Options
Originality: A frank discussion of our favorite numismatic descriptor and a paradigm shift opportuni
coinlieutenant
Posts: 9,319 ✭✭✭✭✭
As a member of today's numismatic community, the word "original" is used so extensively and often that it borders on excessive. A collector would have a hard time finding any web site or ebay listing that does not extoll the virtues of a coin's originality, or a dealer's eye and preference for original coins. The numismatic use of the word itself honestly grates on me. Webster's defines original as that from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made. In numismatics, we use it instead of a more proper adjective. So many would be better. Unmolested might work, perhaps natural even, although that conjures thoughts of food labeling and we all know how subjective natural can be if one merely glances to the ingredients of a container of "natural" granola bars and wonder how "yellow dye #5" can be "natural". So for the sake of argument, let's just agree that original has its own special little appropriate meaning within numismatics. That leaves us with that little problem of overuse.
Where does the overuse come from? Is it really that all of these coins are original? Are bad people trying to deceive unknowing collectors into a poor purchase? Do people have different criteria that they apply to the word? Given the general poor use of the word discussed above, that certainly could be it. Or perhaps it is largely because many collectors just don't really know and ignorance causes the label to be thrown around so cavalierly.
I think we can all agree that not every coin described as original actually is. And while there have been multiple threads on what original actually entails (a topic I DO NOT wish to embark on here), let's assume that original means never cleaned, never doctored, never lightened, darkened, sliced, diced, chopped or topped or anything else that Waffle House might do to a coin. Generally, a coin would be original if it only spent its time in a pocket, in storage for later spending or in some form of protective holder of a collector trying to preserve the coin from damage or wear. I also think that we can agree that many sellers of coins do intentionally mislead and mislabel coins for their own financial benefit. So that leaves us with ignorance as the major culprit of overuse.
I started thinking about this as I listed a bunch of bust halves for which I had to write descriptions. After I went back and reread the words, I found that I didn't use original but for two coins. However, I looked at the coins that the descriptions applied to and seriously questioned whether or not I was being ignorant. I know I wasn't being misleading intentionally, but I started thinking about a better choice of my words. Additionally, the two coins I described as original would elicit the same descriptor from probably 95% of dealers and collectors in the business.
When I started to examine my own thought process, I realized that my criteria for original usually apply to more deeply toned coins that have luster present in grades of VF or higher, have no sign of cleaning hairlines , are not glossy, and appear to have toned in an appropriate amount of time and via a believable method. I then thought of a coin that I saw the other day on Tom Bush's website, an 1834 Bust half in XF. It is a very crusty coin and has all of the characteristic traits that I describe above. However, it has one attribute the two I described as original do not have, which is dirt in the recessed areas and lettering.
I then started looking at some of the coins that I set aside for my collection, both from fishteeth's collection and from bust halves that I had prior. They are all beautiful coins, but they all do not have the tell tale dirt that TomB's bustie has. Additionally, a large number of fishteeth's coins came from an old time collection in Maine that had been together for over 50 years. They are outstanding VF/XF coins that were all obviously stored in the same manner. My guess is kraft envelopes. They all have the same grey dirt look at a direct orientation, with nice luster and colorful iridescence under good lighting. But....no dirt. Hmmm...interesting. I personally don't think a coin HAS to be crusty with dirt to be guaranteed original. However, what are the chances that fairly heavily circulated bust half dollars would have nearly zero verdigris in recessed areas?
There is no right answer to the question of whether or not these are original. That is a major point of this discussion, that there are only probabilities of originality given the sight picture that a given coin presents when buying it. A dealer or collector can't know exactly what has happened to a coin over the last 180 years. As collectors, and human beings in general, we are programmed to think in a deterministic manner. Something either is or isn't. it is natural (there's that word again). Humans generally like to avoid uncertainty and therefore make deterministic judgements stated as fact about something that is nearly impossible to prove.
Here is what I think happened to the Maine collection as I am referring to them. I believe that an astute collector many decades ago set out to find VF/XF coins with nice surfaces that still had retained luster. I believe that the coins were dipped and rinsed and put into kraft envelopes for storage. All that time produced what we have now, gorgeous coins that happily reside in my collection. However, I don't give them a huge chance of being truly original. Could be, but probably less than 50%. I've posted some pics below for your perusal and judgement. I've also posted a coin that I feel is almost certainly completely original with tons of dirt.
Would love to hear everyone's thoughts on the subject of probabilistic thinking as well as whether you would call all, some or none of the coins below, original.
