Is it possible for a coin to be, "too original"?

braddick · January 31, 2016 2:16AM

I recently picked up this Peace dollar as of lately I've grown attracted to coins that have been left completely alone- even if many would call unattractive due to such.

In your opinion, can a coin, that could easily be 'helped' along the way with a light dipping and/or cleaning, be too original- in a sense?

Sonorandesertrat · January 31, 2016 2:23AM

Yes. Many 19th-century and earlier coins would have negative eye appeal if they were truly 'original'.

Baley · January 31, 2016 2:28AM

How did the word "original" come to mean "thick layer of dark oxidation and foreign matter accumulation on the surfaces"?

braddick · January 31, 2016 2:31AM

Originally posted by: Baley
How did the word "original" come to mean "thick layer of dark oxidation and foreign matter accumulation on the surfaces"?

Kind of like your Avatar coin?

In answer to your question: Original, meaning untouched or unaltered.

ricko · January 31, 2016 2:34AM

In my opinion, yes.... I consider accumulated environmental damage to be ugly, unappealing

and detrimental to the coin. I realize many collectors feel the opposite, and that is fine for them.

Collect what you like. For me, either as struck, or well used with crust is attractive.

Cheers, RickO

Nysoto · January 31, 2016 2:46AM

This is the reason that dealers and collectors dipped large numbers of coins in the 1970's, 80's and 90's, along with the attempt for higher grades with the introduction of the TPG's. Blast white is no longer cool, and collectors will spend tens of thousands more for aesthetically pleasing tarnish that has been blessed as market acceptable from the TPG's, whether "natural" or artificially induced.

segoja · January 31, 2016 2:50AM

Yes and we have proof. Blast white (that is original) is fine. Dipped white is not.

braddick · January 31, 2016 2:52AM

Originally posted by: ricko
In my opinion, yes.... I consider accumulated environmental damage to be ugly, unappealing
and detrimental to the coin. I realize many collectors feel the opposite, and that is fine for them.
Collect what you like. For me, either as struck, or well used with crust is attractive.
Cheers, RickO

Good point.
I walk right up to the line where a coin may have, "environmental" conditions, yet not damage (as then PCGS is likely not to grade).

Many find it to be ugly and/or unappealing at least, yet lately- I don't know why, I've come to like this look.

Again, it's got to be where PCGS, seeing and grading the coin in hand, doesn't label it as being damaged, just kind of crusty.

Coin Finder · January 31, 2016 3:00AM

It is like a 1996 Lincoln cent that has been in the bottom of your cup holder in the car. It is a bit green, dusty, maybe stained. It is original for sure but ruined. For a collector then the answer is yes. To original does not make it collectible. Collectible has a higher standard of quality already built in to the mind set. The one exception would be a corroded ruined 1792 half dime or such like that which would be "collectible" in any condition or originality.

dizzlecc · January 31, 2016 4:11AM

Unless you have purchased the coin from the mint, how can you say it is original. It could have been cleaned and toned over to hide the cleaning. You don't know for sure. Recently, someone I know bought a dark brown toned coin just for the original surfaces. If that is your taste, then it is completely acceptable. I'm not sure I would call it original. Seems more like an eye appeal preference.

BillJones · January 31, 2016 4:29AM

For sure!

"Original surfaces" does not mean attractive surfaces. A corroded cent is "original," but that does not mean that someone is going to be willing to pay a good price for it. In fact it is more than likely that it will be quite the opposite. I've seen gold coins that were so toned that their original surfaces made them look like copper. My response to those coins has been "no thank you."

Dipping has been overly maligned in my opinion. If a coin has original surfaces and is ugly, what's wrong with improving it if that is possible?

I think that too many purist collectors have become overly critical of dipped coins. If you don't like them, don't buy them. But don't spend your time with over the top, bad mouth comments about the coins in other people's collections. Sure it's fine to say, "That coin has been dipped," in a description, but don't go on about how it has been "ruined." You can't know for certain what it looked like before it was dipped. One should be careful about peeing in other people's yards.

Mark · January 31, 2016 6:15AM

BillJones:

I've always been very careful about peeing in other people's yards. Well, except for that one time ...

Walkerguy21D · January 31, 2016 6:51AM

Well stated, BillJones......+1

291fifth · January 31, 2016 8:52AM

Just because a coin is fully "original" does not mean that it has positive eye-appeal. Many "original" coins are very unattractive.

Barndog · January 31, 2016 8:55AM

I have passed on some half dimes that were graded MS by PCGS but had a similar look to that Peace $, Braddick.

I recall viewing a half dime graded PCGS 63 that had just a sliver of "bare metal" (for lack of a better term) through which luster could be seen. Not for me.

Walkerfan · January 31, 2016 9:04AM

I saw a MS 64 1917 D reverse Walker that looked like that peace dollar. I found it to be unattractive but it went for big money. It eventually found it's way into a 65 slab, too, by some means.

If a coin is white or dipped but still retains some good mint luster, then I'm fine with it. But if it is a dull, lackluster, white one, then I don't like that.

Likewise, an ugly corroded 'original' piece does nothing for me but a colorful attractive one I LIKE ALOT.