Options
Let's see if we can agree on just one thing ---and I'm pretty sure we can't.
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
Tell me exactly what the term "Original Surfaces" means to you with regards to coins and what criteria do you use to establish your definition as accurate with a specific coin??
A forum member, pmh1nic, who hasn't been around for quite some time used to make the argument that with some type of historical perspective(pedigree) for a specific coin which could show us what it looked like at various times in its life that the task of ensuring "originality" was an impossibility. He used to get me all worked up with that assertion, but I have come to see the wisdom of his words.
So tell me if you can.
Al H.
A forum member, pmh1nic, who hasn't been around for quite some time used to make the argument that with some type of historical perspective(pedigree) for a specific coin which could show us what it looked like at various times in its life that the task of ensuring "originality" was an impossibility. He used to get me all worked up with that assertion, but I have come to see the wisdom of his words.
So tell me if you can.
Al H.
0
Comments
Original surfaces are just that. Nothing removed or moved around. Coins which are toned and the surface atoms thus oxidized could be considered original. The silver atoms could be silver(I) or silver(II). Same for copper, cuprous or cupric forms. Same atoms in same places, but now as ionic forms. Beauty or eye appeal is not a requirement of/for original surfaces.
Successful BST deals with mustangt and jesbroken. Now EVERYTHING is for sale.
Of course the older the coin is the less likely that it has never been messed with.
There aren't even any ancients in true Unc because messing with them wears them down given enough time.
IMO, very very few coins qualify. In many "original coins" threads, I type replies and then delete them without posting. What's the point?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
this is a strange topic, it mainly focuses on Mint State coins and whenever the topic is raised it tends to direct the conversation towards classic coinage. there really are quite a large number of truly original coins if you stop and think about it, just not the ones that are typically discussed. all the still intact GSA Dollars certainly qualify in addition to whatever still remains in rolls and bags from whatever era that came directly from the Mint/processing facility like String and Sons.
the mental anguish associated with "originality" is what caused me to consider selling everything I own and starting anew, collecting only PCGS encapsulated key date coins in circulated grades. it may not be as glamorous as some of what hold in my collection, but it no doubt would be more secure from a liquidation perspective.
Can I prove it to you or anyones satisfaction? --- you only need to prove it to two people, you and whoever you sell a coin to.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>Can I prove it to you or anyones satisfaction? --- you only need to prove it to two people, you and whoever you sell a coin to. >>
Nope, if you have ever looked at the BST when I sell a coin. I usually just put up the price and an image. I don't mention originality whatsoever, or much anything else. Now I'm sure some busy-body on here will go look and try and prove me wrong. Go for it!!! Oh, don't need to prove a coin to myself as I'm quite comfortable with my opinion. Don't believe me? Just ask me and I'll tell ya.
<< <i>hay Baj, tell me how you know the 100 year old coin is original. >>
I don't at the moment. I assume an original mint sealed bag of Morgans is still possible to obtain. At some point one has to take someone's word for it that the bag is original or accept the seal as proof. I suppose some creative scientist might find a way to determine if a coin was original if there was a compelling reason to do so. Trying to retone a dipped coin to monster toner state might be a way. If the monster toners can't be replicated, it might be a good indication that similar coins are probably original. I don't fawn over or about original surfaces, so I haven't really given it much thought. There is probably an analytical technique somewhere that could be used to differentiate between original and non-original surfaces.
Well, yes, of course the majority of coins currently in circulation are "original" and many many modern coins also are.
I thought we were referring to "real coins"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I'll start on a positive note. We seem to be in agreement not to dip your 1965 Jefferson Nickel. It truly is a wonderful coin as it is and it would be best to leave it in what I consider to be its original state of preservation. Whether it grades DCAM or not really should not matter as it looks great as it is. I agree with you that if an original surfaces the designation were adopted, it would likely be used on a small percentage of slabbed coins. However, just because the use would be small, that really should not be a reason not to use it.
You have made it clear that original combined with surfaces is something you find over used in a numismatic context to the point of being annoying. To the extent I have annoyed you or anyone else here in connection with promoting the concept, that is quite unfortunate.
