Restoration services, and this coin?

baseballjeff

Hello everyone,

Still working on my collection of Merc’s. I found one I need, in a grade that would be acceptable but this one just looks awful. Curious what you all would come of this one if I got it “re-stored”? Generally I’m old school, and really dislike the idea of cleaning or restoring any coin, so going into this one just doesn’t feel right on any level.

Thoughts?

hummingbird_coins

That's toning, and I don't think it can be removed without harming the coin. However some people might like that look (such as me)

ProofCollection

@baseballjeff said:
Hello everyone,

Still working on my collection of Merc’s. I found one I need, in a grade that would be acceptable but this one just looks awful. Curious what you all would come of this one if I got it “re-stored”? Generally I’m old school, and really dislike the idea of cleaning or restoring any coin, so going into this one just doesn’t feel right on any level.

Thoughts?

You'll have to restore it yourself and you'll probably uncover dings and marks that you're not aware of now leading to a lower grade. PCGS will typically decline to restore coins only to remove toning.

PeakRarities

I would just get a bottle of e-zest and dip it yourself, there's not much you could do to possibly make it any uglier, so downside is minimal.

Shurke

That toning looks really think. I don’t think it would dip off easily—you’d probably lose noticeable luster in the process.

airplanenut

It's in the right grade now. What grade will it be in and how will it look after "restoration," not to mention will it still fit your goals, is a great question. If a coin is absolutely not what you want, it sounds like a terrible idea to buy it with a plan to change it unless you are positive you can make the exact change you desire.

Davidk7

I don't think dipping would drastically approve the appearance of the coin. You're better off leaving it alone IMO.

I actually really like the obverse color!

MFeld

If you own it and dislike it, leave it as is, sell it and look for one you do like.

coinbuf

Sell it and find one you like.

Copperindian

Agree with the others - owning it means you should like it. I’m a bit of a toning freak, but the obv on this one is a bit much even for me. JMO.

291fifth

It's ugly and probably wouldn't dip well. Sell it and move on. Don't throw good money after bad.

ProofCollection

I disagree with all of the advice to just sell it and buy what you like. That isn't always possible or feasible as some coins are hard to find and the technology exists to fix or remove some problems. The assumption with these posts has to be made that the OP is willing to absorb the costs for the restoration and regrade and that they would have just bought a different coin if it was that easy. Let's give the guy some credit. Our job is to opine what the results might be and the risks of doing so. A lot of times these "ugly" coins can be bought at a discount which makes them good candidates for collectors to fill the slot for now and potentially restore it to a condition they want.

Edited to add: There is risk but there is also upside. It could easily drop from MS63 to MS62 or lower, but you could also end up with an MS64. I have had restorations result in both up and downgrades.

TomB

I actually think the coin is attractive and from your post I can't tell if you own it or simply found it available. Regardless, I'd allow someone else to enjoy it. As an aside, it seems nearly everyone on these boards is "old school" about not manipulating coins until they find it convenient to do so.

braddick

I kinda like it just as it is.
This little lady has a story to tell.

PeakRarities

@TomB said:
I actually think the coin is attractive and from your post I can't tell if you own it or simply found it available. Regardless, I'd allow someone else to enjoy it. As an aside, it seems nearly everyone on these boards is "old school" about not manipulating coins until they find it convenient to do so.

Sorry, Tom, you're probably referring to me. I was just advising OP based on his stated goal of making the coin less ugly, but others' recommendation of selling and replacing is surely a better play.

In regard to your last statement, I guess there is a good amount of truth to that. I certainly prefer coins with fully original surfaces, but I am not a hardcore purist and on rare occasions I think dipping is appropriate. IMO, originality should not have to come at the cost of harboring unattractive coins with puke toning.

Copperindian

I’m reading the OP as not owning it but giving it consideration - reluctantly. Think he should pass & keep looking if that’s the case.

