Options
Per Doug Winter, “Originality.” It’s one of the most overused terms in all of numismatics." Pos
Goldbully
Posts: 16,866 ✭✭✭✭✭
“Originality.” It’s one of the most overused terms in all of numismatics. And it’s one of the most misunderstood as well. Given the choice,
I believe that most people would rather own an “original” coin instead of one that has clearly had its appearance changed in recent years.
Doug Winter
DW Link
My contribution......bought raw from Liz at JJ Teaparty.
I believe that most people would rather own an “original” coin instead of one that has clearly had its appearance changed in recent years.
Doug Winter
DW Link
My contribution......bought raw from Liz at JJ Teaparty.
0
Comments
<< <i>“Originality.” It’s one of the most overused terms in all of numismatics. >>
It's also one of the most overrated terms in all of numismatics. Not every coin that is original is attractive or desirable.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
If you have a hard time with "originality", find a dealer you trust.
<< <i>
<< <i>“Originality.” It’s one of the most overused terms in all of numismatics. >>
It's also one of the most overrated terms in all of numismatics. Not every coin that is original is attractive or desirable. >>
Very true but its still an important quality
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
<< <i>Here's a favorite of mine...
I like it!
<< <i>Nice, Bully! Good bit of red in it for a Bn designation. Good date too. >>
Thanks my dog friend.....oh, and please choose a title soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
If I posted pics of all the coins in my collection, I'm sure some folks would think a few are not original.
DW stated in his article "...I do think you can get a good idea if a coin is original or not, provided that the quality of the image is as good as the ones on my website or on a few other dealer and auction websites."
However, I think originality is very hard to depict with images on a computer screen. Too many variables involved. Images can give you an idea, but you must see the coin in hand and know what to look for.
Also, generally and obviously, the older the coin - the less likely it is to be original. So if I posted a crusty, dirty coin from, say, 1652, it may look original, it may actually be original, but many would assume that it is not simply because logic dictates that it has probably been cleaned or dipped at some point in 360 or so years.
DW's article is fine for what it is, but what about silver and copper pieces from different time periods? Originality looks different on different types of coins from different eras.
(Edited for clarity.)
<< <i>There are a few coins posted in this thread that, in my opinion, are not original.
If I posted pics of all the coins in my collection, I'm sure some folks would think a few are not original.
DW stated in his article "...I do think you can get a good idea if a coin is original or not, provided that the quality of the image is as good as the ones on my website or on a few other dealer and auction websites."
However, I think originality is very hard to depict with images on a computer screen. Too many variables involved. Images can give you an idea, but you must see the coin in hand and know what to look for.
Also, generally and obviously, the older the coin - the less likely it is to be original. So if I posted a crusty, dirty coin from, say, 1652, it may look original, it may actually be original, but many would assume that it is not simply because logic dictates that it has probably been cleaned or dipped at some point in 360 or so years.
DW's article is fine for what it is, but what about silver and copper pieces from different time periods? Originality looks different on different types of coins from different eras.
(Edited for clarity.) >>
None of us can ever know for certain that any coin dated before about 1930 is original. Of course, if you are a 90 year old collector and you've had a collection of newly minted coins that you got from circulation when you were 10 years old, then yes, I may take your word and trust your pictures that your coins are original.
Certain originality in this hobby is a desired, but rarely achievable goal. Just like most everything else, it's an opinion based more on a lack of indicators that show a coin has been cleaned, dipped, or otherwise messed with in some way. But an old cleaning on a coin that has retoned and is now eye appealing and "crusty" can be very deceiving.
(Edited, again, for clarity.)
<< <i>A couple of other thoughts:
None of us can ever know for certain that any coin dated before about 1930 is original. Of course, if you are a 90 year old collector and you've had a collection of newly minted coins that you got from circulation when you were 10 years old, then yes, I may take your word and trust your pictures that your coins are original.
Certain originality in this hobby is a desired, but rarely achievable goal. Just like most everything else, it's an opinion based more on a lack of indicators that show a coin has been cleaned, dipped, or otherwise messed with in some way. But an old cleaning on a coin that has retoned and is now eye appealing and "crusty" can be very deceiving.
(Edited, again, for clarity.) >>
You make some good points.
How about acquiring coins that "appear" to be original? Perhaps that's the best we can do.
(posted immediately after ryk's coin
In all of these "post a crusty/original coin" threads, my agreement with the respondents ranges from about 50-75%. In this thread, it is closer to 75%, IMO. It's the nature of the beast.
The other point is that originality should be judged as a continuum, not necessarily an absolute. DW often expresses it to me as a percentage. That is, "Such-and-such a coin is 80% original."
<< <i>How about acquiring coins that "appear" to be original? Perhaps that's the best we can do. >>
Yes, I think that is the best that we can do...and I think it's a worthy endeavor.
I knew it would happen.
AB
<< <i><< How about acquiring coins that "appear" to be original? Perhaps that's the best we can do. >>
Yes, I think that is the best that we can do...and I think it's a worthy endeavor. >>
I agree with this statement also, as well as with perryhall's point, not all 'original' coins look great. An original coin that was carefully stored for many decades, like some of those shown here, look great. Others turn black with tarnish, green with PVC, or corroded from moisture. Large cents that receive an occasional light brushing with Care or Blue Ribbon may not be original, but the careful conservation has kept many of them looking wonderful for our and future generations to enjoy, IMO.
Original coins have a look about them which is almost unmistakably recognizable to the knowledgeable collector.
