Will original coins ever have their day?
291fifth
Posts: 23,898 ✭✭✭✭✭
Every day the supply of true original early US coins shrinks due to dipping, cleaning or "conserving".
Will original coins ever become popular to the point where they command premiums?
My feeling is that the collector attitude toward original coins is too much influenced by Morgan Dollar collectors, the majority of whom want "blast white" coins. In addition, many collectors don't seem to have a good idea of what original coins look like.
I do a fair amount of trading at local shows and can say without any question that the "white" coins are the easiest to sell...even when the are obviously dipped. I attribute this to a surprisingly bad "eye" for nice coins among a large segment of the collecting population. This is not a new observation. It was also true when I started collecting in the 1960's...the true age of the coin dip.
Some of the slabbing services contribute to the problem by designating "white" on their holders...the implication being that if it isn't white it is not as good. (They will probably dispute this statement but I believe it is what the "market" thinks.
Any thoughts?
Will original coins ever become popular to the point where they command premiums?
My feeling is that the collector attitude toward original coins is too much influenced by Morgan Dollar collectors, the majority of whom want "blast white" coins. In addition, many collectors don't seem to have a good idea of what original coins look like.
I do a fair amount of trading at local shows and can say without any question that the "white" coins are the easiest to sell...even when the are obviously dipped. I attribute this to a surprisingly bad "eye" for nice coins among a large segment of the collecting population. This is not a new observation. It was also true when I started collecting in the 1960's...the true age of the coin dip.
Some of the slabbing services contribute to the problem by designating "white" on their holders...the implication being that if it isn't white it is not as good. (They will probably dispute this statement but I believe it is what the "market" thinks.
Any thoughts?
All glory is fleeting.
0
Comments
Yes. It's inevitable. How and when it happens is anyone's guess.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The white-mania will no doubt subside at some point only to be replaced by toned-mania.
roadrunner
The matter isn't between dipped coins or original coins, it is for coins with great eye appeal that collectors are proud to own and enjoy looking at. In my opinion that will never change. However, with time the dipped coins will lose luster and get that washed out look as they are dipped more often. Hopefully, with our modern technologies coins can be more easily protected from damaging chemicals in the air and not have to be dipped with as much frequency.
Tyler
GSA coins have never been more popular.
GSAGUY
Appreciating original coins is an acquired taste. Sort of like enjoying anchovies, beer, sushi, etc. for the first time. White coins are easy to sell because that's what people assume all coins should look like. Personally whenever I see a coin case filled with shiny coins I just keep walking but it was not always that way.
ohbaby has hit on just about every thought I was having.
20+ years ago I would not touch a coin that had a Crusty type look. Those shiny silver looking things that looked like the money that was in the pocket to be spent was how I thought a 50+ year old Merc was suppose to look. Only a few years down the road, when some collecting maturity was in place, was the Crusty look really appreciated. Now days when a Crusty coin is found "Oh Baby" is uttered, sometimes loudly, and the best effort is put forward to acquire the coin. BTW this has only happened one time in the last couple of years at coin shows in the area around here.
A "Oh Baby" coin in my book....
Ken
1. People who want to sell coins
2. People who want to buy original looking coins
3. People who want to buy attractive coins
And attractive coins doesn't necessarily cross over 100% with originality. And the person who sells will generally do what is necessary to sell a coin. If a dealer has enough people who will pay for originality, they'll deal in original coins. If they don't, they'll have a mix to optimize their profits.
If they ever catch fire like rainbow bag toning has I'll be rich, in the meantime, I'll just collect what I like wether it has its day or not.
