@HalfDimeDude said:
I noticed that the OP 's coin was in an old PCI slab. Can I ask you to post the entire slab,? PCI as well as anacs old soapmbars are known for toning a coin....sometimes good....sometimes not so good. I would like to see what generation ,before I coment futher on the op's specimen.
I do agree a coin need be orginal, however in some series most all the type coinage has been messed with! I collect h- 10's and other series, but I'll bet out of near 175 specimens of both bust- seated 1829-1873 75 % has or was cleaned or dipped.
As stated above some coin products have been known to make a coin tone....
The old albums and boards were a sure bet to make a coin tone to black! A many a half dime the obv. Ah not bad....the reverse looks like someone took a brillo pad to it, or toning stuck tight up against the devices.
This walker a poster child of mine of how things can tone in an old PCI holder. Im not a fan of moten look of the tone. But the fact that this is where a bright silver coin can go.
This is truly sad. I’m a fan of toning and expect to see some level of toning on a 70+ year old coin. It’s disappointing to see a coin that was slabbed in what was called 95% “white” deteriorated to this point. My question would be with toning this dark will dipping help or will the coin end up looking washed out?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@MasonG said:
Ask a machinist, a locksmith, a gun maker, a seamstress and a horse trainer what "bolt" means.
Report back when you have the correct definition.
Or ask a sprinter.😉
“Usain Bolt
Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt is still known as the fastest man alive. Though he retired in 2017 (and had lost a race or two), the eight-time Olympic gold medalist currently holds the official world record for both the men's 100-meter and 200-meter sprints, which he achieved at the 2009 World Championships in Berlin.Jul”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Rexford said: It’s very interesting how you keep making the same inane arguments about language, the meanings of words and the non-existent changes associated with them, and “99% of the population”, when I and others in this thread have already quite definitively refuted them.
One man's interesting is another man's tedious, I suppose...
@MasonG said:
Ask a machinist, a locksmith, a gun maker, a seamstress and a horse trainer what "bolt" means.
Report back when you have the correct definition.
Nice try Mason but we’re talking about something much more basic, whether or not the surface of any metal where oxidation has occurred can still be referred to as being fully original or worse having “fully original luster”. I’ve given several examples where this very basic change occurs and in none of them would the surfaces be described as full original. If you show any individual a bolt (gun, machine, lock, etc.) no one would identify them as being the same object. Show anyone a coin, fence, airframe, car hood, etc where oxidation has occurred in the surface of the metal and ask them is this the original condition of those objects they would say no. Show anyone examples of the toned and untoned Walkers pictured earlier in the tread and ask them which looks more original or which has more “shine” they will say the coin without the toning. Your attempt at creating an analogy between examples of bolts and the discussion of toning falls far short. The only thing worse was the mention of Usian .
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
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?
Yes
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?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
That statement in bold is not correct. Toning does alter the metal. Toning is the result of a chemical reaction between silver and elements in the atmosphere. That reaction results in thin film interference seen as a change in color or what we call toning.
Toning not altering? Metallurgy pre-school.
"excepting gold coins, in which only the copper oxidizes, chemical reactions can vary for each and all of the other metal alloys used for coinage in their various interactions with various chemically active elements in the atmosphere". Fewer angels killed, more reader over-informed.
I'm imagining the author of this post can do thin-film interference quite well. And more than a handful of others here too
Either of us could do it twice as well with a rotating image, tons better with a few examples in-hand.
YMMV
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@ColonelJessup said:
I would especially like to expand on the discussion of the not-overly-nondescript 1889 25c.
I could use it for 20 minutes of an in-hand ANA grading class. The kids would likely walk out understanding the why and how of that coin being evaluated as having A+ frost and accompanying lustre better than most here. Not a criticism of our bunch. They have less unlearning to do..
On the topic of original, fugly not particularly relevant, @MFeld and I served on the PNG's Coin Doctoring Definition Committee. We went back and forth many times about whether dipping should be classified as cleaning. I'm sure I used terms like "too original" and "original enough". Mark is more of a purist than I.
