Options
My response to Analyst from the Doug Winter Originality Thread - Just to Beat the Horse Some More
MidLifeCrisis
Posts: 10,519 ✭✭✭✭✭
In the other thread, forum member Analyst responded to some of my comments about originality. Here's an excerpt:
________________________________________________________________________________________
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.>>
Analyst << 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. >>
Analyst << 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 << 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.>>
Analyst << 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. >>
Analyst << 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. >>
________________________________________________________________________________________
And here's my admittedly long-winded response:
I will readily concede that most of the Clapp-Eliasberg coins were probably original…and still are. But I doubt that all of the coins from the Clapp-Eliasberg collections were original at the time of acquisition. I never said they were or were not; I simply asked the question. Regardless, my earlier post to Realone was intended to point out the assumptions I believed he was making and to raise the questions for further consideration. Since you (Analyst) have responded for him, I’m happy to continue this discussion.
As for whether or not dipping and conserving coins was or was not an accepted practice in those days, or any of my other earlier comments, since I wasn’t around then, I can only go by what I read and what I’ve been told. So here are a few items that may serve to illustrate why I have these beliefs:
The Conservation of Coins: A Buyer’s Guide produced as a “direct result of Summit 2000, a precedent-setting conference to examine crucial issues facing dealers and collectors, conducted in December 2000” and organized by the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG) and the Industry Council for Tangible Assets (ICTA), a copy of the document can be found here contained the following comments:
<< <i>When coin collecting first achieved widespread popularity in the United States during the 1850s, many budding numismatists obtained their specimens from banks, bullion brokers, toll keepers and others who were likely to encounter large numbers of coins in the normal course of business. As is true of most beginning collectors, their first impulse was to render their coins bright and shiny through harsh cleaning. Many of the surviving United States coins made before about 1840 have been cleaned at some time in an attempt to make them look new, much of this activity having occurred during the latter half of the nineteenth century. This is particularly true of gold and silver pieces, somewhat less so for copper specimens.
Coins that exhibited normal tarnish were oftentimes dipped into potassium cyanide to strip away their patina and leave them bright. Even the United States Mint’s own curators would periodically spruce up that institution’s collection with a rinsing in cyanide, a risky business given this substance’s highly toxic nature. In fact, the poisonous compound is known to have taken the life of at least one prominent numismatist who, while engrossed in his cleaning endeavors, mistook the deadly chemical for a nearby glass of ginger ale. Fortunately, the use of cyanide to clean coins was abandoned decades ago, and most of the pieces so treated have naturally retoned to some degree.
It seems that numismatics is nearly the only field in which the “cleaning” of objects is still perceived as taboo. Collectors are told repeatedly by columnists and other well meaning individuals in the hobby to never clean their coins. This advice is offered as a means of protecting coins solely from clumsy, unskilled attempts at cleaning, but it has left a lingering impression that any kind of restorative work is strictly forbidden. This stands in stark contrast to nearly all other fields of collectibles. For example, the restoration and conservation of art works is performed routinely. Indeed, to not undertake this work is viewed by the art community as negligence. Among conservators of antique furniture, it is not at all unusual for a piece to be completely disassembled, stripped of its varnish and then refinished in its entirety. As long as this work is done with respect to the original materials and to the appearance of the object before it deteriorated, the collecting and museum community view such work as not only natural but quite desirable. >>
The Expert’s Guide to Collecting and Investing in Rare Coins, by Q. David Bowers, included the following snippets:
<< <i>Beginning in the late 19th century a passion arose for brilliant Proofs. When a Proof became toned through natural processes, most collectors and dealers brightened them by rubbing with silver polish (as the curator of the Mint Collection had done several times by the early 1900s), or by dipping in potassium cyanide…or by using some other kind of cleaning agent.
- For decades, BU (for Brilliant Uncirculated) was a very common term in auction catalogs and dealer advertisements. Coins with natural toning were nearly always dipped to make them brilliant and thus salable.