Les
you mean it's gonna get worse than it already is??
the trouble with this topic being discussed into the ground is that it always ends up being discussed as this VS. that. what each of us ends up preferring is what we each perceive as eye appealing. that's quite a personal thing.
my latest rant is to ask all those who like the term "original" to please tell me what they think it is? is it as the coin was minted, or is it as the coin has ended up however many years later? i think a case could be made that in a sense, a lovely toned coined isn't original while it may in fact be quite eye appealing, even to me. a brilliant coin could be considered original and have arrived at the present day as minted however many years ago. i have coins in my collection from the mid-1960's which have remained essentially unchanged in appearance over those 35++ years, so i don't quite buy into the arguement that all brilliant coins have been dipped. my position is that perhaps they were just stored properly.
with all that said, doesn't it make more sense for each of us to focus on what we perceive as being eye-appealing?? why would you let some proverbial market source dictate to you what is acceptable?? for me, there is just a bit too much presumption as to how any coin has attained it's present state of appearance. there are just too many questions about how some coins attain their color and how others retain their brilliance. reading post replies by members throughout the land reminds me that the environmental conditions our coins are kept in are very dissimilar. perhaps that single fact is more of the reason for the differing surface finishes we see in the hobby.
i've seen striking toned moderns and just as striking brilliant classics. i've seen the opposite of that. i tend to enjoy all 4 examples. i can't say if i favor one over the other, but i can say i'll be the judge, not some perceived maket. when color is in vogue and expensive, i'll buy brilliant cheaply. when brilliant rules the day, i'll buy color just as cheap.
hey, wait a minute. maybe the market does tell me what to do!!!! DOH!!!
al h.
Les
<< <i>my latest rant is to ask all those who like the term "original" to please tell me what they think it is? is it as the coin was minted, or is it as the coin has ended up >>
Hey Keets, I'll bite a little. I'm gonna say both!!! Only to add as the coin ended up without any trips to the jewel luster jar or being messed with in any way. Now I know that leaves it wide open, because then we get into "proper and improper" storage conditions. Which BTW has been beaten to a pulp as well on here.
WSM - I can't argue with you. Paper money dealers have a more accurate term that may be of use to coin collectors. They call a note that has not been cleaned, pressed or processed "unmolested".
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Ditto, ditto, ditto
For me original means a coin that in it's present state (blazing white or toned with abundant luster still intact) has never been intentionally "messed with" (dipped, ATed, frosted, whizzed, thumbed, etc.).
I know the next question is going to be "well how can you know for sure?" My answer is I may not know with absolute certainty but I've gained enough experience that in most cases I can tell with a high level of certainty whether a coin has been messed with.
furthermore, with experience, one can become able to tell the approximate degree to which a coin has been subjected to "work", whether such was expert or crude, and the extent of the damage, if any.
this becomes, in my opinion, more important the older the coin. if more time has passed since minting, more owners of the coin might have wiped, washed, or dipped their coins, particulary because in the "olden days" it was common for serious collectors to mis-store, mis-handle, and mis-takenly clean their coins.
recent choice coins have been handled carefully since minting, and any that hasn't isn't "original"
for coins of the 1850s or before, whether circulated or not, "original" means not "improved"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
of course, every day, a new collector enters the hobby and must start the learning curve, or a beginner progresses but is still far from perfect, and these will always supply a market for the bulk of coins which have, at some point in their existance, had someone look at it and say, "this would look better if I..." which comprises the vast majority of coins in the marketplace.
there is nothing wrong with owning such coins, if you know what it is you're buying.
it is when something is represented as something that it is not that the difficult lessons are learned.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
There is an automotive analogy... our British friends tend to value original paint and upholstery - even if it is not perfect or scar-free. Collectors in the US tend to want showroom-only paint and upholstery. Over time, the European value-base is slowly winning out. Ever seen an original-skinned 50s or 60s Jag? They're gorgeous, even if they don't look like they were made yesterday.
here's the first line of this thread-----Every day the supply of true original early US coins shrinks due to dipping, cleaning or "conserving". are you really of the opinion that 291fifth is speaking about brilliant coins when he uses the term "original" in that sentence?? he's clearly alluding to toned coins of one degree or another. when coins are dipped, cleaned or "conserved" it's to attain the brilliance that's been lost.
i truly believe that with the turmoil created by the current AT situation, many brilliant coins will suffer not because they are messed with, but because it's assumed that they have been messed with. both sides of the equation will suffer.i also don't believe as many coins are disappearing due to dipping, cleaning or conserving as others do. i'm of the opinion that they are hiding in longterm collections. i've said it before and i'll say it again---attractively toned coins aren't the ones that are being messed with. it's the mottled brown and gray ugly coins. the propensity of so-so toned coins i see at shows and in shops is staggering. i guess i just don't have the vision of some, that there are legions of collectors who look for coins to dip white. i do however have a vision of collectors who attempt to improve a problem coin. heck, i've improved some myself. i just try to make wise choices, not haphazard ones.
