Such a historically cool piece ruined. Not by the original pin, but by removing the pin and dipping it. By doing this, you have removed the original importance of the piece. Yes, a key date is an important collectible numismatically, but by doing what was done to the coin, you successfully removed all of the history it was involved in it and now it is just a low grade key date coin, with a coin doctors work written all over it, hardly a treasure I can appreciate. What I find gut wrenching is that someone would dessicrate the historical value of a coin to make it a market acceptable coin, instead of the historical coin broach that it was. Now, to me, it is neither acceptable, or historical and defaced in the name of making a profit.
poorguy - I don't understand your thinking at all. The coin was ruined back when it was used for jewelery. Now it has been restored back to a key date coin. How can you look at the before and after pics and not see how beautifully it turned out!
I believe I can understand Brandon's point of view.
The jewelry modification to the coin was part of its history during its life as a non-numismatic entity. Of course, it turned out that the modification was not simply to a better date half dollar, but was to what many collectors in the niche think of as one of the most desirable die marriages in the series. Turning the piece into jewelry likely saved the coin in a far higher level of preservation than if it had entered the normal channels of commerce, but the scarce die marriage made it a powerful temptation for numismatic manipulation. I think Brandon has an issue with the current modification driven by numismatics at the expense of preservation of the historical artifact that the coin had become. Truly, I understand Brandon's take on this and, if I had been offered the coin, I doubt highly that I would have ever had the pin and solder removed. Of course, the coin is not mine and the person who owns it can do what they see fit with the piece, which in this case appears to be having a highly skilled professional work to recreate what the coin might have looked like without its jewelry past.
I can sort of understand removing the pin and solder... but it looks like the entire coin was artificially worn down a grade or two as well to hide the work that was done. I think that ruins the coin to some degree even though it might look better to those who will never know what the coin looked like before.
<< <i>poorguy - I don't understand your thinking at all. The coin was ruined back when it was used for jewelery. Now it has been restored back to a key date coin. How can you look at the before and after pics and not see how beautifully it turned out! >>
TomB hit the nail on the head. Here was an incredibly cool and rare item that was cherished so greatly that it was worn by its owner for all to see. I do not know the history on this piece and it goes as little as someone just makimg a broach out of an unappealingly designed coin, hoping to sell it but remained in some deceased jewelery shop's inventory, unlikely, to being a family heirloom that at once, at some time, could have been a cherished memento of a loved one. Maybe this coin was given to a loved one by an ailing father, wife, mother, ect. and was broachified to keep them close to their heart and passed down through generations. I don't know. What I do know is that now, all of this coin's history has been wiped away. I like coins because you can hold one in your hand and think back through all the coin has been through, and in this case, what impact it had on the lives surrounding it. Apparently, this coin was important enough to someone that they wore it openly. Now all that is left is a doctored up reminder that this history is not as important as making it market acceptable.
I do not own the coin so its fate was not in my hands, unfortunately. I can see your frame of thought, and though I disagree that what was done was the right thing to do, I would fight to the death for you to keep the right to think how you want and do what you want with your own property.
I don't think that it would be possible to use an electrochemical process to remove the solder. Silver and copper would oxidize off before lead or tin.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
I am sure someone who knows what they are doing...as the person who repaired this coin obviously was...can coax lead solder off a silver coin without damaging it. If it had been silver solder it would be a different story. I saw the coin before and after...a supurb restoration!
Brandon, the historical aspect of this was lost a long time ago. The individual who bought the coin and had the mount removed did so with the purpose of having and keeping it in his collection, where is still resides. While I could possibly agree with you in some cases if the history or historic ownership was significant, there was no interesting historical provenance known or provided by the selling dealer to buyer and present owner to the best of my knowledge.
The present owner also had (s) no intention of deceiving or trying to make a profit by having the mount removed from the coin for those that thought this to be the case. He bought it to keep it in his collection where it resides and will for many, many years.
All of this was discussed at length and thought out. I was a part of those discussions with the owner and he made a decision that was right for him.
Before some of you go making accusations about profit/deception it might be wise to know the parties and whole story. And I will further state I am with Dimeman on this, the real crime was sodering a pin mount on the coin to begin with, not in its removal where the story has been completely lost.
While I would've been opposed in principle to the repair job (and may have said so in my earlier posts), I must say in hindsight that that is a very impressive repair job indeed.