Anybody can be fooled. Titans included. But soften that to anyone can be very close or on target with a broadly accepted and practically utilizable tool of analysis and still not be "technically precise".
You guys are trying to argue the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. I'm trying to figure how many got killed by it.
Have you seen a before-and-after of a grungy brownish silver coin that been boiled in acetone? As much as I discounted the danger of acetone inhalation and explosion potential, this is a potentially catastrophic hazard. It's a exhaust-hood/breathing-mask operation. Only seen it done once. The technician had selected two likely 64C Morgans as candidates. They didn't POP!!! Glow is suggestable. The grunge removed from the interstitial canals, nooks and crannies on/in the frost of the surfaces allowed for a higher density of more highly reflective lustre "micro-areas". Two solid stolid 64B coins.
The discussion is far from arguing the number of angels on the pin of a needle. This argument is pretty straight forward IF the meaning of words is restricted to how they apply to metals. When the surface of a coin has acquired deep toning the surface of that coin is no longer original and no longer has fully original mint luster. I know that, 99% of the population would acknowledge that and in fact you know that. The writer I quoted, who is an award winning writer who has been writing about numismatics for over 20 years, recognizes that fact. The fact that this change had occurred isn’t speculation or subjective opinion. It’s cold, hard, scientific fact. You guys decided for some reason that rather than acknowledging that FACT to ignore the clear usage of the language to claim it doesn’t mean what it means when discussing surface oxidation on any other metal surface. Why? The only answer that makes sense to me is it was done for marketing reasons.
In my opinion, rather than torturing the language, the grading standards should have been changed to remove the words “fully original luster” or add the words “toning that has occurred naturally and is attractive”. That last phrase is somewhat subjective but when has grading not been subjective.
It’s very interesting how you keep making the same inane arguments about language, the meanings of words and the non-existent changes associated with them, and “99% of the population”, when I and others in this thread have already quite definitively refuted them.
@ColonelJessup said:
I would especially like to expand on the discussion of the not-overly-nondescript 1889 25c.
I could use it for 20 minutes of an in-hand ANA grading class. The kids would likely walk out understanding the why and how of that coin being evaluated as having A+ frost and accompanying lustre better than most here. Not a criticism of our bunch. They have less unlearning to do..
On the topic of original, fugly not particularly relevant, @MFeld and I served on the PNG's Coin Doctoring Definition Committee. We went back and forth many times about whether dipping should be classified as cleaning. I'm sure I used terms like "too original" and "original enough". Mark is more of a purist than I.
Anybody can be fooled. Titans included. But soften that to anyone can be very close or on target with a broadly accepted and practically utilizable tool of analysis and still not be "technically precise".
You guys are trying to argue the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. I'm trying to figure how many got killed by it.
Have you seen a before-and-after of a grungy brownish silver coin that been boiled in acetone? As much as I discounted the danger of acetone inhalation and explosion potential, this is a potentially catastrophic hazard. It's a exhaust-hood/breathing-mask operation. Only seen it done once. The technician had selected two likely 64C Morgans as candidates. They didn't POP!!! Glow is suggestable. The grunge removed from the interstitial canals, nooks and crannies on/in the frost of the surfaces allowed for a higher density of more highly reflective lustre "micro-areas". Two solid stolid 64B coins.
The discussion is far from arguing the number of angels on the pin of a needle. This argument is pretty straight forward IF the meaning of words is restricted to how they apply to metals. When the surface of a coin has acquired deep toning the surface of that coin is no longer original and no longer has fully original mint luster. I know that, 99% of the population would acknowledge that and in fact you know that. The writer I quoted, who is an award winning writer who has been writing about numismatics for over 20 years, recognizes that fact. The fact that this change had occurred isn’t speculation or subjective opinion. It’s cold, hard, scientific fact. You guys decided for some reason that rather than acknowledging that FACT to ignore the clear usage of the language to claim it doesn’t mean what it means when discussing surface oxidation on any other metal surface. Why? The only answer that makes sense to me is it was done for marketing reasons.
