Eliasberg Barber 25c conserved? Then more than doubles in price!
ohbaby
Posts: 768
After and Before
After coin is lot 6709 in current Heritage sale. Before is only previous sale via Heritage in NGC slab. There was NOTHING wrong with this coin, except looking original, before conservation.
After coin is lot 6709 in current Heritage sale. Before is only previous sale via Heritage in NGC slab. There was NOTHING wrong with this coin, except looking original, before conservation.
0
Comments
I've heard that the tarnish (toning) actually hurts a coin, and should be removed. How much truth is there to that assertion?
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
Les
<< <i>Did the dipping increase the "grade"?? >>
absolutely! at one time pcgs and ngc dipped coins for submitting dealers to up the grade. a sizable portion of the crack out game today revolves around the curating of coins.
anything that can be done to enhance the value of a coin is a positive.
I'm wondering also about the actual damage caused by tarnish or other contaminants. Is toning always bad for a coin, and therefore should be removed? Or are some types of toning bad and others OK (from a point of damage to the coin's surface)? I've dipped only a few coins, but in some cases I could see that underneath the layer of whatever it was, there was minute damage to the surface of the coin, and I was mighty glad I dipped it, because it seemed that that kind of tarnish was hurting the coin. In other cases, I couldn't notice any marks whatsoever under the toning, and the coin looked like it came right off the presses, luster and all. In those cases, I was also glad I'd dipped it. I'm still very reluctant to dip coins, however, as I want to maintain as much originality as I can to the coin.
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
i'll swim against what i expect to be the tide of "gimmeeeeee original" repsonses that'll probably flood in and say this------that coin, if it's the same in both pictures, definitely benefitted from "curation" or whatever else you choose to call it. insisting on original at the expense of beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but it's beyond me how a collector would choose the "original" state of the coin. i've maintained for quite some time now that attractively toned coins aren't the ones that are being "curated" as many think. the overwhelming majority are problematically original.
now, for the disclaimer................i don't believe the two coins are the same coin, and if they are, i don't believe it was conserved by NCS. i say that simply because of the PCGS holder the coin is in.
of course i could be wrong on all counts!!
al h.
The coin has been stripped and dipped.It shouldn't be called Eliasberg's coin because it has been altered.As a fanatical collector of Barber coinage I can tell you virtually every serious collector of Barbers that I know would not touch this coin.
Some people prefer baloon size artificial breasts.I prefer real soft tender ones.
DIPPING SUCKS !!!!!!!!!!
AND CONSERVATION IS WORSE
KEEP TONING ORIGINAL
STEWART
<< <i> Some people prefer baloon size artificial breasts.I prefer real soft tender ones. >>
You said a mouthful there Stewart.............Well maybe.
I agree with your points about the coins too
i've maintained for quite some time now that attractively toned coins aren't the ones that are being "curated" as many think. the overwhelming majority are problematically original.
Thank you, Keets.
hey Stewart
not one of your better attempts at comparative analysis. what i find ironic about the perceived original coin is that it probably isn't even original to begin with, since it exhibits what are signs of retoning from a previous poor dip. just another example of diehard purists argueing for original when most of what they see, isn't. bust half-dollars are the best example of that phenomenon that i can think of. most all the coins have been dipped at one time or another, the best coins, the ones with the prettiest tone, having been dipped or somehow cleaned many, many years ago.
IMHO, the term "original" is the most b*st*rdized word in the Numismatic field.
al h.
I also agree with STEWARTBLAYNUMIS in that the PCGS coin would not now be a desirable piece to serious hardcore Barber collectors as it has obviously been messed with and is no longer an original piece, especially since the Eliasberg pedigree gives it away as a dipped out coin.
Also unusual the the dipped out coin got an upgrade as the coin in its original state looks better, has good lustre under the color, and the few minor abrasions were not as noticable on the un-conserved coin.
dragon
you make a valid point which only confuses things for collectors----market grading. the trouble is that while many will maintain that they can tell dipped from undipped, AT from NT, etc. from etc., it's often not that simple and they really can't distinguish to the degree that they beleive they can. in my mind, that's the single best aspect of a pedigreed coin and a holdered coin-----it has some type of traceable history. and even then the picture can be muddled.
i'm just not the purist that some members are. the second coin pictured is very distracting to me. the toning which outlines the obverse details pulls my focus away from the center of the coin and causes me to mentally adjust my focus to view the entire coin. the top coin is much more aestetically pleasing to me and i can sense that when i look at it because my focus automatically relaxes to view the coin in it's entirety. taht's how i personally process and assign eye-appeal. many toned coins i see are processed in the same way, but the ones with splotchy, random toning like this coin, scattered here-and-there does absolutely nothing for me and begs for help.
again, JMHO.
al h.