Coins that are original will have skin with some evidence, depending of the state of preservation, that will in part reflect its history. By history, I mean whether the coin circulated or not and how it was stored. Some coins such as the Carson City Morgans that were sold during the Nixon Administration were original- they were stored in bags for several decades. Other coins with a different history will not look attractive for various reasons. One such coin that re-ignited this discussion was the 1870-CC Half that was graded by NGC that was the subject of another thread. It had original characteristics. I can say that based on the color based on the pattern of wear combined with minute grime in protected areas. Had this coin been enhanced, the contrast in the silver would be uniform and the minute grime would be gone. The problem is some collectors did not like the look as originality does not always meet collector expectations in terms of eye appeal. But a coin like this 1870-CC easily should exceed collector expectations in that it remained intact, with its history that evidenced it circulated. Coins are meant to be used and if they have in fact been used, it stands to reason that they should look like it. Maybe part of the problem is that collector expectations are at an unrealistic level to the point that such a coin like the 1870-CC is just not enough. And now that coin which was rich with history looks sterile.
There was another thread that is likely 10 years old that involved an 1895-O Morgan that was dipped to look completely unnatural. If I recall correctly, that coin was graded VF35 by our hosts. A VF35 coin should not look the way that one did. I bring up that example merely to illustrate that the concept is not new. And over the past ten years, it seems as if a month has not pass by where we had either a dipped out POS or before and after coin pictures- usually with a miserable ending along the lines of a train wreck.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
"Original Surfaces" only matter if those "original surfaces" are without noticeable blemish. Which kinda makes me wonder. How long does it take for "original surfaces" to come back after being.......uhhh.......messed with? 20 years? 30 years? 50 years?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>It means that the coin has not been worked on in any way to "improve" its appearance. It does not mean that the coin has positive eye-appeal. In fact, a coin with "original surfaces" may be quite unattractive and may even have damage from circulation. >>
As Justice Potter Stewart would say . . . "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" ! ! !
HH
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
My brother bought a lustrous high grade Peace dollar. Likely grades MS65-66, it's very nice. My problem with the coin, there's not a scant of toning. How does someone store a 90 year old coin where it doesn't tone? And the coin does not look in the slightest that it has been dipped. Several bidders were after this coin is an open auction. That was one of the reasons given to outbid everyone.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
My definition comes from Doug Winter who writes "originality" is a coin that appears to not have been cleaned, dipped, processed or otherwise enhanced in recent generations. I would never be so bold to believe that I could tell what was done to a coin 175 years ago. And for that matter even 50 years in some cases. But I do look at a coin and assess originality based upon color, tone, thickness of skin, dirt, gunk, wear, etc. to see if the coin has any signs of being messed with. And then where the visual characteristics fall on the continuum from complete originality to no originality. There is little doubt that it is easier to proclaim a coin as not original than it is to proclaim one as completely original. And I would never ever call a coin 100% original in my collection. Originality to me is a look, not a fact.
Joseph J. Singleton - First Superintendent of the U.S. Branch Mint in Dahlonega Georgia
Findley Ridge Collection
About Findley Ridge
In other not so related news, he loved the shark teeth that Lordmarcovan sent me some time ago from the Geogia coast. My mantra remains the same :leave well enough alone.
A man has a classic auto shop. When he said, "Look at the original paint". It was oxidized bad. Once it was buffed out, and the car sold for multiples of what he paid before
reconditioning the surfaces, the car was sold as ORIGINAL….. And I suppose it was… and only a few can read between the lines.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>When the word "original" is used to describe the surfaces of a coin, it means that the coin is as struck, with allowances only for natural signs of aging and normal use. Maybe not the perfect word to describe such coins, but I can't think of a better one. >>
I like MrEureka's definition.
Here are my thoughts -
"Original" in numismatics is an ideal...hard to define, and sometimes you don't know it when you see it.
"Original" really should be considered impossible to prove; i.e., you may be able to prove a coin is not original, but you really can't prove that it is.