In my opinion, rather than torturing the language, the grading standards should have been changed to remove the words “fully original luster” or add the words “toning that has occurred naturally and is attractive”. That last phrase is somewhat subjective but when has grading not been subjective.
It’s very interesting how you keep making the same inane arguments about language, the meanings of words and the non-existent changes associated with them, and “99% of the population”, when I and others in this thread have already quite definitively refuted them.
What exactly have you refuted? Did you refute the fact that toning is a change in the surface metal of a coin? No. The metal has undergone a change. Did you refute the fact that the impact of that change is visible and in some cases dramatically so? No. Did you refute the fact that 99% of the population on the planet would acknowledge some change has occurred? No. Did you refute the opinion of a well known writer in the field of numismatics acknowledged that representing a coin where the surface of a coin has been altered is fraud? No. You haven’t refuted any of the points I’ve made so stop with the victory lap.
I’ve explained why the first three questions are meaningless and irrelevant to this discussion, and I’ll say now that the fourth one is a blatant misrepresentation of the opinion of someone else (not that one other person’s opinion really matters either). All of these questions can be answered by simply pointing out that you are using your own definitions of specific terms in the context of others’ statements and ignoring the actual intent of their usage. But as I wrote in the other thread, if reading comprehension were a strong suit we wouldn’t be having this discussion. That’s pretty much the root of all of this.
@HalfDimeDude said:
I noticed that the OP 's coin was in an old PCI slab. Can I ask you to post the entire slab,? PCI as well as anacs old soapmbars are known for toning a coin....sometimes good....sometimes not so good. I would like to see what generation ,before I coment futher on the op's specimen.
I do agree a coin need be orginal, however in some series most all the type coinage has been messed with! I collect h- 10's and other series, but I'll bet out of near 175 specimens of both bust- seated 1829-1873 75 % has or was cleaned or dipped.
As stated above some coin products have been known to make a coin tone....
The old albums and boards were a sure bet to make a coin tone to black! A many a half dime the obv. Ah not bad....the reverse looks like someone took a brillo pad to it, or toning stuck tight up against the devices.
This walker a poster child of mine of how things can tone in an old PCI holder. Im not a fan of moten look of the tone. But the fact that this is where a bright silver coin can go.
This is truly sad. I’m a fan of toning and expect to see some level of toning on a 70+ year old coin. It’s disappointing to see a coin that was slabbed in what was called 95% “white” deteriorated to this point. My question would be with toning this dark will dipping help or will the coin end up looking washed out?
Well its also a variety 1944 s repunched date 44 shows quite nicely at the bottom of the 4's .
I dont believe that dipping would do anything to improve. It may make it dull, and lets say it does remove it ....it wont be gone for long...it may retone not for the better....and I would feel like I was just unloading a problem coin on another.
Now if someone wants it as is now no worries....buy it ,but I've never had someone come back to me on a coin deal.....be it cash or trade.
I don't roll that way....to dump my bad on you.
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
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?
Yes
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?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
That statement in bold is not correct. Toning does alter the metal. Toning is the result of a chemical reaction between silver and elements in the atmosphere. That reaction results in thin film interference seen as a change in color or what we call toning.
Toning not altering? Metallurgy pre-school.
"excepting gold coins, in which only the copper oxidizes, chemical reactions can vary for each and all of the other metal alloys used for coinage in their various interactions with various chemically active elements in the atmosphere". Fewer angels killed, more reader over-informed.
I'm imagining the author of this post can do thin-film interference quite well. And more than a handful of others here too
Either of us could do it twice as well with a rotating image, tons better with a few examples in-hand.
YMMV
The point is that it does not alter the flow lines that create luster, but only potentially obscures them if the layer of tone is heavy enough. The bigger point is that it seriously doesn’t matter at all and this is more nitpicking about something that truly has no bearing upon our usage of the word “original” as meaning “unmolested”.
@MasonG said:
Ask a machinist, a locksmith, a gun maker, a seamstress and a horse trainer what "bolt" means.
Report back when you have the correct definition.