<< <i>The coin has been stripped and dipped.It shouldn't be called Eliasberg's coin because it has been altered.As a fanatical collector of Barber coinage I can tell you virtually every serious collector of Barbers that I know would not touch this coin.
Some people prefer baloon size artificial breasts.I prefer real soft tender ones.
DIPPING SUCKS !!!!!!!!!!
AND CONSERVATION IS WORSE
KEEP TONING ORIGINAL
STEWART >>
Agreed from another die-hard purist.
siliconvalleycoins.com
*If this oxidation forms a stable coating on the coin that prevents further oxidation, then it makes sense to leave it alone from a scientific standpoint. However, such toning often becomes an aesthetic issue for collectors. Is it 'ugly' or 'nice' toning? I think this is where the biggest argument occurs....."purists" want such toning left alone no matter how unattractive, while "non-purists" want to make the coin fit their own definition of beautiful and therefore dip. It is near impossible to make someone change their opinions about aesthetics, so the dip/don't dip argument is here to stay.
*If the oxidation or toning is unstable or chemically active, it makes sense to conserve the coin. I suppose this could mean simply removing oxygen or the agent of corrosion, and then leave the coin in a stable, but altered state. Or, one might halt the active toning and then return the coin to an unoxidized surface. The last option would be to do nothing, which could lead to long term damage of the coin. An extreme example of this is the nickel below....the green is active corrosion that's reduced the coin to a lump.
It's difficult for me to make blanket statements about all toning being bad/good/original etc. Strictly speaking, "original" would be the bright shiny coin as it left the mint. However, Anaconda has shown us that toning can create some very beautiful coins....my only concern if I had such a coin would be that the toning didn't continue to change or damage the coin in some way.
Maybe someone with some science background can lend some insight about active and passive toning/corrosion.
hey Carl
it probably supports the suggestion that in the eyes of the grader the coin had nice eye appeal, relatively few scattered marks, strong luster and no evidence of dipping. absent the first three and with the third present, it wouldn't have graded MS66, despite the bias of the pedigree.
al h.
do you really think the original coin was original?? please don't answer yes based on the pedigree bias.
al h.
Dahlonega, perhaps you should remind the person who stored the coin in such a manner as to allow it to tone about their custodial charge. Original is shiny as it left the mint, while the toning on the surface technically is damage. The person who dipped the coin is restoring it as best they can, while allowing the toning to remain on the surface is allowing the damage to remain, or perhaps get worse. Guess you never thought of it that way huh?
the notion of the coin as a national treasure has just upped the place of my modest holdings in stature!!
al h.
K S
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
hey mgood
look at the date!!
al h.
K S
Yes it is the same coin. I am simply reading the description in the catalog and relying on Heritage information. I cannot believe a coin could be "conserved" so "well" but it is the same coin as Heritage identifies it by lot number in previous sale.
There has been NO upgrade !! Was MS66 NGC and now MS66 PCGS. Repeat no upgrade.
What really sucks is how an original coin was stripped of personality and character to now be just another shiny coin in someone's collection. YUCK! Imagine the "work" involved in getting this crossed and reslabbed. No way would I bid on such a lifeless, over dipped and shiny coin.
Now for my pet peeve!! With all that done, why didn't the perpetrator turn in the f***ing cert ! Pops are 1 higher since last trade. OK, some may assert maybe another 02-o MS66 was made? Yeah right.
I believe Sunnywood had a similar experience when some pedigreed original coins were "aborted & disfigured" then showed up in higher grade slabs with 3x the price. People who do this are not collectors nor are they interest in numismatics. The hobby is a gravy train for them. The "accomplices", NCS, NGC and PCGS will slowly destroy all original coins over time.
Whomever dipped that coin should be tried for murder.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
In contrast, the dipped coin, which clearly is the same piece based on 5 or 6 diagnostics, looks like every other dipped coin. It has no character. Careful review should easily suggest that the coin has been dipped, making it less desirable to the true aficianado than the undipped piece. That said, there is no doubt in my mind that to the vast majority of potential customers for this coin, even if it hadn't upgraded, the dipped coin would be far more preferable and therefore easier to sell.
As for the pedigree, I guess it's a policy call from PCGS in this case whether to identify the coin that way after it has been dipped. I suppose it's okay to do so as long as they are confident it is the same coin, although dipping would make it much harder to verify that in general.
