the provided context is wrong. And why just pick on that word? There are tons of words in our vocabularies that no longer fit their original definitions or are used loosely, in and outside of numismatics. For instance, we may describe a coin as “dipped”, but perhaps that coin wasn’t actually physically dipped in a substance but rather treated excessively using a qtip and a harsh cleaning substance. Does that matter? No. As long as we understand the intent, it’s fine. If we picked apart every piece of language like this, communication would be impossible.
I won't argue the issue of change because the change in the metal is a fact of chemistry. The evidence that a chemical change has occurred is visible.
Regarding the usage of words, I'm using the words as they would be understood by 99% of the population. Using these words in the twisted fashion that they are used in numismatics is a marketing ploy. The words become meaningless if both a coin with toned surfaces and a coin with brilliant luster can both be referred to as have fully original luster. In my opinion it's an irrational use of the words that would not be acceptable when talking about toning, oxidation, etc. as in applies to metals in general. And changing the grading standards to ignore this change was really unnecessary.
It doesn’t matter how any of the non-numismatically inclined population would treat the word, because that’s how it is used in the world of numismatics, and it is not a marketing ploy. There was a need for a word indicating a coin is unmolested, and “original” fit the bill. So be it. The grading standards were never changed to ignore this change because the change never took place. “Original” has meant this in the world of numismatics since grading began. It was the intent in the ANA guide you quoted in the other thread. You are applying a definition to the word that has never functionally been used to describe coins.
As demonstrated with the coins posted above, “original” doesn’t even mean “without wear”. A coin with fully original luster must of course be mint state, because wear affects luster in a significant way, but a coin that is described as “original” in a general sense is a coin that has not been damaged or artificially altered. A coin graded XF40 can be original, and a coin graded MS67 can be original. I have never met someone who used “original” in any other sense in regards to coins, and it’s a very useful word in this way.
You have no problem with saying this coinwith deep toning meets the standard of having full original luster?
As for marketing ploy, the fact that the writer of the article (numismatist that has been writing on the subject for over 20 years) says claiming to a new collector that a dipped coin (another situation where an altered coin is classified original) iis original is fraud is an indication to me that it is a marketing ploy.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. .
Just to be clear, toning does alter the metal itself. It corrodes the metal surface, where the products are still left deposited on the coin surface. This destruction of the metal can be evident when heavy toning/oxidation product is removed.
When I say original, I usually mean that the coin hasn't been messed with by man. That doesn't mean time, nature, and chemistry haven't done a thing or two. Evidently that's at odds with how others use the word here.
@jmlanzaf said:
Returning to the topic, I don't think it's true that a coin needs to be original to be attractive. There are all kinds of dipped bust halves, for example, that are quite attractive despite being "not original". You need to be original to achieve high Gem + grades but even that has exceptions for early U.S. type.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
The question was pretty specific with no adding premise. Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? I'll ask the question another way, have you ever seen a coin you know was dipped but could not point to some diagnostic "signature" that revealed to you dipping had occurred?
Yes
This isn't a cross examination but are you aware of any instance where a coin that was in a PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder was cracked out, submitted to one of these grading services and comes back as labbel cleaned?
I read an interesting paragraph regarding dipped coins
"Except when dipped coins are marketed to beginners as being original, there is no deception involved by those who dip or sell dipped coins. Certainly, experts are not deceived. Indeed, there is no need for a dipper to deceive experts at the PCGS or the NGC about dipped coins, as graders at these services often assign very high grades to coins that are obviously dipped."
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
That statement in bold is not correct. Toning does alter the metal. Toning is the result of a chemical reaction between silver and elements in the atmosphere. That reaction results in thin film interference seen as a change in color or what we call toning.
It does not alter the metal in the way that we use “alteration” in reference to coins.
Anyway, in sum, you are once again arguing about the definition of a word, as you previously have with “original” and “luster”. I can understand that, but when others in this field use these words in a different sense than you do, then applying your definition of it to their usage is senseless. The intent is what matters. If their intent is to convey another meaning (and one is understood by most others because they understand the word in the same sense), then the application of one’s own separate meaning to that word is incorrect and impractical, and has no bearing on the actual content of their statement. If one says “an MS69 coin must have original luster” and means, “an MS69 coin must have surfaces that have not been damaged or artificially altered and thus reflect light in an intact way and to a full degree of intensity”, then applying one’s own separate interpretation of “original” to the statement to make it mean “an MS69 coin must appear exactly as it did when struck in every possible sense” is useless and incorrect. You may pick on the usage of word itself, but using a separate definition of the word within the provided context is wrong. And why just pick on that word? There are tons of words in our vocabularies that no longer fit their original definitions or are used loosely, in and outside of numismatics. For instance, we may describe a coin as “dipped”, but perhaps that coin wasn’t actually physically dipped in a substance but rather treated excessively using a qtip and a harsh cleaning substance. Does that matter? No. As long as we understand the intent, it’s fine. If we picked apart every piece of language like this, communication would be impossible.
I won't argue the issue of change because the change in the metal is a fact of chemistry. The evidence that a chemical change has occurred is visible.
Regarding the usage of words, I'm using the words as they would be understood by 99% of the population. Using these words in the twisted fashion that they are used in numismatics is a marketing ploy. The words become meaningless if both a coin with toned surfaces and a coin with brilliant luster can both be referred to as have fully original luster. In my opinion it's an irrational use of the words that would not be acceptable when talking about toning, oxidation, etc. as in applies to metals in general. And changing the grading standards to ignore this change was really unnecessary.
It doesn’t matter how any of the non-numismatically inclined population would treat the word, because that’s how it is used in the world of numismatics, and it is not a marketing ploy. There was a need for a word indicating a coin is unmolested, and “original” fit the bill. So be it. The grading standards were never changed to ignore this change because the change never took place. “Original” has meant this in the world of numismatics since grading began. It was the intent in the ANA guide you quoted in the other thread. You are applying a definition to the word that has never functionally been used to describe coins.
As demonstrated with the coins posted above, “original” doesn’t even mean “without wear”. A coin with fully original luster must of course be mint state, because wear affects luster in a significant way, but a coin that is described as “original” in a general sense is a coin that has not been damaged or artificially altered. A coin graded XF40 can be original, and a coin graded MS67 can be original. I have never met someone who used “original” in any other sense in regards to coins, and it’s a very useful word in this way.
You have no problem with saying this coinwith deep toning meets the standard of having full original luster?
As for marketing ploy, the fact that the writer of the article (numismatist that has been writing on the subject for over 20 years) says claiming to a new collector that a dipped coin (another situation where an altered coin is classified original) iis original is fraud is an indication to me that it is a marketing ploy.
He didn’t say it had fully original luster, he just said the coin as a whole “screams original” and that the luster is “otherworldly”, but if I had to answer, yes, the luster looks pretty original to me, meaning unmolested. It doesn’t look like it has been dipped and retoned. I don’t understand your second statement at all. A dipped coin is never considered original, and shouldn’t be even under your definition. If you knowingly were to sell a dipped coin as original, that would be dishonest. Selling a toned MS coin or an unmolested AU58 or VF20 coin as original is perfectly fine and honest if that coin fits the definition the vast vast majority of the numismatic world applies to “original”. And again, you ignored the bulk of what I wrote to focus on a single point. There’s very much a pattern here.
@BryceM said:
Ha, the old, "what does original signify" thread.
The ultimate in originality is when the coin pops out of the press. Of course, that's not how we use the term. There are a few early copper pieces with genuinely red surfaces and a few early silver coins with a flashy, white look. To most of us, they sort of look "wrong." They're original, but they don't look like the rest of their classmates. When a person actually does still look like a teenager at the 35th class reunion, it's a little creepy.
When we say original, I think what we really mean is "It looks appropriate for its age and suspected storage conditions." Unless you have an unbroken, completely reliable chain of custody, it's of course impossible to know for sure. Those who look at thousands of coins for a living get a feel for what they're "supposed to look like." When something else shows up, it's suspect.
Here are some that might be food for though. First, one that strikes me as original and attractive. The dime has layers of patina, the design is accentuated by the toning, and there's quite a bit of original mint luster everywhere but the high points.
This coin is perhaps an interesting one to discuss. Reeded-edge half dollars are a reasonably difficult coin to collect in BU grades. This coin is attractive (to some), but not original at all. To a specialist like TomB who prizes originality, it's borderline hideous. I imagine it has been dipped (and stripped) and has come back with pleasant-enough toning. CAC liked it. It's not one that everyone will like. C'est la vie.
This dime is plausibly original (or original enough) but not really excelling in the eye-appeal category. It's a tough enough early type, so I forgive it easily.
Is this one original? Possibly, but likely not. Still, who cares. It's pretty interesting if you ask me. Secondary toning can be really nice.
And finally, here's one that I think just screams original and beautiful. Luster on this coin is otherworldly. It's certainly been left alone for over 20 years. Anyone who thinks a blast white 132 year-old coin would look better than this is smoking something different than I am.
These are some wonderful coins. The 1889 is exceptional with a lot of luster. In my opinion it doesn't need the hyperbole "fully original mint luster" attached to it to enhance its value. It's quite obvious the luster is not as full as when the coin was struck but it's still a beautiful specimen.
It is not being described in this way, and you are misinterpreting the intent, and again, it does not matter what your personal definition of “original” is in this context.
To add on to what I wrote before (the bulk of which you conveniently ignore, much as you consistently ignore intent (big picture) over word usage (small picture)) the reason why “original” in the form you use it has never been adopted by the numismatic community is that it is functionally useless for multiple reasons. It is impossible to tell what nicks and hits on a coin were a result of coins banging into each other at the mint or were acquired post-mint, so we cannot tell if coins are truly as they left the mint. If we consider even marks that appeared at the mint to make a coin unoriginal, then only perfect (MS70/PR70) coins could be called original. Functionally, that means only modern proofs and specially struck pieces could ever be called original, and no pieces struck for circulation (there are exactly zero circulation strike coins currently graded MS70 by NGC or PCGS).
I didn't ignore your comments but tried to be concise. That coin MS-65 in many circles would be described as having fully original luster. But take the MS-68 coin that was discussed. That coin was toned but by definition a 68 coin has to have fully original luster, Toning to one degree or another diminishes the luster of a coin.
As for MS-70 coins you're conflating two different issues. Contact marks are part of the overall process of making and issuing coins. The mint releases them in an original state. Things like wear and toning change coins from that original state. Dark toning is an indication that something significant has occurred in the state of the coin that has dramatically alter its appearance. Call the coin original, or a coin that has been dipped original, is a marketing ploy. And as the writer said it is deceptive.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@jmlanzaf said:
Returning to the topic, I don't think it's true that a coin needs to be original to be attractive. There are all kinds of dipped bust halves, for example, that are quite attractive despite being "not original". You need to be original to achieve high Gem + grades but even that has exceptions for early U.S. type.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
The question was pretty specific with no adding premise. Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? I'll ask the question another way, have you ever seen a coin you know was dipped but could not point to some diagnostic "signature" that revealed to you dipping had occurred?
Yes
This isn't a cross examination but are you aware of any instance where a coin that was in a PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder was cracked out, submitted to one of these grading services and comes back as labbel cleaned?
I read an interesting paragraph regarding dipped coins
"Except when dipped coins are marketed to beginners as being original, there is no deception involved by those who dip or sell dipped coins. Certainly, experts are not deceived. Indeed, there is no need for a dipper to deceive experts at the PCGS or the NGC about dipped coins, as graders at these services often assign very high grades to coins that are obviously dipped."
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
That statement in bold is not correct. Toning does alter the metal. Toning is the result of a chemical reaction between silver and elements in the atmosphere. That reaction results in thin film interference seen as a change in color or what we call toning.
It does not alter the metal in the way that we use “alteration” in reference to coins.
Anyway, in sum, you are once again arguing about the definition of a word, as you previously have with “original” and “luster”. I can understand that, but when others in this field use these words in a different sense than you do, then applying your definition of it to their usage is senseless. The intent is what matters. If their intent is to convey another meaning (and one is understood by most others because they understand the word in the same sense), then the application of one’s own separate meaning to that word is incorrect and impractical, and has no bearing on the actual content of their statement. If one says “an MS69 coin must have original luster” and means, “an MS69 coin must have surfaces that have not been damaged or artificially altered and thus reflect light in an intact way and to a full degree of intensity”, then applying one’s own separate interpretation of “original” to the statement to make it mean “an MS69 coin must appear exactly as it did when struck in every possible sense” is useless and incorrect. You may pick on the usage of word itself, but using a separate definition of the word within the provided context is wrong. And why just pick on that word? There are tons of words in our vocabularies that no longer fit their original definitions or are used loosely, in and outside of numismatics. For instance, we may describe a coin as “dipped”, but perhaps that coin wasn’t actually physically dipped in a substance but rather treated excessively using a qtip and a harsh cleaning substance. Does that matter? No. As long as we understand the intent, it’s fine. If we picked apart every piece of language like this, communication would be impossible.
