Options
Is describing a coin as “original” sometimes a nice way of saying that it’s unattractive?
dan1ecu
Posts: 1,573
I’ve seen many coins described as “original,” which I take to mean uncleaned or undipped. Some of these coins, though, leave much to be desired in terms of eye appeal in my opinion. I’ve noticed that very nicely toned coins are often described as “monster toned” or “gorgeous colors” or something like that. The term “original” seems to be reserved (in some cases) for coins that can’t be given more positive descriptions.
Do you think that this is a correct assessment? How do you interpret “original?”
Dan
Do you think that this is a correct assessment? How do you interpret “original?”
Dan
0
Comments
I guess original could mean ugly, but many great coins are original.
Jeremy
The more detailed answer is, "Yes, and very frequently."
karlgoetzmedals.com
secessionistmedals.com
<< <i>The term “original” seems to be reserved (in some cases) for coins that can’t be given more positive descriptions. >>
<< <i>Do you think that this is a correct assessment? >>
No, sorry I don't.
When we talk about non-lovely coins and can't think of anything nice to say we say "At least it's original."
Ken
To some people an original toned coin that doesn't have all the colors might be ugly. This happens more with new collectors. But usually the more experienced collectors appreciate an original surface coin, with the original skin, crust, patina, whatever you want to call it.
Rather than a blast white, dipped out, surfaces stripped, etc. etc.
Like I've mentioned before.... The more people think the "original" surface coins are ugly, the more for me to choose from. But this usually doesn't hold true because people buy them anyway and think they can be "FIXED" and ruin them.
Well, as you might have guested, the coin arrived and it has nice coloring, not monster, but great luster and is truly a 65.
I tend to look for original coins. There's just something about a coin that hasn't been dipped, cleaned or altered that I prefer. Eventually, I think the market will tend to go this way as well. Those blast white coins may seem nice to the eye, but you have to ask, how'd it stay that way for 100 years? And eventually, your blast white coin will look like my "original" coin anyway.
Finally, coins are history and I like my coins to come with their own.
Michael
I am being serious.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
But I might not agree when you said the blast white ones will look like the original toned ones in time.
Once the surfaces have been played with they won't end up looking original. They will have the tell tale look of dip and retone. Ugly brownish gold tint to them. And although they might acquire a skin, it won't be an original skin.
the faboulous furry freak brothers!@1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
for me an original coin is the best of the best and rarest of the rare and totally sleeper and undervalued and rarely seen not touched by human hands and helped along the way! and there cant be a demand for them as they are not usually seen and most have not seen such animals! but when seen oh what a trophy!!!!!!
but with the following caviet as below!@!!!!!!!!
thick original skin and booming lustre or at least reasonable lustre coming through the toning if mintstate coinage and either original white and/or exceptionally toned and has to have great eye appeal with "no problems"!!! proof or mintstate or circ's
sincerely michael
With gold coins, original is generally preferred. I would much rather have this original green-gold coin than the same looking like a yellow beacon!
sincerely michael
Just like champaign colored coin is any thing but a dark and miserable looking coin. Not all
the time mind you, but both terms are misused enough to put you on alert. Often the written
description gives you a mental image that is not warrented when you actually see the coin.
Camelot
Michael,
You are a smart and savvy collector. Your final paragraph is exactly right, and is also the reason many coins are dipped. Sometimes original is beautiful, and sometimes it isn't. The isn'ts usually get dipped. The unfortunate part is that what an inexperienced collector thinks is attractive is frequently the benchmark.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
For unc. It is the same. Truly fantastic original pieces are not sold at auction, because all your friends who know that you own the piece and would kill you if you didn't give them first crack at buying it directly from you before you placed it at action. Easy science!
Tyler
"problems" seen should definitely accompany "original" because of the "positive" implied by use of the word "original"...my opinion...i mean,to describe a coin as "original" with no mention of the fact that it also looks like it was scrubbed on a sidewalk is improper use of the term and a seller who uses this term in such an obviously indiscriminate way loses me with whatever credibility he might otherwise have..."original" is a term that should not be used indiscriminately when describing coins that are for sale,in my opinion...
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Overland Trail Collection Showcase
Dahlonega Type Set-2008 PCGS Best Exhibited Set
<< <i>Any addition, including toning, makes the coin less than "original" This is not to say that some toning is not attractive, it is not original. >>
I don't really subscribe to this. I think of the term "original" as indicating the surfaces have not been altered by human intervention since the coin was minted.
A couple days before this thread was born I started this auction and used "Original" in the title. I link to it here not to spam my auction, but to use the coin as an example. I used the term as a positive. To me, as a collector of classic commems, I think of the term as a positive description. Yes, it can be applied to horribly ugly coins, but any term, monster, rainbow, etc. etc. can too.
So is this coin ugly? I certainly don't think so. But I know for a fact it wouldn't appeal to a lot of people:
"Original"
To speak to the original question of the thread though, when I chose the word "original" to describe this commemorative I wasn't thinking in terms of trying to disguise an ugly coin under some kind of meaningless buzz word. Original has positive connotations to me.
Clankeye