@Higashiyama good point. I don’t know copper very well so I’d defer to others. However I believe I’ve seen lower graded chain cents in holders with some level of porosity. No sure where this one falls in the spectrum though!
@scubafuel said: @Higashiyama good point. I don’t know copper very well so I’d defer to others. However I believe I’ve seen lower graded chain cents in holders with some level of porosity. No sure where this one falls in the spectrum though!
I don't think the Chain cent would receive a straight grade.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Eddi said:
The majority of my collection of USA coins has not been encapsulated. Therefore, I cannot be absolutely sure they have never been cleaned. However, these are some which in my opinion, have never been touched.
(My apologies if I more than the one requested..... )
My take....
1815 25C: nice circulated cameo... and I love it!
1793 Chain Cent: corroded/cleaned. It may have had green corrosion that was alleviated by soaking in olive oil... this is what was underneath.
1794 SE: Cleaned.
1795 SE: lovely, nice circulated coin... and I want it!
1796 SE: cleaned, but retoning nicely. Maybe a straight grade if deemed "market acceptable"
1801 HE: Again, very nice and I'd love to have it in my collection... she's a "looker"
1804 1C: cleaned at some point, but retoning. This is a super tough coin to find nice!
1804 HE 25C: Very nice... love the "circ cam" look...
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
My LCS had this one and offered it to me for $35. In a moment of weakness I bought it and still don’t know why. I don’t collect these and have no interest in them.
Here's one, complete with the reeded edge, but it's not exactly an "original coin" with the gold plating.
Bill, if you are ever willing to sell that one, please let me know! I do have a racketeer nickel, but never seen one with a reeded edge before, and the V nickel series is my main interest.
Sadly one cannot "unsee" one of my of photographic numismatic treasures... And attaching a trueview would simply violate the integrity of the thread... so the good news is you are all safe for now.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
This 23 I’m showing here has one of the best strikes for the date I’ve ever seen. Trust me when I say it is a whopping standout compared to any other 23 I’ve handled. I’ll be submitting it one day but for now it’s raw and fun to image up,
CHD
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
First, wow, there is some great coins in this thread. I must confess to being a bit of an "original nut" and I love toning (as long as it isn't TOO dark). I enjoyed viewing the photos.
I think I may have posted this coin before (please excuse the lack of editing of the "specifics" of the slab. I'm not quite that sophisticated with my photo skills yet). This is my favorite "original coin"but I messed up the lighting a bit so it isn't as dark as the photos. Heck, that's not all that I messed up in the photos but be kind to the resident camera clutz! 🙄
@1946Hamm said:
This one is about as original as they come. S/S also
Upon what do you base that assertion?
The toning ring on both sides seems to only appear on unmessed with Pan-Pacs. Check coin facts to see some more of this type of toning.
Thank you. I've handled a lot of Pan Pac halves with the toning ring around the periphery of each side. And my recollection is that they typically display more toning than seen on the reverse of the coin you posted. So I was wondering it if might have been lightened or dipped.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@1946Hamm said:
This one is about as original as they come. S/S also
Upon what do you base that assertion?
The toning ring on both sides seems to only appear on unmessed with Pan-Pacs. Check coin facts to see some more of this type of toning.
Thank you. I've handled a lot of Pan Pac halves with the toning ring around the periphery of each side. And my recollection is that they typically display more toning than seen on the reverse of the coin you posted. So I was wondering it if might have been lightened or dipped.
I guess my eyes are going out on me in my old age but I don’t see any toning around the periphery at all. All I see is a dark ring around the obverse and reverse. Maybe more light on this particular coin would be a benefit .
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
@Eddi said:
The majority of my collection of USA coins has not been encapsulated. Therefore, I cannot be absolutely sure they have never been cleaned. However, these are some which in my opinion, have never been touched.
(My apologies if I more than the one requested..... )
Here are my opinions:
1815 Quarter - Light wipe on the highest surfaces. It should get a slab grade
1793 Chain Cent - Corrosion removed for preservation purposes. Will get a details grade.
1794 Half Dollar - Lightly cleaned, but should get a straight grade
1795 Half Dollar - Original
1796 Dime - May have been cleaned years ago, now viewed as "original" and will get a straight grade
1801 Dime - May have had something removed from the in back of Ms. Liberty's head - might get a straight grade if there are no hairlines.
1804 Cent - Original
1814 Quarter - Cleaned long ago, should get a straight grade.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@1946Hamm said:
This one is about as original as they come. S/S also
Upon what do you base that assertion?