I won't argue the issue of change because the change in the metal is a fact of chemistry. The evidence that a chemical change has occurred is visible.
Regarding the usage of words, I'm using the words as they would be understood by 99% of the population. Using these words in the twisted fashion that they are used in numismatics is a marketing ploy. The words become meaningless if both a coin with toned surfaces and a coin with brilliant luster can both be referred to as have fully original luster. In my opinion it's an irrational use of the words that would not be acceptable when talking about toning, oxidation, etc. as in applies to metals in general. And changing the grading standards to ignore this change was really unnecessary.
It doesn’t matter how any of the non-numismatically inclined population would treat the word, because that’s how it is used in the world of numismatics, and it is not a marketing ploy. There was a need for a word indicating a coin is unmolested, and “original” fit the bill. So be it. The grading standards were never changed to ignore this change because the change never took place. “Original” has meant this in the world of numismatics since grading began. It was the intent in the ANA guide you quoted in the other thread. You are applying a definition to the word that has never functionally been used to describe coins.
As demonstrated with the coins posted above, “original” doesn’t even mean “without wear”. A coin with fully original luster must of course be mint state, because wear affects luster in a significant way, but a coin that is described as “original” in a general sense is a coin that has not been damaged or artificially altered. A coin graded XF40 can be original, and a coin graded MS67 can be original. I have never met someone who used “original” in any other sense in regards to coins, and it’s a very useful word in this way.
You have no problem with saying this coinwith deep toning meets the standard of having full original luster?
As for marketing ploy, the fact that the writer of the article (numismatist that has been writing on the subject for over 20 years) says claiming to a new collector that a dipped coin (another situation where an altered coin is classified original) iis original is fraud is an indication to me that it is a marketing ploy.
He didn’t say it had fully original luster, he just said the coin as a whole “screams original” and that the luster is “otherworldly”, but if I had to answer, yes, the luster looks pretty original to me, meaning unmolested. It doesn’t look like it has been dipped and retoned. I don’t understand your second statement at all. A dipped coin is never considered original, and shouldn’t be even under your definition. If you knowingly were to sell a dipped coin as original, that would be dishonest. Selling a toned MS coin or an unmolested AU58 or VF20 coin as original is perfectly fine and honest if that coin fits the definition the vast vast majority of the numismatic world applies to “original”. And again, you ignored the bulk of what I wrote to focus on a single point. There’s very much a pattern here.
So in your opinion this coin does not have fully original luster. Is that correct?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
As for MS-70 coins you're conflating two different issues. Contact marks are part of the overall process of making and issuing coins. The mint releases them in an original state. Things like wear and toning change coins from that original state. Dark toning is an indication that something significant has occurred in the state of the coin that has dramatically alter its appearance. Call the coin original, or a coin that has been dipped original, is a marketing ploy. And as the writer said it is deceptive.
On the subject of grading, I think there have been changes in recent years to the application of the grading standards for coins like you describe. There are top coins that have aged gracefully, but will have had some subdued luster. You want grading standards to be set up such that nobody should have any financial incentive to chemically restore (it's not conservation!) a coins surfaces or remove toning/skin to get some luster back. I think they have been grading coins with some subdued luster higher to help prevent those types of conflicts of interest. However, I don't think it has been well described in grading standards anywhere. The definitions you reference may not perfectly reflect what is done by our host.
@BryceM said:
Ha, the old, "what does original signify" thread.
The ultimate in originality is when the coin pops out of the press. Of course, that's not how we use the term. There are a few early copper pieces with genuinely red surfaces and a few early silver coins with a flashy, white look. To most of us, they sort of look "wrong." They're original, but they don't look like the rest of their classmates. When a person actually does still look like a teenager at the 35th class reunion, it's a little creepy.
When we say original, I think what we really mean is "It looks appropriate for its age and suspected storage conditions." Unless you have an unbroken, completely reliable chain of custody, it's of course impossible to know for sure. Those who look at thousands of coins for a living get a feel for what they're "supposed to look like." When something else shows up, it's suspect.
Here are some that might be food for though. First, one that strikes me as original and attractive. The dime has layers of patina, the design is accentuated by the toning, and there's quite a bit of original mint luster everywhere but the high points.
This coin is perhaps an interesting one to discuss. Reeded-edge half dollars are a reasonably difficult coin to collect in BU grades. This coin is attractive (to some), but not original at all. To a specialist like TomB who prizes originality, it's borderline hideous. I imagine it has been dipped (and stripped) and has come back with pleasant-enough toning. CAC liked it. It's not one that everyone will like. C'est la vie.
This dime is plausibly original (or original enough) but not really excelling in the eye-appeal category. It's a tough enough early type, so I forgive it easily.
Is this one original? Possibly, but likely not. Still, who cares. It's pretty interesting if you ask me. Secondary toning can be really nice.
And finally, here's one that I think just screams original and beautiful. Luster on this coin is otherworldly. It's certainly been left alone for over 20 years. Anyone who thinks a blast white 132 year-old coin would look better than this is smoking something different than I am.
These are some wonderful coins. The 1889 is exceptional with a lot of luster. In my opinion it doesn't need the hyperbole "fully original mint luster" attached to it to enhance its value. It's quite obvious the luster is not as full as when the coin was struck but it's still a beautiful specimen.
It is not being described in this way, and you are misinterpreting the intent, and again, it does not matter what your personal definition of “original” is in this context.
To add on to what I wrote before (the bulk of which you conveniently ignore, much as you consistently ignore intent (big picture) over word usage (small picture)) the reason why “original” in the form you use it has never been adopted by the numismatic community is that it is functionally useless for multiple reasons. It is impossible to tell what nicks and hits on a coin were a result of coins banging into each other at the mint or were acquired post-mint, so we cannot tell if coins are truly as they left the mint. If we consider even marks that appeared at the mint to make a coin unoriginal, then only perfect (MS70/PR70) coins could be called original. Functionally, that means only modern proofs and specially struck pieces could ever be called original, and no pieces struck for circulation (there are exactly zero circulation strike coins currently graded MS70 by NGC or PCGS).
I didn't ignore your comments but tried to be concise. That coin MS-65 in many circles would be described as having fully original luster. But take the MS-68 coin that was discussed. That coin was toned but by definition a 68 coin has to have fully original luster, Toning to one degree or another diminishes the luster of a coin.
As for MS-70 coins you're conflating two different issues. Contact marks are part of the overall process of making and issuing coins. The mint releases them in an original state. Things like wear and toning change coins from that original state. Dark toning is an indication that something significant has occurred in the state of the coin that has dramatically alter its appearance. Call the coin original, or a coin that has been dipped original, is a marketing ploy. And as the writer said it is deceptive.
No, toning does not by definition diminish the luster of a coin because you are using the word “luster” in a different way than it is used by virtually everyone else in the field of numismatics. And as I wrote, even if those mint-made marks are considered original, it would then be impossible to distinguish those from post-mint marks, so even then no coins except MS/PR70 coins could be definitively deemed fully original. > @pmh1nic said:
@jmlanzaf said:
Returning to the topic, I don't think it's true that a coin needs to be original to be attractive. There are all kinds of dipped bust halves, for example, that are quite attractive despite being "not original". You need to be original to achieve high Gem + grades but even that has exceptions for early U.S. type.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
The question was pretty specific with no adding premise. Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? I'll ask the question another way, have you ever seen a coin you know was dipped but could not point to some diagnostic "signature" that revealed to you dipping had occurred?
Yes
This isn't a cross examination but are you aware of any instance where a coin that was in a PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder was cracked out, submitted to one of these grading services and comes back as labbel cleaned?
I read an interesting paragraph regarding dipped coins
"Except when dipped coins are marketed to beginners as being original, there is no deception involved by those who dip or sell dipped coins. Certainly, experts are not deceived. Indeed, there is no need for a dipper to deceive experts at the PCGS or the NGC about dipped coins, as graders at these services often assign very high grades to coins that are obviously dipped."
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
That statement in bold is not correct. Toning does alter the metal. Toning is the result of a chemical reaction between silver and elements in the atmosphere. That reaction results in thin film interference seen as a change in color or what we call toning.
It does not alter the metal in the way that we use “alteration” in reference to coins.
Anyway, in sum, you are once again arguing about the definition of a word, as you previously have with “original” and “luster”. I can understand that, but when others in this field use these words in a different sense than you do, then applying your definition of it to their usage is senseless. The intent is what matters. If their intent is to convey another meaning (and one is understood by most others because they understand the word in the same sense), then the application of one’s own separate meaning to that word is incorrect and impractical, and has no bearing on the actual content of their statement. If one says “an MS69 coin must have original luster” and means, “an MS69 coin must have surfaces that have not been damaged or artificially altered and thus reflect light in an intact way and to a full degree of intensity”, then applying one’s own separate interpretation of “original” to the statement to make it mean “an MS69 coin must appear exactly as it did when struck in every possible sense” is useless and incorrect. You may pick on the usage of word itself, but using a separate definition of the word within the provided context is wrong. And why just pick on that word? There are tons of words in our vocabularies that no longer fit their original definitions or are used loosely, in and outside of numismatics. For instance, we may describe a coin as “dipped”, but perhaps that coin wasn’t actually physically dipped in a substance but rather treated excessively using a qtip and a harsh cleaning substance. Does that matter? No. As long as we understand the intent, it’s fine. If we picked apart every piece of language like this, communication would be impossible.
I won't argue the issue of change because the change in the metal is a fact of chemistry. The evidence that a chemical change has occurred is visible.
Regarding the usage of words, I'm using the words as they would be understood by 99% of the population. Using these words in the twisted fashion that they are used in numismatics is a marketing ploy. The words become meaningless if both a coin with toned surfaces and a coin with brilliant luster can both be referred to as have fully original luster. In my opinion it's an irrational use of the words that would not be acceptable when talking about toning, oxidation, etc. as in applies to metals in general. And changing the grading standards to ignore this change was really unnecessary.
It doesn’t matter how any of the non-numismatically inclined population would treat the word, because that’s how it is used in the world of numismatics, and it is not a marketing ploy. There was a need for a word indicating a coin is unmolested, and “original” fit the bill. So be it. The grading standards were never changed to ignore this change because the change never took place. “Original” has meant this in the world of numismatics since grading began. It was the intent in the ANA guide you quoted in the other thread. You are applying a definition to the word that has never functionally been used to describe coins.
As demonstrated with the coins posted above, “original” doesn’t even mean “without wear”. A coin with fully original luster must of course be mint state, because wear affects luster in a significant way, but a coin that is described as “original” in a general sense is a coin that has not been damaged or artificially altered. A coin graded XF40 can be original, and a coin graded MS67 can be original. I have never met someone who used “original” in any other sense in regards to coins, and it’s a very useful word in this way.
You have no problem with saying this coinwith deep toning meets the standard of having full original luster?
As for marketing ploy, the fact that the writer of the article (numismatist that has been writing on the subject for over 20 years) says claiming to a new collector that a dipped coin (another situation where an altered coin is classified original) iis original is fraud is an indication to me that it is a marketing ploy.
He didn’t say it had fully original luster, he just said the coin as a whole “screams original” and that the luster is “otherworldly”, but if I had to answer, yes, the luster looks pretty original to me, meaning unmolested. It doesn’t look like it has been dipped and retoned. I don’t understand your second statement at all. A dipped coin is never considered original, and shouldn’t be even under your definition. If you knowingly were to sell a dipped coin as original, that would be dishonest. Selling a toned MS coin or an unmolested AU58 or VF20 coin as original is perfectly fine and honest if that coin fits the definition the vast vast majority of the numismatic world applies to “original”. And again, you ignored the bulk of what I wrote to focus on a single point. There’s very much a pattern here.
So in your opinion this coin does not have fully original luster. Is that correct?
That is not at all what I wrote and I have difficulty understanding how you came to that conclusion, or why it matters. No one ever said it had “fully original luster,” and I think it does look original. I am not going to argue about whether it is “fully” original or not.