- In the April 1939 issue of The Numismatist, ANA president J. Henri Ripstra offered this unfortunate advice:
There is no use of coin collectors having tarnished silver coins in their collection any longer, as they can safely remove the tarnish discoloration from an Uncirculated Proof coin by using the following instructions without any possible danger of injuring the coin whatsoever…
- Today, the vast majority of Proof coins from the 19th century show hairlines and evidence of cleaning, as do many Uncirculated pieces.
- The obvious way to restore toned coins to desirable and valuable brilliance is to clean them. This is the advice given from almost day one in the hobby.
- In 1861, a book by William C. Prime (Coins, Medals, and Seals, Ancient and Modern) was…the first in America to discuss coin handling, storage, and cleaning in detail, including this: Clean your coins very carefully. For brass coins use ammonia two parts, prepared chalk one part, by weight….Clean silver coins with soap and water and a soft brush…Clean copper coins with soap and water, then polish them with powdered soapstone on flannel.
- Dipping silver coins in acid…remained a common practice for many decades afterward. >>
Not sure if all this proves anything. But it sure gives me the impression that dipping and cleaning coins has been part of the hobby for a long, long time.
(Edited for minor style corrections and to fix the link.)
________________________________________________________________________________________
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.>>
Analyst << 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. >>
Analyst << 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 << 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.>>
Analyst << 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. >>
Analyst << 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. >>
________________________________________________________________________________________
And here's my admittedly long-winded response:
I will readily concede that most of the Clapp-Eliasberg coins were probably original…and still are. But I doubt that all of the coins from the Clapp-Eliasberg collections were original at the time of acquisition. I never said they were or were not; I simply asked the question. Regardless, my earlier post to Realone was intended to point out the assumptions I believed he was making and to raise the questions for further consideration. Since you (Analyst) have responded for him, I’m happy to continue this discussion.
As for whether or not dipping and conserving coins was or was not an accepted practice in those days, or any of my other earlier comments, since I wasn’t around then, I can only go by what I read and what I’ve been told. So here are a few items that may serve to illustrate why I have these beliefs:
The Conservation of Coins: A Buyer’s Guide produced as a “direct result of Summit 2000, a precedent-setting conference to examine crucial issues facing dealers and collectors, conducted in December 2000” and organized by the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG) and the Industry Council for Tangible Assets (ICTA), a copy of the document can be found here contained the following comments:
<< <i>When coin collecting first achieved widespread popularity in the United States during the 1850s, many budding numismatists obtained their specimens from banks, bullion brokers, toll keepers and others who were likely to encounter large numbers of coins in the normal course of business. As is true of most beginning collectors, their first impulse was to render their coins bright and shiny through harsh cleaning. Many of the surviving United States coins made before about 1840 have been cleaned at some time in an attempt to make them look new, much of this activity having occurred during the latter half of the nineteenth century. This is particularly true of gold and silver pieces, somewhat less so for copper specimens.
Coins that exhibited normal tarnish were oftentimes dipped into potassium cyanide to strip away their patina and leave them bright. Even the United States Mint’s own curators would periodically spruce up that institution’s collection with a rinsing in cyanide, a risky business given this substance’s highly toxic nature. In fact, the poisonous compound is known to have taken the life of at least one prominent numismatist who, while engrossed in his cleaning endeavors, mistook the deadly chemical for a nearby glass of ginger ale. Fortunately, the use of cyanide to clean coins was abandoned decades ago, and most of the pieces so treated have naturally retoned to some degree.
