What 's the numismatic definition of "original"?

ER

braddick

Tampering that is undetectible.

ER

<< <i>Tampering that is undetectible. >>


Good one.

JrGMan2004

Your Sigline My Icon Those are good examples

matteproof

Hi ER. I feel that it should depend on the coin. Originality on some old classics is often viewed differently than originality on a 20th Century coin. For example, a dig or a scratch that might be forgiven on some Classics would not be forgiven on a Modern. Heavily rusted dies on a New Orleans mint strike is understandable and accepted, while it might be punished or problematic on a modern coin. matteproof

nwcs

A way of getting more money for neutral-negative oxidation on a coin.

Baley

Broadly, I think "original" means that the coin's surfaces have never been cleaned or otherwise "played with" to improve it's appearance. Naturally, this means different things for different coins, an "original" bust half in EF will look different from an "original" commem half in MS66.

I also think the term is widely misused, such that these days, it often means "dark, ugly funk" on a coin's surface, as NWCS says, the implication that that's somehow a positive attribute, because it's "original"

gemtone65

For the most part, an original coin to me indicates an undipped piece. Judging such originality is much easier on an MS coin than proof, especially if the proof isn't cameo. But, in today's market, if you can't tell the difference, and if you've seen enough coins, than it probably doesn't matter.

As an aside, many dipped white coins are more saleable and more valuable than original coins with natural brown or grey toning. It's admirable to prefer these original toned coins with earthtone colors. However, you'll be shocked at the lack of market interest in them when you go to sell.

my3cents

just finished a book on coin chemistry...

The light "colored" toning typically means the toning layer is only a micron or two thick and doesn't really injure the coin surface.

The grey/dark toning that is usually billed as "original" usually is thicker and DOES involve the coin surface. If a coin with that kind of toning is dipped, it is possible that some ugly features may be revealed.

my3cents worth...

majorbigtime

<< <i>Broadly, I think "original" means that the coin's surfaces have never been cleaned or otherwise "played with" to improve it's appearance. Naturally, this means different things for different coins, an "original" bust half in EF will look different from an "original" commem half in MS66.

I/q]

Agreed.

In two words, "unmessed with".

mr1931S

"a dig or a scratch that might be forgiven on some Classics would not be forgiven on a Modern"

This may well be the case but are you saying that a dig or a scratch on a coin would disqualify it from being considered "original" even if the coin has the right "color?"

"I think "original" means that the coin's surfaces have never been cleaned or otherwise "played with" to improve it's appearance."

I agree with this....to a point. However, I think cleaning can often, but not always, be detected. Expert "recoloring" of a coin can give the appearance that the coin is "original," or "unplayed with," when in fact, the coin has been "played with."

I once owned a Barber dime, circulated 1895 S, VF grade, that had what appeared to me to be crayon in the devices. Literally, the coin appeared to have been "played with." In my opinion, it was not a bad looking coin at all even with the crayon. The coin was "original" in color otherwise. I left it alone.

Did the crayon, probably applied by a kid who knows when, destroy the originality of my 1895 S dime? What do you all think?