While I'm a big proponent of "originality", I know that really the best I can do is look for indicators that a coin is not original. If I have any thoughts or information that a coin has been messed with (dipped, lacquered, oiled, waxed, puttied, etc), I probably won't buy it, regardless of whatever else the coin might have going for it.
That said, I know that a lot of early copper has been messed with in some fashion at some point in the past. Brushing and oiling copper was a standard, acceptable practice among early collectors...and still is among many today.
Besides that, on some coins it's just too difficult to tell if the coin is original or not.
<< <i>
<< <i>When the word "original" is used to describe the surfaces of a coin, it means that the coin is as struck, with allowances only for natural signs of aging and normal use. Maybe not the perfect word to describe such coins, but I can't think of a better one. >>
I like MrEureka's definition.
Here are my thoughts -
"Original" in numismatics is an ideal...hard to define, and sometimes you don't know it when you see it.
"Original" really should be considered impossible to prove; i.e., you may be able to prove a coin is not original, but you really can't prove that it is.
While I'm a big proponent of "originality", I know that really the best I can do is look for indicators that a coin is not original. If I have any thoughts or information that a coin has been messed with (dipped, lacquered, oiled, waxed, puttied, etc), I probably won't buy it, regardless of whatever else the coin might have going for it.
That said, I know that a lot of early copper has been messed with in some fashion at some point in the past. Brushing and oiling copper was a standard, acceptable practice among early collectors...and still is among many today.
Besides that, on some coins it's just too difficult to tell if the coin is original or not. >>
Why should original be considered impossible to prove? I'd submit that no one with the skills to try to prove it has cared enough to want to prove it. There wasn't/isn't a will so there wasn't/isn't a way. Simple as that.
<< <i>
Why should original be considered impossible to prove? I'd submit that no one with the skills to try to prove it has cared enough to want to prove it. There wasn't/isn't a will so there wasn't/isn't a way. Simple as that. >>
Now I see the genesis of the other thread.
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>When the word "original" is used to describe the surfaces of a coin, it means that the coin is as struck, with allowances only for natural signs of aging and normal use. Maybe not the perfect word to describe such coins, but I can't think of a better one. >>
This is an excellent definition IMO.
http://macrocoins.com
I suppose this might be a good definition if not for "allowances" and "natural" and "normal" because the use of such terms makes the entire definition subjective which is sort of the problem to begin with. in a strange twist of irony, everyone seems to like the definition while it uses "as struck" for its central focus, and that 1870-CC certainly looked more "as struck" after the dip than before it. the only problem is that we all know a coin close to 150 years old shouldn't look like that. the problem becomes what is normal??
I know that in the past I have had Silver coins which remained brilliant for more than 30 years with nothing special being done to protect them, just placed in a stapled 2x2 cardboard flip and stored in a box. is that normal?? what about coins which have been dipped in the past, perhaps over 100 years ago, and they are now looking like we would expect them to look after 150 years?? these are hard things to figure out and even harder things to be sure of considering we don't know very much pertaining to the history of most coins. I guess it is all about what we each believe, what we each care about. the problem for me arises as it does with most things, when people make absolute declarations.
---coinkat, there is hope for me and you since we both agree that the Nickel should stay as it is.
Successful BST deals with mustangt and jesbroken. Now EVERYTHING is for sale.
For most of the coins for which the concept makes a real difference in value, it's a matter of degree of originality, along a spectrum of appearances of the surfaces.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Since there is no way to know what transpired at every moment of a coin's existence, its look just has to be "right" considering all the other variables. Frost & mint bloom are pretty hard to recreate once lost etc, etc.
<< <i>"original surfaces" Isn't this the coin doctor's goal?
My brother bought a lustrous high grade Peace dollar. Likely grades MS65-66, it's very nice. My problem with the coin, there's not a scant of toning. How does someone store a 90 year old coin where it doesn't tone? And the coin does not look in the slightest that it has been dipped. Several bidders were after this coin is an open auction. That was one of the reasons given to outbid everyone.
Leo >>
Leo, some coins simply do not tone under natural circumstances.
