Original Skin
Pickwickjr
Posts: 556 ✭✭✭✭✭
Trying to find coins with original surfaces is extremely hard. Would love to see some original coins that haven’t been messed with. ! One of my favorites I own. 
(https://us.v-cdn.net/6027503/uploads/editor/2b/kdaan38ni82b.jpeg "")
18
Comments
Nice coin, thank you for posting it!
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
nice coin, I like
One difficulty is self-defining "original surface."
Wow... that is a dark one.... Much darker than I like....I can appreciate old coins with crusty surfaces, but this one is beyond that...Cheers, RickO
I like light toning but that toning is way too dark to be attractive.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Most people say they like original surfaces but wouldn't like a coin like this that actually had a high degree of retained original surfaces
Latin American Collection
You really can't know that the surfaces are "original". You just can't tell whether they've been messed with. [Just to be accurate.]
oh, I totally agree. But I'm just a little fussy about people being too sure of "original", "NT" or "AT".
I agree it's just awful, send it to me and I'll store it where no one will ever have to look at it.
That’s a perfect example of original surfaces.
I like the look of that coin. Thanks for sharing.
Rarely has a 200 year old silver coin not been conserved at some point in its life.
This one appears to have lots of 19th century dirt. Nice and crusty with very respectable luster. 1820 O.103b curl 2, small date, late die state. PCGS AU50.
Lance.
I like it!
My YouTube Channel
I'd say 60-70% of my showcase (see link in signature) displays original skin. It's always tough to find the right combination of originality and eye appeal.
8 Reales Madness Collection
I have to smile. When a coin gets in this condition, there is often little "original" surface remaining. On dark coins as this one, it can be hard for some to tell. Anyone know what that gray black color is?
I guess it comes down to this, if a knowledgeable collector plus a major TPGS likes the coin, original or not - that's all that is important!
I like this coin and it's look very much. Sorta reminds me of what my Father-in-law use to say about Art.
He always said "I may not know Art, but I know what I like".
It’s great to hear all the different opinions on the surfaces. As a seated dollar collector I think it’s extremely hard to find them like this. It has nice surfaces in my opinion and not at the point of surface corrosion were it’s causing damage. I’m happy to own the coin.
Would love to see some other pieces, love the bust half!
This is my favorite coin I own, I love the small eagle design. The planchet color is just what I wanted. Didn’t leave the show without her and was cac’d on a walkthrough.
I really like the “Original Skin” Technicolor Toning of this recently purchased 1878-7TF Morgan Dollar and the Balanced effect of it exhibiting similar toning on both the obverse and reverse. — I prefer balanced-effect dual-side toners to unbalanced one-siders.
In hand this Morgan is beautiful, with Flashy Luster illuminating the attractive toning from underneath when viewed in reflected light. The coin in person looks very similar to Phil Arnold’s PCGS TrueView photos.
Although many (including me) like to cherry-pick scarce varieties, I consider this coin a high quality Eye-Appeal Cherry-Pick. It’s always a fun challenge and satisfactionally rewarding to find a beautiful coin, deserving of a premium, and purchasing it for a reasonable price.
Low Resolution
Click👇Here to Enlarge:
High Resolution
Click👇Here to Enlarge:
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
Some beautiful old coins here.
I too just love that old circulated look with some dirt still clinging on in the crevasses.
A common date Trade Dollar but I have not seen to many that I like better than this one. Sorry for the crappy pics...
My only Trade dollar.
Pickwick- I love your coin . She is perfect to my eyes... and the pedigree is kinda cool too. I wish all SLDs looked like that.
I know you will not like my opinion. But I don't believe that coin is original. Of course it is totally acceptable and a nice coin! I think too many people focus on what is original vrs. what has not been abused...IE properly preserved. Think about your family silverware. No way it would retain that light of surfaces after almost 200 years.
Actually I like your opinions very much. That's a good distinction, BTW.
As I said, I figure few 200 year old silver coins have never been tidied up. This one has not been worked over, like most.
Lance.
Stuart's coin seems "original," but so far no one has presented a definition of that key word.