Where does the overuse come from? Is it really that all of these coins are original? Are bad people trying to deceive unknowing collectors into a poor purchase? Do people have different criteria that they apply to the word? Given the general poor use of the word discussed above, that certainly could be it. Or perhaps it is largely because many collectors just don't really know and ignorance causes the label to be thrown around so cavalierly.
I think we can all agree that not every coin described as original actually is. And while there have been multiple threads on what original actually entails (a topic I DO NOT wish to embark on here), let's assume that original means never cleaned, never doctored, never lightened, darkened, sliced, diced, chopped or topped or anything else that Waffle House might do to a coin. Generally, a coin would be original if it only spent its time in a pocket, in storage for later spending or in some form of protective holder of a collector trying to preserve the coin from damage or wear. I also think that we can agree that many sellers of coins do intentionally mislead and mislabel coins for their own financial benefit. So that leaves us with ignorance as the major culprit of overuse.
I started thinking about this as I listed a bunch of bust halves for which I had to write descriptions. After I went back and reread the words, I found that I didn't use original but for two coins. However, I looked at the coins that the descriptions applied to and seriously questioned whether or not I was being ignorant. I know I wasn't being misleading intentionally, but I started thinking about a better choice of my words. Additionally, the two coins I described as original would elicit the same descriptor from probably 95% of dealers and collectors in the business.
When I started to examine my own thought process, I realized that my criteria for original usually apply to more deeply toned coins that have luster present in grades of VF or higher, have no sign of cleaning hairlines , are not glossy, and appear to have toned in an appropriate amount of time and via a believable method. I then thought of a coin that I saw the other day on Tom Bush's website, an 1834 Bust half in XF. It is a very crusty coin and has all of the characteristic traits that I describe above. However, it has one attribute the two I described as original do not have, which is dirt in the recessed areas and lettering.
I then started looking at some of the coins that I set aside for my collection, both from fishteeth's collection and from bust halves that I had prior. They are all beautiful coins, but they all do not have the tell tale dirt that TomB's bustie has. Additionally, a large number of fishteeth's coins came from an old time collection in Maine that had been together for over 50 years. They are outstanding VF/XF coins that were all obviously stored in the same manner. My guess is kraft envelopes. They all have the same grey dirt look at a direct orientation, with nice luster and colorful iridescence under good lighting. But....no dirt. Hmmm...interesting. I personally don't think a coin HAS to be crusty with dirt to be guaranteed original. However, what are the chances that fairly heavily circulated bust half dollars would have nearly zero verdigris in recessed areas?
There is no right answer to the question of whether or not these are original. That is a major point of this discussion, that there are only probabilities of originality given the sight picture that a given coin presents when buying it. A dealer or collector can't know exactly what has happened to a coin over the last 180 years. As collectors, and human beings in general, we are programmed to think in a deterministic manner. Something either is or isn't. it is natural (there's that word again). Humans generally like to avoid uncertainty and therefore make deterministic judgements stated as fact about something that is nearly impossible to prove.
Here is what I think happened to the Maine collection as I am referring to them. I believe that an astute collector many decades ago set out to find VF/XF coins with nice surfaces that still had retained luster. I believe that the coins were dipped and rinsed and put into kraft envelopes for storage. All that time produced what we have now, gorgeous coins that happily reside in my collection. However, I don't give them a huge chance of being truly original. Could be, but probably less than 50%. I've posted some pics below for your perusal and judgement. I've also posted a coin that I feel is almost certainly completely original with tons of dirt.
Would love to hear everyone's thoughts on the subject of probabilistic thinking as well as whether you would call all, some or none of the coins below, original.
0
Comments
Originality is a tricky one indeed. Of the three you posted, I feel the Barber Quarter is wholely so, and the Halves not quite. But that is, of course a WAG based on your pictures.
Earlier tonight, in a thread I started about a new CBQ that arrived for me today, crypto79 posed this comment;
I only see two layers of age instead of a gradual buildup of deposits over almost 200 years so I assume it has been preserved (cleaned is too harsh of a word for that one)
I found that to be a very interesting, and insightful comment
via PM, part of my response;
Originality at 200 years is hard to determine sometimes ... only coins with that truely "virgin" skin are 99% unquestionable, at least IMO. This one doesn't have that, but I like her anyway.
