Which Connecticut do you like better? Updated

coinguy1 · February 15, 2003 3:05AM

redhott · February 15, 2003 3:15AM

The second one, because I can understand how that toning came about.

hookedoncoins · February 15, 2003 3:35AM

I like the first one better. It just has better eye appeal. I don't know what caused the toning for the first one (and do for the second one), but I don't think either are AT, so what does it matter.

-Jarrett Roberts

banknote1 · February 15, 2003 4:23AM

I am sorry but I don't like either one...

LanLord · February 15, 2003 4:34AM

I like them both for various reasons.

The first one looks like the charter oak on a very stormy day. Perhaps the day that the brits searched but couldn't find the charter they were so badly seeking.

The second one has nicer overall eye appeal to me.

mommam17 · February 15, 2003 4:49AM

I like the cheaper one. I like the perripheral color.

mbbiker · February 15, 2003 4:57AM

I don't like any of them they both have no eye appeal to me.

flaminio · February 15, 2003 4:59AM

They both suck. Ugly, disease-infested coinage. I'll take a blast white one anyday.

DHeath · February 15, 2003 5:18AM

Coin #2 for me. I think it has an interesting future, and I trust the toning. Coin one may be original, but I am not certain, nor would I likely ever be. The dark toning contrasts to much for my tastes with the brilliant background.

Baldy · February 15, 2003 5:18AM

I imagine both look better than the scans. I f i had to pick I think
I would take the bottom one.

Fred

JLW · February 15, 2003 5:38AM

I would not be looking to purchase either one due to lack of eye-appeal, but I would say I prefer the second coin as it seems to have aged "more gracefully".
Joe

pontiacinf · February 15, 2003 5:38AM

wow that first one looks exactly like the one i bought for 63 raw money and slabbed a ms65 pcgs...

i still say mine is a 66...the one youre showing appears to be a 67 lock

coinguy1 · February 15, 2003 5:43AM

Gee, so far, I'm thinking I should have made the thread title "Pick the winner in the ugly Connecticut contest"!

I will have some comments on Monday, after forum members who care to, have posted their thoughts/opinions.

DHeath · February 15, 2003 5:46AM

Lol.......did I say I really liked coin #2.

littlewicher · February 15, 2003 5:50AM

I like them both.

Coin #1 looks like a tree sitting in front of an African sunset backdrop.

Coin #2 has that dreamy, creamy luster to it.

clw54 · February 15, 2003 6:01AM

I like the reverse of the first one because it's well preserved. There's a little discoloration around the edge, but otherwise it's in remarkably original condition.

Bear · February 15, 2003 6:18AM

The best toning for a commem is either a nice light even toning ,darkening somewhat around the

peripheries or some typ of light rainbow toning as seen on Morgan Dollars. The purpose of light

toning is to bring out the beauty(if any), of the design. For the record, I do not like either coin,

and I am unable to choose between them, due to my distaste for both of them.

My personal favorate is a light even golden toning ,with a strong strike, and a deep luster

shinning thru.

BillJones · February 15, 2003 6:19AM

I'd take number 2 although I don't care for either of them. The toning patches on #1 look to be so deep that they are bordering on damage. Like some others I’ve never been a big fan of spotty toning like that, which is on #2. In their favor is that fact the area around the eagle is sooth with no big marks, which often plague this issue. Still I’d pass on these two, try to find another.

(BTW I’ve got two in stock, both PCGS MS-65. One is nice; the other is REALLY nice for the grade.)

Baley · February 15, 2003 6:29AM

the second would be my choice for fewer marks,
and since they both need a good dip, also think the second coin would come out better from that, the toning on the tree side of the first looks a little thick to dip off very will, luster might be impeded.

Singapore · February 15, 2003 6:46AM

I opened your post expecting to see a couple of historically significant, mellowed old 1787 Connecticut coppers and instead I find these -

Reminds me of the time I had an Abott-and-Constello-routine-meets-numismatics experience while lot viewing at Heritage's Dallas office. I requested to see a 1786 Vermont Landscape I knew they had in their inventory and the guy there kept asking me if I wanted the NGC or PCGS example in MS65 - I think we went back and forth 11 times before either of us knew what the heII the other was talking about.

But as long as I'm here - that first coin scares me. I agree with Bill Jones' comment - I personally wouldn't accept number 1 as a 'healthy' coin.

Clankeye · February 15, 2003 7:05AM

<< <i>The best toning for a commem is either a nice light even toning ,darkening somewhat around the..... >>

What you are talking about (and I'm sure you realize this Bear) is personal preference.

A thread like this makes me see just how out of step I seem to be as concerns certain types of toning. As in, there is no appreciation for certain types of toning that I seem to appreciate.

