Please post a completely original raw coin

Crusty

Let’s see some crusty original coins that have not been slabbed. Here is one to start things off.

Tonedeaf

Here's one.

OAKSTAR

Tonedeaf

TomB

This is my favorite classic commem design and one that isn't found circulated all that often.

Tonedeaf

@TomB said:
This is my favorite classic commem design and one that isn't found circulated all that often.

That is my favorite commemorative. The story about the charter oak is great.

oldabeintx

I wish modern coins looked as interesting in lower grades. Maybe in 50 years, but I doubt it. The Liberty Seated coins in particular look good in F - VF.

Barberian

bsshog40

Riley1955

Shane6596

bsshog40

Here's another.

jt88

jt88

lkenefic

jt88

jacrispies

I regret selling this one

COCollector

RegistryCoin

MFeld

Not surprisingly, I already see some entries that don’t appear to qualify. I’m not going to I.D. them here, but if anyone has posted a coin that they’re wondering about, feel free to PM me.

bearcave

burfle23

ricko

Old but not too crusty.... Cheers, RickO

Meltdown

jedm

Edited to add: Comments are welcome, I'm willing to learn.

coastaljerseyguy

Meltdown

I missed the part that stated "raw" coin... here's one from my type set album.
.

LJenkins11

lkenefic

I think this one qualifies... now raw in my type set album (ex-PCGS 45)...

lkenefic

Edited to add... this one now sits raw and in my 7070 album...

mirabela

Walkerguy21D

bearcave

coinbuf

All 100 coins completely original and raw, just not very crusty.

keyman64

My definition of a COMPLETLY ORIGINAL coin is sooooo different from what is shown in this thread.

Original - existing from the beginning; first or earliest. The only way this can occur with a coin is for it to look the same as the day it was minted...not after years of wear or exposure to elements to tarnish or both.

I've just never understood this. I think the intent of this thread is for coins that have not been intentionally doctored or cleaned and have the appearance of an honest life, which is fine...but based on the definition, original is not the right word to use.

[Deleted User]

This coin is original. Not crusty but original.
It's raw.
I like it a lot.
I don't have a fat wallet so it will have to do.

Higashiyama

asheland

This was raw when the picture was taken, however it is in a slab now… Actually I should be seeing it in it’s new holder on Monday.

asheland

The nickel is still raw.

OAKSTAR

TennesseeDave

MFeld

@keyman64 said:
My definition of a COMPLETLY ORIGINAL coin is sooooo different from what is shown in this thread.

Original - existing from the beginning; first or earliest. The only way this can occur with a coin is for it to look the same as the day it was minted...not after years of wear or exposure to elements to tarnish or both.

I've just never understood this. I think the intent of this thread is for coins that have not been intentionally doctored or cleaned and have the appearance of an honest life, which is fine...but based on the definition, original is not the right word to use.

I can certainly understand how you define “completely original”. But I don't understand how you’ve “never understood” the widespread use of the term by so many hobbyists in different collectible fields.

For example, in addition to many numismatists’ use of “original” with respect to coins, surely you understand about antique cars that haven’t been restored or had parts replaced, antique furniture and pottery that hasn’t been repaired or restored, etc.

Additionally, there’s the use of “original” as opposed to a “copy” of something, such as a coin, document, painting, and so on.

Che_Grapes

Fairlaneman

seatedlib3991

I am afraid my definition of original is quite limiting. I collect Seated coins and would advise anyone who is obsessed with the idea of having "original" coins to collect something else.
First off, I think it is impossible to know all that has happened in a coins life, so any coin graded XF or lower may have had any number of things happen to it. Wear and tear has simply worn those effects away. I would also postulate that less than 1% of Seated coins above XF are truly original.
I think a lot of people mix up the notion of eye appeal with originality. In my opinion, the vast majority of extremely attractive seated coins have secondary toning. I personally own exactly 2 coins that MIGHT be original. that is in a collecting period of more than 25 years specializing in Seated Coins. I will add that neither coin has what I would consider extremely attractive
toning; I just can't find the usual traces of a coin dip. (If you don't know what I mean, a coin dip whitens the coin but with a 5 X magnifier you will find traces of the previous terminal toning hidden in small recesses such as star crevices).
I have seen a few collections sold that featured coins collected many years ago and stored in bank vaults or some such thing for many years. In every single case those coins had terminal or near terminal toning. I also bet most of them ended up getting dipped by their new owners.
I just wonder what surprises those new owners discovered.....James

Tramp

dsessom

I have owned this for about 10 years. I bought it at a local coin shop with the intent of sending it for grading with our hosts, but never did. I am guessing it would be low MS, perhaps 62 or 63. The photos do not really show the luster, but it does have plenty of mint luster. It's overcast outside today and I use natural light to photograph coins.

CoinHoarder

According to the 2 X 2, I bought this coin on 01/30/1987 for $28.

RobertScotLover

@seatedlib3991 said:
I am afraid my definition of original is quite limiting. I collect Seated coins and would advise anyone who is obsessed with the idea of having "original" coins to collect something else.
First off, I think it is impossible to know all that has happened in a coins life, so any coin graded XF or lower may have had any number of things happen to it. Wear and tear has simply worn those effects away. I would also postulate that less than 1% of Seated coins above XF are truly original.
I think a lot of people mix up the notion of eye appeal with originality. In my opinion, the vast majority of extremely attractive seated coins have secondary toning. I personally own exactly 2 coins that MIGHT be original. that is in a collecting period of more than 25 years specializing in Seated Coins. I will add that neither coin has what I would consider extremely attractive
toning; I just can't find the usual traces of a coin dip. (If you don't know what I mean, a coin dip whitens the coin but with a 5 X magnifier you will find traces of the previous terminal toning hidden in small recesses such as star crevices).
I have seen a few collections sold that featured coins collected many years ago and stored in bank vaults or some such thing for many years. In every single case those coins had terminal or near terminal toning. I also bet most of them ended up getting dipped by their new owners.
I just wonder what surprises those new owners discovered.....James

Agreed.
And to add I often wonder why only 5x magnification is advised and higher than that is frowned upon, it is as if the hobby doesn't want coins to be looked at too closely............hmmmmm.

BillJones

I may as well show the best U.S, coins I have that are raw,

Now that I am into British and ancient Roman, I have a lot more although when I coin reaches a certain age, it's for it to be totally original.

Che_Grapes

How about a racketeer V nickel?