I have to believe folks know what is intended and meant to describe a coin with original surfaces. Then all the radicals want to argue the point it is as struck and unchanged from when it was struck at the mint, to try and be "right" and correct everybody. You..... yeah you, (YOU know who you are) know what is intended and could it be you just want to argue for arguments sake and be a keyboard cowboy? Naw, couldn't be that at all.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
<< <i>I have to believe folks know what is intended and meant to describe a coin with original surfaces. Then all the radicals want to argue the point it is as struck and unchanged from when it was struck at the mint, to try and be "right" and correct everybody. You..... yeah you, (YOU know who you are) know what is intended and could it be you just want to argue for arguments sake and be a keyboard cowboy? Naw, couldn't be that at all. >>
Maybe we should just say market acceptable surfaces.
<< <i>I have to believe folks know what is intended and meant to describe a coin with original surfaces. Then all the radicals want to argue the point it is as struck and unchanged from when it was struck at the mint, to try and be "right" and correct everybody. You..... yeah you, (YOU know who you are) know what is intended and could it be you just want to argue for arguments sake and be a keyboard cowboy? Naw, couldn't be that at all. >>
Maybe we should just say market acceptable surfaces. >>
Nah, too variable and subject to change.
Besides, wasn't I scolded (pointed to another thread, by you) earlier for trying to define "original surfaces"? Shouldn't all this talk of definition be happening in Keets' thread?
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
<< <i>I have to believe folks know what is intended and meant to describe a coin with original surfaces. Then all the radicals want to argue the point it is as struck and unchanged from when it was struck at the mint, to try and be "right" and correct everybody. You..... yeah you, (YOU know who you are) know what is intended and could it be you just want to argue for arguments sake and be a keyboard cowboy? Naw, couldn't be that at all. >>
Maybe we should just say market acceptable surfaces. >>
Nah, too variable and subject to change.
Besides, wasn't I scolded (pointed to another thread, by you) earlier for trying to define "original surfaces"? Shouldn't all this talk of definition be happening in Keets' thread? >>
Well, it's kind of morphing that way. If one embraces original surfaces you need a way to define what they mean to you. All I asked was if there was a way to scientifically prove an original surface would it be of value to anyone here.
So if this were to happen, things could get more complicated. Coins would need to be cracked out of their holders, analyzed and re-holdered with some new adjective or code. I'd hesitate sending in my old green holdered coins for fear of bad results.
For me, I think it could be the final nail in the coin collecting coffin; another way communicate to collectors that they now own sub-standard coins. I imagine myself saying, " I've had these beautiful coins for decades, sent them in for the original surface holder, only to find out that they didn't cut the mustard."
Worse yet, the haughty collectors/dealers would soon brag about their encapsulated original coins. They'd say things like......." I sent in a dozen of my coins and they all came back with original surfaces!" They would also say, "I knew all along that MY coins were original, but it's nice to get a professional confirmation." I'm already getting nauseous and it didn't even happen yet.
Maybe I should revisit my circulated Roosevelt dime collection. Life would be simple and stress-free again!
If the "original surface" designation were to see the light of day, many of our once cherished, encapsulated coins would be cracked out and put back into our beloved, but nearly extinct cardboard holders and albums. After all, our sad specimens have been deemed "unoriginal", so we can sit back, touch our "infected" coins, and let them relax in their old acidic cardboard homes. Nothing to lose right?
Except the big bucks we spent on all those TPG coins.
I'm not saying I'm for or against an original surfaces designation...... but for the ones saying it would ruin everything and folks would feel their coins or the market saying their not worthy....... I believe CAC pulled it off and people said the same thing at the start. Same thing kinda except they confirm or deny grade and that seems to mean more to most folks than surfaces. CAC had the big dealers backing them and the money as well. No doubt it would take the same on what is being proposed. Doubt that would happen.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
<< <i>I'm not saying I'm for or against an original surfaces designation...... but for the ones saying it would ruin everything and folks would feel their coins or the market saying their not worthy....... I believe CAC pulled it off and people said the same thing at the start. Same thing kinda except they confirm or deny grade and that seems to mean more to most folks than surfaces. CAC had the big dealers backing them and the money as well. No doubt it would take the same on what is being proposed. Doubt that would happen. >>
What if the service were the same as CAC, ie you don't get a designation unless the coin passes muster. Then it isn't known if an unstickered coin isn't original, but a coin that is original would be stickered. Maintains benefit of the doubt.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
<< <i>I'm not saying I'm for or against an original surfaces designation...... but for the ones saying it would ruin everything and folks would feel their coins or the market saying their not worthy....... I believe CAC pulled it off and people said the same thing at the start. Same thing kinda except they confirm or deny grade and that seems to mean more to most folks than surfaces. CAC had the big dealers backing them and the money as well. No doubt it would take the same on what is being proposed. Doubt that would happen. >>
The CAC comparison is somewhat valid, but one is a grade opinion and the "original surface" designation would be based on scientific fact (supposedly.) In addition, if there were a plausible way to prove a coin's originality, it would have a devastating effect, elevating the select few and DRAMATICALLY degrading the lion's share.