Both Brandon and Dimeman have excellent points. I bet the decision could have been much harder for the current caretaker of this coin, if the actual history had been known and passed down with the piece.
<< <i>If that's the same coin (and I suspect it is) then I am absolutely blown away by the workmanship that was done. >>
It is the same coin, however, there are two photographers involved. One imaged the pin alone and another imaged the coin when it was returned from the restoration company. The lighting and technique were different on both shots. The person who took the restored image melded the before image with his own.
I was the one who first saw the coin in person, I then had Glenn Holsonbake view it ... Peter Shireman was there and I asked his opinion as well. When we three agreed it was a genuine coin, I called the current owner, JMW, & handed the phone over to Larry Briggs - and the two worked out their deal.
Knowing Joe as well as I do, I know his decision to buy this item was not for resale. He wanted a Micro O that would fit into his set without disrupting the look of the collection. I was privileged to have been there when JMW received the conserved coin back.
As far as a "historic piece" - I would hardly call that "historic" . It's a variety - no more - no less. By having it set into a pin mount, kept the coin from circulation, but it would have been better handled if it were tucked away in a bureau.
If someone of some importance had actually owned the pin and it was documented to have been owned and worn by some famous person, ie: Mr. Charles E. Barber, then I would see keeping it as it was found. The seller, Larry Briggs, had no such documentation, and as such, it was an act of historical conservation ( as a rare variety ) to remove it from it's soldered bounds.
JMW is an altruistic individual, and not profit driven as so many people are. He only wanted a coin to blend into his collection, not a lambasting by someone who should possibly realize he isn't the only person who has an opinion on this subject.
Life did seem simpler for a short hiatus.
Mike Hayes ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
<< <i>If that's the same coin (and I suspect it is) then I am absolutely blown away by the workmanship that was done. >>
It is the same coin, however, there are two photographers involved. One imaged the pin alone and another imaged the coin when it was returned from the restoration company. The lighting and technique were different on both shots. The person who took the restored image melded the before image with his own.
I was the one who first saw the coin in person, I then had Glenn Holsonbake view it ... Peter Shireman was there and I asked his opinion as well. When we three agreed it was a genuine coin, I called the current owner, JMW, & handed the phone over to Larry Briggs - and the two worked out their deal.
Knowing Joe as well as I do, I know his decision to buy this item was not for resale. He wanted a Micro O that would fit into his set without disrupting the look of the collection. I was privileged to have been there when JMW received the conserved coin back.
As far as a "historic piece" - I would hardly call that "historic" . It's a variety - no more - no less. By having it set into a pin mount, kept the coin from circulation, but it would have been better handled if it were tucked away in a bureau.
If someone of some importance had actually owned the pin and it was documented to have been owned and worn by some famous person, ie: Mr. Charles E. Barber, then I would see keeping it as it was found. The seller, Larry Briggs, had no such documentation, and as such, it was an act of historical conservation ( as a rare variety ) to remove it from it's soldered bounds.
JMW is an altruistic individual, and not profit driven as so many people are. He only wanted a coin to blend into his collection, not a lambasting by someone who should possibly realize he isn't the only person who has an opinion on this subject.
>>
From one of my earlier posts I guess you missed: " Which is why a historical item such as ths was, will be forgotten. Although, I respect your opinion and see your point of view. "
<< <i>
Life did seem simpler for a short hiatus. >>
The recent posts seem to be treating my posts like a buffet picking over them without taking the whole message in it's entirety. I am against any restoration that removes history from a collectible, not even just coins. Just because a quick search for documentation did not reveal anything does not negate the fact that this piece was very important to someone. Also, please note that the obvious end result before more details emerged was that removing the soldering was to make it market acceptable. It is nice the coin is in a collection and appreciated by the owner but taking away the history of the piece so it "fits in" still makes me cringe. Your hiatus jab will not change my view on this. As I said before, it is their coin and they are free to do what they want. Maybe you missed that part of two of my above posts. It matters not to me that you do not like what I said. In fact, I knew many would not. It was and still is my opinion on the subject of altering coins or any collectibles to make them more "suitable." Now, back to my simple life of appreciating things for what they are without changing them to fit my ideals.
Interesting comments on the conservation. I can say four things about this coin without question; it is the same coin before and after; there has not been a person who has seen it who does not appreciate the conservation and the valid reason to do it and, it has properly been graded and slabbed by PCGS as a problem coin and will remain in that holder.