@BryceM said:
Ha, the old, "what does original signify" thread.
The ultimate in originality is when the coin pops out of the press. Of course, that's not how we use the term. There are a few early copper pieces with genuinely red surfaces and a few early silver coins with a flashy, white look. To most of us, they sort of look "wrong." They're original, but they don't look like the rest of their classmates. When a person actually does still look like a teenager at the 35th class reunion, it's a little creepy.
When we say original, I think what we really mean is "It looks appropriate for its age and suspected storage conditions." Unless you have an unbroken, completely reliable chain of custody, it's of course impossible to know for sure. Those who look at thousands of coins for a living get a feel for what they're "supposed to look like." When something else shows up, it's suspect.
Here are some that might be food for though. First, one that strikes me as original and attractive. The dime has layers of patina, the design is accentuated by the toning, and there's quite a bit of original mint luster everywhere but the high points.
This coin is perhaps an interesting one to discuss. Reeded-edge half dollars are a reasonably difficult coin to collect in BU grades. This coin is attractive (to some), but not original at all. To a specialist like TomB who prizes originality, it's borderline hideous. I imagine it has been dipped (and stripped) and has come back with pleasant-enough toning. CAC liked it. It's not one that everyone will like. C'est la vie.
This dime is plausibly original (or original enough) but not really excelling in the eye-appeal category. It's a tough enough early type, so I forgive it easily.
Is this one original? Possibly, but likely not. Still, who cares. It's pretty interesting if you ask me. Secondary toning can be really nice.
And finally, here's one that I think just screams original and beautiful. Luster on this coin is otherworldly. It's certainly been left alone for over 20 years. Anyone who thinks a blast white 132 year-old coin would look better than this is smoking something different than I am.
These are some wonderful coins. The 1889 is exceptional with a lot of luster. In my opinion it doesn't need the hyperbole "fully original mint luster" attached to it to enhance its value. It's quite obvious the luster is not as full as when the coin was struck but it's still a beautiful specimen.
It is not being described in this way, and you are misinterpreting the intent, and again, it does not matter what your personal definition of “original” is in this context.
To add on to what I wrote before (the bulk of which you conveniently ignore, much as you consistently ignore intent (big picture) over word usage (small picture)) the reason why “original” in the form you use it has never been adopted by the numismatic community is that it is functionally useless for multiple reasons. It is impossible to tell what nicks and hits on a coin were a result of coins banging into each other at the mint or were acquired post-mint, so we cannot tell if coins are truly as they left the mint. If we consider even marks that appeared at the mint to make a coin unoriginal, then only perfect (MS70/PR70) coins could be called original. Functionally, that means only modern proofs and specially struck pieces could ever be called original, and no pieces struck for circulation (there are exactly zero circulation strike coins currently graded MS70 by NGC or PCGS).
I didn't ignore your comments but tried to be concise. That coin MS-65 in many circles would be described as having fully original luster. But take the MS-68 coin that was discussed. That coin was toned but by definition a 68 coin has to have fully original luster, Toning to one degree or another diminishes the luster of a coin.
As for MS-70 coins you're conflating two different issues. Contact marks are part of the overall process of making and issuing coins. The mint releases them in an original state. Things like wear and toning change coins from that original state. Dark toning is an indication that something significant has occurred in the state of the coin that has dramatically alter its appearance. Call the coin original, or a coin that has been dipped original, is a marketing ploy. And as the writer said it is deceptive.
No, toning does not by definition diminish the luster of a coin because you are using the word “luster” in a different way than it is used by virtually everyone else in the field of numismatics. And as I wrote, even if those mint-made marks are considered original, it would then be impossible to distinguish those from post-mint marks, so even then no coins except MS/PR70 coins could be definitively deemed fully original. > @pmh1nic said:
@jmlanzaf said:
Returning to the topic, I don't think it's true that a coin needs to be original to be attractive. There are all kinds of dipped bust halves, for example, that are quite attractive despite being "not original". You need to be original to achieve high Gem + grades but even that has exceptions for early U.S. type.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
The question was pretty specific with no adding premise. Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? I'll ask the question another way, have you ever seen a coin you know was dipped but could not point to some diagnostic "signature" that revealed to you dipping had occurred?
Yes
This isn't a cross examination but are you aware of any instance where a coin that was in a PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder was cracked out, submitted to one of these grading services and comes back as labbel cleaned?
I read an interesting paragraph regarding dipped coins
"Except when dipped coins are marketed to beginners as being original, there is no deception involved by those who dip or sell dipped coins. Certainly, experts are not deceived. Indeed, there is no need for a dipper to deceive experts at the PCGS or the NGC about dipped coins, as graders at these services often assign very high grades to coins that are obviously dipped."
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
That statement in bold is not correct. Toning does alter the metal. Toning is the result of a chemical reaction between silver and elements in the atmosphere. That reaction results in thin film interference seen as a change in color or what we call toning.
It does not alter the metal in the way that we use “alteration” in reference to coins.
Anyway, in sum, you are once again arguing about the definition of a word, as you previously have with “original” and “luster”. I can understand that, but when others in this field use these words in a different sense than you do, then applying your definition of it to their usage is senseless. The intent is what matters. If their intent is to convey another meaning (and one is understood by most others because they understand the word in the same sense), then the application of one’s own separate meaning to that word is incorrect and impractical, and has no bearing on the actual content of their statement. If one says “an MS69 coin must have original luster” and means, “an MS69 coin must have surfaces that have not been damaged or artificially altered and thus reflect light in an intact way and to a full degree of intensity”, then applying one’s own separate interpretation of “original” to the statement to make it mean “an MS69 coin must appear exactly as it did when struck in every possible sense” is useless and incorrect. You may pick on the usage of word itself, but using a separate definition of the word within the provided context is wrong. And why just pick on that word? There are tons of words in our vocabularies that no longer fit their original definitions or are used loosely, in and outside of numismatics. For instance, we may describe a coin as “dipped”, but perhaps that coin wasn’t actually physically dipped in a substance but rather treated excessively using a qtip and a harsh cleaning substance. Does that matter? No. As long as we understand the intent, it’s fine. If we picked apart every piece of language like this, communication would be impossible.
I won't argue the issue of change because the change in the metal is a fact of chemistry. The evidence that a chemical change has occurred is visible.
Regarding the usage of words, I'm using the words as they would be understood by 99% of the population. Using these words in the twisted fashion that they are used in numismatics is a marketing ploy. The words become meaningless if both a coin with toned surfaces and a coin with brilliant luster can both be referred to as have fully original luster. In my opinion it's an irrational use of the words that would not be acceptable when talking about toning, oxidation, etc. as in applies to metals in general. And changing the grading standards to ignore this change was really unnecessary.
It doesn’t matter how any of the non-numismatically inclined population would treat the word, because that’s how it is used in the world of numismatics, and it is not a marketing ploy. There was a need for a word indicating a coin is unmolested, and “original” fit the bill. So be it. The grading standards were never changed to ignore this change because the change never took place. “Original” has meant this in the world of numismatics since grading began. It was the intent in the ANA guide you quoted in the other thread. You are applying a definition to the word that has never functionally been used to describe coins.
As demonstrated with the coins posted above, “original” doesn’t even mean “without wear”. A coin with fully original luster must of course be mint state, because wear affects luster in a significant way, but a coin that is described as “original” in a general sense is a coin that has not been damaged or artificially altered. A coin graded XF40 can be original, and a coin graded MS67 can be original. I have never met someone who used “original” in any other sense in regards to coins, and it’s a very useful word in this way.
You have no problem with saying this coinwith deep toning meets the standard of having full original luster?
As for marketing ploy, the fact that the writer of the article (numismatist that has been writing on the subject for over 20 years) says claiming to a new collector that a dipped coin (another situation where an altered coin is classified original) iis original is fraud is an indication to me that it is a marketing ploy.
He didn’t say it had fully original luster, he just said the coin as a whole “screams original” and that the luster is “otherworldly”, but if I had to answer, yes, the luster looks pretty original to me, meaning unmolested. It doesn’t look like it has been dipped and retoned. I don’t understand your second statement at all. A dipped coin is never considered original, and shouldn’t be even under your definition. If you knowingly were to sell a dipped coin as original, that would be dishonest. Selling a toned MS coin or an unmolested AU58 or VF20 coin as original is perfectly fine and honest if that coin fits the definition the vast vast majority of the numismatic world applies to “original”. And again, you ignored the bulk of what I wrote to focus on a single point. There’s very much a pattern here.
So in your opinion this coin does not have fully original luster. Is that correct?
That is not at all what I wrote and I have difficulty understanding how you came to that conclusion, or why it matters. No one ever said it had “fully original luster,” and I think it does look original. I am not going to argue about whether it is “fully” original or not.
Actually the grading standards for 67 and higher are fully original luster. Do these two examples meet your understanding of the words fully original luster?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@ricko said:
From what I can see, through the tarnish, the strike does seem to be excellent. However, the word 'seem' is the qualifier. If such a coin appeals to a collector, then fine.... Such a coin will not appeal to many others. This is a hobby, voluntary - to some, a business. Enjoy or pursue what makes you happy. Cheers, RickO
@crazyhounddog said:
That’s a good question for a great thread. In some cases I go for the most original look I can find. This is probably the best example I have in my collection.
This 1916 proof buffalo nickel has that look and then some and that’s exactly why I bought it.
I find this buffalo nickel extremely beautiful.
.
.
.
While I like your coin, your Forum manners can be improved.
You show disrespect for the OP by displaying a coin with eye appeal.
Totally contrary to the stated focus of the thread.
180 degrees OT.
Borderline trolling.
No attractive coins allowed.
Jeez
Holy molla you guys are absured ok lets start off here. my grammer and shits off but back to the topic i forgot the first ? Cuz you all are petty im kind of new to coin collecting. but you all dont collect currency cuz if i would have said money someone would have wanted to start it with me but back to my statement you all dont collect coinage to argue with people it should be about what you like, you like peace, go peace dollar,better put that comma and a bunch more puncuation or someone will have it. "my eyes are not ment for that illitetate text" i know its the hobby of the kings per say but some people like it too so be conciderate of what they like. Im into pennys. I like those whitemen or whitemore books they have out im not exactly sure but penny booksq. you all dont want a collorful books like i get it you have a 1909 wheatie to the 58 ms64 or higher grade red gem pops if i believe thats what they call them then. A red brown book, toner book, brown book, error/varities book ext. Like die deteration book. You get the different possabilitys you could have with them whatever your perfered coin is. Like if your in silver or whatever get a book all dcam then all Cam ect. Ok i get you like true coins no imperfections MS68 or higher nice class but its called coin collecting for a reason becuse we got to collect them its 2021 if im out and about and i see a "TONER" for sell right price you bet im going to pick that up because its a great eye apeal and also a great colorful book filler but back to it they all have the different catagorys fruits and vegatables i believe thats called a metaphor. we see your nice coin by the way.. but if they or the mint just made a bunch of silver quarters at the mint then 1 of the prosseses are to wash them after they are cut into planchets and they dont drain out the tank and now their printing thats the wrong word for that but whatever printing pennys and the copper mixs with the other minerals i better say zinc or someones ass will catch on fire like really whats wrong with you's you know who you are just get over it and if you knew who i was or what ive done and been threw you'd be suprized of me for even talking like this but the drama is obsered back too it when the minerals that happened at the mint in their wash bin so then now thats still in its origanal oragen state or whatever you call it defenetly no expert here just saying a little but whoever it is let them apprecate what they like and you apprecate what you like and maybe give different looks on things you dont like just you dont like it doesnt mean it shouldnt be here like i said im new to coin collecting but y now good looking pictures and what "RICKO AT THE TOP SAID HE SAID WAY BETTER THAN ME"
@ricko said:
From what I can see, through the tarnish, the strike does seem to be excellent. However, the word 'seem' is the qualifier. If such a coin appeals to a collector, then fine.... Such a coin will not appeal to many others. This is a hobby, voluntary - to some, a business. Enjoy or pursue what makes you happy. Cheers, RickO
@crazyhounddog said:
That’s a good question for a great thread. In some cases I go for the most original look I can find. This is probably the best example I have in my collection.
This 1916 proof buffalo nickel has that look and then some and that’s exactly why I bought it.
I find this buffalo nickel extremely beautiful.
.
.
.
While I like your coin, your Forum manners can be improved.