look at this gem, dipped or not?? don't be fooled by the color at the rims, it's a reflection. the coin is brilliant throughout.
al h.
original or "doctored"?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
as much as i hate to say it, virtually all Bust Half-Dollars have been dipped or otherwise cleaned at one time or another and what we are left with today have retoned. i don't necessarily see that as a good or bad thing, just a reality i have to deal with when i look at the coins.
armed with that knowledge, i'd say your pictured coin was cleaned but i don't believe it detracts from it's beauty.
al h.
Overland Trail Collection Showcase
Dahlonega Type Set-2008 PCGS Best Exhibited Set
I hate it when you see my post before I can edit the spelling.
Always looking for nice type coins
my local dealer
<< <i>Yes, original coins will have their day. And not too far off...
There is an automotive analogy... our British friends tend to value original paint and upholstery - even if it is not perfect or scar-free. Collectors in the US tend to want showroom-only paint and upholstery. Over time, the European value-base is slowly winning out. Ever seen an original-skinned 50s or 60s Jag? They're gorgeous, even if they don't look like they were made yesterday. >>
A good example! I recently attended a classic car show in Rochester, MI that included about 35 Duesenbergs. Of the 35 I believe only one was unrestored, a green 1927 model if I recall. It really stood out among all the beautiful (read "blast white") restored models. It had an appeal that the restored models lacked.
<< <i>It is amazing than the grading services will grade a nice old crusty gold coin AU55. Take that same coin and dip it and send it back nice and clean and they will grade it AU58. The difference of a few points for an early gold Charlotte or Dahlonega piece can mean thousands of dollars. Its no wonder that original crusty gold coins are dissapprearing. Untill the grading services grade the old crusty coins at the same level as the shiny dipped coins, more original coins will vanish. >>
An example of one of the MAJOR failing of so-called "market grading".
"c'mon guys, the usual inference when someone uses the term original surfaces is a coin that's toned"
Nope...when I say original I mean not messed with. If that means the coin is white (versus ATed) then that's fine with me. If that means the coin's toned (undipped) that's fine also.
My main collecting interested is classic coins. Most of these coins (that haven't been dipped) are going to have some measure of toning and since I'm looking for coins that haven't been messed with my pursuit of those coins sends the message that I prefer toned coins when in fact the message is I prefer "original" coins whether white or toned.
On the other hand I prefer my modern coins blast white, especially any coin minted within the past 25 years (arbitary) since the knowledge and climate control required to preserve them in that condition was readily available during this period of time. I don't care how "eye appealing" the monster toning may be on a 1990 Kennedy Half or SAE or Washington Quarter, it just doesn't to it for me since in my mind, given the readily available ability to preserve coins in their as minted condition, the toning is representative of mishandling.
This is all subjective preference on my part and just an expression of my own idiosyncrasies. Please don't consider it the bashing of those who like monster toned moderns. To each his own.
Rob,
This is a huge problem, as luster appears to increasingly be one of the primary drivers of the grade of the coin. However, I think that you might be underestimating the power of the dip. You might be able to stretch a 45 to a 53 or 55. In your example, the difference in price between "common date" Dahlonega half eagles in AU-55 and AU-58 is typically several thousand dollars.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>It is refreshing to see some support for original coins and even implement a means by which such coins would have a greater survival rate. I have suggested numerous times that PCGS as well as the others add a designation for Original Surfaces "O/S". I think it can and should be done without further delay. I have brought this issue to PCGS and was basically told the market does not want it. I never heard back from NGC or ANACs. I guess reasonable minds differ on the most effective ways to preserve original coins which, in the final analysis, is not getting the helping matters. >>
An "Original Surfaces" designation would be a nightmare for many coin dealers. If their customers suddenly started demanding it they would be faced with a severe supply situation. Can you imagine trying to find a Barber quarter with an "Original Surfaces" designation?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.