The toning ring on both sides seems to only appear on unmessed with Pan-Pacs. Check coin facts to see some more of this type of toning.
Thank you. I've handled a lot of Pan Pac halves with the toning ring around the periphery of each side. And my recollection is that they typically display more toning than seen on the reverse of the coin you posted. So I was wondering it if might have been lightened or dipped.
I guess my eyes are going out on me in my old age but I don’t see any toning around the periphery at all. All I see is a dark ring around the obverse and reverse. Maybe more light on this particular coin would be a benefit .
It could be the image, but the obverse looks toned to me and the periphery of each side shows the ring seen on many, if not most Pan Pac halves. I’ve read comments indicating that the rings aren’t toning, but actually, patterns resulting from a die, as made.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jayPem Other than that big ole' counterstamp, yeah, I'm thinking that one is pretty original!
Okay, on to the @Mfeld / @Eddi challenge - Please accept these are my opinions based on images
1815 Quarter; While I don't think this hasn't been gently cleaned somewhere in it's life, I wouldn't say for certain it has been either. Straight grade and enough to guess 90% original from the image.
1793 Chain Cent; How do we define original? Obviously corroded, and I think it was also conserved (which probably saved her). Details grade, but very nice for what she is.
1794 Half Dollar; I do not consider this coin original. Gentle (or maybe not so much) cleaning and/or dipping form some time ago. Market acceptable ... yes, I would think so. Original. No, I would not say that.
1795 Half Dollar; Looks like it very well may could been saved from any cleaning, ever. Straight grade and enough to guess 98% original from the image.
1796 Dime; Looks to have been cleaned and worked a little a long time ago. Not original. Almost certainly considered Market Acceptable today
1801 Dime; Like the 1815 Quarter, almost impossible to tell for sure, but this one looks pretty close ... lets say another 90%'er. Straight grade.
1804 Cent; Yeah, I'll buy this one is original. The color looks right, the surfaces look right. Straight grade.
1804 Quarter; Similar to 1794 Half Dollar. Not original in my eyes due to gentle cleaning, dipping, and/or soap and water wash ... but attractive enough and probably Market acceptable.
The Mark IV? 1, 4, 6 and 7
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
@Barberian said:
These look original to me. Well, one was obviously messed with at one time.
Nice group!
I must confess that over the past couple of days, I’ve wavered a bit in my choices of the coins I’d describe as “original” looking. However, my (current 😉) list appears below and I certainly don't expect everyone else to agree.
To me, the clear winner from the group is coin number 4 - the 1795 half dollar. It's probably the only one I'd refer to as "completely original". And even then, unless we know a coin's history from day one, all we can do is guess.
Thanks for everyone’s participation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Looks like @lkenefic and I the only ones not giving the 1804 cent a pass.
That coin was pretty certainly heavily brushed somewhere in its distant past.
Market acceptable? Probably…PCGS has been brutal on early copper recently though.
Some people won't like this coin, and it has been certified which takes it out of the OP category, but this 1802 has original surfaces in my opinion.
Ditto for this 1798 dollar.
And this one is as good as it gets for a lightly circulated piece.
This 1803 does not have original surfaces. You can't win them all if you lose patience.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Thanks to all for sharing and for the thoughtful discussion. I can only speak for myself, but even though I've been doing this for a number of years, there's still much to learn and threads like this are an incredible teaching tool for the hobby.
I think the 1804 Cent would be a wonderful addition to any serious EAC collection. It's a difficult piece to find nice, and when you do, you need to suspend reality for a moment as you're writing the check. My eye was drawn to the color... which on my phone and laptop monitor... looked as though it had been cleaned or brushed a long time ago (which was considered acceptable years ago) but has since started to retone. It may very well be deemed Market Acceptable these days, but that seems to be on the shifting sands... I've seen early copper in details holders that I thought would straight grade, as well as straight graded pieces that have been "worked" (yet still apparently market acceptable).
Anyway, thanks for all the feedback... and happy collecting!!
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
@pursuitofliberty said: @jayPem Other than that big ole' counterstamp, yeah, I'm thinking that one is pretty original!
Alright, we have a player!
Not too throw Todd under the bus, but some rather interesting images came to light after I first posted this coin awhile ago...
The look of this coin is one I always seek out, understanding of course that this is most likely secondary toning of a previously dipped or even cleaned coin, my assumption was that this one had a very long time to grow a new skin...
