Does Original really exist or is it a misnomer for what we perceive something should look like that

BiddlesBank

.
Just curious.

Cladiator

lol why do you put the "." as your first line everytime? I've been wanting to ask for a while now

BiddlesBank

<< <i>lol why do you put the "." as your first line everytime? I've been wanting to ask for a while now >>



It's crow bait. But I should add, if it is distracting you from the question I will quit doing it.

ChuckC

In my mind, original refers to the "style at the time." If you are referring to the condition of a coin having "original surfaces" then I would say it depends on preservation. For example, an 1881-S Morgan with blast white surfaces doesn't shock me b/c it was probably deeply stored in mint bags or rolls for years and years.

cladking

Many "original" coins are "original" for the third or fourth time.

We really should consider originality as an appearance rather than a condition.

There are a few coins that appear or seem to be actually "original" but this, too, can be imparted with effort.

Pistareen

<< <i>Many "original" coins are "original" for the third or fourth time. >>




<< <i>We really should consider originality as an appearance rather than a condition. >>



Dead on. Dead on. Dead on.

There is a reason I never call a coin original in a description. If the thing screams originality, I may say it has an "original appearance" or "the look of strong originality." But originality is an appearance, not a condition.

The rare book world has a term for originality that I've always loved and occasionally used: unsophisticated. If a book is found in the barn, with no rebinding or trimming or efforts to make it look prettier, it is deemed "unsophisticated." I'd rather call an original coin "unsophisticated" if what I'm trying to say is that it looks untampered with.

Zoins

<< <i>Many "original" coins are "original" for the third or fourth time. >>



Excellent!

DNADave

The obverse of this coin is arguabley not original.

The reverse though. Thats original

Pentimento

Wait, hold on. Why is a "." at the start of your message crow bait? I must not know what crowbait means. Please explain.

Longacre

<< <i>

<< <i>Many "original" coins are "original" for the third or fourth time. >>




<< <i>We really should consider originality as an appearance rather than a condition. >>



Dead on. Dead on. Dead on.

There is a reason I never call a coin original in a description. If the thing screams originality, I may say it has an "original appearance" or "the look of strong originality." But originality is an appearance, not a condition.

The rare book world has a term for originality that I've always loved and occasionally used: unsophisticated. If a book is found in the barn, with no rebinding or trimming or efforts to make it look prettier, it is deemed "unsophisticated." I'd rather call an original coin "unsophisticated" if what I'm trying to say is that it looks untampered with. >>




I dare you to start using EAC style grading for all of Stack's coins, and start throwing around the term "unsophisticated" to describe auction lots. Pretty soon you will be looking for another job!

Cladiator

<< <i>When a coin is cleaned or doctored, it no longer has the magical ability to take me on a mental journey to its time of issue. Instead, all I get is a vision of some jerk abusing the coin in his basement laboratory. >>




ps. BB the "." doesn't bother me, just curious

MrEureka

Many "original" coins are "original" for the third or fourth time.

Nonsense. I can only imagine what you think when you see the bride in her third white wedding dress.

Wolf359

Great thread. I know I value the coins I perceive as original more in collection than a silent net graded cleaned one (although I believe this to be a market necessity to do this).

Zoins

<< <i>Great thread. I know I value the coins I perceive as original more in collection than a silent net graded cleaned one (although I believe this to be a market necessity to do this). >>

It's not a market necessity but it's good for profit and marketing Why do you think net graded problem coins are a "necessity" for "the market"?

BlindedByEgo

At what point is retoning sufficiently heavy to cover up minor hairlines from a wiping? Or major ones from a harsh cleaning?

At what point are hairlines heavy enogh to appear through any toning, no matter how heavy?

What if a coin were wiped by the first owner and then unmolested for the next 200 years? Is "contemporary" cleaning and retoning more acceptable?

I like this discussion, but it sure does generate a lot more questions than it answers.

jmski52

All of my Plats have original surfaces.

On reflection, I wonder if the only way you would know what the original surface of a 200 year old coin looked like, is if you were there when it came off the press.

With the subtle differences in alloys and changes striking equipment throughout the years, I would speculate that coin appearances when newly-struck have changed from decade to decade.

As an example - I remember what a roll of BU 1963 Lincolns looked like in 1963, and I haven't seen a roll look like that since.

Thinking about toners, why does it seem that the mid to late 1950's produced some of the best toners? Is it a real phenomenon, and how did it occur?

