Is it possible for a coin to be, "too original"?
braddick
Posts: 23,739 ✭✭✭✭✭
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?
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?
peacockcoins
0
Comments
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
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.
peacockcoins
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
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
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.
peacockcoins
"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.
I've always been very careful about peeing in other people's yards. Well, except for that one time ...
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.
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.
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I had a coin I thought was too original.
Then I found out it was a duplicate.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
How did the word "original" come to mean "thick layer of dark oxidation and foreign matter accumulation on the surfaces"?
It probably came from the various portions of the antiquities business where completely original and even unsightly/untouched surfaces are more often than not highly desirable and worth many more times items that have been conserved.
I would say more collectibles are ruined by cleaning, conserving, and dipping than if left alone.
Yes and we have proof. Blast white (that is original) is fine. Dipped white is not.
Dipped white seems fine with the services.
To the OP. Yes for coins. No for furniture.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
bob