So imagine my surprise when I received these images from a previous owner... 😳
Ok, not a big deal as far as this damaged coin goes, but it certainly has opened my eyes as to how possible it is to achieve this kind of "original", old timey look in a very short amount of time!
A number of years back my mother gave my daughter Allison one of those silver eagle coins.
My daughter was only 10 or so and the coin ended up just another piece of clutter; stored in a set of organizer totes.
One day while looking for something I came across the coin. It was only 2 years later and the coin was terminal black. Actually took me a minute or two to even realize what it was. I always think of that when I am looking at a white shiny coin from 150 years ago.....
@1946Hamm said:
This one is about as original as they come. S/S also
Upon what do you base that assertion?
Surfaces don't look right to me on the piece in question but that said, most PanPacs have a weird look to me. Something hinky with the die prep I guess.
@seatedlib3991 said:
A number of years back my mother gave my daughter Allison one of those silver eagle coins.
My daughter was only 10 or so and the coin ended up just another piece of clutter; stored in a set of organizer totes.
One day while looking for something I came across the coin. It was only 2 years later and the coin was terminal black. Actually took me a minute or two to even realize what it was. I always think of that when I am looking at a white shiny coin from 150 years ago.....
The colors that a coin turn depend upon the stuff the mint might have used on it during the minting process and the subsequent storage conditions after that.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@pursuitofliberty said: @jayPem Other than that big ole' counterstamp, yeah, I'm thinking that one is pretty original!
Alright, we have a player!
Not too throw Todd under the bus, but some rather interesting images came to light after I first posted this coin awhile ago...
The look of this coin is one I always seek out, understanding of course that this is most likely secondary toning of a previously dipped or even cleaned coin, my assumption was that this one had a very long time to grow a new skin...
So imagine my surprise when I received these images from a previous owner... 😳
Ok, not a big deal as far as this damaged coin goes, but it certainly has opened my eyes as to how possible it is to achieve this kind of "original", old timey look in a very short amount of time!
Yes, that is quite a remarkable example of how a coin can change in a few years and end up looking quite original.
When I bought this 1887 two and a half pence in the 1980s, it was bright white. The dealer from whom I purchased it was known for "better coins through chemistry,"
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@pursuitofliberty said: @jayPem Other than that big ole' counterstamp, yeah, I'm thinking that one is pretty original!
>
As I left to go to the office I thought about what is original. Coins get cleaned, boinked and otherwise worked over all the time (unfortunately it seems).
Taco bell napkins, albums, kraft envelopes and the window sill, coupled with father time, all help reestablish their skin, which, when looking at images make them appear original again. Without them in hand, with a good glass and light, the forensics of their condition can be hard to discern.
Maybe it's kind of like what is pure? If you aren't messed with long enough, and weren't boinked bad enough, is there a path back to apparent purity?
.
Keep it clean. I just re-read that, and I can see how some of those words can be twisted. I had to change a little as it was.
And Jordy, it doesn't surprise me after reconsideration. It has the secondary look.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
The discussion of originality is always interesting. It helps to remember that the ultimate in originality is a blast-white (or perfectly red) freshly minted coin. I'm quite certain that none of us have owned coins from the 1700s until today and there's always a big part of the coin's history that is unknowable.
I've come to think highly of the term "plausibly original." For older coins, really, that's the best we can do. Certain looks are quite obviously not original, but beyond that it's guesswork. As most of my collection is slabbed, I don't have any photos of raw coins to share. These will have to do.
This one is pretty close to the look I like:
Also this one. It shows a toning pattern from the original, as-issued cardboard holder:
This one is quite certainly NOT original..... but has retoned in a way that is attractive (to some). @TomB has told me that he hates this sort of look on this issue, and that's OK with me. It will do until a nicer one comes along:
In the same vein of thought I had another experience I have always wondered about.
A friend of my named Mike showed up one day with a tin candy box that contained 4 Walkers and 2 Standing Liberty Quarters. All 6 coins were blast white and in the old ANAC white holders. He also had a business card from one of those traveling appraisal fairs with "$680.00 firm" written on the back.
Mike wanted to borrow $700 and wanted me to hold the coins. I told him to just take the money but he was adamant he would be back in 2 months to redeem the coins. A couple years later I happened to open the tin and was amazed to discover all 6 coins had either gold or vibrant red/blue rim toning. I have always wondered if a single business card could gas out enough to do that or if something else was in play. Go figure. James
@seatedlib3991 said:
In the same vein of thought I had another experience I have always wondered about.