You show disrespect for the OP by displaying a coin with eye appeal.
Totally contrary to the stated focus of the thread.
180 degrees OT.
Borderline trolling.
No attractive coins allowed.
Jeez
Holy molla you guys are absured ok lets start off here. my grammer and shits off but back to the topic i forgot the first ? Cuz you all are petty im kind of new to coin collecting. but you all dont collect currency cuz if i would have said money someone would have wanted to start it with me but back to my statement you all dont collect coinage to argue with people it should be about what you like, you like peace, go peace dollar,better put that comma and a bunch more puncuation or someone will have it. "my eyes are not ment for that illitetate text" i know its the hobby of the kings per say but some people like it too so be conciderate of what they like. Im into pennys. I like those whitemen or whitemore books they have out im not exactly sure but penny booksq. you all dont want a collorful books like i get it you have a 1909 wheatie to the 58 ms64 or higher grade red gem pops if i believe thats what they call them then. A red brown book, toner book, brown book, error/varities book ext. Like die deteration book. You get the different possabilitys you could have with them whatever your perfered coin is. Like if your in silver or whatever get a book all dcam then all Cam ect. Ok i get you like true coins no imperfections MS68 or higher nice class but its called coin collecting for a reason becuse we got to collect them its 2021 if im out and about and i see a "TONER" for sell right price you bet im going to pick that up because its a great eye apeal and also a great colorful book filler but back to it they all have the different catagorys fruits and vegatables i believe thats called a metaphor. we see your nice coin by the way.. but if they or the mint just made a bunch of silver quarters at the mint then 1 of the prosseses are to wash them after they are cut into planchets and they dont drain out the tank and now their printing thats the wrong word for that but whatever printing pennys and the copper mixs with the other minerals i better say zinc or someones ass will catch on fire like really whats wrong with you's you know who you are just get over it and if you knew who i was or what ive done and been threw you'd be suprized of me for even talking like this but the drama is obsered back too it when the minerals that happened at the mint in their wash bin so then now thats still in its origanal oragen state or whatever you call it defenetly no expert here just saying a little but whoever it is let them apprecate what they like and you apprecate what you like and maybe give different looks on things you dont like just you dont like it doesnt mean it shouldnt be here like i said im new to coin collecting but y now good looking pictures and what "RICKO AT THE TOP SAID HE SAID WAY BETTER THAN ME"
Jeez
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@BryceM said:
Ha, the old, "what does original signify" thread.
The ultimate in originality is when the coin pops out of the press. Of course, that's not how we use the term. There are a few early copper pieces with genuinely red surfaces and a few early silver coins with a flashy, white look. To most of us, they sort of look "wrong." They're original, but they don't look like the rest of their classmates. When a person actually does still look like a teenager at the 35th class reunion, it's a little creepy.
When we say original, I think what we really mean is "It looks appropriate for its age and suspected storage conditions." Unless you have an unbroken, completely reliable chain of custody, it's of course impossible to know for sure. Those who look at thousands of coins for a living get a feel for what they're "supposed to look like." When something else shows up, it's suspect.
Here are some that might be food for though. First, one that strikes me as original and attractive. The dime has layers of patina, the design is accentuated by the toning, and there's quite a bit of original mint luster everywhere but the high points.
This coin is perhaps an interesting one to discuss. Reeded-edge half dollars are a reasonably difficult coin to collect in BU grades. This coin is attractive (to some), but not original at all. To a specialist like TomB who prizes originality, it's borderline hideous. I imagine it has been dipped (and stripped) and has come back with pleasant-enough toning. CAC liked it. It's not one that everyone will like. C'est la vie.
This dime is plausibly original (or original enough) but not really excelling in the eye-appeal category. It's a tough enough early type, so I forgive it easily.
Is this one original? Possibly, but likely not. Still, who cares. It's pretty interesting if you ask me. Secondary toning can be really nice.
And finally, here's one that I think just screams original and beautiful. Luster on this coin is otherworldly. It's certainly been left alone for over 20 years. Anyone who thinks a blast white 132 year-old coin would look better than this is smoking something different than I am.
These are some wonderful coins. The 1889 is exceptional with a lot of luster. In my opinion it doesn't need the hyperbole "fully original mint luster" attached to it to enhance its value. It's quite obvious the luster is not as full as when the coin was struck but it's still a beautiful specimen.
It is not being described in this way, and you are misinterpreting the intent, and again, it does not matter what your personal definition of “original” is in this context.
To add on to what I wrote before (the bulk of which you conveniently ignore, much as you consistently ignore intent (big picture) over word usage (small picture)) the reason why “original” in the form you use it has never been adopted by the numismatic community is that it is functionally useless for multiple reasons. It is impossible to tell what nicks and hits on a coin were a result of coins banging into each other at the mint or were acquired post-mint, so we cannot tell if coins are truly as they left the mint. If we consider even marks that appeared at the mint to make a coin unoriginal, then only perfect (MS70/PR70) coins could be called original. Functionally, that means only modern proofs and specially struck pieces could ever be called original, and no pieces struck for circulation (there are exactly zero circulation strike coins currently graded MS70 by NGC or PCGS).
I didn't ignore your comments but tried to be concise. That coin MS-65 in many circles would be described as having fully original luster. But take the MS-68 coin that was discussed. That coin was toned but by definition a 68 coin has to have fully original luster, Toning to one degree or another diminishes the luster of a coin.
As for MS-70 coins you're conflating two different issues. Contact marks are part of the overall process of making and issuing coins. The mint releases them in an original state. Things like wear and toning change coins from that original state. Dark toning is an indication that something significant has occurred in the state of the coin that has dramatically alter its appearance. Call the coin original, or a coin that has been dipped original, is a marketing ploy. And as the writer said it is deceptive.
No, toning does not by definition diminish the luster of a coin because you are using the word “luster” in a different way than it is used by virtually everyone else in the field of numismatics. And as I wrote, even if those mint-made marks are considered original, it would then be impossible to distinguish those from post-mint marks, so even then no coins except MS/PR70 coins could be definitively deemed fully original. > @pmh1nic said:
@jmlanzaf said:
Returning to the topic, I don't think it's true that a coin needs to be original to be attractive. There are all kinds of dipped bust halves, for example, that are quite attractive despite being "not original". You need to be original to achieve high Gem + grades but even that has exceptions for early U.S. type.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
The question was pretty specific with no adding premise. Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? I'll ask the question another way, have you ever seen a coin you know was dipped but could not point to some diagnostic "signature" that revealed to you dipping had occurred?
Yes
This isn't a cross examination but are you aware of any instance where a coin that was in a PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder was cracked out, submitted to one of these grading services and comes back as labbel cleaned?
I read an interesting paragraph regarding dipped coins
"Except when dipped coins are marketed to beginners as being original, there is no deception involved by those who dip or sell dipped coins. Certainly, experts are not deceived. Indeed, there is no need for a dipper to deceive experts at the PCGS or the NGC about dipped coins, as graders at these services often assign very high grades to coins that are obviously dipped."
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
That statement in bold is not correct. Toning does alter the metal. Toning is the result of a chemical reaction between silver and elements in the atmosphere. That reaction results in thin film interference seen as a change in color or what we call toning.
It does not alter the metal in the way that we use “alteration” in reference to coins.
Anyway, in sum, you are once again arguing about the definition of a word, as you previously have with “original” and “luster”. I can understand that, but when others in this field use these words in a different sense than you do, then applying your definition of it to their usage is senseless. The intent is what matters. If their intent is to convey another meaning (and one is understood by most others because they understand the word in the same sense), then the application of one’s own separate meaning to that word is incorrect and impractical, and has no bearing on the actual content of their statement. If one says “an MS69 coin must have original luster” and means, “an MS69 coin must have surfaces that have not been damaged or artificially altered and thus reflect light in an intact way and to a full degree of intensity”, then applying one’s own separate interpretation of “original” to the statement to make it mean “an MS69 coin must appear exactly as it did when struck in every possible sense” is useless and incorrect. You may pick on the usage of word itself, but using a separate definition of the word within the provided context is wrong. And why just pick on that word? There are tons of words in our vocabularies that no longer fit their original definitions or are used loosely, in and outside of numismatics. For instance, we may describe a coin as “dipped”, but perhaps that coin wasn’t actually physically dipped in a substance but rather treated excessively using a qtip and a harsh cleaning substance. Does that matter? No. As long as we understand the intent, it’s fine. If we picked apart every piece of language like this, communication would be impossible.
I won't argue the issue of change because the change in the metal is a fact of chemistry. The evidence that a chemical change has occurred is visible.
Regarding the usage of words, I'm using the words as they would be understood by 99% of the population. Using these words in the twisted fashion that they are used in numismatics is a marketing ploy. The words become meaningless if both a coin with toned surfaces and a coin with brilliant luster can both be referred to as have fully original luster. In my opinion it's an irrational use of the words that would not be acceptable when talking about toning, oxidation, etc. as in applies to metals in general. And changing the grading standards to ignore this change was really unnecessary.
It doesn’t matter how any of the non-numismatically inclined population would treat the word, because that’s how it is used in the world of numismatics, and it is not a marketing ploy. There was a need for a word indicating a coin is unmolested, and “original” fit the bill. So be it. The grading standards were never changed to ignore this change because the change never took place. “Original” has meant this in the world of numismatics since grading began. It was the intent in the ANA guide you quoted in the other thread. You are applying a definition to the word that has never functionally been used to describe coins.
As demonstrated with the coins posted above, “original” doesn’t even mean “without wear”. A coin with fully original luster must of course be mint state, because wear affects luster in a significant way, but a coin that is described as “original” in a general sense is a coin that has not been damaged or artificially altered. A coin graded XF40 can be original, and a coin graded MS67 can be original. I have never met someone who used “original” in any other sense in regards to coins, and it’s a very useful word in this way.
You have no problem with saying this coinwith deep toning meets the standard of having full original luster?
As for marketing ploy, the fact that the writer of the article (numismatist that has been writing on the subject for over 20 years) says claiming to a new collector that a dipped coin (another situation where an altered coin is classified original) iis original is fraud is an indication to me that it is a marketing ploy.
He didn’t say it had fully original luster, he just said the coin as a whole “screams original” and that the luster is “otherworldly”, but if I had to answer, yes, the luster looks pretty original to me, meaning unmolested. It doesn’t look like it has been dipped and retoned. I don’t understand your second statement at all. A dipped coin is never considered original, and shouldn’t be even under your definition. If you knowingly were to sell a dipped coin as original, that would be dishonest. Selling a toned MS coin or an unmolested AU58 or VF20 coin as original is perfectly fine and honest if that coin fits the definition the vast vast majority of the numismatic world applies to “original”. And again, you ignored the bulk of what I wrote to focus on a single point. There’s very much a pattern here.
So in your opinion this coin does not have fully original luster. Is that correct?
That is not at all what I wrote and I have difficulty understanding how you came to that conclusion, or why it matters. No one ever said it had “fully original luster,” and I think it does look original. I am not going to argue about whether it is “fully” original or not.
Actually the grading standards for 67 and higher are fully original luster. Do these two examples meet your understanding of the words fully original luster?
The seated lib we were discussing is not graded MS67 or higher, so I don’t get the “actually”. What’s more, you’re quoting the grading standards of another company, the ANA. They have their own grading service, ANACS, and ANACS has always been ok with grading toned coins in MS67-69, so you must be misinterpreting their usage of “luster” and “original”, and how toning potentially affects those descriptions.
The two coins you posted are graded accurately in my eyes, as long as the toning on the first is natural.
That photo of the toned eagle is also pretty terrible and makes the coin look duller than it is. Looking at the TrueView, the big splotch on the reverse does make me feel MS67 would be a more fitting grade.
For the record, I don’t buy that the color is real, so really I would call it AT, but there are certainly naturally toned eagles that I would call MS68.
@jmlanzaf said:
Returning to the topic, I don't think it's true that a coin needs to be original to be attractive. There are all kinds of dipped bust halves, for example, that are quite attractive despite being "not original". You need to be original to achieve high Gem + grades but even that has exceptions for early U.S. type.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
The question was pretty specific with no adding premise. Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? I'll ask the question another way, have you ever seen a coin you know was dipped but could not point to some diagnostic "signature" that revealed to you dipping had occurred?
Yes
This isn't a cross examination but are you aware of any instance where a coin that was in a PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder was cracked out, submitted to one of these grading services and comes back as labbel cleaned?