At the end of the day, even if I could document that my grandfather gave it to my grandmother before he headed on on the whaling ship and was lost at sea, does anyone really care? Probably not.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>was it even repaired? >>
yes and I have seen the pictures, let me see if I can find them
the before and after pic >>
Here's the pic inline:
The jewelry modification to the coin was part of its history during its life as a non-numismatic entity. Of course, it turned out that the modification was not simply to a better date half dollar, but was to what many collectors in the niche think of as one of the most desirable die marriages in the series. Turning the piece into jewelry likely saved the coin in a far higher level of preservation than if it had entered the normal channels of commerce, but the scarce die marriage made it a powerful temptation for numismatic manipulation. I think Brandon has an issue with the current modification driven by numismatics at the expense of preservation of the historical artifact that the coin had become. Truly, I understand Brandon's take on this and, if I had been offered the coin, I doubt highly that I would have ever had the pin and solder removed. Of course, the coin is not mine and the person who owns it can do what they see fit with the piece, which in this case appears to be having a highly skilled professional work to recreate what the coin might have looked like without its jewelry past.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>The horror.
the shame
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
https://photos.app.goo.gl/fd7W7w5kcdor4hdr5
<< <i>poorguy - I don't understand your thinking at all. The coin was ruined back when it was used for jewelery. Now it has been restored back to a key date coin. How can you look at the before and after pics and not see how beautifully it turned out! >>
TomB hit the nail on the head. Here was an incredibly cool and rare item that was cherished so greatly that it was worn by its owner for all to see. I do not know the history on this piece and it goes as little as someone just makimg a broach out of an unappealingly designed coin, hoping to sell it but remained in some deceased jewelery shop's inventory, unlikely, to being a family heirloom that at once, at some time, could have been a cherished memento of a loved one. Maybe this coin was given to a loved one by an ailing father, wife, mother, ect. and was broachified to keep them close to their heart and passed down through generations. I don't know. What I do know is that now, all of this coin's history has been wiped away. I like coins because you can hold one in your hand and think back through all the coin has been through, and in this case, what impact it had on the lives surrounding it. Apparently, this coin was important enough to someone that they wore it openly. Now all that is left is a doctored up reminder that this history is not as important as making it market acceptable.
I do not own the coin so its fate was not in my hands, unfortunately. I can see your frame of thought, and though I disagree that what was done was the right thing to do, I would fight to the death for you to keep the right to think how you want and do what you want with your own property.
<< <i>I guess we will agree to disagree. I know if it had been a very rare dime variety I would have done the same thing in a heart beat. >>
Which is why a historical item such as ths was, will be forgotten. Although, I respect your opinion and see your point of view.
<< <i>Here's the pic inline:
Are we SURE this is the same coin?
Where are the tiny rim dings at 12:00 & 1:00? Also, the toning pattern beneath the D on the 'after' coin is distinctly different.
I'm not convinced these are the same coin.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
My Early Large Cents
<< <i>The rim bump at 1oclock appears in both pics. >>
I am referring to the rim bump above the second 'S' in STATES. I do not see it on the 'After' coin.
Also, look at the dirt at the top left corner of the shield on the 'after' coin. It is not there on the 'before' coin.
I remain highly skeptical.
The present owner also had (s) no intention of deceiving or trying to make a profit by having the mount removed from the coin for those that thought this to be the case. He bought it to keep it in his collection where it resides and will for many, many years.
All of this was discussed at length and thought out. I was a part of those discussions with the owner and he made a decision that was right for him.
Before some of you go making accusations about profit/deception it might be wise to know the parties and whole story. And I will further state I am with Dimeman on this, the real crime was sodering a pin mount on the coin to begin with, not in its removal where the story has been completely lost.
Website-Americana Rare Coin Inc
While I would've been opposed in principle to the repair job (and may have said so in my earlier posts), I must say in hindsight that that is a very impressive repair job indeed.
Both Brandon and Dimeman have excellent points. I bet the decision could have been much harder for the current caretaker of this coin, if the actual history had been known and passed down with the piece.
Rob
Successful Trades with: Coincast, MICHAELDIXON
Successful Purchases from: Manorcourtman, Meltdown
<< <i>If that's the same coin (and I suspect it is) then I am absolutely blown away by the workmanship that was done. >>
It is the same coin, however, there are two photographers involved. One imaged the pin alone and another
imaged the coin when it was returned from the restoration company. The lighting and technique were different
on both shots. The person who took the restored image melded the before image with his own.