It seems that numismatics is nearly the only field in which the “cleaning” of objects is still perceived as taboo. Collectors are told repeatedly by columnists and other well meaning individuals in the hobby to never clean their coins. This advice is offered as a means of protecting coins solely from clumsy, unskilled attempts at cleaning, but it has left a lingering impression that any kind of restorative work is strictly forbidden. This stands in stark contrast to nearly all other fields of collectibles. For example, the restoration and conservation of art works is performed routinely. Indeed, to not undertake this work is viewed by the art community as negligence. Among conservators of antique furniture, it is not at all unusual for a piece to be completely disassembled, stripped of its varnish and then refinished in its entirety. As long as this work is done with respect to the original materials and to the appearance of the object before it deteriorated, the collecting and museum community view such work as not only natural but quite desirable. >>
The Expert’s Guide to Collecting and Investing in Rare Coins, by Q. David Bowers, included the following snippets:
<< <i>Beginning in the late 19th century a passion arose for brilliant Proofs. When a Proof became toned through natural processes, most collectors and dealers brightened them by rubbing with silver polish (as the curator of the Mint Collection had done several times by the early 1900s), or by dipping in potassium cyanide…or by using some other kind of cleaning agent.
- For decades, BU (for Brilliant Uncirculated) was a very common term in auction catalogs and dealer advertisements. Coins with natural toning were nearly always dipped to make them brilliant and thus salable.
- In the April 1939 issue of The Numismatist, ANA president J. Henri Ripstra offered this unfortunate advice:
There is no use of coin collectors having tarnished silver coins in their collection any longer, as they can safely remove the tarnish discoloration from an Uncirculated Proof coin by using the following instructions without any possible danger of injuring the coin whatsoever…
- Today, the vast majority of Proof coins from the 19th century show hairlines and evidence of cleaning, as do many Uncirculated pieces.
- The obvious way to restore toned coins to desirable and valuable brilliance is to clean them. This is the advice given from almost day one in the hobby.
- In 1861, a book by William C. Prime (Coins, Medals, and Seals, Ancient and Modern) was…the first in America to discuss coin handling, storage, and cleaning in detail, including this: Clean your coins very carefully. For brass coins use ammonia two parts, prepared chalk one part, by weight….Clean silver coins with soap and water and a soft brush…Clean copper coins with soap and water, then polish them with powdered soapstone on flannel.
- Dipping silver coins in acid…remained a common practice for many decades afterward. >>
Not sure if all this proves anything. But it sure gives me the impression that dipping and cleaning coins has been part of the hobby for a long, long time.
(Edited for minor style corrections and to fix the link.)
0
Comments
My Oberwise Boards from the 1930s describe how to clean with an eraser to restore the brightness before returning them back to the company for profit!!!!!
Drunner
(edited for grammar)
<< <i>Why continue the discussion in a new thread, instead of replying in the original one?
Well...I didn't want my response to get lost in a thread that was already several pages long.
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>Why continue the discussion in a new thread, instead of replying in the original one?
Why ask me about how I chose to continue the discussion, instead of offering your own thoughts on the topic of the discussion?
The factors that would then come into play as to acceptability are as follows:
1. How often was a coin cleaned
2. How severely was the coin cleaned
3. How long ago was the last cleaning
4. Has the coin re toned in a pleasing manner
If the above 4 elements come together, in an admirable manner,
then you would end up with a coin that would have all of the beneficial
attributes of an otherwise original coin.
Camelot
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Thanks.
EAC 6024
<< <i>
<< <i>Why continue the discussion in a new thread, instead of replying in the original one?
Well...I didn't want my response to get lost in a thread that was already several pages long.
MLC---Great post. It is obvious you took some time and effort to prepare it and I agree that it would be lost in a multi-page thread.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>I appreciate your work, MLC. I find it funny when people say coins are 100% original. No matter the look of the coin, it seems to me ruling out a dipping in all but the most airtight of provenances is a big assumption, and one I'm not willing to make. >>
I agree about the folly (in the vast majority of cases) in proclaiming coins to be 100% original. It comes down to making educated guesses, based on the appearance of the coins, along with whatever knowledge we have regarding their provenance, owners, storage methods, etc.