A friend of my named Mike showed up one day with a tin candy box that contained 4 Walkers and 2 Standing Liberty Quarters. All 6 coins were blast white and in the old ANAC white holders. He also had a business card from one of those traveling appraisal fairs with "$680.00 firm" written on the back.
Mike wanted to borrow $700 and wanted me to hold the coins. I told him to just take the money but he was adamant he would be back in 2 months to redeem the coins. A couple years later I happened to open the tin and was amazed to discover all 6 coins had either gold or vibrant red/blue rim toning. I have always wondered if a single business card could gas out enough to do that or if something else was in play. Go figure. James
That toning was caused by the old white ANACS slab enclosure. Have plenty with that look. Some like it some don't. I do.
But the story I told you took place between 2008 and 2010. Those slabs are from the 80's.
Wouldn't they have turned years before then if the slab is the catalyst?
I believe the old Gen 1 ANACS slabs were from the late 80s, so the newer white ones were into the late 90-early 2000's I believe, When I started collecting around 2003, I think the Blue label ANACs were just starting to come out. Takes years for the slab to have an effect.
Some great observations in this post!
It's been awhile since we've discussed the definition of "originality" here, but it's a good discussion to have from time to time.
Eye appeal and originality are often at odds. Thus we get dipping and doctoring.
Here's a brand new one for a VF set I'm pursuing....
Is it Original?
Comments
Not my series but agree # 3 looks the most cleaned, too light and probably dipped or washed in some solution.
@Higashiyama good point. I don’t know copper very well so I’d defer to others. However I believe I’ve seen lower graded chain cents in holders with some level of porosity. No sure where this one falls in the spectrum though!
I don't think the Chain cent would receive a straight grade.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
My guess on the Feld 4..
1815 25c
1795 50c
1804 1c
1804 25c
Fun game!
As long as we're playing
"is it original", I'd like to offer this one for consideration..
My take....
1815 25C: nice circulated cameo... and I love it!
1793 Chain Cent: corroded/cleaned. It may have had green corrosion that was alleviated by soaking in olive oil... this is what was underneath.
1794 SE: Cleaned.
1795 SE: lovely, nice circulated coin... and I want it!
1796 SE: cleaned, but retoning nicely. Maybe a straight grade if deemed "market acceptable"
1801 HE: Again, very nice and I'd love to have it in my collection... she's a "looker"
1804 1C: cleaned at some point, but retoning. This is a super tough coin to find nice!
1804 HE 25C: Very nice... love the "circ cam" look...
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
Japem, does you coin have some sort of punch or chopmark on it's obverse?
Thought that was 1 big earring.
My LCS had this one and offered it to me for $35. In a moment of weakness I bought it and still don’t know why. I don’t collect these and have no interest in them.
Bill, if you are ever willing to sell that one, please let me know! I do have a racketeer nickel, but never seen one with a reeded edge before, and the V nickel series is my main interest.
Sadly one cannot "unsee" one of my of photographic numismatic treasures... And attaching a trueview would simply violate the integrity of the thread... so the good news is you are all safe for now.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The toning ring on both sides seems to only appear on unmessed with Pan-Pacs. Check coin facts to see some more of this type of toning.
This 23 I’m showing here has one of the best strikes for the date I’ve ever seen. Trust me when I say it is a whopping standout compared to any other 23 I’ve handled. I’ll be submitting it one day but for now it’s raw and fun to image up,
CHD
First, wow, there is some great coins in this thread. I must confess to being a bit of an "original nut" and I love toning (as long as it isn't TOO dark). I enjoyed viewing the photos.
I think I may have posted this coin before (please excuse the lack of editing of the "specifics" of the slab. I'm not quite that sophisticated with my photo skills yet). This is my favorite "original coin"but I messed up the lighting a bit so it isn't as dark as the photos. Heck, that's not all that I messed up in the photos but be kind to the resident camera clutz! 🙄
Great topic.
Piano1
Thank you. I've handled a lot of Pan Pac halves with the toning ring around the periphery of each side. And my recollection is that they typically display more toning than seen on the reverse of the coin you posted. So I was wondering it if might have been lightened or dipped.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I guess my eyes are going out on me in my old age but I don’t see any toning around the periphery at all. All I see is a dark ring around the obverse and reverse. Maybe more light on this particular coin would be a benefit .
Here are my opinions:
1815 Quarter - Light wipe on the highest surfaces. It should get a slab grade
1793 Chain Cent - Corrosion removed for preservation purposes. Will get a details grade.
1794 Half Dollar - Lightly cleaned, but should get a straight grade
1795 Half Dollar - Original
1796 Dime - May have been cleaned years ago, now viewed as "original" and will get a straight grade
1801 Dime - May have had something removed from the in back of Ms. Liberty's head - might get a straight grade if there are no hairlines.