Or ask a sprinter.😉
“Usain Bolt
Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt is still known as the fastest man alive. Though he retired in 2017 (and had lost a race or two), the eight-time Olympic gold medalist currently holds the official world record for both the men's 100-meter and 200-meter sprints, which he achieved at the 2009 World Championships in Berlin.Jul”
Or a cross-bow hunter.
My interest in this thread and the quality of my input are devolving in parallel
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
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?
Yes
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?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
That statement in bold is not correct. Toning does alter the metal. Toning is the result of a chemical reaction between silver and elements in the atmosphere. That reaction results in thin film interference seen as a change in color or what we call toning.
Toning not altering? Metallurgy pre-school.
"excepting gold coins, in which only the copper oxidizes, chemical reactions can vary for each and all of the other metal alloys used for coinage in their various interactions with various chemically active elements in the atmosphere". Fewer angels killed, more reader over-informed.
I'm imagining the author of this post can do thin-film interference quite well. And more than a handful of others here too
Either of us could do it twice as well with a rotating image, tons better with a few examples in-hand.
YMMV
The point is that 1) it does not alter the flow lines that create luster, but only potentially obscures them if the layer of tone is heavy enough. 2)The bigger point is that it seriously doesn’t matter at all and this is more nitpicking about something that truly has no bearing upon our usage of the word “original” as meaning “unmolested”.
1) I don't disagree. I totally reject this. I won't take the time to refute it.
2) completely agree
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@MasonG said:
Ask a machinist, a locksmith, a gun maker, a seamstress and a horse trainer what "bolt" means.
Report back when you have the correct definition.
Or ask a sprinter.😉
“Usain Bolt
Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt is still known as the fastest man alive. Though he retired in 2017 (and had lost a race or two), the eight-time Olympic gold medalist currently holds the official world record for both the men's 100-meter and 200-meter sprints, which he achieved at the 2009 World Championships in Berlin.Jul”
Or a cross-bow hunter.
My interest in this thread and the quality of my input are devolving in parallel
That’s certainly understandable.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MasonG said:
Ask a machinist, a locksmith, a gun maker, a seamstress and a horse trainer what "bolt" means.
Report back when you have the correct definition.
Or ask a sprinter.😉
“Usain Bolt
Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt is still known as the fastest man alive. Though he retired in 2017 (and had lost a race or two), the eight-time Olympic gold medalist currently holds the official world record for both the men's 100-meter and 200-meter sprints, which he achieved at the 2009 World Championships in Berlin.Jul”
Or a cross-bow hunter.
My interest in this thread and the quality of my input are devolving in parallel
@ColonelJessup said:
I would especially like to expand on the discussion of the not-overly-nondescript 1889 25c.
I could use it for 20 minutes of an in-hand ANA grading class. The kids would likely walk out understanding the why and how of that coin being evaluated as having A+ frost and accompanying lustre better than most here. Not a criticism of our bunch. They have less unlearning to do..
On the topic of original, fugly not particularly relevant, @MFeld and I served on the PNG's Coin Doctoring Definition Committee. We went back and forth many times about whether dipping should be classified as cleaning. I'm sure I used terms like "too original" and "original enough". Mark is more of a purist than I.
Anybody can be fooled. Titans included. But soften that to anyone can be very close or on target with a broadly accepted and practically utilizable tool of analysis and still not be "technically precise".
You guys are trying to argue the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. I'm trying to figure how many got killed by it.
Have you seen a before-and-after of a grungy brownish silver coin that been boiled in acetone? As much as I discounted the danger of acetone inhalation and explosion potential, this is a potentially catastrophic hazard. It's a exhaust-hood/breathing-mask operation. Only seen it done once. The technician had selected two likely 64C Morgans as candidates. They didn't POP!!! Glow is suggestable. The grunge removed from the interstitial canals, nooks and crannies on/in the frost of the surfaces allowed for a higher density of more highly reflective lustre "micro-areas". Two solid stolid 64B coins.