I read an interesting paragraph regarding dipped coins
"Except when dipped coins are marketed to beginners as being original, there is no deception involved by those who dip or sell dipped coins. Certainly, experts are not deceived. Indeed, there is no need for a dipper to deceive experts at the PCGS or the NGC about dipped coins, as graders at these services often assign very high grades to coins that are obviously dipped."
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because if it’s been dipped, it’s not original (even if it might appear to be so).
Edited to add: As many of us have posted in response to you regarding the word "original", with respect to coins, it means not messed with, not necessarily exactly as it appeared at the time it was minted.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Original is usually a term used to market a badly tarnished coin which is probably overpriced and will get worse over time. The term is a type of seller hype.
@jmlanzaf said:
Returning to the topic, I don't think it's true that a coin needs to be original to be attractive. There are all kinds of dipped bust halves, for example, that are quite attractive despite being "not original". You need to be original to achieve high Gem + grades but even that has exceptions for early U.S. type.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
The question was pretty specific with no adding premise. Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? I'll ask the question another way, have you ever seen a coin you know was dipped but could not point to some diagnostic "signature" that revealed to you dipping had occurred?
Yes
This isn't a cross examination but are you aware of any instance where a coin that was in a PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder was cracked out, submitted to one of these grading services and comes back as labbel cleaned?
I read an interesting paragraph regarding dipped coins
"Except when dipped coins are marketed to beginners as being original, there is no deception involved by those who dip or sell dipped coins. Certainly, experts are not deceived. Indeed, there is no need for a dipper to deceive experts at the PCGS or the NGC about dipped coins, as graders at these services often assign very high grades to coins that are obviously dipped."
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because if it’s been dipped, it’s not original (even if it might appear to be so).
Edited to add: As many of us have posted in response to you regarding the word "original", with respect to coins, it means not messed with, not necessarily exactly as it appeared at the time it was minted.
I’d consider dipping as messing with the coin. It might be messing where the numismatic community gives it a wink and a nod but some chemical process has been use to remove some of the original material from the coin.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Neither does toning, or apparently, you guys . . . .
Z
Or we wake up early
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@BryceM said:
Ha, the old, "what does original signify" thread.
The ultimate in originality is when the coin pops out of the press. Of course, that's not how we use the term. There are a few early copper pieces with genuinely red surfaces and a few early silver coins with a flashy, white look. To most of us, they sort of look "wrong." They're original, but they don't look like the rest of their classmates. When a person actually does still look like a teenager at the 35th class reunion, it's a little creepy.
When we say original, I think what we really mean is "It looks appropriate for its age and suspected storage conditions." Unless you have an unbroken, completely reliable chain of custody, it's of course impossible to know for sure. Those who look at thousands of coins for a living get a feel for what they're "supposed to look like." When something else shows up, it's suspect.
Here are some that might be food for though. First, one that strikes me as original and attractive. The dime has layers of patina, the design is accentuated by the toning, and there's quite a bit of original mint luster everywhere but the high points.
This coin is perhaps an interesting one to discuss. Reeded-edge half dollars are a reasonably difficult coin to collect in BU grades. This coin is attractive (to some), but not original at all. To a specialist like TomB who prizes originality, it's borderline hideous. I imagine it has been dipped (and stripped) and has come back with pleasant-enough toning. CAC liked it. It's not one that everyone will like. C'est la vie.
This dime is plausibly original (or original enough) but not really excelling in the eye-appeal category. It's a tough enough early type, so I forgive it easily.
Is this one original? Possibly, but likely not. Still, who cares. It's pretty interesting if you ask me. Secondary toning can be really nice.
And finally, here's one that I think just screams original and beautiful. Luster on this coin is otherworldly. It's certainly been left alone for over 20 years. Anyone who thinks a blast white 132 year-old coin would look better than this is smoking something different than I am.
These are some wonderful coins. The 1889 is exceptional with a lot of luster. In my opinion it doesn't need the hyperbole "fully original mint luster" attached to it to enhance its value. It's quite obvious the luster is not as full as when the coin was struck but it's still a beautiful specimen.
It is not being described in this way, and you are misinterpreting the intent, and again, it does not matter what your personal definition of “original” is in this context.
To add on to what I wrote before (the bulk of which you conveniently ignore, much as you consistently ignore intent (big picture) over word usage (small picture)) the reason why “original” in the form you use it has never been adopted by the numismatic community is that it is functionally useless for multiple reasons. It is impossible to tell what nicks and hits on a coin were a result of coins banging into each other at the mint or were acquired post-mint, so we cannot tell if coins are truly as they left the mint. If we consider even marks that appeared at the mint to make a coin unoriginal, then only perfect (MS70/PR70) coins could be called original. Functionally, that means only modern proofs and specially struck pieces could ever be called original, and no pieces struck for circulation (there are exactly zero circulation strike coins currently graded MS70 by NGC or PCGS).
I didn't ignore your comments but tried to be concise. That coin MS-65 in many circles would be described as having fully original luster. But take the MS-68 coin that was discussed. That coin was toned but by definition a 68 coin has to have fully original luster, Toning to one degree or another diminishes the luster of a coin.
As for MS-70 coins you're conflating two different issues. Contact marks are part of the overall process of making and issuing coins. The mint releases them in an original state. Things like wear and toning change coins from that original state. Dark toning is an indication that something significant has occurred in the state of the coin that has dramatically alter its appearance. Call the coin original, or a coin that has been dipped original, is a marketing ploy. And as the writer said it is deceptive.
No, toning does not by definition diminish the luster of a coin because you are using the word “luster” in a different way than it is used by virtually everyone else in the field of numismatics. And as I wrote, even if those mint-made marks are considered original, it would then be impossible to distinguish those from post-mint marks, so even then no coins except MS/PR70 coins could be definitively deemed fully original. > @pmh1nic said:
@jmlanzaf said:
Returning to the topic, I don't think it's true that a coin needs to be original to be attractive. There are all kinds of dipped bust halves, for example, that are quite attractive despite being "not original". You need to be original to achieve high Gem + grades but even that has exceptions for early U.S. type.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
The question was pretty specific with no adding premise. Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? I'll ask the question another way, have you ever seen a coin you know was dipped but could not point to some diagnostic "signature" that revealed to you dipping had occurred?
Yes
This isn't a cross examination but are you aware of any instance where a coin that was in a PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder was cracked out, submitted to one of these grading services and comes back as labbel cleaned?
I read an interesting paragraph regarding dipped coins
"Except when dipped coins are marketed to beginners as being original, there is no deception involved by those who dip or sell dipped coins. Certainly, experts are not deceived. Indeed, there is no need for a dipper to deceive experts at the PCGS or the NGC about dipped coins, as graders at these services often assign very high grades to coins that are obviously dipped."
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
That statement in bold is not correct. Toning does alter the metal. Toning is the result of a chemical reaction between silver and elements in the atmosphere. That reaction results in thin film interference seen as a change in color or what we call toning.
It does not alter the metal in the way that we use “alteration” in reference to coins.
Anyway, in sum, you are once again arguing about the definition of a word, as you previously have with “original” and “luster”. I can understand that, but when others in this field use these words in a different sense than you do, then applying your definition of it to their usage is senseless. The intent is what matters. If their intent is to convey another meaning (and one is understood by most others because they understand the word in the same sense), then the application of one’s own separate meaning to that word is incorrect and impractical, and has no bearing on the actual content of their statement. If one says “an MS69 coin must have original luster” and means, “an MS69 coin must have surfaces that have not been damaged or artificially altered and thus reflect light in an intact way and to a full degree of intensity”, then applying one’s own separate interpretation of “original” to the statement to make it mean “an MS69 coin must appear exactly as it did when struck in every possible sense” is useless and incorrect. You may pick on the usage of word itself, but using a separate definition of the word within the provided context is wrong. And why just pick on that word? There are tons of words in our vocabularies that no longer fit their original definitions or are used loosely, in and outside of numismatics. For instance, we may describe a coin as “dipped”, but perhaps that coin wasn’t actually physically dipped in a substance but rather treated excessively using a qtip and a harsh cleaning substance. Does that matter? No. As long as we understand the intent, it’s fine. If we picked apart every piece of language like this, communication would be impossible.
I won't argue the issue of change because the change in the metal is a fact of chemistry. The evidence that a chemical change has occurred is visible.
Regarding the usage of words, I'm using the words as they would be understood by 99% of the population. Using these words in the twisted fashion that they are used in numismatics is a marketing ploy. The words become meaningless if both a coin with toned surfaces and a coin with brilliant luster can both be referred to as have fully original luster. In my opinion it's an irrational use of the words that would not be acceptable when talking about toning, oxidation, etc. as in applies to metals in general. And changing the grading standards to ignore this change was really unnecessary.
It doesn’t matter how any of the non-numismatically inclined population would treat the word, because that’s how it is used in the world of numismatics, and it is not a marketing ploy. There was a need for a word indicating a coin is unmolested, and “original” fit the bill. So be it. The grading standards were never changed to ignore this change because the change never took place. “Original” has meant this in the world of numismatics since grading began. It was the intent in the ANA guide you quoted in the other thread. You are applying a definition to the word that has never functionally been used to describe coins.
As demonstrated with the coins posted above, “original” doesn’t even mean “without wear”. A coin with fully original luster must of course be mint state, because wear affects luster in a significant way, but a coin that is described as “original” in a general sense is a coin that has not been damaged or artificially altered. A coin graded XF40 can be original, and a coin graded MS67 can be original. I have never met someone who used “original” in any other sense in regards to coins, and it’s a very useful word in this way.
You have no problem with saying this coinwith deep toning meets the standard of having full original luster?
As for marketing ploy, the fact that the writer of the article (numismatist that has been writing on the subject for over 20 years) says claiming to a new collector that a dipped coin (another situation where an altered coin is classified original) iis original is fraud is an indication to me that it is a marketing ploy.
He didn’t say it had fully original luster, he just said the coin as a whole “screams original” and that the luster is “otherworldly”, but if I had to answer, yes, the luster looks pretty original to me, meaning unmolested. It doesn’t look like it has been dipped and retoned. I don’t understand your second statement at all. A dipped coin is never considered original, and shouldn’t be even under your definition. If you knowingly were to sell a dipped coin as original, that would be dishonest. Selling a toned MS coin or an unmolested AU58 or VF20 coin as original is perfectly fine and honest if that coin fits the definition the vast vast majority of the numismatic world applies to “original”. And again, you ignored the bulk of what I wrote to focus on a single point. There’s very much a pattern here.
So in your opinion this coin does not have fully original luster. Is that correct?
That is not at all what I wrote and I have difficulty understanding how you came to that conclusion, or why it matters. No one ever said it had “fully original luster,” and I think it does look original. I am not going to argue about whether it is “fully” original or not.
Actually the grading standards for 67 and higher are fully original luster. Do these two examples meet your understanding of the words fully original luster?
The seated lib we were discussing is not graded MS67 or higher, so I don’t get the “actually”. What’s more, you’re quoting the grading standards of another company, the ANA. They have their own grading service, ANACS, and ANACS has always been ok with grading toned coins in MS67-69, so you must be misinterpreting their usage of “luster” and “original”, and how toning potentially affects those descriptions.
The two coins you posted are graded accurately in my eyes, as long as the toning on the first is natural.
You are correct. A 65 coin doesn’t have to have fully original luster. I was just to lazy to look for a heavily toned 67 or 68 coin. The point is if I see a 68 grade I expect to see a coin very close in appearance as it was when it left the mint, with full original luster and not a coin that has heavy toning.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
You can expect whatever you want but if what you're expecting is that other people will describe coins using your personal definitions as opposed to ones commonly understood in the numismatic community, you're going to find yourself confused and disappointed by their descriptions quite often.
These are some wonderful coins. The 1889 is exceptional with a lot of luster. In my opinion it doesn't need the hyperbole "fully original mint luster" attached to it to enhance its value. It's quite obvious the luster is not as full as when the coin was struck but it's still a beautiful specimen.
I read through most of the posts here on this thread and got lost quite a few times. Just reading through this sentence, I got lost at least once. From a qualitative viewpoint, as measured by a light meter, perhaps the luster is a few percentage points off from its original mint bloom. Nobody cares. This little wash of toning has done imperceptibly little to diminish its flashiness. I might even argue that the color actually accentuates the "perceived luster" beyond what you'd see in a perfectly white coin. But, I suppose you're just a toning hater, and that's fine. More for me to buy.