Certain originality in this hobby is a desired, but rarely achievable goal. Just like most everything else, it's an opinion based more on a lack of indicators that show a coin has been cleaned, dipped, or otherwise messed with in some way. But an old cleaning on a coin that has retoned and is now eye appealing and "crusty" can be very deceiving.
"Eye appealing" is not the same as "original" as has been pointed out by another poster.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
According to articles on PCGS.com and Coincollector.org, the Clapp Collection had been built first by J.M. Clapp from the 1880s through his death in 1906, and then his son John H. Clapp from 1906 on. The Clapp Collection was not only nearly complete, it contained coins of extraordinary quality, including spectacular quality coins that J.M. Clapp had acquired directly from each of the Mints in the year of issue from 1892 to 1906. Louis Eliasberg added the Clapp Collection to his, then expanded it and added the great ultra rarities. When Eliasberg bought the Clapp Collection in 1942, the Clapp collection was considered virtually complete.
So...
Did either J.M. Clapp or his son John dip, clean or otherwise conserve their coins? (I believe this was a common, accepted practice in those days.)
You might say "Why would anyone dip a coin that came directly from the mint?" Well, do collectors nowadays dip modern coins? Even coins that come in mint sets?
What about those coins that were not acquired directly from the mint?
As I noted in a previous post, I don't believe we can know for certain that an 18th, 19th, or early 20th century coin is original - even if it came from the Clapp collection, the Eliasberg collection, or any other famous, historical collector. I've seen some cleaned coins that have retoned very nicely and very deceptively.
I do believe it's ok to accept this and to simply try to obtain coins that appear original and lack any indicators otherwise.
DD
<< <i>As original as I can identify from the 18th century. However, as others have pointed out, who really knows what any particular custodian did with this coin over the last 200 plus years?
DD >>
DonDebbie, wow on that 1795 dollar!!!
But just as amazing.....Average Posts Per Day: 0.01 ....22 posts since 2004!!!!
DD
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Shown is a page from a set of circulated Walkers I have been working on since I was 18 years old. Back then ( 1967 or so) the only place to buy coins around here was at the local coin club monthly meeting and coin show. There was also an older gentleman that ran a coin shop in the back of his wife's cosmetic shop. If cleaned coins were all we could get then so be it. We took what was available. As you can see in the picture some of the coins appear original and others obviously cleaned. Then it wasn't a big deal to my regret now.
I have picked up the 1921 and 23-S coins since this picture was taken and now only lack one coin finishing the set.
Ron
I strongly agree
MidLifeCrisis <<… generally and obviously, the older the coin - the less likely it is to be original. So if I posted a crusty, dirty coin from, say, 1652, it may look original, it may actually be original, but many would assume that it is not simply because logic dictates that it has probably been cleaned or dipped at some point in 360 or so years.>>
Well, in terms of the advancement of American society, the situation in 1652 is much different from that of 1793. Logic does NOT dictate that naturally toned coins with seemingly original underlying surfaces, minted since 1793, have probably been substantively cleaned or dipped.
Before coins were mass marketed, to some extent in the 1950s, but mostly from the 1970s onward, there was little incentive for people to artificially brighten rare coins. Furthermore, over the last 150 years, many collectors of coins were also collectors of a variety of antique items. Old AND artificially bright items have always been frowned upon by most sophisticated collectors. Additionally, in the 19th century, U.S. coin collectors were very concerned about hairlines from cleaning, though they used different terms to refer to such hairlines.
MidLifeCrisis <<Originality looks different on different types of coins from different eras.>>
There is no doubt that this point is true and should be emphasized. Even the natural toning found on Mercs is much different from the natural toning found on Barber Dimes.
RealOne << Knowing what we do about the toning process and the properties of wood and felt and paper on the surfaces of the coins and the fact that the resulting toning is typically pleasant coupled with the the fact that both numismatists were incredibly knowledgeable collectors lends itself to the outcome of a most likely gorgeously toned silver coins and one can see this when viewing most of the EliasbergClapp Collection, and the proof is that most of that collection had a very similar and dramatic look about them and the uniformity of the collection proves my point. >>
Though I would have formulated a slightly different though very similar point, I agree with RealOne here. The circumstantial evidence that both Clapps, father and son, were knowledgeable and sophisticated is strong.
MidLifeCrisis << Did either J.M. Clapp or his son John dip, clean or otherwise conserve their coins? I believe this was a common, accepted practice in those days.>>
We can tell, almost for certain, that the Clapps did not do so. There are experts that have greater analytical expertise in this regard than MidLifeCrisis realizes. I mention them in some of my articles. Among others, Charles Browne, Joe O’Connor and Jim McGuigan all have an incredible ability to determine whether a silver coin has ever been dipped. Of course, no one can be 100% accurate in such determinations.
The evidence that almost all the Clapp-Eliasberg coins are (or were up to 1982) original is exceptionally strong. Moreover, dipping and conserving coins was NOT an accepted practice “in those days.” As I argue in my three part series on natural toning, most sophisticated collectors have always preferred coins that are naturally toned. From the evidence that is available, it can and should be theorized that the great collections that were sold during the period from 1890 to 1915 tended to contain many U.S. coins that were naturally toned AND would grade from 65 to 68 today. Indeed, numerous coins pedigreed to these collections have been so graded.
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 1
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 2
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 3
PCGS Message Board Thread about Collecting Naturally Toned Coins Articles
And this Mint State, Brown 1857 large cent is also original with a tiny bit of red showing on the reverse.