Options
Original Surfaces?
BAJJERFAN
Posts: 31,625 ✭✭✭✭✭
Would it be desirable to have a scientific way to determine if metal atoms were ever removed from the surface of a coin?
theknowitalltroll;
0
Comments
i can save you the trouble. as soon as the die struck the coin, atoms have been removed every day since. you smell metal on your fingers after handling coins, this is why.
also, even if you could see the surface of the coin to see if it were "flat", that isn't possible because the surfaces would look like a nuclear warzone.
also, if you could prove that you see the atoms "orbiting" the nucleus, i'm pretty sure you would be fast-tracked to a nobel. kinda hard since photons are bigger than electrons.
once you have a comfortable understanding of life at the atomic/molecular level, nothing will ever be the same for you.
.
Joseph J. Singleton - First Superintendent of the U.S. Branch Mint in Dahlonega Georgia
Findley Ridge Collection
About Findley Ridge
<< <i>No. It really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. Originality is a look, doesn't need to be a fact for me. >>
brillantly simple and to the point. And I'll say it again, people don't really want orginal coins, they want eye appealing coins. They are not nessiccarly the same thing.
<< <i>
<< <i>No. It really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. Originality is a look, doesn't need to be a fact for me. >>
brillantly simple and to the point. And I'll say it again, people don't really want orginal coins, they want eye appealing coins. They are not nessiccarly the same thing. >>
Well, yes and no. I do want original coins and not just eye appealing coins. You are correct though that they are not always the same. There are plenty of coins with eye appeal that are not very original. Those coins are generally not for me. I will stick to the eye appealing more original coins.
Joseph J. Singleton - First Superintendent of the U.S. Branch Mint in Dahlonega Georgia
Findley Ridge Collection
About Findley Ridge
What I hear most often when people say they want original coins is they want unmolested eye appealing coins.
<< <i>No. It really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. Originality is a look, doesn't need to be a fact for me. >>
Wow! It is this attitude that supports the doctoring and destruction of our numismatic heritage. Why not just buy Chinese counterfeits?
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>
<< <i>No. It really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. Originality is a look, doesn't need to be a fact for me. >>
Wow! It is this attitude that supports the doctoring and destruction of our numismatic heritage. Why not just buy Chinese counterfeits? >>
I don't think it is his attitude whatsoever. I kinda agree with his statement. We really don't care to try and prove originality nor debate it on here. Many of us are satisfied on a certain look that in our mind looks original...... or more original..... then not. We can sometimes only give an educated guess is all. Just like an MD when you go see a doctor....... educated guess is what you usually get.
guess it is time to slice up the pie a bit more.
if it were possible to determine such a thing, it would also permit one to test for trace elements which would be important on some coins because it could tell one what kind of future the coin possibly has. ie, copper/bronze/toners etc. - both variables usually have a great story to tell. what is missing and what is added.
imo, one of the biggest challenges would be getting together a control group of 100% proven original, un-molested by human testing of any kind, coins.
this kind of testing, imo, would mostly better serve the future of numismatics than the present. tons of exceptions of course.
one exception: "un-seeable" fingerprints could fall into this study. a lot of items composed of metal in numismatics would fall into this one. medals, tokens, coins, etc.
but also, getting the information is only part of the battle. what to do with it (the back end) is another matter entirely.
now we get into doctoring. if one could study and prove what was on the surfaces, one could "replicate" the mints' various recipes for mint grease and whatnot, allow for tons of coins to be re-original.
i've seen tons of coins where it has been done as a low-level. usually coins that once you dip them have bazillions of PLS. - a lot of coins like these have made it into holders since about the only way to
prove it 100% is to "dip". i guess maybe some minor test(s) could be done but now we get into cost vs benefit vs preference vs puritan etc.
.
<< <i>No. It really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. Originality is a look, doesn't need to be a fact for me. >>
I would say this statement most likely applies to lets say a 1789 coin that in 1835 was lightly cleaned and now in 2014 has retoned to an original look for that date coin not a counterfeit coin that is cast junk.
