Originality

Perfectcoinsinc

I'd like collectors thoughts on this 1870 65dcam . When I look at the tru-view I see one of the most original coins I've probably ever seen. I love a neon colored proof with mirrors intact but this coin. Just shouted original to me. Penny for your thoughts?
Thanks, G at perfectcoinsinc.

gumby1234

Nice looking coin. Probably not as dark in hand.

jmlanzaf

Nice coin. However, I don't see anything that screams "original" or "not original".

winesteven

I’m having trouble with my iPad at the moment that’s keeping me from getting photos to place them here, but here’s a hotlink to this exact coin when it was sold by Heritage in January 2020. You can then see Heritage’s “light” closeups, their slab photos, and that coin in their “3-D” technique.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1870-1-pr65-deep-cameo-pcgs-oc-p2-high-r4-pcgs-97018-/a/1311-4244.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

My interpretation of the appearance of this coin is it’s close to blast white, but as noted in the Heritage description, has a light golden toning on each side.

In my opinion, I think most collectors looking for a problem-free, highly lustrous, sharply struck Seated Dollar in this price range, would jump at the opportunity to have this beauty as part of their spectacular collection!

The collectors who prefer a lot of toning on their coins would pass.

Good luck. I hope you get it! (I’m not the consignor/seller, lol).

Steve

MFeld

@winesteven said:
I’m having trouble with my iPad at the moment that’s keeping me from getting photos to place them here, but here’s a hotlink to this exact coin when it was sold by Heritage in January 2020. You can then see Heritage’s “light” closeups, their slab photos, and that coin in their “3-D” technique.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1870-1-pr65-deep-cameo-pcgs-oc-p2-high-r4-pcgs-97018-/a/1311-4244.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

My interpretation of the appearance of this coin is it’s close to blast white, but as noted in the Heritage description, has a light golden toning on each side.

In my opinion, I think most collectors looking for a problem-free, highly lustrous, sharply struck Seated Dollar in this price range, would jump at the opportunity to have this beauty as part of their spectacular collection!

The collectors who prefer a lot of toning on their coins would pass.

Good luck. I hope you get it! (I’m not the consignor/seller, lol).

Steve

Based on those additional images, the coin’s light enough in hue, such that I believe the odds are very strong it’s been dipped. Either way, however, it looks gorgeous.

FlyingAl

The coin is fantastic!

However, I am strongly of the opinion that truly "original" proofs from this era will have the deep hues of blues/reds/oranges that are commonly associated with the era and the majority of toned coins have. Many CAM/DCAM proofs were dipped to show the mirrors and contrast rather than color, and this seems to be one of those cases. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, it's just preference.

Batman23

I like the flash and shine of this dollar in the HA listing. I like frosty white DCAMs and would love to own this coin.

ricko

That is a very attractive coin. Not sure what the marks above 'Trust' in the TruView are, and they do not appear to show in the linked Heritage pictures. Cheers, RickO

MFeld

@ricko said:
That is a very attractive coin. Not sure what the marks above 'Trust' in the TruView are, and they do not appear to show in the linked Heritage pictures. Cheers, RickO

Those marks appear to be on the holder. I was also able to see them when I enlarged the Heritage image that shows the coin in the holder.

ricko

@MFeld.... Thanks Mark, I was hoping they were on the holder - would be a disappointment if on such a nice coin. Cheers, RickO

johnny9434

I like the looks of that one, nice coin

lilolme

@ricko said:
@MFeld.... Thanks Mark, I was hoping they were on the holder - would be a disappointment if on such a nice coin. Cheers, RickO

The TV photo is normally taken out of the holder (raw coin).
Here are the two HA enlarged and it does not show up as much (lighting).
Then the TV enlarged even more. Not sure what.

.

.

Flatwoods

Maybe not totally original but not messed with to the point you can tell.
I like it.

justindan

@FlyingAl would you be able to tell a proof is cam/dcam before dipping? To ensure the result?

morgandollar1878

Very nice, but not original. It has most likely been dipped, there is no way that coin has made it this long looking like that knowing storage practices since 1870.

FlyingAl

@justindan said:
@FlyingAl would you be able to tell a proof is cam/dcam before dipping? To ensure the result?

Depending on how good of a grader you are, you’d probably have a pretty good idea, though not perfect.

MFeld

@FlyingAl said:

@justindan said:
@FlyingAl would you be able to tell a proof is cam/dcam before dipping? To ensure the result?

Depending on how good of a grader you are, you’d probably have a pretty good idea, though not perfect.

Depending upon the coin/the toning, sometimes it’s quite easy to tell, other times- more difficult and in some cases, there’s no way to tell.

justindan

Thanks @FlyingAl @MFeld

coinkat

It would be interesting to chase down and establish the pedigree on this one. I like the coin and there appears to be the slightest haze which advances the argument that the coin has been in good hands for a substantial period of time.

Back to the issue and question of originality... I see it as a larger issue and a reason for ongoing concern in lower grade coins in the VF35-AU58 range. I have written here for what is now 2 decades about original coins that have been compromised and enhanced in an effort to get a grade bump. This is still a problem. Look at No Motto gold, key Morgans like the 84-s, 92-s and 01. It remains open season on original coins to enhance them to bring out lustre and in the process destroy the personality of the coin and what it should like like in an original state. Unfortunately, I don't have an image of one of my US coins to illustrate my point... so this will have to do for today

jesbroken

@lilolme said:

@ricko said:
@MFeld.... Thanks Mark, I was hoping they were on the holder - would be a disappointment if on such a nice coin. Cheers, RickO

The TV photo is normally taken out of the holder (raw coin).
Here are the two HA enlarged and it does not show up as much (lighting).
Then the TV enlarged even more. Not sure what.

.

.

All 3 of these photos have the same marks above the RU in TRUST. If the TV was taken out of the holder then...?
Jim

MasonG

If people wanted "originality", would there be any cleaned coins?

fathom

It's a very decent LSD.

Very few have never been enhanced or cleaned over the many decades of passing through dealers and collectors and non-collectors.

Check the CAC pops and the numbers are miniscule.

Worthy of a strong bid IMO.

coinbuf

Originality seems to have a sliding scale nowadays. Unless you have had the coin in your possession from the day it popped out of the press there is no real way to say for 100% certainty that this or any coin is truly original.

winesteven

I may get beat up, but at times “originality” is used as an excuse for a coin with less than real nice eye appeal. When I comment about the mediocre (or less) eye appeal, the dealer/seller will usually respond “But that just proves it’s original”!

Steve

TomB

Original? That depends upon how you define it.

"Original" as in a reasonably close facsimile to what it looked like when it was issued from the US Mint 150-plus years ago? Okay. "Original" as in not having had its surfaces manipulated or stripped over the years to make it look a certain way? Not so much.

rmpsrpms

I'm a big fan of originality, and love toned coins. If you want a bright coin, buy a 1970 proof, and don't dip that 1870 to make it look like a 1970.