Rarely is a coin even 99% unquestionable in it's originality, and as you pose, what does that mean even? Unmolested is probably the most accurate of dictionary descriptions I have heard or seen, because a truely original coin would never have been dipped, cleaned, wiped, scrubed, soap and watered, or even acetoned for that matter. Of course, with circulated coins, determining that is almost impossible, as they say use in commerce that could have included all types of enviromental conditions that had nothing to do with their collectability.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
I think the Bust Halfs are beautiful by the way.
I have a coin that was called "original" by the seller, but I doubt seriously that it truly is.
What are the odds that a very old coin was never messed with over its lifetime?
Pretty darn small I am guessing.
I am thinking this is probably too "nice looking" to be "original" (LOL).
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
Usage of the term original can be a quandary in that, as you have correctly pointed out, none of us has been an eyewitness to the history of a 180-year old coin. Rather, I attempt to carefully inspect the surfaces of a coin and then interpret those surfaces with the goal being what can these surfaces tell me about the history of this coin? It helps that I am a scientist who is quite familiar with analyzing bits of data, but my own experiences color any judgement just as they would for someone else. I generally attempt to use the term original when, in my estimation, the appearance of a coin has an overwhelming probability of having come into being by the definition you have suggested (general usage and storage with no attention given to making the coin cosmetically nicer).
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
If it can be done, I'm guessing there might be a following to be had.
I've looked at a lot of coins, but I'm sure nowhere near as many as most of you around here. I prefer coins that haven't been messed with and early on I had a conversation with Crypto about the "layered" look and how coins with this look up the probability that the coin hasn't been messed with. Below are two examples from my collection.
Coin A:
I consider this coin to be a great example of "original" surfaces. Even though the obverse fields might have been lightly "thumbed" long ago, you can really see the different layers upon each other. The different colors and tone could only have built up over a long time. Not only are there layers of toning, but there are layers of substance on the surface as well. I started a thread a while back showing this coin and stating that this is what I would expect a coin of this age to look like.
Coin B:
Now take a look at this coin. The coin is quite attractive but does it show "original" surfaces? There's some dirt on the surface, that's for sure. But compared to the coin above, the coin doesn't have the layered look. It appears that this coin may have been washed or conserved early on, then either put back into circulation or stored in an environment where it was introduced to some dirt. I'm a guilty party in the overuse of the term original, in fact I've called this coin original in the description in my showcase. On the other hand, maybe it led an easier life than Coin A and truly is original.
I love both of these coins and I think they are good examples of two coins that would likely both be called "original" when offered for sale, but when contrasted show quite different levels of originality.
Original looking is a better adjective, and the term covers a lot of faux original coins. There are what I see as idiots that want an original surfaces designation from the grading services. If there were some kind of objective and repeatable test that would be one thing, but when it is a few seconds of looking at a coin and then thumbs up or down, it is a target that the best docs can likely hit. Other than coins with a known provenance and a traceable history, it becomes near impossible on many coins to determine.
<< <i>I use the term faux original for coins that have been messed with, but are done so well they can convince a significant percentage of the collector base that it has not been. Docs are good. The best docs are way better at messing with coins, than average collectors are at spotting the messed with coins.
Original looking is a better adjective, and the term covers a lot of faux original coins. There are what I see as idiots that want an original surfaces designation from the grading services. If there were some kind of objective and repeatable test that would be one thing, but when it is a few seconds of looking at a coin and then thumbs up or down, it is a target that the best docs can likely hit. Other than coins with a known provenance and a traceable history, it becomes near impossible on many coins to determine. >>
Excellent points. Many so called original coins aren't as original as their owners believe them to be. Many coins were cleaned many years ago and have since retoned and look to be 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
Here is one of my most unprocessed coins that has a negative eye appeal as a result
Here is one with a neutral (IMO) effect, the luster coming through makes up for the splotchy-ness
Here is one where its originality makes it PQ IMO
Now these are coins that most would agree are unprocessed but it is important to remember that there are lightly processed coins that run the spectrum of eye appeal all the way to heavily processed coins that also run the spectrum of MA eye appeal.
Lightly processed and very appealing
Lightly processed with negative eye appeal
Heavily processed and simply stunning
If the coin looks good the coin looks good the rest is marketing although there is social boundaries in our hobby with the degree of restoration that is acceptable.
<< <i>It think another point is there is a default attempt to correlate originality to PQ or premium and like any descriptive term it has the full spectrum of results. >>
Excellent point. Many so called original coins have dark toning and are dirty looking. In the eyes of most collectors they are unattractive and have poor eye appeal.