For example, when coins are acquired directly from the mint, maintained in a single collection, appear to be original and are accompanied by tissue paper and/or envelopes and/or packaging from the time of issue, I like their chances. But in most cases, we do not have the luxury of making our guesses based upon such evidence.
<< <i>We have to accept what was done in the past, preserve as we know how to now, and live to enjoy the hobby, with the emphasis on "enjoy". >>
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I, too, am happy to continue the discussion. I did not respond earlier because I was working on my two columns relating to the PCGS SecurePlus program. Part 1 should be posted in a matter of hours. Please read it. Part 2 will be more meaningful to those who are already familiar with the PCGS SecurePlus program. Both parts are aimed at a wide audience.
MidLifeCrisis <<As for whether or not dipping and conserving coins was or was not an accepted practice in those days, or any of my other earlier comments, since I wasn’t around then, I can only go by what I read and what I’ve been told. So here are a few items that may serve to illustrate why I have these beliefs>>
Curiously, you did not address any of the points that I made in my three part series on natural toning, which were itemized in my post in another thread that you cited in the OP to this thread.
1) We cannot address all pertinent issues in one thread. So, let us put aside the notion of whether it can be determined if a coin as ever been dipped in the past. I emphasize, as I usually do, coins with natural toning over surfaces that are mostly to fully original. It just does not make sense to debate here whether a coin is 90% original, 98% original or 100% original. To avoid a discussion that relies heavily on both philosophy and chemistry, it is best to refer to coins with natural toning and mostly original surfaces, at least for present purposes.
2) I absolutely maintain that a large majority of sophisticated collectors from the 1870s to the present have always favored coins with natural toning over mostly to fully original surfaces (or natural brilliance). Then or now, few people would debate whether a coin is 98% original or 100% original. A coin that is rinsed with tap water or has elements from air pollution on its surfaces that are reacting with its natural alloy may be said to be not 100% original. A coin that is mostly to fully original can be termed ‘original’ in the sense that RealOne fairly employed the term original in the thread on premiums for Eliasberg coins.
When we talk about coins with natural toning and mostly original surfaces from the Eliasberg, Garrett, Norweb, Pittman and Emory-Nichols collections, I hope that most readers have some understanding of the characteristics that we are discussing. Consider that a large number of coins from the just-mentioned collections have been definitively traced to major collections that were auctioned between 1890 and 1920.
3) Let us consider the “Conservation of Coins” document. MidLifeCrisis, you are citing a publication that lists no human authors and includes no citations of references. Moreover, you are not revealing the context in which this document was published. When coins found in the shipwreck of the S. S. Central America were conserved, there was an outcry in the coin related media. Similarly, the conservation practices employed by NGC/NCS were subject to criticism. The conservators had a motive to justify the use of chemical solutions that did more to each coin than did a standard acidic dip.
Others probably went along with this document as it does clearly distinguish removing contaminants like PVC and dipping from coin doctoring. The definition of coin doctoring therein, which I just read the first time, is quite logical and sensible, and similar to my recently formulated definition.
Much of the text in this document seems aimed at proving that dipping is not doctoring, which is fair enough. As most of those involved in the production of this document were focused upon justifying the use of acetone, dipping and removing stuff that adhered to coins found in shipwrecks, few (if anyone) thought much about the historical paragraphs that you pulled.
Not long before this document was published, numerous collectors strongly argued that the SS Central America coins were being harmed by the conservation process and many questioned whether such conservation was ethical. The instincts of the collectors who loudly complained were correct. It is true, however, that some extensive conservation was required for the coins to be identified. Many SS Central America coins were recovered with stuff adhering to them and often the numerals of a coin’s date and/or its mintmark (if any) were not visible.
In order for most of the coins found in the wreck of the SS Central America to be collectible, these had to be conserved. While sophisticated experts are in agreement that the conservation was harmful, it is clear that the benefits outweighed the harm done. The coins found, many of which are rare, needed to be identified and studied. Please read the sections in my articles where I point out that, on rare occasions, the benefits of dipping outweigh the harm done.