I was the one who first saw the coin in person, I then had Glenn Holsonbake view it ... Peter Shireman was there
and I asked his opinion as well. When we three agreed it was a genuine coin, I called the current owner, JMW, &
handed the phone over to Larry Briggs - and the two worked out their deal.
Knowing Joe as well as I do, I know his decision to buy this item was not for resale. He wanted a Micro O that would
fit into his set without disrupting the look of the collection. I was privileged to have been there when JMW received the
conserved coin back.
As far as a "historic piece" - I would hardly call that "historic" . It's a variety - no more - no less. By having it set into
a pin mount, kept the coin from circulation, but it would have been better handled if it were tucked away in a bureau.
If someone of some importance had actually owned the pin and it was documented to have been owned and worn
by some famous person, ie: Mr. Charles E. Barber, then I would see keeping it as it was found. The seller, Larry Briggs,
had no such documentation, and as such, it was an act of historical conservation ( as a rare variety ) to remove it from
it's soldered bounds.
JMW is an altruistic individual, and not profit driven as so many people are. He only wanted a coin to blend into his collection,
not a lambasting by someone who should possibly realize he isn't the only person who has an opinion on this subject.
Life did seem simpler for a short hiatus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
<< <i>
<< <i>If that's the same coin (and I suspect it is) then I am absolutely blown away by the workmanship that was done. >>
It is the same coin, however, there are two photographers involved. One imaged the pin alone and another
imaged the coin when it was returned from the restoration company. The lighting and technique were different
on both shots. The person who took the restored image melded the before image with his own.
I was the one who first saw the coin in person, I then had Glenn Holsonbake view it ... Peter Shireman was there
and I asked his opinion as well. When we three agreed it was a genuine coin, I called the current owner, JMW, &
handed the phone over to Larry Briggs - and the two worked out their deal.
Knowing Joe as well as I do, I know his decision to buy this item was not for resale. He wanted a Micro O that would
fit into his set without disrupting the look of the collection. I was privileged to have been there when JMW received the
conserved coin back.
As far as a "historic piece" - I would hardly call that "historic" . It's a variety - no more - no less. By having it set into
a pin mount, kept the coin from circulation, but it would have been better handled if it were tucked away in a bureau.
If someone of some importance had actually owned the pin and it was documented to have been owned and worn
by some famous person, ie: Mr. Charles E. Barber, then I would see keeping it as it was found. The seller, Larry Briggs,
had no such documentation, and as such, it was an act of historical conservation ( as a rare variety ) to remove it from
it's soldered bounds.
JMW is an altruistic individual, and not profit driven as so many people are. He only wanted a coin to blend into his collection,
not a lambasting by someone who should possibly realize he isn't the only person who has an opinion on this subject.
>>
From one of my earlier posts I guess you missed: " Which is why a historical item such as ths was, will be forgotten. Although, I respect your opinion and see your point of view. "
<< <i>
Life did seem simpler for a short hiatus. >>
The recent posts seem to be treating my posts like a buffet picking over them without taking the whole message in it's entirety. I am against any restoration that removes history from a collectible, not even just coins. Just because a quick search for documentation did not reveal anything does not negate the fact that this piece was very important to someone. Also, please note that the obvious end result before more details emerged was that removing the soldering was to make it market acceptable. It is nice the coin is in a collection and appreciated by the owner but taking away the history of the piece so it "fits in" still makes me cringe. Your hiatus jab will not change my view on this. As I said before, it is their coin and they are free to do what they want. Maybe you missed that part of two of my above posts. It matters not to me that you do not like what I said. In fact, I knew many would not. It was and still is my opinion on the subject of altering coins or any collectibles to make them more "suitable." Now, back to my simple life of appreciating things for what they are without changing them to fit my ideals.
<< <i>
The recent posts seem to be treating my posts like a buffet picking over them without taking the whole message in it's entirety. >>
welcome back to the Forum
<< <i>
<< <i>
The recent posts seem to be treating my posts like a buffet picking over them without taking the whole message in it's entirety. >>
welcome back to the Forum
Thank you. I am aware I probably did not need to include that in my post. In any rebuttal here, it is expected.
At the end of the day, even if I could document that my grandfather gave it to my grandmother before he headed on on the whaling ship and was lost at sea, does anyone really care? Probably not.