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>I like this topic, even if I don't know that I can add much to the discourse. However, I will thank you for pointing out the 1834 CBH on my site as well as for posting the 1897-O Barber quarter. I'm not so excited about someone noticing that there is a nice coin on my site, which of course I am quite happy has been noted, but because I have seen both the 1834 CBH and the 1897-O Barber quarter as I had previously owned the quarter, too. They are both terrific.
Usage of the term original can be a quandary in that, as you have correctly pointed out, none of us has been an eyewitness to the history of a 180-year old coin. Rather, I attempt to carefully inspect the surfaces of a coin and then interpret those surfaces with the goal being what can these surfaces tell me about the history of this coin? It helps that I am a scientist who is quite familiar with analyzing bits of data, but my own experiences color any judgement just as they would for someone else. I generally attempt to use the term original when, in my estimation, the appearance of a coin has an overwhelming probability of having come into being by the definition you have suggested (general usage and storage with no attention given to making the coin cosmetically nicer). >>
Right on, Tom. The problem arises with so many inexperienced Dealers and Collectors throwing this term about. One would be wise to know the extent of Numismatic expertise of the one using this term, when attempting to sell you a coin.
There are a group of coins where it's reasonably easy to tell. Then there are all the others. There truly are some 100 year old blast-white coins though - it's all about the storage environment. It's also obvious there's plenty of dipping, doctoring, and subtle cleaning going on. Some cases involving uncertainty will never be "solvable".
I use the term "original" as a proxy for terms like "probably original", "original look", "mostly original", and "more original than most". Even then, there are significant leaps of faith that one must make to confer the watered down versions on a coin. I have not lived 150 years (neither have most of us here), so I cannot say for certain that a 150 year old coin is original. I can only speculate on the basis of what I have been taught by others to be original, what I know is not original, and what I suspect has some degree of originality. In short, it is not a winnable argument to view a 150 year old coin and declare that it is unquestionably original.
I will only further discuss circulated 19th century gold coins since that is the area I know best. Crypto did an outstanding job on the silver discussion, BTW.
When a 150 year old gold coin looks like a 2012 AGE that just came out of a package from the Mint, I think that we can assume that this is likely not original. Circulation tends to add some grime, and time and storage often adds a layer of patination. About 5 years ago, there were gobs of No Motto gold coins on the market that were in the mid-circulated grades and still had the appearance of a shiny coin that just came from the Mint yesterday. Contrast this appearance with that of coins that came from collections of iconic collectors of previous eras (the Norwebs, Garretts, Carters, etc.) that tended to be darker and richer in color or the coins from European hoards which have the darker highlighting of the devices.
The OP mentions the presence or absence of dirt in the devices, and I have learned that this is neither a 100% sensitive nor specific indicator of originality. I have seen obviously cleaned coins that still have dirt clinging to the devices and likely original coins with the absence of dirt.
I guess we can go on and on with the discussion and really not come to any meaningful conclusion, but I would rather show images of coins that I believe to be far along on the originality spectrum as a reference or starting point for future discussion (with the caveat that photos may also be misleading...)
<< <i>The problem arises with so many inexperienced Dealers and Collectors throwing this term about. One would be wise to know the extent of Numismatic expertise of the one using this term, when attempting to sell you a coin. >>
There are plenty of experienced dealers who frequently misuse the 'original' descriptor too. It's just another aspect of contemporary marketing in the coin business.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
JMHO. Cheers, RickO
<< <i>
<< <i>The problem arises with so many inexperienced Dealers and Collectors throwing this term about. One would be wise to know the extent of Numismatic expertise of the one using this term, when attempting to sell you a coin. >>
There are plenty of experienced dealers who frequently misuse the 'original' descriptor too. It's just another aspect of contemporary marketing in the coin business. >>
I agree. Without agreement on what originality means, it can be used as a marketing term to mean a variety of things, whether the person using it is experienced or not.
This is why it may be good to come up with an agreed upon standard for originality.
<< <i>
<< <i>The problem arises with so many inexperienced Dealers and Collectors throwing this term about. One would be wise to know the extent of Numismatic expertise of the one using this term, when attempting to sell you a coin. >>
There are plenty of experienced dealers who frequently misuse the 'original' descriptor too. It's just another aspect of contemporary marketing in the coin business. >>
I will agree that the use of this terminology is an aspect of marketing . That is why it is so important to know and build a trusting rapport with your dealer. That goes beyond the measure of having purchased a few coins from the same dealer. What makes that somewhat difficult today, is the easy and immediate access to thousands of dealers with online services.
If a coin was messed with over 100 years ago and spent the next 100 years in an album or an envelope, it might retone to the point where it is nearly impossible (if not entirely impossible) to discern evidence of a cleaning or a dipping, to see evidence that the surfaces were once messed with. I think almost everyone would call such a coin "original" even if it may not be technically original -- because it looks substantially like we'd expect a coin that has never been messed with to look given the age and condition of the coin.
Each collector makes purchasing decisions based on what has eye appeal to them, and the level of acceptable originality varies with the individual. I tell myself that I prefer original coins, but there are several original coins pictured in this thread that I wouldn't buy at virtually any price.
One Indian Cent that I've had for a long time (unfortunately, well before I took pics of my coins), was a pale red that someone had messed with. It was restored to a natural brown by a noted early copper specialist, and now resides happily in my collection in a PCGS-65BRN holder. I've shown this cent to many astute collectors and dealers, and not one has picked it for being a re-toned coin. If I hadn't seen it in its original condition, I wouldn't either.
My pics of it are poor, but here they are:
----------
Vern
l
It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got.
<< <i>
One Indian Cent that I've had for a long time (unfortunately, well before I took pics of my coins), was a pale red that someone had messed with. It was restored to a natural brown by a noted early copper specialist, and now resides happily in my collection in a PCGS-65BRN holder. I've shown this cent to many astute collectors and dealers, and not one has picked it for being a re-toned coin. If I hadn't seen it in its original condition, I wouldn't either.
>>
And once again this is why I don't collect copper coins
<< <i>What a great, thought provoking thread. My humble opinion is that original is just another word used in marketing a coin. No one can tell what is truly original in old coins.
Each collector makes purchasing decisions based on what has eye appeal to them, and the level of acceptable originality varies with the individual. I tell myself that I prefer original coins, but there are several original coins pictured in this thread that I wouldn't buy at virtually any price.
One Indian Cent that I've had for a long time (unfortunately, well before I took pics of my coins), was a pale red that someone had messed with. It was restored to a natural brown by a noted early copper specialist, and now resides happily in my collection in a PCGS-65BRN holder. I've shown this cent to many astute collectors and dealers, and not one has picked it for being a re-toned coin. If I hadn't seen it in its original condition, I wouldn't either.
My pics of it are poor, but here they are:
<snip> >>
Very educational barberkeys. Thanks for posting.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>That 1869 IHC is a coin whose color looks 'too nice,' considering its age. I also learned some tough lessons about 'gem red' large/small cents (some time ago). >>
It sounds like you might have some experience that can help collectors here Sonorandesertrat.
If you don't mind sharing, what happened and what lessons did you take away?
Whenever I see a cent that is that old, with such a uniform look regarding color, I get suspicious. Ditto for fully brown cents, especially early coppers. Other colors too---a few years ago, I saw a matte proof Lincoln cent that was the same shade of uniform green on both sides.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
It's also good for collectors to be aware of the limited TPG guarantee on copper.
When I first started getting back into coins, I was a fan of red large cents; however, now I'm much more cautious about liking coins.
<< <i>In many cases, "original" is a subjective term just as is "market acceptable." The truth is, we have no way of knowing, in many cases, whether the surfaces have truly never been messed with. That would be the theoretical definition of "original," I think, but it's not a practical definition since in probably 99% of the cases we have no way to confirm that a coin meets this strict definition. So we look to a more practical definition, one that is somewhat subjective.
If a coin was messed with over 100 years ago and spent the next 100 years in an album or an envelope, it might retone to the point where it is nearly impossible (if not entirely impossible) to discern evidence of a cleaning or a dipping, to see evidence that the surfaces were once messed with. I think almost everyone would call such a coin "original" even if it may not be technically original -- because it looks substantially like we'd expect a coin that has never been messed with to look given the age and condition of the coin. >>
Zoins: <<I wonder if there's a market for someone or service to define and sticker varying levels of originality. .., I'm guessing there might be a following to be had. >>
I agree.
CoinLieutenant: <<..original means never cleaned, never doctored, never lightened, darkened, sliced, diced, chopped or topped or anything else that Waffle House might do to a coin. >>
When I describe coins in my articles, I often refer to coins as being relatively original, or to specific coins scoring high in the category of originality. I am often suspicious of those who assert that a 19th century coin is completely original. There are very few experts who the ability to detect ‘original skin,’ and even they cannot be sure in many cases. It is hard to tell.
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 1
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 2
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 3
The Formal Introduction of the PCGS ‘Coin Sniffer’ at the PCGS Luncheon