PhillyJoe

Maybe we've come a long way, but didn't the die hard collectors 50-75 years ago keep a supply of shellac, cleaning cloths and acid-based/pvc storage products to preserve the original look of the coins? It's amazing that any coins survive with their original surfaces.

Joe

Baley

there is no one kind of "original" or what a 200 year old coin "should" look like..

if a bust dollar were stored in a jar of argon since the day it was minted, it would be original and bright white

if it were stored in a paper envelope in a factory town, it would be solid black but still original if no one messed with it

of course there's a continuum between, and add in circulation variables

the vast majority of old coins have been modified to make them look "better"

mozin

I try not to buy AT Busties, and you may recall, I now only buy encapsulated coins. My only concern is buying coins is that I like the way they look. I pay a certain amount for quickly dipped coins that still have strong luster for the grade. I pay a much higher amount for beautifully toned Busties, often 50% more for the pretty colors.

Any coin 200 years old I would expect to have gone through some tough times. When a MS Bustie is found with no signs of being banged around by other coins, and no signs of human "improving", it should command a significant premium for the grade. I would give up a bit of technical grade for an overall cleaner looking coin.

bluelobster

<< <i>Many "original" coins are "original" for the third or fourth time.

We really should consider originality as an appearance rather than a condition.

There are a few coins that appear or seem to be actually "original" but this, too, can be imparted with effort. >>




As the other poster said dead on.

I know there are people on here with more experience than I, but I am learning a lot and have worked a with a knowledgable dealer for a while and after looking at a lot of old coins PCGS, NGC what ever..... IMHO, people kid themselves into thinking coins haven't been cleaned or dipped or altered in someway when they are over 100 years old. many on here will scoff at a bright coin in MS or Proof and really fall in love with crust or skin and there IS something to be said about that BUT a white or untoned coin WILL NOT hide strong cleaning and everything is there to be seen if it's been dipped poorly or too much that will also be self eveident(I do firmly believe most old white coins have been dipped at least midly) IF it's toned crusty or has some thik skin..let's be honest it's MUCH harder to tell what the coin has been through.

Pesonally, I like pretty original toning(yeah who really knows?) and I like white pristine But it really is hard to judge the true originality of many coins without actually having the history of the coin.From what I know now I certainly don't think Crust,Dirt(y)and orToning) is any guarantee of originality. although it does have strong merit.

BiddlesBank

<< <i> ps. BB the "." doesn't bother me, just curious >>



Hey Cladiator

“Just curious” is a term used to say it’s your call. In this instance I asked a framed question asking personal opinions on what Original meant to them on a 200 year old coin.

It was not a rhetorical question where there is a strongly implied answer. It just calls into question what does the term Original mean on a 200 year old coin. As you can see by the responses there is no clear cut consensus as to what constitutes an original coin.

As always I always appreciate your quick and cheerful responses.

BB

JRocco

There is some real good stuff going on here.
You see and hear the word original thrown about so much...also like the word crusty, that shows that different people OBVIOUSLY have different opinions as to what the term means.
Can a coin be original more than once???-of course not if you use the word correctly.
Can a coin look original more than once----of course it can.
Very subjective.
I agree that the word original is most often used, correctly or incorrectly, to describe the coins appearance not condition.
I think that most original silver coins from 200 years ago would look like crap if left to be. Now if the coin has been held/touched/fondled/protected/stored/slabbed etc etc- than that is a whole new ballgame.

For me---I like coins to look unboinked......not altered intentionally, nor do I like my coins so original that they are black and/or corroded.

Great thread...

Unknown

This content has been removed.

JRocco

It is a shame that the original pics don't look to be in this older thread any longer. THIS thread showed a coin that may have been the "Real Deal" when it came to an original bust coin...real original skin.
Did anyone save these pics by any chance?

slumlord98

I've posted these so often that people are probably tired of seeing them, but I believe them to be 100% original and unboinked with. These were purchased from a probate sale many years ago by a former BHNC member and have spent most of their existence together. Despite having been together, the center coin (w/no rev. image) is darker with a different look, likely the result of surface contaminants or contaminants in the silver. I have finally decided to sell them after tormenting Coinlt. for a couple years.

JRocco

Some fine looking grey dirt there Slumlord....

BiddlesBank

I am entitled to one bumb before the Portland Oregon Show to view all the nice shiny srubbed bust half dollars.

>>



BB