Toning is the direct result of some influence to the metallic surface. Be it contamination, production rinse residue, heat, cold, or a combination of the afore mentioned.
David Hall once said that he'd never seen a Peace Dollar which toned. This was presumably with reference to how Morgan Dollars Typically toned. I believe him in that 99% of the so called "toned" Peace Dollars which folks post, most of them have an ugly brownish appearance. Certainly not typical of your average Morgan. I expect that this is due to production rinses and bag manufacturing techniques which changed from the Morgans to the Peace Dollar productions. Of course this is pure speculation with no specific evidence.
I do know that in the late 50's early 60's that something changed at the US Mint in the production of s9ilver coinage which introduced milk spotting on Franklin and Kennedy Half Dollars.
The manufacturing arena is constantly changing to keep up with production demands and minting capabilities. These changes affect certain coins and alloys.
As an example and back to silver coinage, did you ever notice that the Business Strike Eisenhower Dollars never seem to tone in the OGP? A good portion of the 1971-S's are also plagued with milk smears and brown toning which is similar to a wood grained effect.
Back tot he Peace Dollars, there was one back around 2006 which was incredibly toned and subsequently sold for a good chunk of change. It was later determined that the toning was totally artificial.
So, how do you store a 90 year old coin without toning ever developing? In the case of the Peace Dollar, I don't think any special handling is required at all since the surfaces appear to be quite stable. Even on circulated specimens. However, chose a "toning rich" environment, and you'll get the toning which you would normally expect to see from a 90% Silver Coin.
Just my thoughts.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Tell me exactly what the term "Original Surfaces" means to you with regards to coins and what criteria do you use to establish your definition as accurate with a specific coin??
>>
We are mixing topics on this thread. To answer your question very specifically, Original Surfaces mean "Unadulterated." Any "skin" on he coin is a result of age, storage, environmental conditions etc.
If original surfaces can be accurately determined is quite another question, and while I believe there is no "fool-proof" 100% way to determine this, (which does not bother me in the least), I do think there are a lot of people out there that do a real darn good job at it.
I considered that but decided that all "environmental damage" is natural, and I would not want to classify most environmentally damaged coins, e.g., rusted steel cents, as having "original" surfaces.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I think the first time I used this description when MrE and I purchased the Parmelee 1792 Silver Disme.
My point is that the term "original" lays in the eyes of the buyer. If he or she thinks it is original or original enough, that is all that really matters to 99% of numismatists.
To answer the question Keets has asked is not possible as we cannot see the coin 24/7 from the time it is minted until present day. But we don't need to for it to have beauty for us.
The fact that "originality"... the word can be defined differently makes the question quite subjective. It becomes a philosophic discussion with no conclusion.
We want conclusions.....
As I look at a coin and conclude that a coin is original enough for me is quite possible and I don't need to go any further than that at that moment.
If someone wishes to criticize the surfaces of my coin is fine. I could learn something or start a philosophical discussion.
I think the better questions is: How did you learn the difference between original and non original surfaces?
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>My dad bought his 1964 and 1/2 Mustang brand new in 1964. It was red with black interior. He sold it a few years ago. Over the years he took care of it but sometimes he didnt. The paint had dents and dings and the interior was fixed a few times. The car was all "original" and the buyer saw that as having value and paid a premium for it..... >>
The Mustang is a very good analogy to a circulated coin with original surfaces.
Now, if your dad had put the car on blocks in a clean, dry barn, never driving it, what would have happened? The tires would have rotted, the upholstery would have degraded but probably not completely. The battery would have dried out. If the gas tank and oil were removed before storage, the engine would probably still be OK. But how valuable would that car be today? Priceless. And also probably unique, since few if any cars would have been stored in such a condition.
I suppose coins before the 30's are also quite rare in such condition. In earlier times, collectors who prized their coins and stored them as-found would be the main source, along with hoards, cabinet collections, first year of issues, etc. It is what happened to them later, to make a quick buck, that is of concern.
http://macrocoins.com
RIP Mom- 1932-2012