Likewise, in a recent piece, I discuss the fact that work done on coins found in archaeological excavations is usually not doctoring. A good example of doctoring is when a doctor deliberately harms a 64 grade coin for the purpose of attempting to mislead experts into thinking that it grades 66.
Debates about conservation raise the issue as to whether some of the coins found in the S.S. Central America should have received the high grades that they did receive. As the grading services have graded obviously dipped coins as MS-66 or -67, should the chemical solutions employed in the conservation of SS Central America coins be judged equivalent to dipping? Without knowing the precise nature of the solutions employed, and the methods used, I will not answer this question now. It is important to mention it now, as it directly relates to the purpose of the document that you are citing, which is contemporary. There is no historical documentation.
In any event, the reality is that dipped coins in general and conserved coins from the S. S. Central America are accepted in the marketplace. The knowledgeable collectors who collect these are very much aware of what they are collecting.
When I say that a large majority of sophisticated collectors favor coins with natural toning over mostly to fully original surfaces, I acknowledge that some favor not so natural coins. There will never be unanimous agreement among sophisticated collectors regarding central issues. Some focus upon coins that are historically important, regardless of originality or naturalness.
<< When coin collecting first achieved widespread popularity in the United States during the 1850s, many budding numismatists obtained their specimens from banks, bullion brokers, toll keepers and others who were likely to encounter large numbers of coins in the normal course of business.>>
Where is the evidence that indicates that this is true? For starters, there were very, very few people seriously collecting coins in the 1850s. Two of them, Joseph Mickley and Matthew Stickney, owned many coins that had never been dipped or cleaned, at least not markedly. Moreover, Proof coins from the 1840s survive that show no evidence of ever having been significantly dipped or substantively cleaned. Also, by the early 1860s, a large number of coin auctions were conducted in Boston, New York and Philadelphia. Many collectors, or their respective dealers, bought coins in these auctions. Other than to point out that some people acquired coins from sources that handled large numbers of coins, the above statement does not mean anything.
<< As is true of most beginning collectors, their first impulse was to render their coins bright and shiny through harsh cleaning. Many of the surviving United States coins made before about 1840 have been cleaned at some time in an attempt to make them look new, much of this activity having occurred during the latter half of the nineteenth century. This is particularly true of gold and silver pieces, somewhat less so for copper specimens.>>
This statement is very misleading. A true aspect is that it was then beginners who aimed to artificially brighten coins. It is, or at least should be, implied that intermediate and advanced collectors were against artificial brightening. The second sentence above is partially true. Many pre-1840 coins have been cleaned, but the term ‘cleaned’ refers to a variety of activities, some of which are much more harmful than others. Because this was done by “beginning collectors” does not suggest that it was an accepted practice by knowledgeable collectors. Because a cleaned coin is less desirable than a choice coin that has never been cleaned does not mean that a cleaned coin is not desirable. The positive and negative aspects of a coin are taken into consideration when a coin is evaluated, in the 19th century and in the present.
The last clause is ridiculous; it is very unlikely that “much of this activity occurred in the latter half of the nineteenth century.” The second half of the 19th century was characterized by large numbers of coin auctions conducted by sophisticated firms with sophisticated collectors and dealers in attendance. Many of the coins that are traced to the great collections that were formed during this period are mostly to fully original with natural toning. This fact coupled with the literature of the time suggests that a majority of the great collectors (or their dealer-advisors) of the late 19th century were evaluating coins with criteria that are very similar to what sophisticated collectors employ now. Indeed, many of their coins grade from 66 to 68 AND have natural toning with apparently original surfaces. The last statement is wrong also, as copper coins have always been ‘tampered with’ to a greater extent than gold coins, in both the 19th and 20th centuries, and in the present.