<< <i>I'm not saying I'm for or against an original surfaces designation...... but for the ones saying it would ruin everything and folks would feel their coins or the market saying their not worthy....... I believe CAC pulled it off and people said the same thing at the start. Same thing kinda except they confirm or deny grade and that seems to mean more to most folks than surfaces. CAC had the big dealers backing them and the money as well. No doubt it would take the same on what is being proposed. Doubt that would happen. >>
What if the service were the same as CAC, ie you don't get a designation unless the coin passes muster. Then it isn't known if an unstickered coin isn't original, but a coin that is original would be stickered. Maintains benefit of the doubt. >>
I guess that's where I was heading with that post.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
Comments
<< <i>I have to believe folks know what is intended and meant to describe a coin with original surfaces. Then all the radicals want to argue the point it is as struck and unchanged from when it was struck at the mint, to try and be "right" and correct everybody. You..... yeah you, (YOU know who you are)
Maybe we should just say market acceptable surfaces.
<< <i>
<< <i>I have to believe folks know what is intended and meant to describe a coin with original surfaces. Then all the radicals want to argue the point it is as struck and unchanged from when it was struck at the mint, to try and be "right" and correct everybody. You..... yeah you, (YOU know who you are)
Maybe we should just say market acceptable surfaces.
Nah, too variable and subject to change.
Besides, wasn't I scolded (pointed to another thread, by you) earlier for trying to define "original surfaces"? Shouldn't all this talk of definition be happening in Keets' thread?
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I have to believe folks know what is intended and meant to describe a coin with original surfaces. Then all the radicals want to argue the point it is as struck and unchanged from when it was struck at the mint, to try and be "right" and correct everybody. You..... yeah you, (YOU know who you are)
Maybe we should just say market acceptable surfaces.
Nah, too variable and subject to change.
Besides, wasn't I scolded (pointed to another thread, by you) earlier for trying to define "original surfaces"? Shouldn't all this talk of definition be happening in Keets' thread? >>
Well, it's kind of morphing that way. If one embraces original surfaces you need a way to define what they mean to you. All I asked was if there was a way to scientifically prove an original surface would it be of value to anyone here.
For me, I think it could be the final nail in the coin collecting coffin; another way communicate to collectors that they now own sub-standard coins. I imagine myself saying, " I've had these beautiful coins for decades, sent them in for the original surface holder, only to find out that they didn't cut the mustard."
Worse yet, the haughty collectors/dealers would soon brag about their encapsulated original coins. They'd say things like......." I sent in a dozen of my coins and they all came back with original surfaces!" They would also say, "I knew all along that MY coins were original, but it's nice to get a professional confirmation." I'm already getting nauseous and it didn't even happen yet.
Maybe I should revisit my circulated Roosevelt dime collection. Life would be simple and stress-free again!
Hoard the keys.
Both need to be resurfaced every 10 years.
Except the big bucks we spent on all those TPG coins.
<< <i>I'm not saying I'm for or against an original surfaces designation...... but for the ones saying it would ruin everything and folks would feel their coins or the market saying their not worthy....... I believe CAC pulled it off and people said the same thing at the start. Same thing kinda except they confirm or deny grade and that seems to mean more to most folks than surfaces. CAC had the big dealers backing them and the money as well. No doubt it would take the same on what is being proposed. Doubt that would happen. >>
What if the service were the same as CAC, ie you don't get a designation unless the coin passes muster. Then it isn't known if an unstickered coin isn't original, but a coin that is original would be stickered. Maintains benefit of the doubt.
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>I'm not saying I'm for or against an original surfaces designation...... but for the ones saying it would ruin everything and folks would feel their coins or the market saying their not worthy....... I believe CAC pulled it off and people said the same thing at the start. Same thing kinda except they confirm or deny grade and that seems to mean more to most folks than surfaces. CAC had the big dealers backing them and the money as well. No doubt it would take the same on what is being proposed. Doubt that would happen. >>
The CAC comparison is somewhat valid, but one is a grade opinion and the "original surface" designation would be based on scientific fact (supposedly.)
In addition, if there were a plausible way to prove a coin's originality, it would have a devastating effect, elevating the select few and DRAMATICALLY degrading the lion's share.
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm not saying I'm for or against an original surfaces designation...... but for the ones saying it would ruin everything and folks would feel their coins or the market saying their not worthy....... I believe CAC pulled it off and people said the same thing at the start. Same thing kinda except they confirm or deny grade and that seems to mean more to most folks than surfaces. CAC had the big dealers backing them and the money as well. No doubt it would take the same on what is being proposed. Doubt that would happen. >>
What if the service were the same as CAC, ie you don't get a designation unless the coin passes muster. Then it isn't known if an unstickered coin isn't original, but a coin that is original would be stickered. Maintains benefit of the doubt. >>
I guess that's where I was heading with that post.