I would especially like to expand on the discussion of the not-overly-nondescript 1889 25c.
I could use it for 20 minutes of an in-hand ANA grading class. The kids would likely walk out understanding the why and how of that coin being evaluated as having A+ frost and accompanying lustre better than most here. Not a criticism of our bunch. They have less unlearning to do..
On the topic of original, fugly not particularly relevant, @MFeld and I served on the PNG's Coin Doctoring Definition Committee. We went back and forth many times about whether dipping should be classified as cleaning. I'm sure I used terms like "too original" and "original enough". Mark is more of a purist than I.
Anybody can be fooled. Titans included. But soften that to anyone can be very close or on target with a broadly accepted and practically utilizable tool of analysis and still not be "technically precise".
You guys are trying to argue the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. I'm trying to figure how many got killed by it.
Have you seen a before-and-after of a grungy brownish silver coin that been boiled in acetone? As much as I discounted the danger of acetone inhalation and explosion potential, this is a potentially catastrophic hazard. It's a exhaust-hood/breathing-mask operation. Only seen it done once. The technician had selected two likely 64C Morgans as candidates. They didn't POP!!! Glow is suggestable. The grunge removed from the interstitial canals, nooks and crannies on/in the frost of the surfaces allowed for a higher density of more highly reflective lustre "micro-areas". Two solid stolid 64B coins.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@MasonG said:
You can expect whatever you want but if what you're expecting is that other people will describe coins using your personal definitions as opposed to ones commonly understood in the numismatic community, you're going to find yourself confused and disappointed by their descriptions quite often.
Just sayin'.
I’m not expecting the unnecessary twisting of the language to change. The genie is out of the bottle. I’m just pointing out the imprecise nature in which the language has evolved over time AND that that evolution really was not necessary when it comes to the accurate assignment of grades to coins.
I’m not confused one bit. The individuals that are confused are new collectors and those thinking of getting into the hobby. This was highlighted by the writer that suggested presenting a toned coin as “original” to someone new to the hobby constitutes fraud.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
It's not fraud if it's commonly understood IN THE HOBBY that "toned" and "original" are not mutually exclusive. You're the only one having problems with that.
@ColonelJessup said:
I would especially like to expand on the discussion of the not-overly-nondescript 1889 25c.
I could use it for 20 minutes of an in-hand ANA grading class. The kids would likely walk out understanding the why and how of that coin being evaluated as having A+ frost and accompanying lustre better than most here. Not a criticism of our bunch. They have less unlearning to do..
On the topic of original, fugly not particularly relevant, @MFeld and I served on the PNG's Coin Doctoring Definition Committee. We went back and forth many times about whether dipping should be classified as cleaning. I'm sure I used terms like "too original" and "original enough". Mark is more of a purist than I.
Anybody can be fooled. Titans included. But soften that to anyone can be very close or on target with a broadly accepted and practically utilizable tool of analysis and still not be "technically precise".
You guys are trying to argue the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. I'm trying to figure how many got killed by it.
Have you seen a before-and-after of a grungy brownish silver coin that been boiled in acetone? As much as I discounted the danger of acetone inhalation and explosion potential, this is a potentially catastrophic hazard. It's a exhaust-hood/breathing-mask operation. Only seen it done once. The technician had selected two likely 64C Morgans as candidates. They didn't POP!!! Glow is suggestable. The grunge removed from the interstitial canals, nooks and crannies on/in the frost of the surfaces allowed for a higher density of more highly reflective lustre "micro-areas". Two solid stolid 64B coins.
The discussion is far from arguing the number of angels on the pin of a needle. This argument is pretty straight forward IF the meaning of words is restricted to how they apply to metals. When the surface of a coin has acquired deep toning the surface of that coin is no longer original and no longer has fully original mint luster. I know that, 99% of the population would acknowledge that and in fact you know that. The writer I quoted, who is an award winning writer who has been writing about numismatics for over 20 years, recognizes that fact. The fact that this change had occurred isn’t speculation or subjective opinion. It’s cold, hard, scientific fact. You guys decided for some reason that rather than acknowledging that FACT to ignore the clear usage of the language to claim it doesn’t mean what it means when discussing surface oxidation on any other metal surface. Why? The only answer that makes sense to me is it was done for marketing reasons.
In my opinion, rather than torturing the language, the grading standards should have been changed to remove the words “fully original luster” or add the words “toning that has occurred naturally and is attractive”. That last phrase is somewhat subjective but when has grading not been subjective.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@ColonelJessup said:
I would especially like to expand on the discussion of the not-overly-nondescript 1889 25c.
I could use it for 20 minutes of an in-hand ANA grading class. The kids would likely walk out understanding the why and how of that coin being evaluated as having A+ frost and accompanying lustre better than most here. Not a criticism of our bunch. They have less unlearning to do..
On the topic of original, fugly not particularly relevant, @MFeld and I served on the PNG's Coin Doctoring Definition Committee. We went back and forth many times about whether dipping should be classified as cleaning. I'm sure I used terms like "too original" and "original enough". Mark is more of a purist than I.
Anybody can be fooled. Titans included. But soften that to anyone can be very close or on target with a broadly accepted and practically utilizable tool of analysis and still not be "technically precise".
You guys are trying to argue the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. I'm trying to figure how many got killed by it.
Have you seen a before-and-after of a grungy brownish silver coin that been boiled in acetone? As much as I discounted the danger of acetone inhalation and explosion potential, this is a potentially catastrophic hazard. It's a exhaust-hood/breathing-mask operation. Only seen it done once. The technician had selected two likely 64C Morgans as candidates. They didn't POP!!! Glow is suggestable. The grunge removed from the interstitial canals, nooks and crannies on/in the frost of the surfaces allowed for a higher density of more highly reflective lustre "micro-areas". Two solid stolid 64B coins.
The discussion is far from arguing the number of angels on the pin of a needle. This argument is pretty straight forward IF the meaning of words is restricted to how they apply to metals. When the surface of a coin has acquired deep toning the surface of that coin is no longer original and no longer has fully original mint luster. I know that, 99% of the population would acknowledge that and in fact you know that. The writer I quoted, who is an award winning writer who has been writing about numismatics for over 20 years, recognizes that fact. The fact that this change had occurred isn’t speculation or subjective opinion. It’s cold, hard, scientific fact. You guys decided for some reason that rather than acknowledging that FACT to ignore the clear usage of the language to claim it doesn’t mean what it means when discussing surface oxidation on any other metal surface. Why? The only answer that makes sense to me is it was done for marketing reasons.
In my opinion, rather than torturing the language, the grading standards should have been changed to remove the words “fully original luster” or add the words “toning that has occurred naturally and is attractive”. That last phrase is somewhat subjective but when has grading not been subjective.
It’s very interesting how you keep making the same inane arguments about language, the meanings of words and the non-existent changes associated with them, and “99% of the population”, when I and others in this thread have already quite definitively refuted them.
everyone has their own idea of what the word original means doesn't mean it's wrong or right it's just what their opinion is about what the word means to them personally
1942-S US toned Silver dime NGC MS66 for sale at link below
I noticed that the OP 's coin was in an old PCI slab. Can I ask you to post the entire slab,? PCI as well as anacs old soapmbars are known for toning a coin....sometimes good....sometimes not so good. I would like to see what generation ,before I coment futher on the op's specimen.
I do agree a coin need be orginal, however in some series most all the type coinage has been messed with! I collect h- 10's and other series, but I'll bet out of near 175 specimens of both bust- seated 1829-1873 75 % has or was cleaned or dipped.
As stated above some coin products have been known to make a coin tone....
The old albums and boards were a sure bet to make a coin tone to black! A many a half dime the obv. Ah not bad....the reverse looks like someone took a brillo pad to it, or toning stuck tight up against the devices.
This walker a poster child of mine of how things can tone in an old PCI holder. Im not a fan of moten look of the tone. But the fact that this is where a bright silver coin can go.
@ColonelJessup said:
I would especially like to expand on the discussion of the not-overly-nondescript 1889 25c.
I could use it for 20 minutes of an in-hand ANA grading class. The kids would likely walk out understanding the why and how of that coin being evaluated as having A+ frost and accompanying lustre better than most here. Not a criticism of our bunch. They have less unlearning to do..
On the topic of original, fugly not particularly relevant, @MFeld and I served on the PNG's Coin Doctoring Definition Committee. We went back and forth many times about whether dipping should be classified as cleaning. I'm sure I used terms like "too original" and "original enough". Mark is more of a purist than I.
Anybody can be fooled. Titans included. But soften that to anyone can be very close or on target with a broadly accepted and practically utilizable tool of analysis and still not be "technically precise".
You guys are trying to argue the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. I'm trying to figure how many got killed by it.
Have you seen a before-and-after of a grungy brownish silver coin that been boiled in acetone? As much as I discounted the danger of acetone inhalation and explosion potential, this is a potentially catastrophic hazard. It's a exhaust-hood/breathing-mask operation. Only seen it done once. The technician had selected two likely 64C Morgans as candidates. They didn't POP!!! Glow is suggestable. The grunge removed from the interstitial canals, nooks and crannies on/in the frost of the surfaces allowed for a higher density of more highly reflective lustre "micro-areas". Two solid stolid 64B coins.
The discussion is far from arguing the number of angels on the pin of a needle. This argument is pretty straight forward IF the meaning of words is restricted to how they apply to metals. When the surface of a coin has acquired deep toning the surface of that coin is no longer original and no longer has fully original mint luster. I know that, 99% of the population would acknowledge that and in fact you know that. The writer I quoted, who is an award winning writer who has been writing about numismatics for over 20 years, recognizes that fact. The fact that this change had occurred isn’t speculation or subjective opinion. It’s cold, hard, scientific fact. You guys decided for some reason that rather than acknowledging that FACT to ignore the clear usage of the language to claim it doesn’t mean what it means when discussing surface oxidation on any other metal surface. Why? The only answer that makes sense to me is it was done for marketing reasons.
In my opinion, rather than torturing the language, the grading standards should have been changed to remove the words “fully original luster” or add the words “toning that has occurred naturally and is attractive”. That last phrase is somewhat subjective but when has grading not been subjective.
Grading has always been subjective, Someone in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland", likely the Red Queen, said "Words mean exactly what I intend them to mean. Exactly that and nothing else." I'm an amateur etymologist. You going for the 16th century Elizabethan meaning, or the 19th century Disraeli nuances. Totally "this" or "that" or "what" the Red Queen say they are. if you want the Gemological Institute involved, their work at least controls the light source and intensity with less error than "can you turn off those overhead lights?"
Your complaints surely have some virtue to them. But you don't know the chemists or physicists who have advised many experts, nor what their conclusions might be, nor how those clients have operationalized their newly-refined processes for greater effectiveness.
Other names for "how many angels get killed"?.
"The perfect is the enemy of the good"
"The Law of Diminishing Returns"
"Close enough for government work"
"I dipped that proof '96 quarter. It went down a point but came out DCAM"
"Market-acceptable"
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Collectors are reasonably smart folks. Most of them easily grasp the nuance behind what is meant by "original" as it is understood today in the hobby. If there's any confusion, most of them catch on pretty quickly. A few rigid-thinking types might have a harder time with it than others.
@ColonelJessup said:
I would especially like to expand on the discussion of the not-overly-nondescript 1889 25c.
I could use it for 20 minutes of an in-hand ANA grading class. The kids would likely walk out understanding the why and how of that coin being evaluated as having A+ frost and accompanying lustre better than most here. Not a criticism of our bunch. They have less unlearning to do..
On the topic of original, fugly not particularly relevant, @MFeld and I served on the PNG's Coin Doctoring Definition Committee. We went back and forth many times about whether dipping should be classified as cleaning. I'm sure I used terms like "too original" and "original enough". Mark is more of a purist than I.
Anybody can be fooled. Titans included. But soften that to anyone can be very close or on target with a broadly accepted and practically utilizable tool of analysis and still not be "technically precise".
You guys are trying to argue the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. I'm trying to figure how many got killed by it.
Have you seen a before-and-after of a grungy brownish silver coin that been boiled in acetone? As much as I discounted the danger of acetone inhalation and explosion potential, this is a potentially catastrophic hazard. It's a exhaust-hood/breathing-mask operation. Only seen it done once. The technician had selected two likely 64C Morgans as candidates. They didn't POP!!! Glow is suggestable. The grunge removed from the interstitial canals, nooks and crannies on/in the frost of the surfaces allowed for a higher density of more highly reflective lustre "micro-areas". Two solid stolid 64B coins.