<<Coins that exhibited normal tarnish were oftentimes dipped into potassium cyanide to strip away their patina and leave them bright. Even the United States Mint’s own curators would periodically spruce up that institution’s collection with a rinsing in cyanide,… >>
Cyanide solutions were most often used with copper coins, not gold or silver. This anonymous author wrongly said in the previous cited paragraph that gold and silver were chemically treated in general more so than copper.
For coins of the same die variety, with roughly the same degree of sharpness, the copper coins that were relatively original were worth more at auction than those that were treated. Indeed, many of the high grade early copper coins that survive in the present have been traced to 19th century collections and/or auctions. The relative values of the same coins are known, then and now.
As for the next point above, it is true that many of the coins in the National Numismatic Collection, which is now in the Smithsonian, were seriously harmed by harsh ‘cleaning’ practices. It is not known when all these incidents took place or who was responsible. Damage could have been by visiting scholars, by substitute curators when the primary curators were ‘out of town’ or by many others who had access to the coins. We will never know. It is likely that such treatments of coins were regarded as harmful at all times by sophisticated numismatists. The perpetrators were likely to have been misguided amateurs who honestly thought they were accomplishing something great. Besides, the curators of coin collections are sometimes historians who know little about coin grading and values of coin collectors.
The use of a strong cyanide solution on gold and silver coins was never an accepted practice among the majority of sophisticated collectors and honest, knowledgeable dealers. Like coin doctoring now, there were many people in the mainstream who are involved, but it was not an accepted practice. As for weak solutions that may have contained some cyanide, this topic then is much like dipping is now; a majority of sophisticated collectors are strongly opposed to dipping in most instances, but there are a few sophisticated collectors and many beginners who cheerfully demand dipped coins.
A major difference is that, in the second half of the 20th century, there was a growing movement to market coins to people who were not knowledgeable and not really interested in coins. Much dipping occurred in the second half of the 20th century for the purpose of marketing coins to people who knew little or nothing about coins.
As for your quotes that are selected from one of QDB’s many books, if these are fair (and I am not assuming they are), then these are largely wrong and/or very misleading. I will address them later.
The Basis for Collecting Naturally Toned Coins, Part 1
The Basis for Collecting Naturally Toned Coins, Part 2
The Basis for Collecting Naturally Toned Coins, Part 3
PCGS Message Board Thread about Collecting Naturally Toned Coins Articles
Defining Coin Doctoring and Dipping, Additions to the PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors – 09/08/10
<< <i>Let's see...I put in a little effort to compose a detailed thread citing recognized experts to respond informatively for the benefit of other forum members - encouraging thoughtful debate about an important topic in our hobby - and most of the responses are, well, discouraging.
Thanks. >>
"Pearls before swine" ....
Your commitment to factual research and willingness to share it have been a gift to many here.
"Beginners",
"Intermediate" or "Advanced",
"Sophisticated"
Really? As if he was there?, and those classifications were in existence at the time?
Sorry, but that's being RIDICULOUS.
Perhaps a perusal of those 19th century auction catalogues (and periodicals) that he mentions would be enlightening. The dealers of the day did suggest that the tarnish could easily be cleaned off (especially proof sets), and then some (like Frossard) even offered the formula to do so.
I thought about responding to Analyst's latest post...but I think I'll just move on.
Each of you have your own opinions about originality. I just encourage you to continue to study coins, determine the "look" that you like in your area of interest, and stick with that as you build your collection.
I do think more should be written about what indicators to look for that tell you a coin is not original. Maybe that will be a future discussion that builds on information that is out there as well as contrubutions by the resident experts on this forum.
The survival of so many thousands of coins with natural toning over mostly to fully original surfaces, suggest that collectors in the 19th century had little desire for artificially brightened coins. Moreover, many of the coins from the great collections of the second half of the 19th century survive now and many do not show any noticeable evidence of ever having been artificially brightened. I am not arguing that we can be 100% certain that all such coins were never artificially brightened; it is clear, though, that many were not blatantly brightened in the way that many coins were moderately to heavily dipped from the 1950s to the 1970s to be marketed to people who knew very little about coins. I honestly believe that Ricko’s statement above is clearly false.