<< <i>
<< <i>No. It really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. Originality is a look, doesn't need to be a fact for me. >>
Wow! It is this attitude that supports the doctoring and destruction of our numismatic heritage. Why not just buy Chinese counterfeits? >>
To read that from my comment is absurd. The OP is questioning whether there should be developed a way to determine 100% original surfaces. I do not believe that is necessary, and in dealing with 18th and 19th century coins only a minute percentage of coins would meet that standard. I subscribe to Doug Winters definition of originality... "originality" is a coin that appears to not have been cleaned, dipped, processed or otherwise enhanced in recent generations. This is a very anti doctoring view. A coin does not acquire the characteristics (look) of originality by being doctored. In fact, it is the messing with that determines a coin is not original. But, if a coin was dipped 150 years ago and has developed the color, tone, skin, dirt, gunk, etc. with the absence of hairlines or other manipulations then I am not going to lose sleep over it. The coins in my collection are very highly original on the continuum from not original to 100% original. I cannot be positive that they were not messed with 150 years ago. What I am quite sure of is that they have not been messed with in generations.
Joseph J. Singleton - First Superintendent of the U.S. Branch Mint in Dahlonega Georgia
Findley Ridge Collection
About Findley Ridge
<< <i>How would it be possible for just a few atoms ? >>
Where there's a will, there's probably a way.
It's likely that there are some physical physical methods or techniques that could be used to compare surfaces of dipped and undipped coins. I think we could maybe all agree that toned GSA Morgans have original surfaces. Dipping is far and away the method referred to when discussing coin surfaces that have been altered. All it would take is for someone with the knowledge and interest/incentive to do it. Might be a nice Master's thesis project for someone in grad school studying physical or surface chemistry.
FWIW, a technique called ESCA/electron spectroscopy chemical analysis or more recently call XPS/X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy can be used to identify the milk spots on ASEs and other silver coins, yet nobody but myself has even bothered to look at it.
<< <i>I don't think it is his attitude whatsoever. I kinda agree with his statement. We really don't care to try and prove originality nor debate it on here. Many of us are satisfied on a certain look that in our mind looks original...... or more original..... then not. We can sometimes only give an educated guess is all. Just like an MD when you go see a doctor....... educated guess is what you usually get. >>
I suppose this means that the "certain look" has been deemed to be original, though it may not be at all. What if the coin doctors came up with a bulk process that would make all coins look that way, and started processing them (ie ruining them) en masse? I would not put it past them.
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>.
i can save you the trouble. as soon as the die struck the coin, atoms have been removed every day since. you smell metal on your fingers after handling coins, this is why.
also, even if you could see the surface of the coin to see if it were "flat", that isn't possible because the surfaces would look like a nuclear warzone.
also, if you could prove that you see the atoms "orbiting" the nucleus, i'm pretty sure you would be fast-tracked to a nobel. kinda hard since photons are bigger than electrons.
once you have a comfortable understanding of life at the atomic/molecular level, nothing will ever be the same for you.
. >>
How can anything be removed from a coin's surface if it was never allowed to circulate? Obviously original surfaces won't mean much for circulated coinage or coins that have been around the block in one way or another.
<< <i>Would it be desirable to have a scientific way to determine if metal atoms were ever removed from the surface of a coin? >>
I was hoping the PCGS Sniffer would provide this function. Other than by wear and tooling, removal of metal is usually chemical, and leaves traces that can be detected. Tooling must be detected visually, but dipping/doctoring processes can be "sniffed". I am further hoping that PCGS is indeed utilizing the Sniffer to effectively remove problem coins from the graded population. If so, I am hoping they are keeping records from the Sniffer that might be published someday.
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>
<< <i>No. It really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. Originality is a look, doesn't need to be a fact for me. >>
brillantly simple and to the point. And I'll say it again, people don't really want orginal coins, they want eye appealing coins. They are not nessiccarly the same thing. >>
You don't think that a true purist wouldn't love to have nothing but original surface coins? I once ran into a deer hunter who was using a muzzle loader and he felt the purity of his exclusive season was violated because I chose to use a handgun.
