What's is appealing? ugly?

Currin · July 11, 2003 8:23AM

I don’t post often on the message board, but I did find an earlier thread interesting. As some of you know, I am a type collector. I like the PCGS registry, BUT I love appealing mint white high quality coins more! Now, when I say appealing, I know what’s appealing (as with beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. I have a couple of friends that love “tone coins” more than mint white. Not me! I have “never” seen a tone coin that I liked. Also, I have never seen a mint white coin that I did not like. To me, a mint white coin with a scratch across Miss Liberty’s face is more appealing than a technical prefect tone coin. Are the white coin lovers right and the rainbow loves wrong? No... we just have different taste. I agree with some of the earlier posts, some “high quality” sets are canine-ish from my point of view. But the facts are, these are high quality coins from a technical viewpoint. By the rules of the game, technical grade is all that matters in registry world. I have been looking for several months now for a “high quality” MS67 Washington to replace my “beautiful 1939 MS66 white mint-fresh Washington”. I am limiting myself to year 51-64. Now, I too would like to think the #2 registry set would have several coins for my consideration. Although, the only one that “I Liked” is the 1962 which the bid is already > $2500. So, will I ever up grade my MS66? Maybe not, according to Mitch, a blast white coin of this type is 10 to 20 times the cost of a toned example (if you can find one). Why not pay the price you ask, well, to me a blast white MS67 is no more appealing than a blast white MS66. I think Bowers once said in one of his books, a mint state coin has no character (they are all pretty close the same). I think he’s right, but when they are as white as the day they were minted, then to me they are beautiful. (Beauty with no character, interesting) If the coin has toned over the years, then it has lost it’s beauty. But if you love the registry, then the 1/0 MS68 is what you need not matter what the coin looks are!

LincolnCentMan · July 11, 2003 8:52AM

...I have “never” seen a tone coin that I liked.

Wow, them's strong words. Have you ever seen a blast rainbow coin in person?

My wife collects "rainbow" coins. I collect untoned ones. I have a deep appriciation for both. To each their own.

David

Russ · July 11, 2003 9:23AM

<< <i>I have “never” seen a tone coin that I liked. >>

Never?

Come on, tell me you don't think that's pretty.

Or, how about this one?

Or, maybe this one?

Russ, NCNE

Currin · July 11, 2003 11:40AM

Dave, Russ, ....Thanks for the reply to the tread

I may implied in my thread that I thought tone coins were not pretty. This is not exactly the case. Russ, I agree you, the examples have pleasing colors. I have never seen an Internet graphic really do justice to a coin, so I would expect they even much more pleasing in person. I would go as far as to say that they are pretty, but that does not mean the I “like” them. There are things that I’m sure you guys find attractive that you don’t particular “like or have affection or appreciation” for. Right? That’s me with tone coins. I would like to have a MS67 Washington for my set. But your example, as pretty as it is, would not fit well in my set. It just a matter likes and dislikes. I do find white coins lot more difficult to find that tone examples. You may find these pretty tones hard to find also, I don’t know. Dave, I agree “to each their own”. I hope I did not imply anything other than that. I don’t have the appreciation for both as you. Who knows, one day I might!

Russ · July 11, 2003 12:09PM

Currin,

I understand. I also like full boat luster blazing white coins, like this Walker:

Part of my short set.

Russ, NCNE

michael · July 11, 2003 12:33PM

for me i do not like blast white dipped stripped mintstate coins............unnatural

extraordinary eye appealling thick skinned original patina white never dipped mintstate coins well that is another story

in my limited experiences in the coin game when new collectors mature over the years and refine themselves usually the dipped blast white mintstate coins get left by the wayside

sincerely michael

Currin · July 12, 2003 3:47AM

Now that the smoke has cleared a little on the toning issue, then what makes a MS67 ugly (or as one member describes "Dogs)". If it's not the color, and it can't be the technical quality because it is a MS67 after all, then what is it? Does an appealing appearance solely relies on the luster of the coin? Is the degree if luster the only factor in appearance? Any opinions?

Currin · July 12, 2003 4:03AM

Currin · July 12, 2003 4:09AM

dipped blast white mintstate coins get left by the wayside

Where can one find these blast white coins that are left on the wayside. If the poster is speaking of below MS65, I understand this comment fully. Below MS65 white coins can found easily and are a dime a dozen in some cases. What I was speaking of here are registry quality (high quality) white coins. Example, white Washington quarters 1951-1964 MS67 encapsulate by PCGS. They are not out there to be found easily. If anybody has one that he would like to “unload” before being left on the wayside, please let me know... Ric

cladking · July 12, 2003 4:52AM

Many coins will be submitted repeatedly until they get the highest possible
grade for the coin. Also collectors tend to always select the better example
when they have a choice between two coins at the same price. These fac-
tors will create a wider range of coins available and often only the lower end
pieces will be available. This is likely what is meant when someone refers to
an MS-67 collection as being poor; just that the coins are generally low end.

Whitewashqtr · July 12, 2003 10:13AM

I love white coins. But that is NOT to say that toned coins are not appealing. There are toned coins that have a nice smooth coloring to the coin, which I like. And there are coins that looked like they have been crapped on. These I think are horrendous. I have several toned coins that are just great. But the toning you find in these coins are such that you can still see the surface of the coin. When a coin is covered to the point where the true surfaces are hidden, how can that be appealing? However, toned coins seem to grade higher because of this reason. The graders cannot see the true coin underneath its toning.

For example, I bought a 1940-S MS67 toned quarter that is just great looking. But then I found a really truly great BLAST WHITE one in the same grade. It is much more vibrant and yes, it looks as if it left the mint yesterday. If I get a chance, I will post scans of both these coins and I would let you decide. I have studied both these coins at length to decide which one I will keep in my set and there is no doubt, I think the toned coin is awesome but I will take the BLAST WHITE one over it, anyday!!

I guess it is for this reason that many of the top sets do have many toned coins in them. That is not to say the coins are not eye appealing. But, in the end beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You should always buy coins because you like them, not for the grade that is stated on the slab.

But, I think people buy the grade on the coin sometimes rather than the eye appeal of the coin itself so they can better their Registry sets.

WWQ

grip · July 14, 2003 12:48AM

I use to have a spotted horse ,and a two toned poney,I sold both and bought a white stallion.The white one sold for more than both,now thats apples to apples

.Al

What's is appealing? ugly?

Comments