In person, I believe I would prefer the second coin. I like the satiny original luster, I like the crescent of toning on the obverse. Yes, it's that dreaded word "original" that seems to send up so many flags.
But, in my life outside of numismatics I gravitate to a lot of art that doesn't seem to win the popular vote either.

Singapore-- amazing how one can actually see a curled lip in the written word. I take it commemoratives aren't your cup of tea. Roll on Columbia.

Mark-- Interesting, cool pieces... thanks for the show.

Clankeye

Bear · February 15, 2003 7:12AM

Clank, we may not agree on toning qualities,

but I think that you are a MS-70 grade of person.

Clankeye · February 15, 2003 7:25AM

And I bow to you, Mr. Bear. I would love to see the pieces you picked up from Coinguy. I was (and am) very excited to hear that you were turning your attention to commems. The pieces you describe as liking--don't get me wrong--I love a lightly golden, or pastel toned commem. I like a lot of different types of toning on commems.

I would like to think that I have come by this appreciation of toning through experience and observation. The alternative is that I wouldn't know a good coin if it bit me in the arse. In the wee, dark hours of the night even the most confident, occasionally must doubt.

Thank you for the compliment, Bear. If I write another "Good Morning Class" thread, I promise I'll hook you up with Lucy again.

Clankeye

LucyBop · February 15, 2003 7:27AM

<< <i>If I write another "Good Morning Class" thread, I promise I'll hook you up with Lucy again. >>

Oooby Dooby, She's my Rock'n Roll Ruby, Good Golly Miss Molly and Be Bop A Lula!!!!!!!!

KlectorKid · February 15, 2003 7:31AM

I like #1 not much for the speck toning on #2.

Singapore · February 15, 2003 7:31AM

Clank -

Actually I used to collect them years ago and don't dislike them per se -

And I absolutely agree with you to the extent that I really prefer a nice original toned piece as opposed to one that was blasted white a week ago in someone's kitchen.

But subjectively I'd say that silver doesn't always mellow in an attractive pattern - sometimes its blotchy or otherwise not to my taste. I've seen, and owned, a few silver coins through the years that just somehow didn't age very gracefully.

The first coin may be 100% naturally toned but unfortunately (at least in my view) it looks unnatural and unattractive, almost like the burnt edge of my morning newspaper.

Higashiyama · February 15, 2003 7:34AM

These are coins that might grow on you.

However, to be conservative, could I have obverse # 2 paired with reverse # 1? The speckled toning on coin # 2 seems to impair the appearance of the smooth eagle's surfaces, whereas it goes quite well with the oak tree.

I would say that obverse # 1 almost works. I agree with prior comments that it gives the interesting appearance of the oak on a stromy day. However, definitely a coin I would want to examine in person!

09sVDB · February 15, 2003 7:55AM

Honestly, neither. I don't like toning to begin with and the one that really isn't toned is spotted.

Clankeye · February 15, 2003 8:43AM

Singapore-- I can certainly respect that.

Mark- aka- Coinguy1-- Whatever you do, DO NOT post a picture of that Cincinnati I asked about.

Clankeye

TomB · February 15, 2003 10:18AM

Within the limitations of imaging coins I will say that I think both are potentially gorgeous. Yes, I know, I agree with virtually no one here on this one. The obverse of coin one works for me as long as it is toned in deep crimson, green and burnt auburn, however, the blasty appearance of the reverse does not look as attractive since the scattered marks on the eagle stand out so well. The central portion of the obverse also looks somewhat lifeless but this might easily be from the cameral settings to capture the deep toning around the rims. It is surprising that the reverse is so blasty since this issue is known for a thicker patina, in general. Depending on how much luster there actually is on coin two it could be quite special. If it is flat then the coin has very limited eye appeal for me but if it dances in the light then this is the coin I would choose. It is very well balanced and the marks that are no doubt on it are hidden quite well by its speckled toning nature.

fcloud · February 15, 2003 10:21AM

I'd like both of them if they didn't have that toning all over them.

really the first one would be my choice of that pair.

Gerry · February 15, 2003 10:22AM

Ugh! Ugh!

Gilbert · February 15, 2003 8:10PM

To respond to your question I like the first one better; the luster is outstanding with its "storm cloud" appearance. I think the toning on it detracts from it though as it appears so heavy it obliterates the details it covers.

The "peripheral" toning on the 2nd is somewhat better because it highlights the details below it (around the date anyway) BUT the hazy mottled covering of the majority of the coin makes it undesirable for me. It also looks a little weaker in detail but doesn't seem to have the contact marks on the eagle.

Number one looks more fully struck, very lustrous, with a little contact on the reverse.

Number two looks a tad weaker overall without the contact on the reverse and also lustrous, but it seems to be accentuated by the peripheral toning.