I had at one time, a liberty seated dollar quite similar to yours, pickwickjr. Wish I still had it, I think it sold with my first 7070. Wish I still had it. Thanks for sharing.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Anyone else have something to post?
I haven’t seen any frosty gems yet that haven’t toned. Here’s another lsd that’s nice.
Hmmmm.....no definitions of "original" yet.....maybe the subject needs time in a warm oven or more yeast?
IMHO the answer to your question is very easy to answer! This is also an academic question of the type that is PERFECT for a grading class or COLLECTORS UNIVERSE COIN FORUM! The fact that you are getting no replies to your excellent and thought provoking question is VERY SAD to me.
Hopefully, your knowledge has not intimidated the new collectors and I'm glad the knowledgeable members have not posted the answers here yet.
Suggestion: Start a new discussion, What does the word "original" indicate. Please make sure to add the examples you posted.
When I was born 63 years ago my skin was original. In every year since my birth my skin has remained original.
My skin today does not look like it did 63 years ago. My skin today does not look like it will be in another 20 years.
Same thing with coins. When a coin is struck and ejected from the striking chamber it has original skin
100 years later its skin will still be original, even though it looks very different.
Now if a person or a coin has "work" done (by a plastic surgeon or a coin doctor) their/its skin is no longer original.
Their/its skin may look better or worse after the work is done, but originality is gone.
Thus, in my mind a coin does not have original skin if humans have worked on it to change its appearance. This requires "intent", which is a very controversial topic in and of itself when it comes to whether a coin is AT or NT.
Here are 2 of my favorite “Original Skin” Seated Liberty Dollars in my collection.
The 1867 Proof (Top) was purchased from Mark Feld, and the 1846 (Bottom) from Dave Olmstead.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
I have always enjoyed this seated dollar for its rich dark surfaces. I would say it has original surfaces, but as we can see that is not a settled point, just my opinion, and in full candor I have not owned this since 1841.
Seated Dollar Collection
"Thus, in my mind a coin does not have original skin if humans have worked on it to change its appearance. This requires "intent", which is a very controversial topic in and of itself when it comes to whether a coin is AT or NT."
Well, thanks to SanctionII, we at least have a coherent statement and possible working definition. (This would be expected from such an astute and learned participant!)
If we turn the statement around we get:
"Original skin" on a coin means that no one has intentionally altered any of the surfaces since the coin was struck.
Thoughts? Comments? Alternate definitions?
Great topic! START A NEW DISCUSSION - Please
More will see your question and respond. Otherwise, I'll bet someone reading this thread will steal your question and post a new discussion. 
One of the most original Dahlonega pieces I have seen. I have auction records back to the 50's and it has not been messed with since then.
Joseph J. Singleton - First Superintendent of the U.S. Branch Mint in Dahlonega Georgia
Findley Ridge Collection
About Findley Ridge
I love that classic head 1839 D... Here is another coin from my SLD collection that I consider to be original. She earned herself a CAC sticker. My pic isn’t the best. I’m still working on my coin photography .
I don't like "original skin" when it's dark.
That's when "original skin" becomes "original HIDE.
OT. Old skin to new skin.
I like the OP's coin.
Nananana Poopoo!
Coming from a guy that prefers bleached blondes?
I think Sanction II's definition is hard to improve upon. Personally, I find it hard to accept that any 18th or 19th century coin with fairly bright surfaces is "original."* After all, for many years they existed in a state of perpetual off-gassing of sulfurous compounds: wood stoves, coal stoves, acidic paper, buildings made of wood and organic materials, no control over humidity and wide temperature fluctuations. The end result is that silver coins resemble charcoal. Not everyone finds this attractive. I own lots of coins that I think are "original," ie, dark and crusty, and plenty that are brighter, and probably have had "work done." and I like both kinds.
*excepting silver dollars stored in bags in vaults for many decades
I may have a different take on this than others, but I'm generally a STEM sort of guy by nature and by training. First, it might be instructive to consider that there might be more than one valid definition. The entire hobby of collecting coins is subjective by its very nature, and concrete definitions aren't always available.