The discussion is far from arguing the number of angels on the pin of a needle. This argument is pretty straight forward IF the meaning of words is restricted to how they apply to metals. When the surface of a coin has acquired deep toning the surface of that coin is no longer original and no longer has fully original mint luster. I know that, 99% of the population would acknowledge that and in fact you know that. The writer I quoted, who is an award winning writer who has been writing about numismatics for over 20 years, recognizes that fact. The fact that this change had occurred isn’t speculation or subjective opinion. It’s cold, hard, scientific fact. You guys decided for some reason that rather than acknowledging that FACT to ignore the clear usage of the language to claim it doesn’t mean what it means when discussing surface oxidation on any other metal surface. Why? The only answer that makes sense to me is it was done for marketing reasons.
In my opinion, rather than torturing the language, the grading standards should have been changed to remove the words “fully original luster” or add the words “toning that has occurred naturally and is attractive”. That last phrase is somewhat subjective but when has grading not been subjective.
It’s very interesting how you keep making the same inane arguments about language, the meanings of words and the non-existent changes associated with them, and “99% of the population”, when I and others in this thread have already quite definitively refuted them.
@ColonelJessup said:
I would especially like to expand on the discussion of the not-overly-nondescript 1889 25c.
I could use it for 20 minutes of an in-hand ANA grading class. The kids would likely walk out understanding the why and how of that coin being evaluated as having A+ frost and accompanying lustre better than most here. Not a criticism of our bunch. They have less unlearning to do..
On the topic of original, fugly not particularly relevant, @MFeld and I served on the PNG's Coin Doctoring Definition Committee. We went back and forth many times about whether dipping should be classified as cleaning. I'm sure I used terms like "too original" and "original enough". Mark is more of a purist than I.
Anybody can be fooled. Titans included. But soften that to anyone can be very close or on target with a broadly accepted and practically utilizable tool of analysis and still not be "technically precise".
You guys are trying to argue the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. I'm trying to figure how many got killed by it.
Have you seen a before-and-after of a grungy brownish silver coin that been boiled in acetone? As much as I discounted the danger of acetone inhalation and explosion potential, this is a potentially catastrophic hazard. It's a exhaust-hood/breathing-mask operation. Only seen it done once. The technician had selected two likely 64C Morgans as candidates. They didn't POP!!! Glow is suggestable. The grunge removed from the interstitial canals, nooks and crannies on/in the frost of the surfaces allowed for a higher density of more highly reflective lustre "micro-areas". Two solid stolid 64B coins.
The discussion is far from arguing the number of angels on the pin of a needle. This argument is pretty straight forward IF the meaning of words is restricted to how they apply to metals. When the surface of a coin has acquired deep toning the surface of that coin is no longer original and no longer has fully original mint luster. I know that, 99% of the population would acknowledge that and in fact you know that. The writer I quoted, who is an award winning writer who has been writing about numismatics for over 20 years, recognizes that fact. The fact that this change had occurred isn’t speculation or subjective opinion. It’s cold, hard, scientific fact. You guys decided for some reason that rather than acknowledging that FACT to ignore the clear usage of the language to claim it doesn’t mean what it means when discussing surface oxidation on any other metal surface. Why? The only answer that makes sense to me is it was done for marketing reasons.
In my opinion, rather than torturing the language, the grading standards should have been changed to remove the words “fully original luster” or add the words “toning that has occurred naturally and is attractive”. That last phrase is somewhat subjective but when has grading not been subjective.
It’s very interesting how you keep making the same inane arguments about language, the meanings of words and the non-existent changes associated with them, and “99% of the population”, when I and others in this thread have already quite definitively refuted them.
What exactly have you refuted? Did you refute the fact that toning is a change in the surface metal of a coin? No. The metal has undergone a change. Did you refute the fact that the impact of that change is visible and in some cases dramatically so? No. Did you refute the fact that 99% of the population on the planet would acknowledge some change has occurred? No. Did you refute the opinion of a well known writer in the field of numismatics acknowledged that representing a coin where the surface of a coin has been altered is fraud? No. You haven’t refuted any of the points I’ve made so stop with the victory lap.