Also, Ricko and a writer in upstate NY are the only two seasoned numismatists, of which I am aware, who refer to natural toning as “tarnish.” I admire the courage of people who take an unpopular stand, but it is not sensible to represent the viewpoint of a very small minority as if it the view of a majority. On this topic, it never was.
CoinGuy1 <<… when coins are acquired directly from the mint, maintained in a single collection, appear to be original and are accompanied by tissue paper and/or envelopes and/or packaging from the time of issue, I like their chances. But in most cases, we do not have the luxury of making our guesses based upon such evidence.>>
Good point, CoinGuy1, there are a significant number of cases where original packaging does survive and the natural toning on the accompanying coins has been fairly matched to the packaging. In the mid 1990s, Stack’s auctioned a phenomenal collection of mid 19th century to early 20th century Proof Sets. The consignment included original ‘tissue’ paper that was used by the U.S. Mint to package Proof coins in the late 19th century. Further, Walter Breen, has written about Proof coins that he examined that were accompanied by such ‘tissue paper’ and other original packaging. Additionally, in more than a few circumstances, toning from velvet and/or tabs in the 19th century cases that housed Proof sets is apparent, especially when the cases survive along with the coins. I have seen several such cases and accompanying coins. If it were really true, which it certainly is not, that most 19th century collectors favored brightened coins, then so many 19th century Proof coins with first toning would not have survived. In the future, I will write about specific examples.
QDB(according to MidLifeCrisis, possibly taken out of context)<< << Beginning in the late 19th century a passion arose for brilliant Proofs. When a Proof became toned through natural processes, most collectors and dealers brightened them by rubbing with silver polish (as the curator of the Mint Collection had done several times by the early 1900s), or by dipping in potassium cyanide…or by using some other kind of cleaning agent.>>
An abundance of evidence indicates that this statement is false. Yes, there are some 19th century Proofs that have been ‘rubbed with silver polish,’ but, fortunately, a microscopic percentage. I have seen many of the Proofs from the 1830s and 1840s that survive. There are some that have such serious problems that these do not merit numerical grades. Fortunately, the ones with serious problems of any kind constitute a small percentage.
A large percentage of such early Proofs fairly grade from 61 to 64, and show no evidence of ever having been rubbed with silver polish or treated with cyanide. Moreover, for Proofs from the 1860s to the 1890s, a vast majority have only minor problems. Most grade in the 63 to 65 range; many grade from 66 to 68. The PCGS Population report provides further evidence that QDB’s above statement is very much wrong. While the PCGS makes mistakes, it would be very unusual for the PCGS to grade a Proof that has been ‘rubbed with silver polish’ as Proof-63 or higher. Indeed, it is unlikely that such a coin would receive a numerical grade at all.
In relation to this false statement that MidLifeCrisis is citing, see my statement above in response to CoinGuy1’s point. The existence of original ‘tissue paper’ and/or contemporary cases with a substantial number of 19th century Proofs has provided evidence regarding the appearance of first toning on Proofs from the 1860 to 1915 era. We know for certain that many survived with first toning. Plus, the evidence that the Cleaney, Stickney, and Earle collections contained Proofs with natural toning, and no evidence of a substantial cleaning, provides additional evidence that this statement is wrong and that collectors of that time period collected Proofs with original brilliance and/or natural toning. There is no evidence that the great collectors of the mid to late 19th century preferred artificially brightened coins and there is plenty of evidence that they preferred coins with original brilliance and/or natural toning.