For starters, consider the surface of a coin in terms of metallurgy, chemistry, and topography. Let's assume we start with a perfectly homogeneous silver-copper planchet of ideal dimensions, on-spec purity, and a perfectly centered, fully detailed strike by dies midway between new and ready to be retired.
On striking, the microscopic details and imperfections of the die are transferred very quickly, but very predictably to the surface of the planchet. Metal moves to fill the voids and recesses of the die. Movement is constrained by the collar. Flow is generally outward, away from the center and the eventual erosion of the die caused by metal movement of the planchet produces microscopic ridges we call flow lines or radial flow lines. The die affects the planchet but the countless parade of planchets also affect the die (thus, the die state). These microscopic die details are impressed on the coin. The interaction of light with these ridges results in the quality we call original mint luster. The instant the coin leaves the dies it is as original as it will ever be. From there, many forces will act on the coin to change it.
The metallurgy generally doesn't change, at least on the interior of the coin, but all sorts of chemical things start to happen immediately. The various microscopic regions of stress and strain at the surface give some areas different propensity to chemical activity than other areas. Small inclusions or areas of impurity in the metal will have vastly different chemical properties than other regions. Oils, acids, and any number of other chemicals from the minting process are already present on the surface of the coin and will start to work immediately. Due to the topography of the coin and the process of striking some areas will harbor more of these potential reactants than others (pull-away toning, etc). Additional contaminants will gradually migrate to the coin either through the air or by direct contact. The effect of these may be undetectable to the human eye for many years, but cumulatively, things are already in motion. This happens to every coin, but obviously the process happens more slowly for some than others depending on storage conditions. Metallic silver forms chemical ionic bonds with a host of anions delivered by the atmosphere or contact. The most important of these are sulfur compounds which result in an ever-accumulating layer of silver sulfide. Oils from a fingerprint will coat and protect some areas while the neighboring bare regions will react at the usual rate.
Physical contact can result in macroscopic changes (a big hit, rim ding, staple scratch, or reed marks). Less forceful contact first removes the very high points of the microscopic ridges, blunting them, gradually diminishing the luster and original surface topography. When done gradually, we call this wear. Eventually, at some undefined moment, the coin forever passes from the realm of uncirculated, to circulated. If an unlucky coin is forcefully traversed by a cloth or finger, small bits of silica and other abrasives from dust in the air will gouge out what we call hairlines.
So far, I don't think anything I've said should be too controversial.
In reality, no coin I've ever seen is actually original with the exception of the nickels the Denver Mint was making on the day I visited.
The trouble arises from our lousy definitions and accepted norms in the hobby. Some things are clearly not original (melted, treated with sandpaper, shot with a bullet, bent, flattened by a train). Some things are generally accepted as original - a coin existing in a relatively undisturbed, unmolested state in relationship to its peers...... no deliberate chemical treatments (dipping, primarily), but in reality THERE IS NO SET DEFINITION and no consensus statement by any governing body. We give an automatic pass to coins exhibiting attributes that have been associated with particular methods of storage (certain albums, Commemorative mailers, slab inserts, Mint packaging, etc). In reality, we only make associations - nobody really knows if the 58-D Franklin in my hand got its colors from Mint Set packaging or from a really expert "artist."
For me, the term "Plausibly Original" seems to be about as good as we can expect. How a person defines this for themselves is a product of every coin they've ever seen, every conversation they've ever shared, and everything they've ever read.
Finally, to me, this coin is plausibly original:
This one, although quite nice, is not:
Pickwick- love your 1872 . She is a wonderful example of a naturally toned circulated seated dollar. Certainly it can be difficult to know with absolute certainty that the surfaces of a darkly toned coin have never been messed with. However, it's easy to tell when a white coin has been over dipped or harshly cleaned.
I have never seen nor do I believe that a complete collection of circulated naturally white (untoned) liberty seated dollars exists that has not been dipped. I’ve found that the overwhelming majority of knowledgeable numismatists prefer seated dollars that have an antique look, with original skin.
It's all about the detail to me but some coins have been brought up in a better environment than others.
Nice coin Pickwickjr, I like the looks of her but does anyone actually think that this coin has never been cleaned?
It screams cleaned to my eyes but I still like her.
Below is an example of original toning.