I’ve explained why the first three questions are meaningless and irrelevant to this discussion, and I’ll say now that the fourth one is a blatant misrepresentation of the opinion of someone else (not that one other person’s opinion really matters either). All of these questions can be answered by simply pointing out that you are using your own definitions of specific terms in the context of others’ statements and ignoring the actual intent of their usage. But as I wrote in the other thread, if reading comprehension were a strong suit we wouldn’t be having this discussion. That’s pretty much the root of all of this.
Wrong. I'm using the Webster's dictionary meaning of the words. The evidence of that is show 100 random people on the street two coins, one with toning like that Peace dollar and the other without and ask them which represents the coin as originally made. 100 of them will say the coin without toning represents the coin with fully original luster. This isn't a matter of opinion and the use of the words across any discussion of surface oxidation are understood exactly as I've outlined. Why is numismatics the exception? Finnancial benefit or an ego boost?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
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?
Yes
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?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
That statement in bold is not correct. Toning does alter the metal. Toning is the result of a chemical reaction between silver and elements in the atmosphere. That reaction results in thin film interference seen as a change in color or what we call toning.
Toning not altering? Metallurgy pre-school.
"excepting gold coins, in which only the copper oxidizes, chemical reactions can vary for each and all of the other metal alloys used for coinage in their various interactions with various chemically active elements in the atmosphere". Fewer angels killed, more reader over-informed.
I'm imagining the author of this post can do thin-film interference quite well. And more than a handful of others here too
Either of us could do it twice as well with a rotating image, tons better with a few examples in-hand.
YMMV
The point is that it does not alter the flow lines that create luster, but only potentially obscures them if the layer of tone is heavy enough. The bigger point is that it seriously doesn’t matter at all and this is more nitpicking about something that truly has no bearing upon our usage of the word “original” as meaning “unmolested”.
I understand the nitpicking comment but that opens up the question of why the redefining of the words were necessary in the first place. Everyone that sees a toned coin knows the appearance of the coin has changed from the time the coin was minted and just a little bit of investigation reveals why the change in appearance has occurred. This isn't a mystery. If the powers that be decided a heavily toned coin should still be graded MS-67, 68, 69 and 70 then change the description for those grades to include coins that have toned. As the author of the paragraph I quoted noted, to claim a dipped coin is "original" is fraud because the surface of the coin has been altered from its original state. I disagree with him that it is only fraud when discussing the coin with a beginner. And if a dipped coin shouldn't be referred to as original why should a coin where the surfaces have been altered by environmental factors (sometimes dramatically so) be referred to as original or worse, that the coin has fully original luster?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
So this would be another example of a coin where the toning has progressed to a point where removing it would do more harm than good. How do you keep it from deteriorating further?
On the flip side, while I wouldn't call the coin very attractive I still appreciate that the toning represents almost 200 years of American history. How often do you get to hold 200 years of history in your hand.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Can you identify a dipped coin no matter how professionally the dipping was done? If yes, how?
No one can if the premise is that the dip is so "professionally" done as to be undetectable.
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?
Yes
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?
Because the metal is altered. Toning does not alter the metal itself, and “original” means “unmolested” in the context of numismatics: not worthy of a details grade and not altered (meaning improved upon artificially) by humans. “Original” does not mean “exactly as the coin appeared when struck” in the context of numismatics. That’s how the word has been used for decades, and that’s completely ok and is not inaccurate - that’s how language functions and progresses. As a side note, “luster” has nothing to do with color - two minerals with different colors can be said to have the same luster, because they reflect in the same way and degree of intensity. As an additional side note, I can’t believe this conversation is still happening.
That statement in bold is not correct. Toning does alter the metal. Toning is the result of a chemical reaction between silver and elements in the atmosphere. That reaction results in thin film interference seen as a change in color or what we call toning.
Toning not altering? Metallurgy pre-school.
"excepting gold coins, in which only the copper oxidizes, chemical reactions can vary for each and all of the other metal alloys used for coinage in their various interactions with various chemically active elements in the atmosphere". Fewer angels killed, more reader over-informed.