The discussion is far from arguing the number of angels on the pin of a needle. This argument is pretty straight forward IF the meaning of words is restricted to how they apply to metals. When the surface of a coin has acquired deep toning the surface of that coin is no longer original and no longer has fully original mint luster. I know that, 99% of the population would acknowledge that and in fact you know that. The writer I quoted, who is an award winning writer who has been writing about numismatics for over 20 years, recognizes that fact. The fact that this change had occurred isn’t speculation or subjective opinion. It’s cold, hard, scientific fact. You guys decided for some reason that rather than acknowledging that FACT to ignore the clear usage of the language to claim it doesn’t mean what it means when discussing surface oxidation on any other metal surface. Why? The only answer that makes sense to me is it was done for marketing reasons.
In my opinion, rather than torturing the language, the grading standards should have been changed to remove the words “fully original luster” or add the words “toning that has occurred naturally and is attractive”. That last phrase is somewhat subjective but when has grading not been subjective.
It’s very interesting how you keep making the same inane arguments about language, the meanings of words and the non-existent changes associated with them, and “99% of the population”, when I and others in this thread have already quite definitively refuted them.
@ColonelJessup said:
I would especially like to expand on the discussion of the not-overly-nondescript 1889 25c.
I could use it for 20 minutes of an in-hand ANA grading class. The kids would likely walk out understanding the why and how of that coin being evaluated as having A+ frost and accompanying lustre better than most here. Not a criticism of our bunch. They have less unlearning to do..
On the topic of original, fugly not particularly relevant, @MFeld and I served on the PNG's Coin Doctoring Definition Committee. We went back and forth many times about whether dipping should be classified as cleaning. I'm sure I used terms like "too original" and "original enough". Mark is more of a purist than I.
Anybody can be fooled. Titans included. But soften that to anyone can be very close or on target with a broadly accepted and practically utilizable tool of analysis and still not be "technically precise".
You guys are trying to argue the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. I'm trying to figure how many got killed by it.
Have you seen a before-and-after of a grungy brownish silver coin that been boiled in acetone? As much as I discounted the danger of acetone inhalation and explosion potential, this is a potentially catastrophic hazard. It's a exhaust-hood/breathing-mask operation. Only seen it done once. The technician had selected two likely 64C Morgans as candidates. They didn't POP!!! Glow is suggestable. The grunge removed from the interstitial canals, nooks and crannies on/in the frost of the surfaces allowed for a higher density of more highly reflective lustre "micro-areas". Two solid stolid 64B coins.
The discussion is far from arguing the number of angels on the pin of a needle. This argument is pretty straight forward IF the meaning of words is restricted to how they apply to metals. When the surface of a coin has acquired deep toning the surface of that coin is no longer original and no longer has fully original mint luster. I know that, 99% of the population would acknowledge that and in fact you know that. The writer I quoted, who is an award winning writer who has been writing about numismatics for over 20 years, recognizes that fact. The fact that this change had occurred isn’t speculation or subjective opinion. It’s cold, hard, scientific fact. You guys decided for some reason that rather than acknowledging that FACT to ignore the clear usage of the language to claim it doesn’t mean what it means when discussing surface oxidation on any other metal surface. Why? The only answer that makes sense to me is it was done for marketing reasons.
In my opinion, rather than torturing the language, the grading standards should have been changed to remove the words “fully original luster” or add the words “toning that has occurred naturally and is attractive”. That last phrase is somewhat subjective but when has grading not been subjective.
It’s very interesting how you keep making the same inane arguments about language, the meanings of words and the non-existent changes associated with them, and “99% of the population”, when I and others in this thread have already quite definitively refuted them.
What exactly have you refuted? Did you refute the fact that toning is a change in the surface metal of a coin? No. The metal has undergone a change. Did you refute the fact that the impact of that change is visible and in some cases dramatically so? No. Did you refute the fact that 99% of the population on the planet would acknowledge some change has occurred? No. Did you refute the opinion of a well known writer in the field of numismatics acknowledged that representing a coin where the surface of a coin has been altered is fraud? No. You haven’t refuted any of the points I’ve made so stop with the victory lap.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Comments
Because it's being represented as something it's not. That said, (properly) dipped coins are not universally regarded as damaged goods, so there are much worse deceptions perpetrated on beginners.
Any thoughts on the comment about marketing a dipped coin as original being deceptive?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
.
.
.
While I like your coin, your Forum manners can be improved.
You show disrespect for the OP by displaying a coin with eye appeal.
Totally contrary to the stated focus of the thread.
180 degrees OT.
Borderline trolling.
No attractive coins allowed.
Jeez
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!!
But does the "being something it's not" change depending on the buyer? This writer seems to think so since he makes the distinction between marketing to a beginner versus marketing to a more experienced collector. How do you differentiate between the two?
That statement in bold is not correct. Toning does alter the metal. Toning is the result of a chemical reaction between silver and elements in the atmosphere. That reaction results in thin film interference seen as a change in color or what we call toning.
No, it doesn’t. What?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
It does not alter the metal in the way that we use “alteration” in reference to coins.
Anyway, in sum, you are once again arguing about the definition of a word, as you previously have with “original” and “luster”. I can understand that, but when others in this field use these words in a different sense than you do, then applying your definition of it to their usage is senseless. The intent is what matters. If their intent is to convey another meaning (and one is understood by most others because they understand the word in the same sense), then the application of one’s own separate meaning to that word is incorrect and impractical, and has no bearing on the actual content of their statement. If one says “an MS69 coin must have original luster” and means, “an MS69 coin must have surfaces that have not been damaged or artificially altered and thus reflect light in an intact way and to a full degree of intensity”, then applying one’s own separate interpretation of “original” to the statement to make it mean “an MS69 coin must appear exactly as it did when struck in every possible sense” is useless and incorrect. You may pick on the usage of word itself, but using a separate definition of the word within the provided context is wrong. And why just pick on that word? There are tons of words in our vocabularies that no longer fit their original definitions or are used loosely, in and outside of numismatics. For instance, we may describe a coin as “dipped”, but perhaps that coin wasn’t actually physically dipped in a substance but rather treated excessively using a qtip and a harsh cleaning substance. Does that matter? No. As long as we understand the intent, it’s fine. If we picked apart every piece of language like this, communication would be impossible.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
No.
His point is that a more experienced collector should be able to spot a dipped coin regardless of how the seller represents it.
I've owned this Peace Dollar for decades. I think it's original. Not special, perhaps. Certainly not worth a premium. As long as it's mine it will stay untouched, as a reminder.
Lance.
Ha, the old, "what does original signify" thread.
The ultimate in originality is when the coin pops out of the press. Of course, that's not how we use the term. There are a few early copper pieces with genuinely red surfaces and a few early silver coins with a flashy, white look. To most of us, they sort of look "wrong." They're original, but they don't look like the rest of their classmates. When a person actually does still look like a teenager at the 35th class reunion, it's a little creepy.
When we say original, I think what we really mean is "It looks appropriate for its age and suspected storage conditions." Unless you have an unbroken, completely reliable chain of custody, it's of course impossible to know for sure. Those who look at thousands of coins for a living get a feel for what they're "supposed to look like." When something else shows up, it's suspect.
Here are some that might be food for though. First, one that strikes me as original and attractive. The dime has layers of patina, the design is accentuated by the toning, and there's quite a bit of original mint luster everywhere but the high points.
This coin is perhaps an interesting one to discuss. Reeded-edge half dollars are a reasonably difficult coin to collect in BU grades. This coin is attractive (to some), but not original at all. To a specialist like TomB who prizes originality, it's borderline hideous. I imagine it has been dipped (and stripped) and has come back with pleasant-enough toning. CAC liked it. It's not one that everyone will like. C'est la vie.
This dime is plausibly original (or original enough) but not really excelling in the eye-appeal category. It's a tough enough early type, so I forgive it easily.
Is this one original? Possibly, but likely not. Still, who cares. It's pretty interesting if you ask me. Secondary toning can be really nice.
And finally, here's one that I think just screams original and beautiful. Luster on this coin is otherworldly. It's certainly been left alone for over 20 years. Anyone who thinks a blast white 132 year-old coin would look better than this is smoking something different than I am.
I won't argue the issue of change because the change in the metal is a fact of chemistry. The evidence that a chemical change has occurred is visible.
Regarding the usage of words, I'm using the words as they would be understood by 99% of the population. Using these words in the twisted fashion that they are used in numismatics is a marketing ploy. The words become meaningless if both a coin with toned surfaces and a coin with brilliant luster can both be referred to as have fully original luster. In my opinion it's an irrational use of the words that would not be acceptable when talking about toning, oxidation, etc. as in applies to metals in general. And changing the grading standards to ignore this change was really unnecessary.
I understand what you mean by original but would you describe it as having "fully original mint luster"?
Your comments defy logic. If it's not acceptable to describe the coins as original to a beginner it's an admission that something has altered the coin from its original state. The fact that one person recognizes the alternation and the other person does not doesn't change the fact that the alteration has occurred.
It doesn’t matter how any of the non-numismatically inclined population would treat the word, because that’s how it is used in the world of numismatics, and it is not a marketing ploy. There was a need for a word indicating a coin is unmolested, and “original” fit the bill. So be it. The grading standards were never changed to ignore this change because the change never took place. “Original” has meant this in the world of numismatics since grading began. It was the intent in the ANA guide you quoted in the other thread. You are applying a definition to the word that has never functionally been used to describe coins.
As demonstrated with the coins posted above, “original” doesn’t even mean “without wear”. A coin with fully original luster must of course be mint state, because wear affects luster in a significant way, but a coin that is described as “original” in a general sense is a coin that has not been damaged or artificially altered. A coin graded XF40 can be original, and a coin graded MS67 can be original. I have never met someone who used “original” in any other sense in regards to coins, and it’s a very useful word in this way.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
These are some wonderful coins. The 1889 is exceptional with a lot of luster. In my opinion it doesn't need the hyperbole "fully original mint luster" attached to it to enhance its value. It's quite obvious the luster is not as full as when the coin was struck but it's still a beautiful specimen.
It is not being described in this way, and you are misinterpreting the intent, and again, it does not matter what your personal definition of “original” is in this context.
To add on to what I wrote before (the bulk of which you conveniently ignore, much as you consistently ignore intent (big picture) over word usage (small picture)) the reason why “original” in the form you use it has never been adopted by the numismatic community is that it is functionally useless for multiple reasons. It is impossible to tell what nicks and hits on a coin were a result of coins banging into each other at the mint or were acquired post-mint, so we cannot tell if coins are truly as they left the mint. If we consider even marks that appeared at the mint to make a coin unoriginal, then only perfect (MS70/PR70) coins could be called original. Functionally, that means only modern proofs and specially struck pieces could ever be called original, and no pieces struck for circulation (there are exactly zero circulation strike coins currently graded MS70 by NGC or PCGS).
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
You have no problem with saying this coinwith deep toning meets the standard of having full original luster?
As for marketing ploy, the fact that the writer of the article (numismatist that has been writing on the subject for over 20 years) says claiming to a new collector that a dipped coin (another situation where an altered coin is classified original) iis original is fraud is an indication to me that it is a marketing ploy.
Just to be clear, toning does alter the metal itself. It corrodes the metal surface, where the products are still left deposited on the coin surface. This destruction of the metal can be evident when heavy toning/oxidation product is removed.
When I say original, I usually mean that the coin hasn't been messed with by man. That doesn't mean time, nature, and chemistry haven't done a thing or two. Evidently that's at odds with how others use the word here.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
He didn’t say it had fully original luster, he just said the coin as a whole “screams original” and that the luster is “otherworldly”, but if I had to answer, yes, the luster looks pretty original to me, meaning unmolested. It doesn’t look like it has been dipped and retoned. I don’t understand your second statement at all. A dipped coin is never considered original, and shouldn’t be even under your definition. If you knowingly were to sell a dipped coin as original, that would be dishonest. Selling a toned MS coin or an unmolested AU58 or VF20 coin as original is perfectly fine and honest if that coin fits the definition the vast vast majority of the numismatic world applies to “original”. And again, you ignored the bulk of what I wrote to focus on a single point. There’s very much a pattern here.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I didn't ignore your comments but tried to be concise. That coin MS-65 in many circles would be described as having fully original luster. But take the MS-68 coin that was discussed. That coin was toned but by definition a 68 coin has to have fully original luster, Toning to one degree or another diminishes the luster of a coin.
