Well, I appreciate that. I was just in the mood to throw a coin or two out there for public enjoyment. It sure does make me wonder what an original 1916 looked like coming off the presses in those years. I've owned a few "Red" 1916s, and one looked great, but some of them were worked over, IMHO. Too brassy and unnaturally 'new' looking. That is in no way a slight on Reds, as some of them are breathtaking in their beauty, and the details they show are hard to replicate. And a RB or BN coins can be worked over as well as a red. To see Stewart's 'Reds' in Baltimore was an experience of a lifetime. Nothing but 'original' red there, for sure.
But on this coin, take some of the silver-green tint off of this coin's patina, and I suspect it may be what the original surfaces might have looked like. But we may never know. But most important, it gives me a kick looking at it. Irrespective of what the plastic may say, not bad for a 'Brown" coin, at any rate. This one would fit into Stewart's 'colorless' coin catagory, if we had it for MPLs. I'd prefer that the catagory be called 'toned' instead of colorless. Matter of opinion.....
Duane
Posts: 645
Comments
But on this coin, take some of the silver-green tint off of this coin's patina, and I suspect it may be what the original surfaces might have looked like. But we may never know. But most important, it gives me a kick looking at it. Irrespective of what the plastic may say, not bad for a 'Brown" coin, at any rate. This one would fit into Stewart's 'colorless' coin catagory, if we had it for MPLs. I'd prefer that the catagory be called 'toned' instead of colorless. Matter of opinion.....
Duane
It's so nice to see rims
Amazing?!
Mark
Mark's Mattes
Mark's Cameo SMS Set
Mark's Non-Cameo SMS Set