Original Doesn't necessarily mean Attractive. I've made peace with this epiphany
braddick
Posts: 24,855 ✭✭✭✭✭
An attractive coin needs to be original- yet an original coin does not need to be attractive.
Case in point, the following Peace dollar:
(And it's OK I use this one as an example as I just purchased it.)
This one probably spends much of its life in a leather coin purse or pouch. It hasn't been dipped to death or manhandled.
I particularly like the strike, and I think it's a sleeper among the series with a mintage of a bit over half a million. I am not foolish enough to believe many will find the positive attributes as I do a motivating factor. That's OK. Is it pretty? Not really. Does it somehow speak to me? It does.
Are there coins you enjoy that is not pretty, yet you find owning it a pleasure?
peacockcoins
13
Comments
Attractive coins do not need to have original surfaces (even though I strongly prefer them), and I would bet that a significant fraction of the coins currently on the market, deemed attractive by collectors, consists of coins that were dipped (and retoned in albums or recolored) or otherwise worked on at some point.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
I saw that one on ebay with a bin today. It sold pretty fast. It has a nice dirty look. I probably have a few raw that you'd like the look of.
That's what makes this a great hobby. Beauty is in the eye of the..................well, you know the rest.
A coin like this has character, patina and class.
I can hear one forum member now saying "those are NOT original surfaces".
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
And that would probably be you.
I don't care for the tobacco spit toning, but MAN, that coin is hammered!!
I can see why you appreciate it!!
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
"Eye Appeal" is very subjective. In our grading class, we teach that in terms of market grading, the three most important variables are luster, strength of strike and detractors (marks and blemishes that occurred at the Mint.) Bill Fivaz taught me that luster + strength of strike + lack of detractors = eye appeal.
If a coin speaks to you, then (and I would say only then) it should be in your collection.
I spent a minute or three trying to wipe the "cat hair" off my phone screen . . . . . .
Z
Busy chasing Carr's . . . . . woof!
Successful BST transactions with: Bullsitter, Downtown1974, P0CKETCHANGE, Twobitcollector, AKbeez, DCW, Illini420, ProofCollection, DCarr, Cazkaboom, RichieURich, LukeMarshall, carew4me, BustDMs, coinsarefun, PreTurb, felinfoal, jwitten, GoldenEgg, pruebas, lazybones, COCollector, CuKevin, MWallace, USMC_6115, NamVet69, zippcity, . . . . who'd I forget?
Ugh, five posts in, another thread gets polluted...
In answer to @braddick 's question: no, I don't enjoy owning unattractive coins, and hence, I don't buy them.
No, it certainly would not. Clearly you haven't been following the MS68 Walker thread.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
hmmm....interesting.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Well, that is one heck of a strike.
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
Yes it is, he's talkin' about you.
You think I didn't know that? I can count to 5.
What I find interesting is why my comment was so objectionable. The OP raised the issue of "original surfaces" and "attractiveness". I made a reference to another thread that is currently on page 1 with over 500 posts and deals almost exclusively with the meaning of "original".
Please explain to me how, exactly, my comment somehow "polluted" the thread.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
You're a smart guy, figure it out yourself. You have a track record of doing this.
I appreciate the compliment, but that's not very helpful. I have a track record of inserting references that are directly on point. I agree.
Now, getting back to the "pollution" question...
There is nothing remotely controversial about what I said. Everyone who has been on the MS68 Walker thread (560 comments and growing) would know exactly to what my references refers. Nothing I said disagreed with anything that anyone posted on this thread nor sought to start an argument. Yet coinjunkie refers to it as pollution and you jump in to support it and somehow I'm the one who polluted the thread.
Just remember that it was you and @coinjunkie who pulled this thread OT.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Returning to the topic, I don't think it's true that a coin needs to be original to be attractive. There are all kinds of dipped bust halves, for example, that are quite attractive despite being "not original". You need to be original to achieve high Gem + grades but even that has exceptions for early U.S. type.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
To that, I’d add: But even that has many exceptions and not just for early U.S. type.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I've got to adjust my thinking. I originally stated, "An attractive coin must be original," and I can now see where that is not always the case. I have seen some highly attractive early commemoratives with a blazing luster that probably dipped slightly to remove slight haze. The same can be said for DCAM proof Franklins and such.
