Surfaces that have not been cleaned, dipped or otherwise altered during the lifetime of the coin.
@asheland said:
Here are two from my collection, that I believe to be completely original:
Both coins are beautiful and I would love to have them in my collection. Both coins could have previously been lightened many years ago and they now have secondary toning. I’m not trying to say this is the case but we simply don’t know the history of most coins.
Surfaces that have not been cleaned, dipped or otherwise altered during the lifetime of the coin.
@coinbuf said:
Why not both A and B. A coin that has "Surfaces completely lacking toning or any other change from the moment they were struck" can be the same thing as "Surfaces that have not been cleaned, dipped or otherwise altered during the lifetime of the coin". A coin that pops out of the press and makes it down the chute into the tote unscathed has untoned surfaces with no changes since struck, and has not been dipped, cleaned, or otherwise altered.
B is already a subset of A, so if you choose A you are really choosing A and B. At least that's how I interpret it.
There seems to be pretty strong agreement on A. Not sure that we could get this kind of agreement on much else. A is a good definition.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
The poll structure is flawed. For a coin to have original surfaces the options aren't A or B but could be any of the things mention in A and B. If you select A it doesn't mean coins that are toned (option get a pass or if you select B the A coins get a pass.
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:
The poll structure is flawed. For a coin to have original surfaces the options aren't A or B but could be any of the things mention in A and B. If you select A it doesn't mean coins that are toned (option get a pass or if you select B the A coins get a pass.
Do you think that uncirculated Morgan dollars which have toned in bank bags are "original"?
Do you think that deeply toned coins from the 1950's in mint set holders (issued from the Mint) are "original"?
Do you think that uncirculated Lincoln cents which have been in bank wrapped rolls for decades, and have turned to red-brown color are "original"?
Do you think that coins from the 1800's which have toned in albums or coin cabinets are "original"?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@pmh1nic said:
The poll structure is flawed. For a coin to have original surfaces the options aren't A or B but could be any of the things mention in A and B. If you select A it doesn't mean coins that are toned (option get a pass or if you select B the A coins get a pass.
Do you think that uncirculated Morgan dollars which have toned in bank bags are "original"?
Do you think that deeply toned coins from the 1950's in mint set holders (issued from the Mint) are "original"?
Do you think that uncirculated Lincoln cents which have been in bank wrapped rolls for decades, and have turned to red-brown color are "original"?
Do you think that coins from the 1800's which have toned in albums or coin cabinets are "original"?
Original meaning not fake but not original meaning as it were originally.
@pmh1nic said:
The poll structure is flawed. For a coin to have original surfaces the options aren't A or B but could be any of the things mention in A and B. If you select A it doesn't mean coins that are toned (option get a pass or if you select B the A coins get a pass.
Do you think that uncirculated Morgan dollars which have toned in bank bags are "original"?
Do you think that deeply toned coins from the 1950's in mint set holders (issued from the Mint) are "original"?
Do you think that uncirculated Lincoln cents which have been in bank wrapped rolls for decades, and have turned to red-brown color are "original"?
Do you think that coins from the 1800's which have toned in albums or coin cabinets are "original"?
Strictly speaking with respect to “original surfaces”, no. The surfaces of the coins have been altered, in some cases significantly, via a chemical reaction with substances in the atmosphere or packaging material. This is been one of the core issues in the many discussions on the subject. Do those altered surface detract from the value of the coin? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But that doesn’t negate the fact that the original surfaces have been altered.
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:
The poll structure is flawed. For a coin to have original surfaces the options aren't A or B but could be any of the things mention in A and B. If you select A it doesn't mean coins that are toned (option get a pass or if you select B the A coins get a pass.
Do you think that uncirculated Morgan dollars which have toned in bank bags are "original"?
Do you think that deeply toned coins from the 1950's in mint set holders (issued from the Mint) are "original"?
Do you think that uncirculated Lincoln cents which have been in bank wrapped rolls for decades, and have turned to red-brown color are "original"?
Do you think that coins from the 1800's which have toned in albums or coin cabinets are "original"?
Strictly speaking with respect to “original surfaces”, no. The surfaces of the coins have been altered, in some cases significantly, via a chemical reaction with substances in the atmosphere or packaging material. This is been one of the core issues in the many discussions on the subject. Do those altered surface detract from the value of the coin? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But that doesn’t negate the fact that the original surfaces have been altered.
Thank you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@pmh1nic said:
The poll structure is flawed. For a coin to have original surfaces the options aren't A or B but could be any of the things mention in A and B. If you select A it doesn't mean coins that are toned (option get a pass or if you select B the A coins get a pass.
Do you think that uncirculated Morgan dollars which have toned in bank bags are "original"?
Do you think that deeply toned coins from the 1950's in mint set holders (issued from the Mint) are "original"?
