Does anyone like original coins anymore?

Tonelover

All this talk of judicious dipping just because the coin isn't bright white. Coins being sent to NCS to remove a bit of haze or a little spot. I'm trying to think about when the last time a record price was set at auction for a dipped, conserved coin and I can't think of one. Yet everyone wonders why dealers won't pay strong money for their coins. All the coins that I see selling for high prices are original beauties. Like it or not, experienced and knowledgable collectors prefer their coins original and will pay more for them.

If you don't like haze or spots on your coins, don't buy them and wait for one that meets with your approval the first time around. If you already own coins that could use a little help, sorry, it happens to the best of us. But do yourself a favor and buy nicer ones next time. They may cost a little more if you can possibly swing that but you'll be so much better off. While reviews here are very favorable for NCS treated coins, I have seen some and I wouldn't buy a single one of them. Returned them all to the owners saying "no thanks". Liberty Nickels, Washington Quarters, Seated Halves, whatever, they look unnatural and way too artificial. When I first started collecting I too thought that bright was best, but now I'll take a coin with it's original skin any day over one of those concocted monsters. I just passed on a coin that I've been seeking for three years now because it was NCS'd and was so white it was pathetic. I didn't want it below Bluesheet. If it was original, even with a little bit of "haze" i.e. toning, I would have paid twice that without batting an eye.

I know, they're your coins and you can do what you want with them. If you like white coins so be it. This isn't a toning/white debate. While there is much temporary joy being delivered in bottles of MS-70 and crates of NCS submissions, it is my opinion that the long term effects of such treatments will turn out to be a big negative. I think about how many original coins will be left 50 years from now and the picture looks bleak. Go easy on those coins people. Please?

EVillageProwler

I like my coins dripping with originality. It is not sufficient that they are toned. I must believe that underneath the toning lies a pristine coin with honest surfaces. To me, it is the surface preservation that matters most. A coin with full, thick skin and dripping with luster, yet has recently been dipped, is still ok with me because I can always let it tone again.

As long as the surface is thick and original...

(Of course, too much dipping strips away the surface...)

EVP

JMOORE

YES! I love original toned coins.

My latest purchase:

Link to thread.


Jim

EVillageProwler

Jim,

Dip that baby. Be a sheep. Dip that baby. Ole Ben needs a bath!



Ok... that's a nice, original specimen as far as I can tell.

EVP

KlectorKid

I dont mind dipped coins aslong as they are not to old. seated, bust, flowing, barber, and trade dollars look really bad if they are bright silver IMO.

Placid

I do. The only two coins I have sent to ncs were not for toning removal one had "tar" on it and the other had a black spot that was growing.

Maybe someone will outbid me on this one

CLASSICS

tonelover. you got it right. and for me, natural, and original is the only way.

coppercoins

As for me, if the tarnish doesn't look pleasing, I'd rather have a coin with its original color restored - and as I said in the other thread about dipping, there are right coins for this and there are wrong coins for this. There are also right ways to do it and wrong ways to do it. If one wants to play around to get it right, grab the pocket change and silver rounds and have at it...but don't ruin old coins "expermenting". ONLY dip older coins after you have the wisdom to know what it will do to the coin and whether that's better than leaving it as it is. And yes, this is a coin to coin, case by case thing. Not all dipping is wrong, nor is it wrong to leave coins tarnished or dirty. Just depends on which ones and what's on them.

berylcoin

As you know, I like original. But alas... Dip Happens...

BC

originalisbest

I concur STRONGLY with Jon. Although my handle has said it for me already.

michael

i like your thinking klector kid

i like original toned coins if attractive

but i also love deep cameo proof coins pre 1915 blast white as long as they have the right look with clean clear spot/hazefree deep mirrors and monster cameos as this is how they were supposed to look when struck
a speciality coin also with grreat flash and blast and if with the right look to me that is okie

even if only super close to the above

the problem is that this only applies to one out of many i see as per the above

sincerely michael

Bulldog

Only coins I own, that are not original, Are the ones that I got duped into buying!