<< <i>
How can anything be removed from a coin's surface if it was never allowed to circulate? Obviously original surfaces won't mean much for circulated coinage or coins that have been around the block in one way or another. >>
Originality of surfaces on circulated coins is as important as on uncirculated.
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>.
imo, one of the biggest challenges would be getting together a control group of 100% proven original, un-molested by human testing of any kind, coins.
. >>
Rolls of silver eagles are very easy to come by.
Proof and mint set coins sealed in cellophane [toned or not] would both qualify as original surfaces in my book.
<< <i>
<< <i>Would it be desirable to have a scientific way to determine if metal atoms were ever removed from the surface of a coin? >>
I was hoping the PCGS Sniffer would provide this function. Other than by wear and tooling, removal of metal is usually chemical, and leaves traces that can be detected. Tooling must be detected visually, but dipping/doctoring processes can be "sniffed". I am further hoping that PCGS is indeed utilizing the Sniffer to effectively remove problem coins from the graded population. If so, I am hoping they are keeping records from the Sniffer that might be published someday. >>
The secure service offered by PCGS can be used to detect alteration/tooling. It is essentially a topographical relief map of a coin's surface. An original roll of 1884-O Morgans should all have pretty much the same secure scan. If a coin was thought to be fixed [as in some wing feather detail was redone] the secure scan should show the difference.
<< <i>How can anything be removed from a coin's surface if it was never allowed to circulate? >>
how about rub? how about oils/grease from fingers/hands?
i've gotten fingerprints on even proof coins and can usually get them off quickly by gently using a microfiber cloth. works on proofs but is very risky. - just as a side note, i remember pcgs talking about their gaskets not being able to "harm" the surface of even proof-70 coins, no matter how hard they rubbed the gasket on the surface. pretty sure i watched a video of this quite a while back.
<< <i>Obviously original surfaces won't mean much for circulated coinage or coins that have been around the block in one way or another. >>
w/o sounding too harsh; this is entirely untrue, for many reasons. one of which is, on circulated coins, there will still be some molecules/elements that should not be present, 99.9% of the time. a few exceptions will be if someone that is around various chemicals for their job or lives near a chemical plant/etc and is prone to open windows. also, the opposite is true. there are some things that should not be gone if ACTOAP (as close to original as possible) is one's goal. (yes i know the minor words generally don't get added to acronyms but they always look so funny to me w/o them.
really, the exceptions and reasons could be comprised on a list that is so long it just isn't worth the effort to list them all, especially since this thread is hypothetical to a certain extent.
.
<< <i>
<< <i>
How can anything be removed from a coin's surface if it was never allowed to circulate? Obviously original surfaces won't mean much for circulated coinage or coins that have been around the block in one way or another. >>
Originality of surfaces on circulated coins is as important as on uncirculated. >>
How so? The atoms on the original surface were lost to wear and contact long ago.
Like many, I have a preferred look to my circulated coinage. Sorta like this 34-S Walker with some circulation grunge in the crevices. Preferred color ranges from gray to gray-brown to brown.
A vf25 coin should not look like it just came out of a rock polisher.
<< <i>How so? The atoms on the original surface were lost to wear and contact long ago. >>
i think it is safe to say there is consistency of composition across depth. also, one can still determine if there is unwanted "added" material.
original doesn't have to mean only the original "top" surfaces. it can have fairly diverse interpretations/meanings. this is where context comes into play.
.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>If you want truly original surfaces buy a sealed mint or proof set as beyond those everything is questionable. >>
After the mint strikes a coin, anything that happens to the surface, affect originality.... some do not mind this (i.e. dirty gold, circulation coins etc). There are virtually no original surface coins beyond prime mint issue. Tarnish is environmental damage...this is fact, not opinion. Yes, many like/prefer this environmental damage.... but please, do not call it 'original surface'....IT IS NOT!!! Cheers, RickO
<< <i>
<< <i>How so? The atoms on the original surface were lost to wear and contact long ago. >>
i think it is safe to say there is consistency of composition across depth. also, one can still determine if there is unwanted "added" material.
original doesn't have to mean only the original "top" surfaces. it can have fairly diverse interpretations/meanings. this is where context comes into play.