As for the value premium associated with a pedigree, I certainly think there deserves to be one in most cases. There is definitely some prestige value having a coin that comes from a famous collection -- in this case one of the most famous of all time. Further, buying such a coin would appear to indicate that a presumably sophisticated collector like Eliasberg chose that particular coin versus many aternatives of the same denomination, date and mint to add to his collection. In other words, it is reasonable to presume he thought very highly of that coin, so in today's jargon it might be equivalent in value to a true PQ or * coin for the grade. However, given that the coin is now in an entirely different state then when Eliasberg owned it, the question is, should it be considered as valuable (excluding the upgade) as the original? To me, the answer depends on whether Eliasberg purchased the coin in the same state as shown above for the original coin, or whether the coin he acquired looked more like the dipped piece and toned thereafter.
Even if the latter is true, it is highly unlikely that the newly dipped coin looks anywhere near as good as the original untoned piece. After all, most dealers and sophisticated collectors can fairly easily discern the difference between that scarce original white coin and a newly dipped white coin.
It is indeed discouraging that PCGS chose to upgrade this coin. It is well known that they provide higher grades for undipped coins, for reasons that have always eluded me. That's one reason why many collectors choose to use a different grading service when it comes to seeking a grade for a beautifully colored coin. A grading company like NGC has, in contrast, cultivated a more evenhanded policy regarding toned coins, and continues to recognize their eye appeal with the newly assigned * designation. PCGS apparently has no interest in following this innovation, which, given their past attitude towards toned coins, hardly comes as a surprise.
hey classic. too bad noone can have a different opinion than you and discuss it. does this mean the thread is over and you're right??
al h.
Dip it! Then PRESERVE it. Everything in moderation.
Collect diamonds. They don't tone.
Say, how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?
last time i counted it was three!!
al h.
Neil
<< <i>Oh absolutely! It should no longer be the Eliasberg coin. Just as if Eliasberg sold his car and then some damn fool WASHED it. Originality .... GONE! NO MORE! KAPUT! FINITO! >>
That's not a good comparison. I bet many historical figures' vehicles have been washed and no one disputes the originality or the history. In fact, I know that to be true. If you inherited a vehicle from a family member, would it never be used? never washed? Would driving it or washing it eradicate the memory, the history, and usefulness of the vehicle?
Neil
topstuf, I assume you were being sarcastic and I also think your analogy is a poor one. A better analogy would be if someone bought his original unrestored car and then stripped all the paint off.
dragon
<< <i>Everyone is saying that the dipped coin is overdipped and dipped out. What proof? >>
the proof is simple - if the coin has been dipped at all, it is overdipped. this coin was in pristine condition, w/ what i consider attractive toning. the jerk-off that dipped this is a total moron, & in the infamous words of newmised, he can ki$$ my fat a$$.
this sh-- makes me SICK. & i'm even more sickened that pcgs would slab it AND slap the pedigree on there. it underscores everything that is wrong w/ collecting coins today. morons collecting PLASTIC.
FINALLY, if you MUST have a dipped version - GO BUY 1 THAT'S ALREADY DIPPED. dipped coins outnumber originals by a considerable number, so why add 1 more to the entombed population???
K S
<< <i>That's not a good comparison. I bet many historical figures' vehicles have been washed and no one disputes the originality or the history. >>
the coin HASN'T BEEN WASHED, IT'S BEEN STRIPPED.
if your car's paint was stripped off IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT CAR.
why can't you understand this???
K S
your position on collecting plastic is well stated. do you have a position on collecting plastic with a pedigree just for the sake of the pedigree??
al h.
K S
I understand that some people prefer dipped coins versus less attractive toning, I also except you have the right to do with your coins as you wish. Try to except the FACT that you are doing this with selfish intent and not considering future generations of collectors, some of whom would prefer their coins left intact even if they're not pretty to you.
I prefer my coins untampered with [when possible] and get angry every time I see a dull lifeless piece of Jewel Luster garbadge on the bourse floor!!!
Stewart, what you said speaks volumes for me!!!!!
Les
But I will defend the owner's right to do whatever he wants with his own property.
If I buy this quarter and pay for it and then bust it out and drill a hole in it and wear it on a necklace around my neck, that would be my perogative. If I want to smash it or melt it I can do that too.
Whine and moan all you want about "destroying" it, won't do any good. you want to prevent the practice, buy "original" coins and put them away, they will be that much rarer every day this goes on.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
my goal is to make aware the other side of the argument. that means i got to whine & piss & moan A LOT.
that's why when coinguy1 accuses me of doing nothing while the coin-posse beats up on coin-doctors, he's wrong. i am doing something about it. i'm educating people i know as to what dipping & plastic is really all about.
K S
dragon