As for hairlines on Proof coins, this is not due to a ‘cleaning’ in the sense that silver polish, dipping, or the use of various solvents would constitute a cleaning. Hairlines typically indicate a light wiping or other mishandling that fall under a quite different definition of the term ‘cleaning.’ A coin could be wiped to remove saliva, dust, flecks of paper, etc. The surfaces of a Proof coin are more sensitive than the surfaces of a business strike. Some collectors did not realize how easily hairlines could come about.
FirstMint, in the mid to late 19th century, there were a lot of people collecting coins and quite a few tremendous coin collections were formed. It is clear that, during this period, there were collectors and dealers with different levels of knowledge and different levels of collections or inventories. This is a logical point. Why would you think that beginners, intermediate and advanced levels exist only in the present and not in the past? In the late 19th century and early 20th century, people were buying coins at auction for amounts, which were considered then to be a lot of money (in terms of the incomes of most people). Look at the prices realized in the Stickney sale and compare the amounts to many annual incomes of the time period.
As for the distinction between ‘advanced’ and ‘sophisticated,’ the level of understanding that an individual has about coins is different from the advancement of his collection. Someone who is not all that knowledgeable could assemble a great collection with the advice of a sophisticated dealer. George Earle had many coins that grade from 65 to 68 today (or would have before some were dipped or doctored over the last fifty years). I do not know whether Earle had the ability to evaluate coins himself or he relied upon an expert dealer, or whether there is some other explanation for the coins of tremendous quality in his collection. The George Earle collection was auctioned by the firm of Henry Chapman in 1912.
FirstMint <<The dealers of the day did suggest that the tarnish could easily be cleaned off (especially proof sets), and then some (like Frossard) even offered the formula to do so.>>
This is a very misleading half-truth. I stand by my claim that that most of the great collections formed during the mid to late 19th century contained MANY coins that were never substantively cleaned and never dipped in an acid solution, and other coins that were only lightly dipped. Hairlines on Proofs often came from a very light wiping or accidental mishandling. In an era before electric vacuum cleaners were used, there was likely to be much dust, by current standards, in residences, offices and bank vaults. Wiping off some dust or foreign matter with a cloth is much different from the kinds of coin modification to which MidLifeCrisis referred to in the OP.
Ed Frossard was often sarcastic, hostile, and admittedly obnoxious, and also frequently attempted to be funny. My recollection is that he had a negative attitude towards ‘cleaned’ coins. Other points to keep in mind are that Frossard did not handle many (if any) of the great collections that were sold in the late 19th century and he was obviously very jealous of the dealers who did. Though Frossard was a good writer, he may not have been one of the most talented at evaluating the condition of coins.
Besides, if Frossard did use the term “tarnish” in the way that FirstMint said he did, Frossard may have been referring to coins that toned dark brown or black, or to coins to which foreign matter adhered. Though I am generally opposed to dipping, there are some cases in which the benefits of dipping outweigh the harm done. (Please read my articles and columns.) In the second half of the 19th century, and in the first part of the 21st century, I really believe that many knowledgeable numismatists took the same approach to dipping. For example, if a coin is covered with thick black matter, it probably makes sense to dip it or ‘conserve it’ in some way.
The Basis for Collecting Naturally Toned Coins, Part 1
The Basis for Collecting Naturally Toned Coins, Part 2
The Basis for Collecting Naturally Toned Coins, Part 3
PCGS Message Board Thread about Collecting Naturally Toned Coins Articles
Defining Coin Doctoring and Dipping, Additions to the PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors – 09/08/10
Analyst, you may have misinterpreted my statement. It was not intended to mean that the coins were necessarily cleaned to achieve that state. What I intended was that people desired the bright, mint state as issued. Cheers, RickO
I will add in a personal theory. Toned coins gained widespread appeal when REDBOOK switched to color illustrations and featured toned examples.
<< <i>This is an interesting, and somewhat uncomprehendable thread.
I will add in a personal theory. Toned coins gained widespread appeal when REDBOOK switched to color illustrations and featured toned examples. >>
It may help you to read this thread first.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson