The $500,000 fingerprint

tradedollarnut

Based on the price realized of the Newman 1799 dollar (which I graded 66+ and of similar quality), I think it safe to say that this is the most expensive fingerprint on a coin ever:

291fifth

What this coin needs is a good story about how George Washington touched it just before his death on Dec. 14, 1799.

magikbilly

That doesn't bother me at all. People do touch things, and this could be much more severe. The "negative" spotting and other artifacts in/on the surfaces to the left and above do a great job of obscuring it.

Best wishes for a good weekend,
Eric

CaptHenway

What is going on with the obverse rim at 2 o'clock, and the corresponding reverse rim at 4 o'clock? Minor rim clip?

johnny9434

<< <i>What this coin needs is a good story about how George Washington touched it just before his death on Dec. 14, 1799. >>

he handed it to his wife

BustHalfBrian

Maybe they're thinking they'll tie the DNA to that of a founding father

spy88

<< <i>Maybe they're thinking they'll tie the DNA to that of a founding father >>


I was thinking along the same line. It would be very interesting to be able to tie
a DNA match to whomever the print belongs to...but you'd have to have their
DNA in a data bank to get a hit.

Could have been anyone from the past that 'pinched' it.

djdilliodon

Ok fine I'll admit it, the print is mine from my past life when I touched it.

CaptHenway

Could you perhaps include a picture of the coin that was $500,000 more, and source the two of them?

tradedollarnut

Press release referencing the two

2ltdjorn

a wire brush will take that off in just a few seconds!

Unknown

This content has been removed.

TomB

<< <i>I like it no matter whose it was or whatever the story. A testament to its originality and it being natural. I wish every caretaker would just leave their coisn alone and stop trying to figure ways to enhance the darn pieces of metal inorder to reap even more. >>



I'm making no assertions about this coin, but a fingerprint on a coin does not make the coin original; it merely means that a fingerprint is on the coin.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

ricko

Amazing strike and condition for the age.... Cheers, RickO

GeorgeKellogg

I could be all wet, but to me this coin has the look of a dipped coin that has lightly re-toned in subsequent years. From the photo (which admittedly doesn't correspond to an in-hand assessment), the piece seems a bit too bright to be virgin skin on a 214-year-old coin.

djdilliodon

The print on that coin doesn't bother me at all.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

tradedollarnut

Sorry guys but this coin is famous for being the one truly original bust dollar. Drips with luster - just has that darn print.

GeorgeKellogg

<< <i>Sorry guys but this coin is famous for being the one truly original bust dollar. Drips with luster - just has that darn print. >>



I clicked on the Press Release and the accompanying photo of this specimen looks quite a bit darker (and more along the lines of what one would expect to see on a truly original coin) than the photo in the OP. The PR photo also clearly shows a second fingerprint at 9 o'clock on the obverse.

CaptHenway

<< <i>Press release referencing the two >>



Thank you.

CaptHenway

<< <i>

<< <i>Sorry guys but this coin is famous for being the one truly original bust dollar. Drips with luster - just has that darn print. >>



I clicked on the Press Release and the accompanying photo of this specimen looks quite a bit darker (and more along the lines of what one would expect to see on a truly original coin) than the photo in the OP. The PR photo also clearly shows a second fingerprint at 9 o'clock on the obverse. >>



Good catch!

Isn't it amazing what one can do with lighting!

yosclimber

Definitely a big difference!

The thread title reminded me of the story of the infamous $40,000 or $50,000 fingerprint on the former MS69 Indian Cent:
http://forums.collectors.com/arcmessageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=1035
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=899748

CaptHenway

<< <i>What is going on with the obverse rim at 2 o'clock, and the corresponding reverse rim at 4 o'clock? Minor rim clip? >>



Anyone?
Class?
Bueller?

CaptHenway

<crickets>

shylock

It looks worse in the press release image than the Coinfacts image.
The second print is almost insignificant in Coinfacts. What does it really look
like in person is all that counts.

Walkerfan

I'm bothered by it, especially @ 500K! It is not a minor print.

tradedollarnut

<< <i>I'm bothered by it, especially @ 500K! It is not a minor print. >>



You missed the point - the fingerprint knocks $500k off the value. From $800k (price realized on the Newman coin) to $300k (a bit more than I paid a couple of years ago).

Walkerfan

<< <i>

<< <i>I'm bothered by it, especially @ 500K! It is not a minor print. >>



You missed the point - the fingerprint knocks $500k off the value. From $800k (price realized on the Newman coin) to $300k (a bit more than I paid a couple of years ago). >>



I need to read more thoroughly---thanks for clarifying.

Zoins

Great point on the fingerprint.

And another example of how great TrueViews are.

tradedollarnut

<< <i>It looks worse in the press release image than the Coinfacts image.
The second print is almost insignificant in Coinfacts. What does it really look
like in person is all that counts.

>>



IMO, both are accurate depending on how the light is hitting the coin.

tradedollarnut

Laura held this in her hand yesterday and said "where'd the fingerprint go?" It really only shows that darkly when held at one certain angle. The rest of the time it is translucent and blends in with the other toning rather well.

Bullsitter

Spots and fingerprints drive me nuts !!

This coin has an awesome strike, but the eye appeal is not so awesome, jmo.

jmski52

Nice flowlines!

BryceM

Yeah, but there are plenty of things to lament about with coins from this era. It makes the others that much more special.

... not that this one isn't rather impressive even with the print.

ColonelJessup

The same guy who "cleaned" the EPNNES coins also "did" Farouk's. . .

EastonCollection

One way to think about it is the fingerprint saved you big $$ on the buy side and the other way is the fingerprint does document its originality and shows alot of character. If it was perfect then it would lose that character.

I think about a coin prior history - way back then - coins were made not to collect but as a means of conducting commerce. (yes there were presentation pieces but this wasn't one of them) So this coin shows someone a long time ago put away this coin and saved it from commerce and preserved it from alot of history - The coin is about 213 years old - if the average life expectancy was 60 years old then this coin had minimum 4 to 5 caretakers. In the early years, no one paid big bucks for this coin so - hats off to those that owned that coin and saved this coin from circulation, unfortunately one person during that time mishandled the coin - for a brief second. We still have a treasure from our past preserved in great shape except for that darn fingerprint.

EastonCollection

manofcoins - agreed!

shylock

I forgot I had an image I took of this TDN

metalmeister

Thumb prints not for me. Nice coin under certain lighting though.

tradedollarnut

<< <i>I forgot I had an image I took of this TDN

>>



I think that's true to how the coin really is - the fingerprint is fairly translucent except at one angle

shylock

But a beautiful and historical coin where the print actually adds to its interest, thanks for letting me see it.

roadrunner

I don't think the price difference would have been $500K if this coin were also in the Newman collection along with the other one.

Any chance that this "Boston" specimen traces back to NERCG (Jim Halperin) in the mid-1970's?

Justlooking

That's one huge frickin' finger.

Great coin.

PerryHall

<< <i>But a beautiful and historical coin where the print actually adds to its interest, thanks for letting me see it. >>



Unless a print can be proven or documented to belong to a famous person, I don't understand how any print can add anything to a coin other than negative eye appeal.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

shylock

Unless a print can be proven or documented to belong to a famous person, I don't understand how any print can add anything to a coin other than negative eye appeal.

I think the fact that the source of the print will never be known, and it may be from the original owner, just adds to the provenance on a coin like this.
I hate prints on most coins. And no doubt this print left some money on the table. But there is something very original about this coin I loved
when seeing it in person, dripping with mint luster, and tagged by someone who held it centuries ago by their two grubby thumbs.

ebaybuyer

I find it absolutely astonishing how a 200+ year old piece of silver can remain essentially untoned, yet if one cleans a silver spoon and sets it on the counter it will be black in six months. either silver becomes magically protected from tarnishing when it is in the shape of a coin or perhaps there is some other explanation.

WillieBoyd2

Does anyone know how old the fingerprint is or when it was first noticed?

nags

Aren't there actually 2 fingerprints? One on each side of the obverse.

tradedollarnut

<< <i>I find it absolutely astonishing how a 200+ year old piece of silver can remain essentially untoned, yet if one cleans a silver spoon and sets it on the counter it will be black in six months. either silver becomes magically protected from tarnishing when it is in the shape of a coin or perhaps there is some other explanation. >>



It is far from essentially untoned...but yes, the higher the silver content the faster it tones. A piece of silver flatware is .925 whereas a coin is .900