As for MS-70 coins you're conflating two different issues. Contact marks are part of the overall process of making and issuing coins. The mint releases them in an original state. Things like wear and toning change coins from that original state. Dark toning is an indication that something significant has occurred in the state of the coin that has dramatically alter its appearance. Call the coin original, or a coin that has been dipped original, is a marketing ploy. And as the writer said it is deceptive.
So in your opinion this coin does not have fully original luster. Is that correct?
On the subject of grading, I think there have been changes in recent years to the application of the grading standards for coins like you describe. There are top coins that have aged gracefully, but will have had some subdued luster. You want grading standards to be set up such that nobody should have any financial incentive to chemically restore (it's not conservation!) a coins surfaces or remove toning/skin to get some luster back. I think they have been grading coins with some subdued luster higher to help prevent those types of conflicts of interest. However, I don't think it has been well described in grading standards anywhere. The definitions you reference may not perfectly reflect what is done by our host.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
No, toning does not by definition diminish the luster of a coin because you are using the word “luster” in a different way than it is used by virtually everyone else in the field of numismatics. And as I wrote, even if those mint-made marks are considered original, it would then be impossible to distinguish those from post-mint marks, so even then no coins except MS/PR70 coins could be definitively deemed fully original. > @pmh1nic said:
That is not at all what I wrote and I have difficulty understanding how you came to that conclusion, or why it matters. No one ever said it had “fully original luster,” and I think it does look original. I am not going to argue about whether it is “fully” original or not.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Actually the grading standards for 67 and higher are fully original luster. Do these two examples meet your understanding of the words fully original luster?
Holy molla you guys are absured ok lets start off here. my grammer and shits off but back to the topic i forgot the first ? Cuz you all are petty im kind of new to coin collecting. but you all dont collect currency cuz if i would have said money someone would have wanted to start it with me but back to my statement you all dont collect coinage to argue with people it should be about what you like, you like peace, go peace dollar,better put that comma and a bunch more puncuation or someone will have it. "my eyes are not ment for that illitetate text" i know its the hobby of the kings per say but some people like it too so be conciderate of what they like. Im into pennys. I like those whitemen or whitemore books they have out im not exactly sure but penny booksq. you all dont want a collorful books like i get it you have a 1909 wheatie to the 58 ms64 or higher grade red gem pops if i believe thats what they call them then. A red brown book, toner book, brown book, error/varities book ext. Like die deteration book. You get the different possabilitys you could have with them whatever your perfered coin is. Like if your in silver or whatever get a book all dcam then all Cam ect. Ok i get you like true coins no imperfections MS68 or higher nice class but its called coin collecting for a reason becuse we got to collect them its 2021 if im out and about and i see a "TONER" for sell right price you bet im going to pick that up because its a great eye apeal and also a great colorful book filler but back to it they all have the different catagorys fruits and vegatables i believe thats called a metaphor. we see your nice coin by the way.. but if they or the mint just made a bunch of silver quarters at the mint then 1 of the prosseses are to wash them after they are cut into planchets and they dont drain out the tank and now their printing thats the wrong word for that but whatever printing pennys and the copper mixs with the other minerals i better say zinc or someones ass will catch on fire like really whats wrong with you's you know who you are just get over it and if you knew who i was or what ive done and been threw you'd be suprized of me for even talking like this but the drama is obsered back too it when the minerals that happened at the mint in their wash bin so then now thats still in its origanal oragen state or whatever you call it defenetly no expert here just saying a little but whoever it is let them apprecate what they like and you apprecate what you like and maybe give different looks on things you dont like just you dont like it doesnt mean it shouldnt be here like i said im new to coin collecting but y now good looking pictures and what "RICKO AT THE TOP SAID HE SAID WAY BETTER THAN ME"
Jeez
The seated lib we were discussing is not graded MS67 or higher, so I don’t get the “actually”. What’s more, you’re quoting the grading standards of another company, the ANA. They have their own grading service, ANACS, and ANACS has always been ok with grading toned coins in MS67-69, so you must be misinterpreting their usage of “luster” and “original”, and how toning potentially affects those descriptions.
The two coins you posted are graded accurately in my eyes, as long as the toning on the first is natural.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
That photo of the toned eagle is also pretty terrible and makes the coin look duller than it is. Looking at the TrueView, the big splotch on the reverse does make me feel MS67 would be a more fitting grade.
For the record, I don’t buy that the color is real, so really I would call it AT, but there are certainly naturally toned eagles that I would call MS68.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Because if it’s been dipped, it’s not original (even if it might appear to be so).
Edited to add: As many of us have posted in response to you regarding the word "original", with respect to coins, it means not messed with, not necessarily exactly as it appeared at the time it was minted.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
"Rust Never Sleeps . . . ."
Neither does toning, or apparently, you guys . . . .
Z
Busy chasing Carr's . . . . . woof!
Successful BST transactions with: Bullsitter, Downtown1974, P0CKETCHANGE, Twobitcollector, AKbeez, DCW, Illini420, ProofCollection, DCarr, Cazkaboom, RichieURich, LukeMarshall, carew4me, BustDMs, coinsarefun, PreTurb, felinfoal, jwitten, GoldenEgg, pruebas, lazybones, COCollector, CuKevin, MWallace, USMC_6115, NamVet69, zippcity, . . . . who'd I forget?
Original is usually a term used to market a badly tarnished coin which is probably overpriced and will get worse over time. The term is a type of seller hype.
I’d consider dipping as messing with the coin. It might be messing where the numismatic community gives it a wink and a nod but some chemical process has been use to remove some of the original material from the coin.
Or we wake up early
You are correct. A 65 coin doesn’t have to have fully original luster. I was just to lazy to look for a heavily toned 67 or 68 coin. The point is if I see a 68 grade I expect to see a coin very close in appearance as it was when it left the mint, with full original luster and not a coin that has heavy toning.
You can expect whatever you want but if what you're expecting is that other people will describe coins using your personal definitions as opposed to ones commonly understood in the numismatic community, you're going to find yourself confused and disappointed by their descriptions quite often.
Just sayin'.
I read through most of the posts here on this thread and got lost quite a few times. Just reading through this sentence, I got lost at least once. From a qualitative viewpoint, as measured by a light meter, perhaps the luster is a few percentage points off from its original mint bloom. Nobody cares. This little wash of toning has done imperceptibly little to diminish its flashiness. I might even argue that the color actually accentuates the "perceived luster" beyond what you'd see in a perfectly white coin. But, I suppose you're just a toning hater, and that's fine. More for me to buy.
Ya think?
I would especially like to expand on the discussion of the not-overly-nondescript 1889 25c.
I could use it for 20 minutes of an in-hand ANA grading class. The kids would likely walk out understanding the why and how of that coin being evaluated as having A+ frost and accompanying lustre better than most here. Not a criticism of our bunch. They have less unlearning to do..
On the topic of original, fugly not particularly relevant, @MFeld and I served on the PNG's Coin Doctoring Definition Committee. We went back and forth many times about whether dipping should be classified as cleaning. I'm sure I used terms like "too original" and "original enough". Mark is more of a purist than I.
Anybody can be fooled. Titans included. But soften that to anyone can be very close or on target with a broadly accepted and practically utilizable tool of analysis and still not be "technically precise".
You guys are trying to argue the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. I'm trying to figure how many got killed by it.
Have you seen a before-and-after of a grungy brownish silver coin that been boiled in acetone? As much as I discounted the danger of acetone inhalation and explosion potential, this is a potentially catastrophic hazard. It's a exhaust-hood/breathing-mask operation. Only seen it done once. The technician had selected two likely 64C Morgans as candidates. They didn't POP!!! Glow is suggestable. The grunge removed from the interstitial canals, nooks and crannies on/in the frost of the surfaces allowed for a higher density of more highly reflective lustre "micro-areas". Two solid stolid 64B coins.
I’m not expecting the unnecessary twisting of the language to change. The genie is out of the bottle. I’m just pointing out the imprecise nature in which the language has evolved over time AND that that evolution really was not necessary when it comes to the accurate assignment of grades to coins.
I’m not confused one bit. The individuals that are confused are new collectors and those thinking of getting into the hobby. This was highlighted by the writer that suggested presenting a toned coin as “original” to someone new to the hobby constitutes fraud.
It's not fraud if it's commonly understood IN THE HOBBY that "toned" and "original" are not mutually exclusive. You're the only one having problems with that.
The discussion is far from arguing the number of angels on the pin of a needle. This argument is pretty straight forward IF the meaning of words is restricted to how they apply to metals. When the surface of a coin has acquired deep toning the surface of that coin is no longer original and no longer has fully original mint luster. I know that, 99% of the population would acknowledge that and in fact you know that. The writer I quoted, who is an award winning writer who has been writing about numismatics for over 20 years, recognizes that fact. The fact that this change had occurred isn’t speculation or subjective opinion. It’s cold, hard, scientific fact. You guys decided for some reason that rather than acknowledging that FACT to ignore the clear usage of the language to claim it doesn’t mean what it means when discussing surface oxidation on any other metal surface. Why? The only answer that makes sense to me is it was done for marketing reasons.
In my opinion, rather than torturing the language, the grading standards should have been changed to remove the words “fully original luster” or add the words “toning that has occurred naturally and is attractive”. That last phrase is somewhat subjective but when has grading not been subjective.
It’s very interesting how you keep making the same inane arguments about language, the meanings of words and the non-existent changes associated with them, and “99% of the population”, when I and others in this thread have already quite definitively refuted them.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
The ones that look run over by a truck most disgusting. Tough to sell too.
everyone has their own idea of what the word original means doesn't mean it's wrong or right it's just what their opinion is about what the word means to them personally
1942-S US toned Silver dime NGC MS66 for sale at link below
https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipMx0x0MY9_dYEwK5mIFUuhp4mScp9LT-jakrKwE
I noticed that the OP 's coin was in an old PCI slab. Can I ask you to post the entire slab,? PCI as well as anacs old soapmbars are known for toning a coin....sometimes good....sometimes not so good. I would like to see what generation ,before I coment futher on the op's specimen.
I do agree a coin need be orginal, however in some series most all the type coinage has been messed with! I collect h- 10's and other series, but I'll bet out of near 175 specimens of both bust- seated 1829-1873 75 % has or was cleaned or dipped.
As stated above some coin products have been known to make a coin tone....
The old albums and boards were a sure bet to make a coin tone to black! A many a half dime the obv. Ah not bad....the reverse looks like someone took a brillo pad to it, or toning stuck tight up against the devices.
This walker a poster child of mine of how things can tone in an old PCI holder. Im not a fan of moten look of the tone. But the fact that this is where a bright silver coin can go.
"That's why I wander and follow La Vie Dansante"
Grading has always been subjective, Someone in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland", likely the Red Queen, said "Words mean exactly what I intend them to mean. Exactly that and nothing else." I'm an amateur etymologist. You going for the 16th century Elizabethan meaning, or the 19th century Disraeli nuances. Totally "this" or "that" or "what" the Red Queen say they are. if you want the Gemological Institute involved, their work at least controls the light source and intensity with less error than "can you turn off those overhead lights?"
Your complaints surely have some virtue to them. But you don't know the chemists or physicists who have advised many experts, nor what their conclusions might be, nor how those clients have operationalized their newly-refined processes for greater effectiveness.
Other names for "how many angels get killed"?.
"The perfect is the enemy of the good"
"The Law of Diminishing Returns"
"Close enough for government work"
"I dipped that proof '96 quarter. It went down a point but came out DCAM"
"Market-acceptable"
Collectors are reasonably smart folks. Most of them easily grasp the nuance behind what is meant by "original" as it is understood today in the hobby. If there's any confusion, most of them catch on pretty quickly. A few rigid-thinking types might have a harder time with it than others.
What exactly have you refuted? Did you refute the fact that toning is a change in the surface metal of a coin? No. The metal has undergone a change. Did you refute the fact that the impact of that change is visible and in some cases dramatically so? No. Did you refute the fact that 99% of the population on the planet would acknowledge some change has occurred? No. Did you refute the opinion of a well known writer in the field of numismatics acknowledged that representing a coin where the surface of a coin has been altered is fraud? No. You haven’t refuted any of the points I’ve made so stop with the victory lap.
Ask a machinist, a locksmith, a gun maker, a seamstress and a horse trainer what "bolt" means.
Report back when you have the correct definition.