What does "Original Skin" on a coin mean to you?
SanctionII
Posts: 12,888 ✭✭✭✭✭
I was looking at an 1895 Coronet double eagle yesterday, ignored the dings, hits and marks [probably it would grade MS62 or 63] and focused on the undisturbed portion of the coin, both fields and devices.
The undisturbed surfaces were very appealing. The texture on both the fields and the devices was the same. Both were textured with a very, very fine granular appearance. Very frothy in appearance with the light reflecting off of the surfaces in a way that makes the coin look very appealing [if only the coin did not have dings, hits and marks].
Other uncirculated coins, both circulation strikes of CLT, proofs of CLT, SMS coins, NCLT bullion coins and NCLT commemoratives all have one or more surface characteristics/looks which could be considered "original".
To me, different types of original skin can make a coin appealing (i.e. the 1895 double eagle; an MS early Lincoln; a 1950's DCAM proof) or can make a coin unappealing (i.e. a 1965 SMS quarter that looks like it was made with a overused, worn out die). Original skin, to me, can also be untoned or toned [NT not AT], though I concede logic of the argument that even NT toning changes the coin and precludes it from being totally original. To me, original skin can also suffer from some dings, marks or hits, as long as these items do not dominate the coin and eliminatelot out so much of the original surfaces that on looking at the coin your initial reaction is negative.
So what does "Original Skin" on a coin mean to you?
The undisturbed surfaces were very appealing. The texture on both the fields and the devices was the same. Both were textured with a very, very fine granular appearance. Very frothy in appearance with the light reflecting off of the surfaces in a way that makes the coin look very appealing [if only the coin did not have dings, hits and marks].
Other uncirculated coins, both circulation strikes of CLT, proofs of CLT, SMS coins, NCLT bullion coins and NCLT commemoratives all have one or more surface characteristics/looks which could be considered "original".
To me, different types of original skin can make a coin appealing (i.e. the 1895 double eagle; an MS early Lincoln; a 1950's DCAM proof) or can make a coin unappealing (i.e. a 1965 SMS quarter that looks like it was made with a overused, worn out die). Original skin, to me, can also be untoned or toned [NT not AT], though I concede logic of the argument that even NT toning changes the coin and precludes it from being totally original. To me, original skin can also suffer from some dings, marks or hits, as long as these items do not dominate the coin and eliminatelot out so much of the original surfaces that on looking at the coin your initial reaction is negative.
So what does "Original Skin" on a coin mean to you?
0
Comments
<< <i>No cleaning of any kind. It does not mean that the coin has good eye-appeal. >>
i agree.
or it went through the normal circulation pattern for the coin of its
age and does not appear to be messed with after the fact. it is amazing
how dirty people's hands used to be 150 year ago. Once the coin
became collectible some time later depending on the metal it should
have followed a pattern. Silver gets darker, gold is covered in a patina, copper browns, etc...
such a simplistic answer but one could think about this for weeks and
write a post that not everyone will agree with. suprise, suprise
<< <i>No cleaning of any kind. It does not mean that the coin has good eye-appeal. >>
Yup. Some of the ugliest coins are 100% original.
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