. >>
A coin that has been in and out of pockets for 100 years is bound to pick up some foreign matter.
See the little green spot between the ends of the two wing tips and between 1 and 2 o' clock from the S mintmark? That's actually green paint and not PVC. If I was buying uncirculated coins I would prefer they never be touched, but since I have no control over what others did to coins in the past, I know that it's only wishful thinking. Likely the only reason dipped coins are acceptable is because 99.99999999% of people can't tell.
<< <i>Would it be desirable to have a scientific way to determine if metal atoms were ever removed from the surface of a coin? >>
Desirable maybe, possible no. Such a method would require a means of determining the exact quantity of each type of metal atom on the surface of a coin the instant after it was struck, along with each atom's location. Even then it would be impossible to know whether a metal atom had been removed and later replaced by another atom of the same metal in the same location.
<< <i>
<< <i>Would it be desirable to have a scientific way to determine if metal atoms were ever removed from the surface of a coin? >>
Desirable maybe, possible no. Such a method would require a means of determining the exact quantity of each type of metal atom on the surface of a coin the instant after it was struck, along with each atom's location. Even then it would be impossible to know whether a metal atom had been removed and later replaced by another atom of the same metal in the same location. >>
There were lots of CC Morgans struck that were put into bags and never touched until the GSA took them out and put them into those plastic holders and many remain untouched to this very day. It's not necessary to invoke more than that. It seems to me that a coin that's been dipped is likely to retain some ionic silver and or copper on the surface. I'm wondering if there isn't some sort of surface scatter technique that would enable one to tell the difference between a virgin undipped coin and one which has had at least some surface atoms removed by acid based dip. I don't know enough about that kind of chemistry to give a definitive answer, but I'm sure there those who do.
A lot of collectors want classic coins that are beautiful GEM BU with no toning. This is their preference but I would wager these pieces have been dipped. In the early days of grading, coins would be sent to TPG's in vinyl flips. Over time many of these would develop PVC usually an ugly haze or green film and then need to be cracked out and dipped.
I prefer the 1918-D Half Dollar (shown above).
<< <i>Broadstruck was accurate with this statement...
<< <i>If you want truly original surfaces buy a sealed mint or proof set as beyond those everything is questionable. >>
After the mint strikes a coin, anything that happens to the surface, affect originality.... some do not mind this (i.e. dirty gold, circulation coins etc). There are virtually no original surface coins beyond prime mint issue. Tarnish is environmental damage...this is fact, not opinion. Yes, many like/prefer this environmental damage.... but please, do not call it 'original surface'....IT IS NOT!!! Cheers, RickO >>
Even sealed mint or proof sets won't pass this test. A coin stops being original within microseconds after minting by this definition.
Apparently we need a new definition of "Original Surfaces". My definition, FWIW, is that the coin has the same surfaces it had when the first numismatist who acquired it made it a part of a collection, with only traditional coin storage methods being employed afterwards, handled only by its edges. By this definition, various natural toning processes due to the storage environment are allowed to occur.
Question for forum...What is your definition of "original surfaces"?
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>
<< <i>Broadstruck was accurate with this statement...
<< <i>If you want truly original surfaces buy a sealed mint or proof set as beyond those everything is questionable. >>
After the mint strikes a coin, anything that happens to the surface, affect originality.... some do not mind this (i.e. dirty gold, circulation coins etc). There are virtually no original surface coins beyond prime mint issue. Tarnish is environmental damage...this is fact, not opinion. Yes, many like/prefer this environmental damage.... but please, do not call it 'original surface'....IT IS NOT!!! Cheers, RickO >>
Even sealed mint or proof sets won't pass this test. A coin stops being original within microseconds after minting by this definition.
Apparently we need a new definition of "Original Surfaces". My definition, FWIW, is that the coin has the same surfaces it had when the first numismatist who acquired it made it a part of a collection, with only traditional coin storage methods being employed afterwards, handled only by its edges. By this definition, various natural toning processes due to the storage environment are allowed to occur.
Question for forum...What is your definition of "original surfaces"? >>
Keets has already started a thread asking folks to define original.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Broadstruck was accurate with this statement...
