There is too much emphasis on "eye appeal".
cladking
Posts: 28,702 ✭✭✭✭✭
This is not only an issue when grading it is also an issue to many individual collectors.
Most coins with great "eyeappeal" are attractive because they are well made and well preserved. It's
counter productive to also see them as having some special quality called "eye appeal". This may seem
trivial phraseology to most but it probably leads to most of the ills of coin doctoring and AT. Those with
undeveloped tastes clean coins which removes any eye appeal they might otherwise have had and
causes them to lose most of their value despite the fact that most cleaning jobs can be reversed with
little degradation to the coin.
Obviously we're all going to prefer coins that are attractive to us and what is attractive will vary from one
individual to another. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply describe a coin rather than refer to some
factor which is seen differently by different people and which usually doesn't exist as a separate thing?
Most coins with great "eyeappeal" are attractive because they are well made and well preserved. It's
counter productive to also see them as having some special quality called "eye appeal". This may seem
trivial phraseology to most but it probably leads to most of the ills of coin doctoring and AT. Those with
undeveloped tastes clean coins which removes any eye appeal they might otherwise have had and
causes them to lose most of their value despite the fact that most cleaning jobs can be reversed with
little degradation to the coin.
Obviously we're all going to prefer coins that are attractive to us and what is attractive will vary from one
individual to another. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply describe a coin rather than refer to some
factor which is seen differently by different people and which usually doesn't exist as a separate thing?
Tempus fugit.
0
Comments
However, I do not agree that too much emphasis is placed on eye appeal. All the superficial factors that I weigh before purchasing a coin (strike, wear, damage, color, originality et cetera) fall under eye appeal as a sweeping category.
When I buy a coin, I try to find a piece I will enjoy looking at.
-Amanda
I'm a YN working on a type set!
My Buffalo Nickel Website Home of the Quirky Buffaloes Collection!
Proud member of the CUFYNA
<< <i>No there isn't. Just my honest opinion. Subjective qualities like beauty can be objectified. Take for instance, beauty pagents. Just the grading of girls. >>
Please post some examples of the girls.
But I do think you are right about eye appeal leading to doctoring. An evil that comes with the territory.
J
siliconvalleycoins.com
What is the alternative to the trend toward eye-appeal? Technical grading?
I see the interest in eye-appeal as a reaction to technical grading that yielded ugly coins in TPG holders with high grades. I would rather have a lustrous, decently struck overall SLQ than an ugly one with an "FH" designation. I agree that it can get out of hand with premiums for monster-toned coins, though.
Obscurum per obscurius
Sorry, but IMHO, eye-appeal is what it's all about.
It's certainly what keeps the doctors in business.
When it comes to buying coins that you can see for yourself (which I personally think is always the best way) then eye appeal is what it's all about. After the obvious technical merits that is. It's what makes a coin unique to you and worth owning.
It is certainly true that everybody has their own opinion of what a great coin looks like and they'll adjust their purchase limits accordingly.
A personal example for me is old silver coins that were one dipped (correctly) and have since re-toned, usually around the edge. It's a look I like that not everyone would agree with having good "eye appeal".
collections: Maryland related coins & exonumia, 7070 Type set, and Video Arcade Tokens.
The Low Budget Y2K Registry Set
Perhaps you feel that way because you collect moderns. Millions/billions coming off the same assembly line all pretty much look the same.
<< <i>No there isn't. Just my honest opinion. Subjective qualities like beauty can be objectified. Take for instance, beauty pagents. Just the grading of girls. >>
But most people agree on the "grading" of women. People tend to find balance and perfection
to be attractive. We find even features to be good looking. A healthy aspect and confidence get
attention.
Simnilarly with coins we all agree on what makes them attractive. While some want a full bust and
others want a a great reverse, we tend to agree on what constitutes quality for each parameter.
So why introduce undefinable terms to separate the wheat from the chaffe?
I'm not suggesting that all coins or all women are identical. As any woman can find someone to sing
her praises so too will someone love almost any coin. Even a novice can appreciate the beauty in
nature or in coins but it can be destructive to tell a novice to seek "eye appeal". It will lead to wire
brushing and more baked goods (artificially toned coins).
Wouldn't it be more instructive and more appropriate to talk about the things which constitute "eye
appeal"?