1804 Cent - Original
1814 Quarter - Cleaned long ago, should get a straight grade.
Thank you. I've handled a lot of Pan Pac halves with the toning ring around the periphery of each side. And my recollection is that they typically display more toning than seen on the reverse of the coin you posted. So I was wondering it if might have been lightened or dipped.
It could be the image, but the obverse looks toned to me and the periphery of each side shows the ring seen on many, if not most Pan Pac halves. I’ve read comments indicating that the rings aren’t toning, but actually, patterns resulting from a die, as made.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jayPem Other than that big ole' counterstamp, yeah, I'm thinking that one is pretty original!
Okay, on to the @Mfeld / @Eddi challenge - Please accept these are my opinions based on images
1815 Quarter; While I don't think this hasn't been gently cleaned somewhere in it's life, I wouldn't say for certain it has been either. Straight grade and enough to guess 90% original from the image.
1793 Chain Cent; How do we define original? Obviously corroded, and I think it was also conserved (which probably saved her). Details grade, but very nice for what she is.
1794 Half Dollar; I do not consider this coin original. Gentle (or maybe not so much) cleaning and/or dipping form some time ago. Market acceptable ... yes, I would think so. Original. No, I would not say that.
1795 Half Dollar; Looks like it very well may could been saved from any cleaning, ever. Straight grade and enough to guess 98% original from the image.
1796 Dime; Looks to have been cleaned and worked a little a long time ago. Not original. Almost certainly considered Market Acceptable today
1801 Dime; Like the 1815 Quarter, almost impossible to tell for sure, but this one looks pretty close ... lets say another 90%'er. Straight grade.
1804 Cent; Yeah, I'll buy this one is original. The color looks right, the surfaces look right. Straight grade.
1804 Quarter; Similar to 1794 Half Dollar. Not original in my eyes due to gentle cleaning, dipping, and/or soap and water wash ... but attractive enough and probably Market acceptable.
The Mark IV? 1, 4, 6 and 7
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
These look original to me. Well, one was obviously messed with at one time.
Nice group!
I must confess that over the past couple of days, I’ve wavered a bit in my choices of the coins I’d describe as “original” looking. However, my (current 😉) list appears below and I certainly don't expect everyone else to agree.
1) 1815 quarter
4) 1795 half dollar
6) 1801 dime
7) 1804 cent
To me, the clear winner from the group is coin number 4 - the 1795 half dollar. It's probably the only one I'd refer to as "completely original". And even then, unless we know a coin's history from day one, all we can do is guess.
Thanks for everyone’s participation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Looks like @lkenefic and I the only ones not giving the 1804 cent a pass.
That coin was pretty certainly heavily brushed somewhere in its distant past.
Market acceptable? Probably…PCGS has been brutal on early copper recently though.
I carry this CC Morgan as a pocket piece. It's always been a great conversation starter. I'd say it's a pretty original, old coin.
I'm not a metal detectorist, but if I were .... this thread would degenerate and likely populate, at light speed.
The photos loaded a little out of order but these were a purchase last year from an old collection.
This is “the look” that I covet.
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
Some people won't like this coin, and it has been certified which takes it out of the OP category, but this 1802 has original surfaces in my opinion.
Ditto for this 1798 dollar.
And this one is as good as it gets for a lightly circulated piece.
This 1803 does not have original surfaces. You can't win them all if you lose patience.
Thanks to all for sharing and for the thoughtful discussion. I can only speak for myself, but even though I've been doing this for a number of years, there's still much to learn and threads like this are an incredible teaching tool for the hobby.
I think the 1804 Cent would be a wonderful addition to any serious EAC collection. It's a difficult piece to find nice, and when you do, you need to suspend reality for a moment as you're writing the check. My eye was drawn to the color... which on my phone and laptop monitor... looked as though it had been cleaned or brushed a long time ago (which was considered acceptable years ago) but has since started to retone. It may very well be deemed Market Acceptable these days, but that seems to be on the shifting sands... I've seen early copper in details holders that I thought would straight grade, as well as straight graded pieces that have been "worked" (yet still apparently market acceptable).
Anyway, thanks for all the feedback... and happy collecting!!
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
Alright, we have a player!
Not too throw Todd under the bus, but some rather interesting images came to light after I first posted this coin awhile ago...