<< <i>If you want truly original surfaces buy a sealed mint or proof set as beyond those everything is questionable. >>
Question for forum...What is your definition of "original surfaces"? >>
Keets already started a thread about that. >>
Ahh, missed that one.
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>
<< <i>No. It really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. Originality is a look, doesn't need to be a fact for me. >>
brillantly simple and to the point. And I'll say it again, people don't really want orginal coins, they want eye appealing coins. They are not nessiccarly the same thing. >>
This
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>No. It really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. Originality is a look, doesn't need to be a fact for me. >>
brillantly simple and to the point. And I'll say it again, people don't really want orginal coins, they want eye appealing coins. They are not nessiccarly the same thing. >>
This >>
Hence a coin that has the look! Makes a huge difference in many series...regardless of what the plastic states!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Like many, I have a preferred look to my circulated coinage. Sorta like this 34-S Walker with some circulation grunge in the crevices. Preferred color ranges from gray to gray-brown to brown.
A vf25 coin should not look like it just came out of a rock polisher.
To each his own. Both coins are fine, but all other things being equal, date, condition, etc., I would pick the 1918-D
And my eyes don't see it as having been in a rock polisher at all. It is starting to lightly tone with a light rose color and a little mottled toning along the left edge of both sides. I like it.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Like many, I have a preferred look to my circulated coinage. Sorta like this 34-S Walker with some circulation grunge in the crevices. Preferred color ranges from gray to gray-brown to brown.
A vf25 coin should not look like it just came out of a rock polisher.
To each his own. Both coins are fine, but all other things being equal, date, condition, etc., I would pick the 1918-D
And my eyes don't see it as having been in a rock polisher at all. It is starting to lightly tone with a light rose color and a little mottled toning along the left edge of both sides. I like it. >>
The rose color of the 18-D may be an artifact of my photography. Too me it looks blah and washed out. I don't care for it at all.
The 34-S is not mine, but is a nice example of the look I like.
<< <i>
To each his own. Both coins are fine, but all other things being equal, date, condition, etc., I would pick the 1918-D
And my eyes don't see it as having been in a rock polisher at all. It is starting to lightly tone with a light rose color and a little mottled toning along the left edge of both sides. I like it. >>
It sounds like there are folks who would pay top dollar (maybe even a toning premium) for material such as this. But Caveat Emptor, don't expect top dollar when you want to sell. It's natural for dealers to talk-up their wares, and talk-down yours, but in this case they have good reason for it.
I expect there is a lot of tongue-in-cheek going on in this thread, and others on this subject. A market needs to be made for this kind of material, lest we be left with little to trade. However, you can be sure the folks "in the know" are buying the coins with truly original surfaces, either for themselves or for their select, discriminating clients.
http://macrocoins.com
These are worthy goals to strive but will likely always be elusive since so many alterations and cleanings were done to classic US coins over the past 200+ years. Being 100% original should include original coins that were not
subjected to unusual chemical and environmental attack over the centuries. What good is 100% original if the coin is now dark black? Old timers even up into the 1970's preferred cleaned coins with sharp strikes over less than
well struck coins even if they had fully original and lustrous surfaces with blazing luster. Too much damage had occurred by that time.
We probably need to be satisfied with "original-appearing" surfaces which is just one step above "market acceptable" appearance.
The service would be like CAC, except that unlike CAC it would give an opinion specifically on the coin's "originality".
What would this do to the coin market? Would the service be popular? How much would you pay to find out if your slabbed coin is original?
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>The OP's question could have been "what if a 3rd party service came along that could analyze the surface of a coin, either raw or through plastic, and with reasonably high certainty tell you what the coin has been through since leaving the mint?"
The service would be like CAC, except that unlike CAC it would give an opinion specifically on the coin's "originality".
What would this do to the coin market? Would the service be popular? How much would you pay to find out if your slabbed coin is original? >>
It would turn the market upside down much the way CAC has over the past 5 years. If you have purely original coins you'd make out great. If half of your holdings are non-original coins, I suppose you'd get hammered as
demand for such coins would fall off the cliff compared to original ones.