Bulldog

AKrick

Sure do! Still looking for that original 1952d Washington.

Rick

cacheman

Originality does not necessarily imply toning as some of you might believe......

Freshness and originality should be paramount...a collection built by demanding adherence to these two qualities will have far more sophistication and value than any other collection that does not. Plain and simple.

Tonelover

Again, I don't care if people like their coins black, white, green, blue or purple. I don't have a lock on the right way of doing things. It's just that a lot of people seem way too quick these days to embrace having their coins artificially enhanced. Sure, some could use some serious help but certainly a lot of them do not. Wait for the right coin to come along, that's all.

Bear

WHATEVER...............

FrattLaw

Depends on the coin/denomination/year. A blue hazy proof Ike is original, but I'd rather had a blast white, deep black pool fields and a nice frosty cameo, so a little MS70 can do the trick. As for classics -- original is the only way to go. As for my Peace $, toned, whether monster, rimmed, crescent, russet or rainbow, is the best. That way I know for sure that my coin, probably hasn't been tampered with. Though some nice luster showing through just makes it all the better.

Michael

Mike921

Ummmm I like to buy them then dip them!!!

Dave99B

Amen, Tonerlover!

You are 100% right on...

Come on "coin doctors", show our ever-shrinking original inventory a little respect.

Dave

prooflike

I like original coins as long as the luster is good through the toning

stman

I have no problem with people conserving coins. One good point is my coins with original surfaces are more appealing to me and others that might own them later.

One bad point is with all the dipping and conserving from the past and even more now, it drives the prices up even more on coins with original surfaces. And I'm going broke having to pay these prices, but I enjoy them much better than the early days of my collection.

Tonelover

I am encouraged by the number of positive responses. I feel better now, thank you!

braddick

Tonelover- excellent Thread and thoughts.
A wonderfully and wholly original toned coins speaks to me. A washed out over dipped one does too- but it's a foreign language and difficult for me to understand.

Twowood

Count me among the "Original" crowd....I guess I'm a purist and I don't see anything attractive about discolored coins. Twowood

barberlover

everyone has a right to do to there own property what they want to. unfortunatley 'conserving' a coin changes the surface quality artifically forever. which doesn't just affect the current owner of the coin, it also effects any possible future owner of that particular coin. i've been insulted and even threatened at a local show for expressing this point of view. but i will not change the view that conserving a coin is artifically altering it's appearance and sometimes at least dimineshes the luster quality on older mint state type coins. i only wish i had been old enough to acunulate a nice original collection before the dipping craze started. nice original pieces are still out there, but there getting harder to find and very expensive. i'm not trying to tell anyone what to do. but i'm begging people to consider future generations before dipping at least the medium toned coins just to get the blast white look.

DHeath

Tonelover, I agree with the sentiment of your post, and I believe you would refuse a blast white, dipped 19th century proof. I also believe you would refuse a 19th century proof with black and brown spots, and crust on one side. The dealer community has known for years that the later coin can be dipped, and allowed to retone, and it becomes almost impossible to detect. I don't think I can differentiate between an original toner, and a retoner, if the look is right. Anyone who believes they can, 100% of the time is missing their calling. As for never buying a coin that might need help, I'd say that has more to do with how you collect. I know you probably aren't, but if you were to buy an estate, and found in it's contents a 93-S Morgan with 65 details, but horrible black toning on ½ of the surface that would be bagged for environmental damage, would it be your position that you'd sell it as impaired, or would you spend $20 to see if the coin could become a PCGS MS65, and become a coin of interest to the collector community? The way I see it, all of us would prefer MS67 cream colored full skin 18th and 19th century coins with a hint of color. I just think there is middle ground.

BigD5

I'm in with the "original" crowd. I think the more "modern" the series, the more a lean towards whiter surfaces, for the average collector. Seems that way anyway. Nothing wrong with it, just an unofficial observation. Tough to get a premium for a white Barber quarter, but a white Washington quarter isn't as affected, pricewise, as the Barber. Again, so it seems.