Neither coin's toning is very attractive to me, but, between the two it would have to be #1, based on the strength of strike alone. I must admit the obverse of #2 is looking more and more lustrous each time I look at it, but, alas -- that wasn't the deciding factor for me.

BigD5 · February 15, 2003 8:45PM

If I HAD to pick one, I'd probably go with number 1. Neither one tickles me too much and I'm pretty flexible with what types of toning I find attractive. I would probably want to see them, and if they were a bargain, pricewise, I may bite, but only if I had already walked the floor and had come up empty handed. Sorry.

*Those comments are going by the scans, which may be a mistake.

RegistryCoin · February 15, 2003 9:30PM

I don't think the scans show either the best or worst elements necessary to determine the true eye appeal of the two coins.
However, there is something about the color and luster beneath both, that is capturing.

Number one, could have some vibrant toning, not perfectly balanced, but nonetheless, the greens, golds and magentas could jump out. The shape of the toning at both bottom and top of the obverse is unusual, but coincedently appealing.
The very dark color may not be brownish. It may be a nice combination of blues and reds. Rev looks like it has some hits.

Number 2 looks like it could be clean, but it's hard to tell. Tough to determine strike, as well. The, what looks like brownish speckling, may not be too bad, ie., birdsh!t. (The birds may have had just a light snack of berries.) The color of the speckling, along with the rim color, may be a very nice burgundy.

This is really a tough one, Mark. Good post.
I don't think I'd take either as my #1 Conn., but I'd enjoy both.
If I HAD to choose without seeing the coins, I'd probably go for the second coin. Tough choice for me though.

IrishMike · February 15, 2003 10:52PM

I like them both, but number one appeals much more to me. The oak looks like a portrait surrouned by the toning. Very interesting.

Gemini · February 15, 2003 10:56PM

I would chose the second coin. The obverse and reverse really compliment each other. The toning on both sides have great balance and mutual symmetry.

ccr · February 15, 2003 11:06PM

I like the bottom one. Cresent toning usually doesn`t do a thing for me.

MacCoin · February 16, 2003 12:36AM

well for me they are both kind of ugly. they look a little like the dime the dog eat. I don't think that the kind of tone I'm looking for.

cosmicdebris · February 16, 2003 1:38AM

If the second one had only the rim toning I would pick that one. I don't like all the specles. The first one does not look right. I would prefer it if the toning was more concentric than looking like low tide coming out from the top and the bottom.

rkfish · February 16, 2003 1:56AM

I would much rather have #1.....
The nice copper/gold/and burnt orange fits the "picture"
of this coin.....a big old swamp oak! Love it!
The reverse being blast white, appears to have very nice luster! Really makes the
eagle stand out IMO!

#2 doesn't do much for me.....not a speckeled toning fan.

Always interesting to "see" others opinions/taste when it comes to toning!
Thanks Mark!

Ideas on what caused the toning on #1??

mdwoods · February 16, 2003 2:11AM

Arrrrgggghhhh!! I want both of them. My favorite commemorative.

MastaHanky · February 16, 2003 2:15AM

Neither. I haven't learned to like toned commems. Make mine blast white.

(And a Connecticut is a slightly tougher issue to find blast white...at least I haven't found too many yet.)

cosmicdebris · February 16, 2003 2:22AM

I prefer this one:

Bear · February 16, 2003 2:38AM

Cosmic, my oh my, thems my kind of coins. I would buy from you pictures in a flash.I take it that your

top coin is different then the bottom coin, as the bottom one has much more luster and life to it.

It has the color, luster, strike and the LOOK of the very highest in quality and beauty.

Now back to the question at hand of the two terrible examples first listed, I would select #2.

My reasons being that it probably appears much nicer in real life and would have a less startling

differation between the ugly toning and the bright coin surface. The second coin would have the

more even and pleasing appearence.

DHeath · February 16, 2003 2:42AM

Mark,

Which one do you like better, and why?

coinkat · February 16, 2003 2:59AM

I like the second one more than the first.

cosmicdebris · February 16, 2003 3:10AM

Bear the picture I linked to is from an eBay auction that is in progress right now.

DHeath · February 16, 2003 7:20AM

........ttt

MS68 · February 16, 2003 7:38AM

I haven't found a Connecticut for my 50 piece type set yet and after looking at these two coins I can safely say that I still haven't.

ANACONDA · February 16, 2003 7:43AM

I'd go for the first one. They're both original. I like the first one because you can make out the design better. The toning on neither is thrilling to me, though.

Boy, it sure is nice to be reading and writing just about coins.

Actually the first one is kind growing on me. Dirt on the bottom, storm clouds on the top.

adrian

Which Connecticut do you like better? Updated

Comments

Leave a Comment