I modify my thinking to reflect that logic now.
peacockcoins
Your initial comment was intended to provoke and offered nothing of substance to the discussion. That is my definition of pollution. If you want to carry on a running feud with a misguided individual in another thread that is well over 500 posts long, then please feel free to do so... in that thread. It's a disservice to the OP and the people who might want to discuss his coin or subsequent query (Are there coins you enjoy that is not pretty, yet you find owning it a pleasure?) to throw down derailment bait as your opening salvo.
In the interest of everyone's sanity, I'll let your inevitable indignant rebuttal be the final word on the topic.
Yes, I agree. Although it is most obvious to me for early U.S. type because so much of it was dipped that it is almost an expectation that a light dipping does not affect the grade. Certainly any coin with a nearly imperceptible dip will skate by. But with early U.S. type, even if it is perceptible, the impact on the grade is minimized.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
disagree (x3)
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Me too...and I don't even have a cat
When someone consistently doesn’t see the problem they are most often the problem. Something to ponder
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
This coin speaks to me. Mostly mumbles and grunts.
You would have to dip it before I would comment on its proof status.
As is, it's a piece to be pondered while listening to an old recording of "It's a treat to beat your feet in the Mississippi mud".
Out of curiosity, what did PCI grade it?
Collector, occasional seller
From what I can see, through the tarnish, the strike does seem to be excellent. However, the word 'seem' is the qualifier. If such a coin appeals to a collector, then fine.... Such a coin will not appeal to many others. This is a hobby, voluntary - to some, a business. Enjoy or pursue what makes you happy. Cheers, RickO
I wrote the seller after purchasing it, and he divulged, "MS63".
peacockcoins
Pondered. Rejected.
If anyone else had made that statement, it would have simply been ignored. But yet here's one more person (you) who feels the need to personalize and publicize your animus.
There is an ignore function that you could use.
While my style might annoy some, I don't engage in insults or personal attacks even when levied against me. Something for you (and others) to ponder.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
I think a better photo with more light might persuade more to like it
I think its cool
Well my wife and I definitely have original surfaces but we are no longer attractive - does that count seeing a few like to go off topic????????
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
.
Well, the cat certainly has hocked up quite a few off topic hairballs in this thread now, hasn't it?
Most by last word uber-poster are more unappealing and unattractive than the OP's Peace Dollar (keeping this post "on topic").
Z
Busy chasing Carr's . . . . . woof!
Successful BST transactions with: Bullsitter, Downtown1974, P0CKETCHANGE, Twobitcollector, AKbeez, DCW, Illini420, ProofCollection, DCarr, Cazkaboom, RichieURich, LukeMarshall, carew4me, BustDMs, coinsarefun, PreTurb, felinfoal, jwitten, GoldenEgg, pruebas, lazybones, COCollector, CuKevin, MWallace, USMC_6115, NamVet69, zippcity, . . . . who'd I forget?
You asked for it
...
That coin is about as original as my fungus infected big toe toenail. The only reason original can no longer be assumed to be attractive is because the word "original" as well as the words "fully original luster" have been tortured to mean a coin that can have this type of hideous toning. But even if the toning was gorgeous I still wouldn't consider the coin to be original.
For years, I've been hearing about an ignore button. I'm not clear what I should expect from it.
Is this another way of saying I can block members by not allowing their PMs to reach my private mailbox? That I can do!
Is there a different feature that, in public discussion, allow me to block any other user from commenting?
I can mentally ignore anyone's message with little more than a squint and an "harrumpf".
But I have at times being convinced that, while I myself am not being heckled to death, a point I may have been making has been done that deed, attention diverted away from it by a member who will suggest, even espouse contrary positions on the same topic at the drop of a hat.
In my urgency to make a point I think insightful, I may have lacked empathy for the innocent well-meaning Forum member likely trying to throw even more light on the topic.
If you might think "The Colonel" a First Amendment hypocrite, I'd only point out this isn't the test that will settle the battle for my soul. I've often inquired of Divine Providence if I might pay $1000 for a year's license on a paint-ball gun that could be used on cars whose drivers were on cell-phone calls. Does the Forum's ignore feature have the capability to selectively drown out the droning of a innocently overly-busy bee? "The Colonel" is also a hypocrite on the Second Amendment. I have no problem whatsoever with a tastefully, tactfully, tactically deployed semi-automatic paint gun.