Do you think that uncirculated Lincoln cents which have been in bank wrapped rolls for decades, and have turned to red-brown color are "original"?
Do you think that coins from the 1800's which have toned in albums or coin cabinets are "original"?
Strictly speaking with respect to “original surfaces”, no. The surfaces of the coins have been altered, in some cases significantly, via a chemical reaction with substances in the atmosphere or packaging material. This is been one of the core issues in the many discussions on the subject. Do those altered surface detract from the value of the coin? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But that doesn’t negate the fact that the original surfaces have been altered.
The whole point of this poll, I think, was that your definition of “original surfaces” differs from the vast majority of collectors and dealers. While your definition is understandable, it essentially means that almost all older coins do not have original surfaces.
What word do you use for a coin whose surface has not been messed with by a person?
@pmh1nic said:
The poll structure is flawed. For a coin to have original surfaces the options aren't A or B but could be any of the things mention in A and B. If you select A it doesn't mean coins that are toned (option get a pass or if you select B the A coins get a pass.
Do you think that uncirculated Morgan dollars which have toned in bank bags are "original"?
Do you think that deeply toned coins from the 1950's in mint set holders (issued from the Mint) are "original"?
Do you think that uncirculated Lincoln cents which have been in bank wrapped rolls for decades, and have turned to red-brown color are "original"?
Do you think that coins from the 1800's which have toned in albums or coin cabinets are "original"?
Strictly speaking with respect to “original surfaces”, no. The surfaces of the coins have been altered, in some cases significantly, via a chemical reaction with substances in the atmosphere or packaging material. This is been one of the core issues in the many discussions on the subject. Do those altered surface detract from the value of the coin? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But that doesn’t negate the fact that the original surfaces have been altered.
The whole point of this poll, I think, was that your definition of “original surfaces” differs from the vast majority of collectors and dealers. While your definition is understandable, it essentially means that almost all older coins do not have original surfaces.
What word do you use for a coin whose surface has not been messed with by a person?
The OP mention in another thread that my opinion was counter to 98% of the numismatic community. I asked when he had taken a poll. This tread was his attempt to take a poll. The poll is flawed in that there was no option to select both A and B leaving the impression that if you sells A you considered B as original. Flawed poll methodology in my opinion. A better poll structure would have been a multiple choice option. Which properties can a coin have (dipped, cleaned, toned, dinged, scuffed, etc.) and still be considered to have original surfaces
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:
The poll structure is flawed. For a coin to have original surfaces the options aren't A or B but could be any of the things mention in A and B. If you select A it doesn't mean coins that are toned (option get a pass or if you select B the A coins get a pass.
Do you think that uncirculated Morgan dollars which have toned in bank bags are "original"?
Do you think that deeply toned coins from the 1950's in mint set holders (issued from the Mint) are "original"?
Do you think that uncirculated Lincoln cents which have been in bank wrapped rolls for decades, and have turned to red-brown color are "original"?
Do you think that coins from the 1800's which have toned in albums or coin cabinets are "original"?
Strictly speaking with respect to “original surfaces”, no. The surfaces of the coins have been altered, in some cases significantly, via a chemical reaction with substances in the atmosphere or packaging material. This is been one of the core issues in the many discussions on the subject. Do those altered surface detract from the value of the coin? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But that doesn’t negate the fact that the original surfaces have been altered.
The whole point of this poll, I think, was that your definition of “original surfaces” differs from the vast majority of collectors and dealers. While your definition is understandable, it essentially means that almost all older coins do not have original surfaces.
What word do you use for a coin whose surface has not been messed with by a person?
The OP mention in another thread that my opinion was counter to 98% of the numismatic community. I asked when he had taken a poll. This tread was his attempt to take a poll. The poll is flawed in that there was no option to select both A and B leaving the impression that if you sells A you considered B as original. Flawed poll methodology in my opinion. A better poll structure would have been a multiple choice option. Which properties can a coin have (dipped, cleaned, toned, dinged, scuffed, etc.) and still be considered to have original surfaces
I’ve never heard anyone say that toning keeps a coin from having original surfaces. If that is what you’re saying, then you have a different definition of “original” than almost all numismatists have. I think that’s the only part the OP brought up, and so the poll choices reflect just that one part.
Wouldn't "original" be a subjective adjective? Not necessarily an exact term? The way a coin has been stored may cause changes whether on purpose or not...time changes everything. Reminds me of a food argument between "Organic" labels and "Natural" labels. Organic can be natural, but natural is not always organic. Original can be toned, but toned is not always original. Great thread~
Surfaces that have not been cleaned, dipped or otherwise altered during the lifetime of the coin.
@pmh1nic said:
The poll structure is flawed. For a coin to have original surfaces the options aren't A or B but could be any of the things mention in A and B. If you select A it doesn't mean coins that are toned (option get a pass or if you select B the A coins get a pass.
The poll structure makes a pretty clear distinction between your definition of original (B) and the standard hobby definition (A).
Yes, there is overlap between the two groups. What there isn't, is a lot of people that hold B up be the correct interpretation.
@pmh1nic said:
The poll structure is flawed. For a coin to have original surfaces the options aren't A or B but could be any of the things mention in A and B. If you select A it doesn't mean coins that are toned (option get a pass or if you select B the A coins get a pass.
Do you think that uncirculated Morgan dollars which have toned in bank bags are "original"?
Do you think that deeply toned coins from the 1950's in mint set holders (issued from the Mint) are "original"?
Do you think that uncirculated Lincoln cents which have been in bank wrapped rolls for decades, and have turned to red-brown color are "original"?
Do you think that coins from the 1800's which have toned in albums or coin cabinets are "original"?
Strictly speaking with respect to “original surfaces”, no. The surfaces of the coins have been altered, in some cases significantly, via a chemical reaction with substances in the atmosphere or packaging material. This is been one of the core issues in the many discussions on the subject. Do those altered surface detract from the value of the coin? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But that doesn’t negate the fact that the original surfaces have been altered.
The whole point of this poll, I think, was that your definition of “original surfaces” differs from the vast majority of collectors and dealers. While your definition is understandable, it essentially means that almost all older coins do not have original surfaces.
What word do you use for a coin whose surface has not been messed with by a person?
The OP mention in another thread that my opinion was counter to 98% of the numismatic community. I asked when he had taken a poll. This tread was his attempt to take a poll. The poll is flawed in that there was no option to select both A and B leaving the impression that if you sells A you considered B as original. Flawed poll methodology in my opinion. A better poll structure would have been a multiple choice option. Which properties can a coin have (dipped, cleaned, toned, dinged, scuffed, etc.) and still be considered to have original surfaces
I’ve never heard anyone say that toning keeps a coin from having original surfaces. If that is what you’re saying, then you have a different definition of “original” than almost all numismatists have. I think that’s the only part the OP brought up, and so the poll choices reflect just that one part.
The poll as structured does allow the option to choice both A and B. If someone considered both A and B as disqualifying a coin from being considered original they aren’t given the option to select both.
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:
The poll structure is flawed. For a coin to have original surfaces the options aren't A or B but could be any of the things mention in A and B. If you select A it doesn't mean coins that are toned (option get a pass or if you select B the A coins get a pass.
The poll structure makes a pretty clear distinction between your definition of original (B) and the standard hobby definition (A).
Yes, there is overlap between the two groups. What there isn't, is a lot of people that hold B up be the correct interpretation.
Wrong. The poll structure did not make it clear that you could select more than one option.
Another clarification, I did not request a poll. The OP made the statement in another thread that 98% of the numismatic community disagreed with my viewpoint on original. He then took it upon himself to create this poll.
The requirement for some grades is the coin has “original luster or full original luster of the highest quality” (ANA definition). Even PCGS will reduce a grade if in their judgement the toning on a so-called fully original coin is in their opinion too dark. No toned coin has full original luster. Calling a darkly toned coin fully original might make sense to most be not to me. The surfaces of a toned coin are not fully original (changes have occurred) . The toning will subdue the original luster of a coins.
Given the limited number of responses and others that have questioned the poll options I don’t consider the 98% quoted in the other thread as valid. My opinion on the issue hasn’t changed. A coin is struck and comes out from between the die with its “original” mint luster. Over 100 years reaction with “stuff” in the atmosphere and/or packaging material may alter the surfaces, sometimes significantly and very noticeably. If that happens, while I understand the consensus in the numismatic community is to continue to call the surfaces original, I disagree with that characterization. What is the meaning of original? It can meant whatever you want it to mean. The meaning of words do change but usually there is some compelling reason for the change. Why a coin with toning, even significant toning, would continue to be referred to as original makes no sense to me. But I’m not a numismatist, just your average guy of the street.
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
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of what is original, that the mint provides for the amusement men. And if a die produces a coin that displaces itself cannot fall into a bin and into human hands without some impact to its originality, then is it possible for an hobby to survive without some dispute argued ad infinitum? Catbert Franklin
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@Catbert said:
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of what is original, that the mint provides for the amusement men. And if a die produces a coin that displaces itself cannot fall into a bin and into human hands without some impact to its originality, then is it possible for an hobby to survive without some dispute argued ad infinitum? Catbert Franklin
Love it...lol.
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
Beautiful coins @asheland
Both coins are beautiful and I would love to have them in my collection. Both coins could have previously been lightened many years ago and they now have secondary toning. I’m not trying to say this is the case but we simply don’t know the history of most coins.
B is already a subset of A, so if you choose A you are really choosing A and B. At least that's how I interpret it.
There seems to be pretty strong agreement on A. Not sure that we could get this kind of agreement on much else. A is a good definition.
The poll structure is flawed. For a coin to have original surfaces the options aren't A or B but could be any of the things mention in A and B. If you select A it doesn't mean coins that are toned (option
get a pass or if you select B the A coins get a pass.
Do you think that uncirculated Morgan dollars which have toned in bank bags are "original"?
Do you think that deeply toned coins from the 1950's in mint set holders (issued from the Mint) are "original"?
Do you think that uncirculated Lincoln cents which have been in bank wrapped rolls for decades, and have turned to red-brown color are "original"?
Do you think that coins from the 1800's which have toned in albums or coin cabinets are "original"?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Original meaning not fake but not original meaning as it were originally.
I consider naturally toned original. I like naturally toned coins. People pay big money for naturally toned coins. At least I do.
Strictly speaking with respect to “original surfaces”, no. The surfaces of the coins have been altered, in some cases significantly, via a chemical reaction with substances in the atmosphere or packaging material. This is been one of the core issues in the many discussions on the subject. Do those altered surface detract from the value of the coin? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But that doesn’t negate the fact that the original surfaces have been altered.
Thank you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks! 👍
My YouTube Channel
Just my personal preference. I never buy dipped copper.
Once in a while I'll make an exception to silver, depending on the circumstance. But I much prefer silver to also be the original skin.
I'm probably old school on this line of thinking, but I can't help myself, it's what I like. 😎
The whole point of this poll, I think, was that your definition of “original surfaces” differs from the vast majority of collectors and dealers. While your definition is understandable, it essentially means that almost all older coins do not have original surfaces.
What word do you use for a coin whose surface has not been messed with by a person?
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
The OP mention in another thread that my opinion was counter to 98% of the numismatic community. I asked when he had taken a poll. This tread was his attempt to take a poll. The poll is flawed in that there was no option to select both A and B leaving the impression that if you sells A you considered B as original. Flawed poll methodology in my opinion. A better poll structure would have been a multiple choice option. Which properties can a coin have (dipped, cleaned, toned, dinged, scuffed, etc.) and still be considered to have original surfaces
I’ve never heard anyone say that toning keeps a coin from having original surfaces. If that is what you’re saying, then you have a different definition of “original” than almost all numismatists have. I think that’s the only part the OP brought up, and so the poll choices reflect just that one part.
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
Wouldn't "original" be a subjective adjective? Not necessarily an exact term? The way a coin has been stored may cause changes whether on purpose or not...time changes everything. Reminds me of a food argument between "Organic" labels and "Natural" labels. Organic can be natural, but natural is not always organic. Original can be toned, but toned is not always original. Great thread~
The poll structure makes a pretty clear distinction between your definition of original (B) and the standard hobby definition (A).
Yes, there is overlap between the two groups. What there isn't, is a lot of people that hold B up be the correct interpretation.
The poll as structured does allow the option to choice both A and B. If someone considered both A and B as disqualifying a coin from being considered original they aren’t given the option to select both.
Wrong. The poll structure did not make it clear that you could select more than one option.
Another clarification, I did not request a poll. The OP made the statement in another thread that 98% of the numismatic community disagreed with my viewpoint on original. He then took it upon himself to create this poll.
The requirement for some grades is the coin has “original luster or full original luster of the highest quality” (ANA definition). Even PCGS will reduce a grade if in their judgement the toning on a so-called fully original coin is in their opinion too dark. No toned coin has full original luster. Calling a darkly toned coin fully original might make sense to most be not to me. The surfaces of a toned coin are not fully original (changes have occurred) . The toning will subdue the original luster of a coins.
Given the limited number of responses and others that have questioned the poll options I don’t consider the 98% quoted in the other thread as valid. My opinion on the issue hasn’t changed. A coin is struck and comes out from between the die with its “original” mint luster. Over 100 years reaction with “stuff” in the atmosphere and/or packaging material may alter the surfaces, sometimes significantly and very noticeably. If that happens, while I understand the consensus in the numismatic community is to continue to call the surfaces original, I disagree with that characterization. What is the meaning of original? It can meant whatever you want it to mean. The meaning of words do change but usually there is some compelling reason for the change. Why a coin with toning, even significant toning, would continue to be referred to as original makes no sense to me. But I’m not a numismatist, just your average guy of the street.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of what is original, that the mint provides for the amusement men. And if a die produces a coin that displaces itself cannot fall into a bin and into human hands without some impact to its originality, then is it possible for an hobby to survive without some dispute argued ad infinitum? Catbert Franklin
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Love it...lol.