Fairlaneman

Some coins just plain need to go to NCS, I sent two to them. Just to send them in to turn them white, shame on those people. Original Nicely Toned coins just plain have character to them. I'll refer to the one persons handle here "Original is Best".

Ken

IrishMike

Tonelover I agree with your sentiments 98%. I have a Washington 39-S that is going in for conservation, it is in an ICG holder at 66, I paid $60 for it, why because the reverse has some black ugly toning to it. If NCS can clean it up fine, if not I fear the coin will deteriorate. I purposely purchased the coin with this thought in mind. Weighing the negative against the positive results that may occur, I think it is an ideal candidate for conservation. If and when I sell it, I will tell the story behind the coin. This at least gives someone the opportunity to decide whether or not they want a "conserved" coin. Good post BTW.

FC57Coins

I used to be one of those folks who swore up and down that white coins were the way to go - probably swayed by how many people want white Franklins for their collections. But as I've learned to appreciate toned coins, they do have a certain penache that white coins seem to lack. Now mind you there are beautiful full frost full mint bloom monsters out there, but there are also toned beauties out there that make even the most ordinary coin look extraordinary!

Frank

kaleidoscopic

Tonelover, color is where its at. FC57, nice looking football team you got there. Ever have a beauty contest with those ladies?

Kscope

caitlin

Tonelover

Your 100% correct, well said .

PS. Love those SLQ you have in your collection.

Zerbe

I would rather have an 'original' coin, but in the case of Proof Barber halves or Proof Morgans, the best looking coins, to me, are the cameos, deep cameos and the colorfull, lightly toned ones. A dark brown Proof Morgan or proof Barber is ugly to me. I have personally
bought a Proof 68 Barber half from an auction that was technically a PR68, but very ugly, (dark brown), and after it was dipped professionally, it became a PCGS PR68 cameo. That coion was dipped 6 years ago and it has not changed. It is still as white as snow.

FC57Coins

For Zerbe:

originalisbest

I think most people here are taking a reasonable approach to taking care of their coins. It's hard to say NEVER dip, but try to think once, twice, three times about the potential results.

I am no different than many collectors - being a graphic designer for a living, I've always been inherently finicky for a uniform appearance, and so as a budding collector, very neatly polished up many of my silver coins!

Not to worry though, it was only a couple well-worn common Morgans, and other low grade type. Doesn't make it any better in principle, but nothing special was ruined.

Those pieces were eventually sold off, and as I began to become more sophisticated, an appreciation for nice naturally brilliant coins developed, especially among Washington Quarters. Among those for example is a perfectly decent, brilliant '48-S.

I mention this date because I just picked up another '48-S yesterday. It's a little bit different, being an ex-mint set piece. Has a beautiful crescent of rose and gold around the lower obverse with a creamy-silvery center, while the back is evenly covered in the same rose toning spread rather thickly, with the luster peeking through tiny fissures in the toning.

Admittedly, a lot of "pretty toning" descriptions are just so much puffery - but sometimes (as in this case) it's well-deserved. I also (naturally) think of tonelover's current icon in this regard. This new quarter of mine just puts its "normal" brilliant counterpart to shame, as far as the interesting to me scale goes. I shudder to think of the dull, lifeless monster that would be created, were it ever dipped.

To those who would dip out their pieces, please just be careful and judicious in doing so. One time may not appear to hurt it but, well, it didn't come out so good ... let's just try that again ... hmmm...

Thanks for listenin'!

Zerbe

Fc57, Thanks, that coin has everything going for it.

Dog97

I prefer original coins, whether white, toned or whatever but I rarely see any original coins of any sort other than the plentiful mint set coins of the 50-60s.

Clankeye

Tonelover--
Not much else to say, you hit it right on for me. I have a number of coins in my collection that others might find unattractive for various reasons, but they are appreciated by me for their originality.

Very good post. Very much in agreement with what you wrote.

Clankeye