The look of this coin is one I always seek out, understanding of course that this is most likely secondary toning of a previously dipped or even cleaned coin, my assumption was that this one had a very long time to grow a new skin...
So imagine my surprise when I received these images from a previous owner... 😳
Ok, not a big deal as far as this damaged coin goes, but it certainly has opened my eyes as to how possible it is to achieve this kind of "original", old timey look in a very short amount of time!
A number of years back my mother gave my daughter Allison one of those silver eagle coins.
My daughter was only 10 or so and the coin ended up just another piece of clutter; stored in a set of organizer totes.
One day while looking for something I came across the coin. It was only 2 years later and the coin was terminal black. Actually took me a minute or two to even realize what it was. I always think of that when I am looking at a white shiny coin from 150 years ago.....
Surfaces don't look right to me on the piece in question but that said, most PanPacs have a weird look to me. Something hinky with the die prep I guess.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
The colors that a coin turn depend upon the stuff the mint might have used on it during the minting process and the subsequent storage conditions after that.
Yes, that is quite a remarkable example of how a coin can change in a few years and end up looking quite original.
When I bought this 1887 two and a half pence in the 1980s, it was bright white. The dealer from whom I purchased it was known for "better coins through chemistry,"
>
As I left to go to the office I thought about what is original. Coins get cleaned, boinked and otherwise worked over all the time (unfortunately it seems).
Taco bell napkins, albums, kraft envelopes and the window sill, coupled with father time, all help reestablish their skin, which, when looking at images make them appear original again. Without them in hand, with a good glass and light, the forensics of their condition can be hard to discern.
Maybe it's kind of like what is pure? If you aren't messed with long enough, and weren't boinked bad enough, is there a path back to apparent purity?
.
Keep it clean. I just re-read that, and I can see how some of those words can be twisted. I had to change a little as it was.
And Jordy, it doesn't surprise me after reconsideration. It has the secondary look.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
The discussion of originality is always interesting. It helps to remember that the ultimate in originality is a blast-white (or perfectly red) freshly minted coin. I'm quite certain that none of us have owned coins from the 1700s until today and there's always a big part of the coin's history that is unknowable.
I've come to think highly of the term "plausibly original." For older coins, really, that's the best we can do. Certain looks are quite obviously not original, but beyond that it's guesswork. As most of my collection is slabbed, I don't have any photos of raw coins to share. These will have to do.
This one is pretty close to the look I like:
Also this one. It shows a toning pattern from the original, as-issued cardboard holder:
This one is quite certainly NOT original..... but has retoned in a way that is attractive (to some). @TomB has told me that he hates this sort of look on this issue, and that's OK with me. It will do until a nicer one comes along:
Finally, this one is likely original too:
At the end of the day, eye appeal generally trumps originality.
Retoned coins can be beautiful, and original coins can be blah or ugly.
Finding those early coins that are both original and beautiful, now that’s a real treat!
In the same vein of thought I had another experience I have always wondered about.
A friend of my named Mike showed up one day with a tin candy box that contained 4 Walkers and 2 Standing Liberty Quarters. All 6 coins were blast white and in the old ANAC white holders. He also had a business card from one of those traveling appraisal fairs with "$680.00 firm" written on the back.
Mike wanted to borrow $700 and wanted me to hold the coins. I told him to just take the money but he was adamant he would be back in 2 months to redeem the coins. A couple years later I happened to open the tin and was amazed to discover all 6 coins had either gold or vibrant red/blue rim toning. I have always wondered if a single business card could gas out enough to do that or if something else was in play. Go figure. James
That toning was caused by the old white ANACS slab enclosure. Have plenty with that look. Some like it some don't. I do.
But the story I told you took place between 2008 and 2010. Those slabs are from the 80's.
Wouldn't they have turned years before then if the slab is the catalyst?
I believe the old Gen 1 ANACS slabs were from the late 80s, so the newer white ones were into the late 90-early 2000's I believe, When I started collecting around 2003, I think the Blue label ANACs were just starting to come out. Takes years for the slab to have an effect.
Some great observations in this post!
It's been awhile since we've discussed the definition of "originality" here, but it's a good discussion to have from time to time.
Eye appeal and originality are often at odds. Thus we get dipping and doctoring.
Here's a brand new one for a VF set I'm pursuing....
Is it Original?
When I was collecting in the late 90s to early 2000s anacs slabs was white. The early white ones and the later white ones.
Do coins with silver plugs count?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Took a while to find some nice original key date Morgans for my Dansco.