<< <i>Cladking,
Perhaps you feel that way because you collect moderns. Millions/billions coming off the same assembly line all pretty much look the same. >>
That's the beauty of it. Usually they pretty much all look like junk.
<< <i>Wouldn't it be more instructive and more appropriate to talk about the things which constitute "eye appeal"? >>
my father in law collects coins SOLELY on the basis of eye appeal. When we discuss his criterion (as he has but one), he just says "if I like the way it looks, I buy it." He has no rhyme or reason to his collection. He has early silver, modern coins, foreign coins, gold of a few eras, whatever -- ranging from Good to Mint State and nice Proofs. The only common trait to all his coins is that he LOVES the way every one of them looks.
<< <i>-- "Sorry, but IMHO, eye-appeal is what it's all about" --
It's certainly what keeps the doctors in business. >>
There are "doctors" in business in just about every collectibles hobby. Baseball cards, comic books, etc. etc. Why is it such a surprise that coins are being messed with as well. As the 'ole saying goes, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, and fool me a third time, that would be a crying shame.
Oh one more thing... caveat emptor.
A coin without eye appeal is like a dollar bill that isn't backed by anything. Both are worthless!
$20 Saint Gaudens Registry Set
If you buy the way I do, based on the love of the look of the coin, without worrying about retail, and getting buried ('cause you are not selling later, nor thinking of it as anything other than a sunk cost) then even AT coins can be a pleasure. They are what they are. Knowing they are AT is nice... but that is part of the education. I have bought some lower grade MS63 morgans that turned out to be AT... so what. I paid $39 each and they sure are pretty! Put them in holders and enjoy them!
eye appeal is the key for me
Certainly one needs experience to get a trained eye, but it may be hard to come up with a clear and comprehensive check list. There are many factors, and one needs to know copper, silver, gold and even [gasp] clad coins to know what looks good. A beginner may think silver that was buffed on a jeweler's wheel looks peachy, but once you get to know the coins you collect you can figure out what real eye appeal is. After learning the trade, an experienced collector can learn to weed out coins that have been messed with to enhance their appearance.
Obscurum per obscurius
<< <i>Wouldn't it be more instructive and more appropriate to talk about the things which constitute "eye appeal"?
Certainly one needs experience to get a trained eye, but it may be hard to come up with a clear and comprehensive check list. There are many factors, and one needs to know copper, silver, gold and even [gasp] clad coins to know what looks good. A beginner may think silver that was buffed on a jeweler's wheel looks peachy, but once you get to know the coins you collect you can figure out what real eye appeal is. After learning the trade, an experienced collector can learn to weed out coins that have been messed with to enhance their appearance. >>
Yes. Exactly.
Except that it shouldn't be so very difficult to explain the various attributes which constitute
quality. There is the die, the strike, the planchet, and the events that occurred after the strike.
Nice fresh dies well positioned on good planchets make good coins that need to be well preserved.
Wear, if present, should be nice and even and a nice mixture of heavy friction and light rubbing.
Anything done to enhance the appearance or hide flaws is extremely bad if it can be seen. It is
critical that you find evidence of such things before you own it because you'll never like the coin if
you find it later.
There are many subtleties to each of the primary categories and it's only through experience that
one learns to appreciate them. One is wise to stick with slabbed coins when they are expensive and
of a series you don't know well, but still you need to learn what is most attractive for you to get the
most benefit from the hobby where grade is important.
What's the alternative? Just tell newbies to buy pretty coins? You can find dogs with great strikes
or almost mark free. Putting such things into words would be more instructive to everyone and
might help people learn more quickly to spot the problem coins. It might also serve to actually iden-
tify a quality that is less definable that we often see and tend to call eye appeal.
<< <i>What do you base your purchase on?
I lend a blind eye to this thread. I go by feel alone. If it feels like it might have eye appeal to me, then I must have it at a premium. But if I cannot feel that eye appeal, then hey, it must be AT!
Edited to add: So how do literally blind Collectors judge their purchases? Obviously not by eye-appeal. I bet a blind numismatist can easily tell the differnce between a copper 1982 Lincoln cent and a copper-plated zinc 1982 Lincoln cent. Certainly there are blind collectors out there! Both literally and judging by many posts on these board, also figuratively!
KC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
.....stop grading students.....It just leads to cheating....
...stop scoring football games.....it just leads to steroid use....
...stop voting in elections....it just leads to electing politicians....
Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. What turns accumulators into collectors is the desire to find the coin that is most appealing.