Remember the brain-sucking dude from the sci-fi flick who said "I come in peace"? The is little doubt in my mind that he thought he was, in his own small way, making the Universe a better place to live. I'm sure whoever's fighting whoever in "Fortnite" is thinking the same way.
A Forum paint-ball gun......
While I'm not at present aware of any supporting documentation, I'd like to support continuing the discussion about the possible sandblast proof 1927-P Peace $1. And whether sudsy ammonia is a better idea than Jewel-Luster for an initial peek into a coin that had pride of place in the collection of the noted novelist Joseph Conrad. a coin so beloved that he named a novel after it. A coin he called "The Heart of Darkness".
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
Yes, this is definitely on topic.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
The question was pretty specific with no adding premise. Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? I'll ask the question another way, have you ever seen a coin you know was dipped but could not point to some diagnostic "signature" that revealed to you dipping had occurred?
And we're off.......................................................
██████████████████████
█▀░██─▄▄─█─▄▄─█─▄▄─█░█
██░██─██─█─██─█─██─█▄█
▀▄▄▄▀▄▄▄▄▀▄▄▄▄▀▄▄▄▄▀▄▀
Love all the infighting! Just like a real family! 🤪
Here's a 22D that has what I consider a similar aesthetic.
Though I like both coins, yours is not similar in aesthetics as the other, IMO. I love the look of the toning on your hammered AU 22D. I'd like to have an entire set of Peace dollars in AU with that slate gray toning.
.> @gtstang said:
.
.
.
Superb strike, rotted surfaces. Your attunement to numismatic virtue is impeccable.
Yes
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
.
I love that one as well . . .
It's difficult to put my finger on exactly why, but your coin reminds me vaguely of this one . . .
Maybe it's the feathers . . . .
Z
.
.
Busy chasing Carr's . . . . . woof!
Successful BST transactions with: Bullsitter, Downtown1974, P0CKETCHANGE, Twobitcollector, AKbeez, DCW, Illini420, ProofCollection, DCarr, Cazkaboom, RichieURich, LukeMarshall, carew4me, BustDMs, coinsarefun, PreTurb, felinfoal, jwitten, GoldenEgg, pruebas, lazybones, COCollector, CuKevin, MWallace, USMC_6115, NamVet69, zippcity, . . . . who'd I forget?
That’s a good question for a great thread. In some cases I go for the most original look I can find. This is probably the best example I have in my collection.
This 1916 proof buffalo nickel has that look and then some and that’s exactly why I bought it.
I find this buffalo nickel extremely beautiful.
.
Busy chasing Carr's . . . . . woof!
Successful BST transactions with: Bullsitter, Downtown1974, P0CKETCHANGE, Twobitcollector, AKbeez, DCW, Illini420, ProofCollection, DCarr, Cazkaboom, RichieURich, LukeMarshall, carew4me, BustDMs, coinsarefun, PreTurb, felinfoal, jwitten, GoldenEgg, pruebas, lazybones, COCollector, CuKevin, MWallace, USMC_6115, NamVet69, zippcity, . . . . who'd I forget?
This isn't a cross examination but are you aware of any instance where a coin that was in a PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder was cracked out, submitted to one of these grading services and comes back as labbel cleaned?
I read an interesting paragraph regarding dipped coins
"Except when dipped coins are marketed to beginners as being original, there is no deception involved by those who dip or sell dipped coins. Certainly, experts are not deceived. Indeed, there is no need for a dipper to deceive experts at the PCGS or the NGC about dipped coins, as graders at these services often assign very high grades to coins that are obviously dipped."
Why would a dipped coin marketed to beginners as original be deception?
Not cleaned. But questionable color.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Here is an original Peace dollar I used to own. Maybe not the prettiest, but she definitely talked.
The coin reminds me of the colonel. Somewhere deep down under the years of tarnish is a beautiful coin.
And if you tilt it just right you can still see it.
Likewise, I can read it and though I don’t fully understand it I just like and agree anyway.
You go Peace Dollar