<< <i>
<< <i>The OP's question could have been "what if a 3rd party service came along that could analyze the surface of a coin, either raw or through plastic, and with reasonably high certainty tell you what the coin has been through since leaving the mint?"
The service would be like CAC, except that unlike CAC it would give an opinion specifically on the coin's "originality".
What would this do to the coin market? Would the service be popular? How much would you pay to find out if your slabbed coin is original? >>
It would turn the market upside down much the way CAC has over the past 5 years. If you have purely original coins you'd make out great. If half of your holdings are non-original coins, I suppose you'd get hammered as
demand for such coins would fall off the cliff compared to original ones. >>
How much of a premium might a 1884-O Morgan in ms61 with original surfaces garner?
<< <i>How much of a premium might a 1884-O Morgan in ms61 with original surfaces garner? >>
Depends on whether it's high end or low end for the grade.
<< If you want truly original surfaces buy a sealed mint or proof set as beyond those everything is questionable. >>
After the mint strikes a coin, anything that happens to the surface, affect originality.... some do not mind this (i.e. dirty gold, circulation coins etc). There are virtually no original surface coins beyond prime mint issue. Tarnish is environmental damage...this is fact, not opinion. Yes, many like/prefer this environmental damage.... but please, do not call it 'original surface'....IT IS NOT!!! Cheers, RickO
I find that the concept of "originality" has become nothing more than a marketing term now used to hype pre 1900 coins used by dealers and auction house authors to differentiate the coins they are selling based based upon their "own" expert authentication. RickO is spot on in his definition. "Original" cannot have any tarnish or toning as a matter of definition. And by that definition, there cannot possibly any coins pre 1900 that have original surfaces. Even a proof IHC RD will have toned somewhat from it's freshly minted state.
Anyone who worships the altar of "original surfaces" Is not connected to reality. And any dealer who describes a 200 YO coin as having "original surfaces" is also delusional. They need to find a term much less descriptive than original.
OINK
<< <i>Broadstruck was accurate with this statement...
<< <i>If you want truly original surfaces buy a sealed mint or proof set as beyond those everything is questionable. >>
After the mint strikes a coin, anything that happens to the surface, affect originality.... some do not mind this (i.e. dirty gold, circulation coins etc). There are virtually no original surface coins beyond prime mint issue. Tarnish is environmental damage...this is fact, not opinion. Yes, many like/prefer this environmental damage.... but please, do not call it 'original surface'....IT IS NOT!!! Cheers, RickO >>
Any white 100+ year old coin is extremely unlikely to be unprocessed. I think you are taking "original" out of context to suit the narrow view on toning which you express in every thread where a toned coin is posted.
The tarnish is history and age and occurs naturally based on exposure to the elements. I find it far more logical to call an untouched, tarnished or dirty coin to be original versus a blast white 100+ year old coin.
Latin American Collection
<< <i> I think you are taking "original" out of context to suit the narrow view on toning which you express in every thread where a toned coin is posted. >>
Actually, that statement is untrue..... I do not post in most threads showing tarnished coins.... When I do, though, I usually state my preference. Cheers, RickO
<< <i>I find that the concept of "originality" has become nothing more than a marketing term now used to hype pre 1900 coins used by dealers and auction house authors to differentiate the coins they are selling based based upon their "own" expert authentication. RickO is spot on in his definition. "Original" cannot have any tarnish or toning as a matter of definition. And by that definition, there cannot possibly any coins pre 1900 that have original surfaces. Even a proof IHC RD will have toned somewhat from it's freshly minted state.
Anyone who worships the altar of "original surfaces" Is not connected to reality. And any dealer who describes a 200 YO coin as having "original surfaces" is also delusional. They need to find a term much less descriptive than original.
OINK >>
Your definition of original surfaces is completely useless. Perhaps you could suggest a new one?
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>To define "original" you also need to be able to define and identify "doctored" coins with essentially 100% reliability. >>
Why? The surface is either original [meaning by my definition, it contains the same metal atoms, toned or not, as struck ] or it isn't. For purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter if the non original surfaces have been doctored or not.