<< <i>We should stop searching for eye appeal....it just leads to coin doctors.....
.....stop grading students.....It just leads to cheating....
...stop scoring football games.....it just leads to steroid use....
...stop voting in elections....it just leads to electing politicians....
Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. What turns accumulators into collectors is the desire to find the coin that is most appealing. >>
Most people seem to be missing the point here. What we're doing now
is analagous to grading the student by how smart he seems, or the winner
of a football game by which team looked better or played more cohesively.
And politicians are elected by exit polling. Just as the surfaces are dumped
with the dip down the drain and the pots and pans are cleaned after a good
bake-off, we are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Part of the solution may be to simply use different phraseology to grade and
see coins. Just as a newbie learns to see the highly reflective surfaces of a
polished coins as revolting we can learn to identify those things which we do
find attractive.
Virtually everything which makes a student or a football team great can be
quantified and it is absolutely no different with coins.
The fact that there are a few coins which most experts agree have that little
something extra is wholly irrelevant to grading the bulk of the coins. And yes,
toning is a wildcard in all this since people's taste in toning is nearly as indiv-
idual as their taste in sunsets.
I'm not suggesting that you train yourself to like different coins so much as to
quit telling newbies to buy pretty coins but not define pretty is.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I agree with cladking, but again, there will be NO EYE APPEAL without those other factors weighing in.
So for those who choose subjectivity over technical merit, it's a good thing you aren't in the grading rooms.
Worn out coins get rainbow toned and rainbow toning offers mega eye appeal, but it cannot bring back the luster, strike detail or mint state grade. It can, however, hide those details.
like the blind man in the fish market !
One of the biggest shams hoisted upon this new paradigm market is that coins with obvious wear and lack of full mint luster can be mint state because they are "pretty" or have "eye appeal." You cannot have eye appeal in a Mint State coin if it's not technically mint state.
Someday those pretty "pigs in the poke" will come home to roost.
This problem is more prevalent with 18th and 19th century silver than most other coins (bust, seated). The fact that a MS63 to 65 coin can have 10-90% of its luster MISSING is a farce.
Agreed - there is too much emphasis on "eye appeal" while ignoring other techincal factors, such as, is the coin even UNC! Give me an average looking MS65 bust half that is decent in appearance but has full luster over one that is all rubbed up, with chattered fields, 90% luster, and eye popping secondary album toning. The 2nd coin is what most newbies now think "eye appealing" is all about.
roadrunner
Technicial grading still needs to be factored in to be sure, and often times in this market, the grading services do award MS grades to AU coins. The question a buyer needs to ask himself is whether that AU63 coin with killer eye appeal is worth as much as the technical MS63 with neutral or negative eye appeal.
I know many collectors that would rather have the former than the latter...especially on a common date coin.
John
siliconvalleycoins.com
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>If it is struck on a good planchet and there are no flaws, hairlines, nicks, gouges or fingerprints and it's struck with a new die, then it is going to have EYE APPEAL. It must have eye appeal, but the technical grading factors are the most important elements in grading, for without them, there will be NO EYE APPEAL.
I agree with cladking, but again, there will be NO EYE APPEAL without those other factors weighing in.
So for those who choose subjectivity over technical merit, it's a good thing you aren't in the grading rooms.
Worn out coins get rainbow toned and rainbow toning offers mega eye appeal, but it cannot bring back the luster, strike detail or mint state grade. It can, however, hide those details.
like the blind man in the fish market ! >>
Agreed ......but with a major point lacking in all respect.........Preservation.......without it those details get hidden and those wonderous factors that give it that mint state first strike quality would be lost.The goal of most coin collectors is to preserve those freshness qualities.
<< <i>Aside from the presence (or lack) of toning, I've never heard anyone articulate what affects eye appeal apart from the factors that make up a "technical" grade of an uncirculated coin: surface condition, strike, and luster. >>
Indeed. I've defined it here to the best of my ability three or four times but can't
get any responce whatsoever. This is primarily because there virtually is no such
thing as "eye-appeal" and the use of the term is doing a great disservice to new-
bies who believe they can see it and a great boost to coin doctors who know how
to provide it.
Perhaps my definitions are not comprehensive but it is everything I know and can
see on the subject.
If we talked more about condition and preservation most of what most people be-
lieve is "eye-appeal" would simply evaporate along with much of the coin doctors'
business.