Why is the term "original" so important to so many collectors when it relates to a tarnish
kurtdog
Posts: 1,456
...and yet so unimportant to so many of those same collectors when it relates to a dipped coin? Have you all noticed that? You take "original" out of the description of a tarnished coin and the value of that coin just plummeted like a lead balloon. That very ill-defined term coupled with the various so-called "expert" opinions on same is indeed the security blanket that holds that value up. How is it that "original" can be so critically-important to bidders when it comes to the former and yet at one in the same time be so unimportant to so many of those very same bidders when it comes to the latter? Either one likes to collect so-called "original" coins, or one considers that vague term irrelevant. What are your thoughts on that, precisely?
0
Comments
The market accepts what the general populace approves... currently, the general populace approves of blast white coins (we refer to these coins as RickO coins) and approves of coins that have perceived original toning (we refer to these coins as coins that Anaconda hasn't touched)!
Therefore, I'm not sure I understand your point.
<< <i>Dipped coins are not original.
Therefore, I'm not sure I understand your point. >>
Nor are the vast majority of toned coins that are posted/sold as original. They are at best "original now". In other words, dipped and retoned.
To sum it up a bit more politically correct: Different strokes for different folks.
without any artificial means. Compare this to lip plumping, Botox, eye lifts,neck and
face lifts as well as liposuction and breast enlargements. To each their own I guess.
In the latter group, the entire structure of their appearance is changed and you have lost
that natural original look. Well, it is the same with a coin.
Camelot
<< <i>Dipped coins are not original.
Therefore, I'm not sure I understand your point. >>
If "original" doesn't matter when it's a dipped coin why is it the only thing that seemingly matters when it's a tarnished coin?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>If "original" doesn't matter when it's a dipped coin >>
Who said it doesn't matter?
<< <i>...and yet so unimportant to so many of those same collectors when it relates to a dipped coin? Have you all noticed that? You take "original" out of the description of a tarnished coin and the value of that coin just plummeted like a lead balloon. That very ill-defined term coupled with the various so-called "expert" opinions on same is indeed the security blanket that holds that value up. How is it that "original" can be so critically-important to bidders when it comes to the former and yet at one in the same time be so unimportant to so many of those very same bidders when it comes to the latter? Either one likes to collect so-called "original" coins, or one considers that vague term irrelevant. What are your thoughts on that, precisely? >>
When humans make coins they look like this:
When humans and God make coins they look like this:
Some of us just prefer the joint effort.
Now, to answer the question I think you are asking more precisely, there are relatively white coins that have not been dipped and are original. Just a little "tarnish" can allow you to distinguish between the two; one that's original and essentially white and the other that is totally white and obviously cleaned or dipped. No coins from the 1800s are going to be white and not dipped or cleaned.
<< <i>
<< <i>If "original" doesn't matter when it's a dipped coin >>
Who said it doesn't matter? >>
+1
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
Sorry, Adrian, there are far too many exceptions to that incorrect generalization of yours, to let it slide.
<< <i><< No coins from the 1800s are going to be white and not dipped or cleaned>>
Sorry, Adrian, there are far too many exceptions to that incorrect generalization of yours, to let it slide. >>
Agree. Best example are the many white Morgan dollars from original bags---especially the CC Morgans sold by the GSA.
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
<< <i>When humans make coins they look like this:
When humans and God make coins they look like this:
Some of us just prefer the joint effort. >>
ANACONDA, I believe you're confusing the issue. Let me see if I can't use this part of your reply to restate it in terms that might prove to be a little less confusing. Do you see that tarnished coin? Do you agree that that surface is "original?" When you dip that coin and it ends up looking something like the one above it for the dip, how can that resulting surface be said to be anything but "unoriginal?" Heck, it just removed an "original" surface! How can both those surfaces, at one in the same time, be intelligently-understood to be "original" surfaces? Or, should I rather be asking, "By what sleight-of-hand?"
PS: Sheesh!
Some probably dipped white coins that I wouldn't kick out of bed for eating crackers:
<< <i>Original white 19th century coinage does exist. Based on its history, these coins have never been dipped. Ever. >>
Pics omitted to conserve bandwidth, but, FWIW, we appear to share the same no frills concept of originality. When a coin was dipped, and, I don't care how well that may have happened, one can hardly admire the condition that coin managed to survive in. One can "admire" how well somebody messed with it, and made that condition appear. But, of course, that's just a little bit different...isn't it?