TomB

@PeakRarities said:

@TomB said:
I actually think the coin is attractive and from your post I can't tell if you own it or simply found it available. Regardless, I'd allow someone else to enjoy it. As an aside, it seems nearly everyone on these boards is "old school" about not manipulating coins until they find it convenient to do so.

Sorry, Tom, you're probably referring to me. I was just advising OP based on his stated goal of making the coin less ugly, but others' recommendation of selling and replacing is surely a better play.

In regard to your last statement, I guess there is a good amount of truth to that. I certainly prefer coins with fully original surfaces, but I am not a hardcore purist and on rare occasions I think dipping is appropriate. IMO, originality should not have to come at the cost of harboring unattractive coins with puke toning.

No, I wasn't referring to you. I also just noticed you have a new user ID now and it is quite spiffy! I was simply referencing my over quarter-century (sounds like a long time when phrased that way!) on the PCGS boards and how so many members over the years have lamented coins that were previously worked on and wondered why folks couldn't leave the coin alone at some point in the past and then so many of these members find a coin that is almost just right for them except for one or two attributes that they either go and "fix" themselves or they inquire about on the boards.

So, it was really a comment on human nature as reflected in these boards; we all want everything "original" until "original" isn't what we want and then we go and attempt to change it.

PeakRarities

@TomB said:

@PeakRarities said:

@TomB said:
I actually think the coin is attractive and from your post I can't tell if you own it or simply found it available. Regardless, I'd allow someone else to enjoy it. As an aside, it seems nearly everyone on these boards is "old school" about not manipulating coins until they find it convenient to do so.

Sorry, Tom, you're probably referring to me. I was just advising OP based on his stated goal of making the coin less ugly, but others' recommendation of selling and replacing is surely a better play.

In regard to your last statement, I guess there is a good amount of truth to that. I certainly prefer coins with fully original surfaces, but I am not a hardcore purist and on rare occasions I think dipping is appropriate. IMO, originality should not have to come at the cost of harboring unattractive coins with puke toning.

No, I wasn't referring to you. I also just noticed you have a new user ID now and it is quite spiffy! I was simply referencing my over quarter-century (sounds like a long time when phrased that way!) on the PCGS boards and how so many members over the years have lamented coins that were previously worked on and wondered why folks couldn't leave the coin alone at some point in the past and then so many of these members find a coin that is almost just right for them except for one or two attributes that they either go and "fix" themselves or they inquire about on the boards.

So, it was really a comment on human nature as reflected in these boards; we all want everything "original" until "original" isn't what we want and then we go and attempt to change it.

Agreed! And yes, I changed my handle as I thought it might be better to convey a proffessional image now that Im on the other side of the table. I left "The Dude" as my avatar pic to give everyone some time to get used to it, but eventually, it will be changed to the Peak logo .

ProofCollection

@PeakRarities said:
In regard to your last statement, I guess there is a good amount of truth to that. I certainly prefer coins with fully original surfaces, but I am not a hardcore purist and on rare occasions I think dipping is appropriate. IMO, originality should not have to come at the cost of harboring unattractive coins with puke toning.

I'm confused as your statement is contradictory. Fully original surfaces would have full luster and be tone free as they came originally from the mint. Dipping would get the coin as close to that as possible.

PeakRarities

@ProofCollection said:

@PeakRarities said:
In regard to your last statement, I guess there is a good amount of truth to that. I certainly prefer coins with fully original surfaces, but I am not a hardcore purist and on rare occasions I think dipping is appropriate. IMO, originality should not have to come at the cost of harboring unattractive coins with puke toning.

I'm confused as your statement is contradictory. Fully original surfaces would have full luster and be tone free as they came originally from the mint. Dipping would get the coin as close to that as possible.

My statement would only be contradictory to someone using the contrarian interpretation of the word original, as the vast majority of numismatists I’ve ever met use the interpretation where the word means undipped, or unprocessed.

TwoSides2aCoin

It got graded with how it was stored. It might not be regraded if it gets restored. ( food4brain )

alaura22

@coinbuf said:
Sell it and find one you like.

^ This

jesbroken

If buying, unless a hard to come by variety, I would pass. If you already own it, I would sell it. Some truly like that level of toning. Good luck, regardless.
Jim

privatecoin

Sell and buy a better one to your taste. Some do find that color nice. Such a swampy green. I like it.

ProofCollection

@PeakRarities said:

@ProofCollection said:

@PeakRarities said:
In regard to your last statement, I guess there is a good amount of truth to that. I certainly prefer coins with fully original surfaces, but I am not a hardcore purist and on rare occasions I think dipping is appropriate. IMO, originality should not have to come at the cost of harboring unattractive coins with puke toning.

I'm confused as your statement is contradictory. Fully original surfaces would have full luster and be tone free as they came originally from the mint. Dipping would get the coin as close to that as possible.

My statement would only be contradictory to someone using the contrarian interpretation of the word original, as the vast majority of numismatists I’ve ever met use the interpretation where the word means undipped, or unprocessed.

I don't know if it's the contrarian interpretation, it is the dictionary interpretation which I would hardly consider contrarian.

PeakRarities

@ProofCollection said:

@PeakRarities said:

@ProofCollection said:

@PeakRarities said:
In regard to your last statement, I guess there is a good amount of truth to that. I certainly prefer coins with fully original surfaces, but I am not a hardcore purist and on rare occasions I think dipping is appropriate. IMO, originality should not have to come at the cost of harboring unattractive coins with puke toning.

I'm confused as your statement is contradictory. Fully original surfaces would have full luster and be tone free as they came originally from the mint. Dipping would get the coin as close to that as possible.

My statement would only be contradictory to someone using the contrarian interpretation of the word original, as the vast majority of numismatists I’ve ever met use the interpretation where the word means undipped, or unprocessed.

I don't know if it's the contrarian interpretation, it is the dictionary interpretation which I would hardly consider contrarian.

Note how my comment 4 "agrees" and yours has 0? That just further supports my point that it is certainly, without a doubt the contrarian interpretation. Do you want to give me a link to the dictionary definition youre referring to, as it relates to numismatic surface preservation?

ProofCollection

@PeakRarities said:

@ProofCollection said:

@PeakRarities said:

@ProofCollection said:

@PeakRarities said:
In regard to your last statement, I guess there is a good amount of truth to that. I certainly prefer coins with fully original surfaces, but I am not a hardcore purist and on rare occasions I think dipping is appropriate. IMO, originality should not have to come at the cost of harboring unattractive coins with puke toning.

I'm confused as your statement is contradictory. Fully original surfaces would have full luster and be tone free as they came originally from the mint. Dipping would get the coin as close to that as possible.

My statement would only be contradictory to someone using the contrarian interpretation of the word original, as the vast majority of numismatists I’ve ever met use the interpretation where the word means undipped, or unprocessed.

I don't know if it's the contrarian interpretation, it is the dictionary interpretation which I would hardly consider contrarian.

Note how my comment 4 "agrees" and yours has 0? That just further supports my point that it is certainly, without a doubt the contrarian interpretation. Do you want to give me a link to the dictionary definition youre referring to, as it relates to numismatic surface preservation?

[ uh-rij-uh-nl ]adjective
belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning:

I don't disagree that the industry has perpetuated and continues to perpetuate misinformation that toned surfaces are original. Toned surfaces have undergone a chemical reaction and no longer resemble the surface when the coin is created either in composition or visually. But as a dictionary is an adopted or accepted standard for language, adhering to the dictionary definition by definition is not contrarian. Perhaps the industry is the one who is contrarian?

hummingbird_coins

@ProofCollection said:

@PeakRarities said:

@ProofCollection said:

@PeakRarities said:

@ProofCollection said:

@PeakRarities said:
In regard to your last statement, I guess there is a good amount of truth to that. I certainly prefer coins with fully original surfaces, but I am not a hardcore purist and on rare occasions I think dipping is appropriate. IMO, originality should not have to come at the cost of harboring unattractive coins with puke toning.

I'm confused as your statement is contradictory. Fully original surfaces would have full luster and be tone free as they came originally from the mint. Dipping would get the coin as close to that as possible.

My statement would only be contradictory to someone using the contrarian interpretation of the word original, as the vast majority of numismatists I’ve ever met use the interpretation where the word means undipped, or unprocessed.

I don't know if it's the contrarian interpretation, it is the dictionary interpretation which I would hardly consider contrarian.

Note how my comment 4 "agrees" and yours has 0? That just further supports my point that it is certainly, without a doubt the contrarian interpretation. Do you want to give me a link to the dictionary definition youre referring to, as it relates to numismatic surface preservation?

[ uh-rij-uh-nl ]adjective
belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning:

I don't disagree that the industry has perpetuated and continues to perpetuate misinformation that toned surfaces are original. Toned surfaces have undergone a chemical reaction and no longer resemble the surface when the coin is created either in composition or visually. But as a dictionary is an adopted or accepted standard for language, adhering to the dictionary definition by definition is not contrarian. Perhaps the industry is the one who is contrarian?

If you would rather use a term such as unmolested or unaltered to describe what the coin industry perceives as "original", or terms like blast-white or untoned to describe a coin closest to the color it was when it was minted, then go for it. But if you ever use the word original here to describe a cleaned or dipped coin, there will be confusion, to say the least.

MFeld

@ProofCollection said:

@PeakRarities said:

@ProofCollection said:

@PeakRarities said:

@ProofCollection said:

@PeakRarities said:
In regard to your last statement, I guess there is a good amount of truth to that. I certainly prefer coins with fully original surfaces, but I am not a hardcore purist and on rare occasions I think dipping is appropriate. IMO, originality should not have to come at the cost of harboring unattractive coins with puke toning.

I'm confused as your statement is contradictory. Fully original surfaces would have full luster and be tone free as they came originally from the mint. Dipping would get the coin as close to that as possible.

My statement would only be contradictory to someone using the contrarian interpretation of the word original, as the vast majority of numismatists I’ve ever met use the interpretation where the word means undipped, or unprocessed.

I don't know if it's the contrarian interpretation, it is the dictionary interpretation which I would hardly consider contrarian.

Note how my comment 4 "agrees" and yours has 0? That just further supports my point that it is certainly, without a doubt the contrarian interpretation. Do you want to give me a link to the dictionary definition youre referring to, as it relates to numismatic surface preservation?

[ uh-rij-uh-nl ]adjective
belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning:

I don't disagree that the industry has perpetuated and continues to perpetuate misinformation that toned surfaces are original. Toned surfaces have undergone a chemical reaction and no longer resemble the surface when the coin is created either in composition or visually. But as a dictionary is an adopted or accepted standard for language, adhering to the dictionary definition by definition is not contrarian. Perhaps the industry is the one who is contrarian?

It’s not misinformation with respect to numismatics. The same goes for antique furniture and cars, among other collectibles. Those pieces that have acquired a patina over time are considered to be “original”.

I think that @Hummingbird-coins summed things up quite nicely:
“ If you would rather use a term such as unmolested or unaltered to describe what the coin industry perceives as "original", or terms like blast-white or untoned to describe a coin closest to the color it was when it was minted, then go for it. But if you ever use the word original here to describe a cleaned or dipped coin, there will be confusion, to say the least.”

Cougar1978

Definitely a cull. Did you leave it in a salt air environment? What ugly tarnish. What have offers off bourse been lol?

Give it a dip u may need q tip work it. YMMV. Probably will look dullish after. My recommendation - Start it at auction at 99c. Write off the loss.

Tarnish is tarnish - trying dodge that calling it toning does not fly with me. Black tarnish worst! Went bad in the holder my guess. Can it be conserved?