I'm imagining the author of this post can do thin-film interference quite well. And more than a handful of others here too
Either of us could do it twice as well with a rotating image, tons better with a few examples in-hand.
YMMV
The point is that it does not alter the flow lines that create luster, but only potentially obscures them if the layer of tone is heavy enough. The bigger point is that it seriously doesn’t matter at all and this is more nitpicking about something that truly has no bearing upon our usage of the word “original” as meaning “unmolested”.
Wrong. Toning has disrupted the flow lines to the point where that disruption has caused an observable change in the appearance of the coin. As for unmolested, the coin has been "molested" by environmental factors to the point where the appearance has been dramatically altered.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@ColonelJessup said:
I would especially like to expand on the discussion of the not-overly-nondescript 1889 25c.
I could use it for 20 minutes of an in-hand ANA grading class. The kids would likely walk out understanding the why and how of that coin being evaluated as having A+ frost and accompanying lustre better than most here. Not a criticism of our bunch. They have less unlearning to do..
On the topic of original, fugly not particularly relevant, @MFeld and I served on the PNG's Coin Doctoring Definition Committee. We went back and forth many times about whether dipping should be classified as cleaning. I'm sure I used terms like "too original" and "original enough". Mark is more of a purist than I.
Anybody can be fooled. Titans included. But soften that to anyone can be very close or on target with a broadly accepted and practically utilizable tool of analysis and still not be "technically precise".
You guys are trying to argue the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. I'm trying to figure how many got killed by it.
Have you seen a before-and-after of a grungy brownish silver coin that been boiled in acetone? As much as I discounted the danger of acetone inhalation and explosion potential, this is a potentially catastrophic hazard. It's a exhaust-hood/breathing-mask operation. Only seen it done once. The technician had selected two likely 64C Morgans as candidates. They didn't POP!!! Glow is suggestable. The grunge removed from the interstitial canals, nooks and crannies on/in the frost of the surfaces allowed for a higher density of more highly reflective lustre "micro-areas". Two solid stolid 64B coins.
The discussion is far from arguing the number of angels on the pin of a needle. This argument is pretty straight forward IF the meaning of words is restricted to how they apply to metals. When the surface of a coin has acquired deep toning the surface of that coin is no longer original and no longer has fully original mint luster. I know that, 99% of the population would acknowledge that and in fact you know that. The writer I quoted, who is an award winning writer who has been writing about numismatics for over 20 years, recognizes that fact. The fact that this change had occurred isn’t speculation or subjective opinion. It’s cold, hard, scientific fact. You guys decided for some reason that rather than acknowledging that FACT to ignore the clear usage of the language to claim it doesn’t mean what it means when discussing surface oxidation on any other metal surface. Why? The only answer that makes sense to me is it was done for marketing reasons.
In my opinion, rather than torturing the language, the grading standards should have been changed to remove the words “fully original luster” or add the words “toning that has occurred naturally and is attractive”. That last phrase is somewhat subjective but when has grading not been subjective.
It’s very interesting how you keep making the same inane arguments about language, the meanings of words and the non-existent changes associated with them, and “99% of the population”, when I and others in this thread have already quite definitively refuted them.
@ColonelJessup said:
I would especially like to expand on the discussion of the not-overly-nondescript 1889 25c.
I could use it for 20 minutes of an in-hand ANA grading class. The kids would likely walk out understanding the why and how of that coin being evaluated as having A+ frost and accompanying lustre better than most here. Not a criticism of our bunch. They have less unlearning to do..
On the topic of original, fugly not particularly relevant, @MFeld and I served on the PNG's Coin Doctoring Definition Committee. We went back and forth many times about whether dipping should be classified as cleaning. I'm sure I used terms like "too original" and "original enough". Mark is more of a purist than I.
Anybody can be fooled. Titans included. But soften that to anyone can be very close or on target with a broadly accepted and practically utilizable tool of analysis and still not be "technically precise".
You guys are trying to argue the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. I'm trying to figure how many got killed by it.
Have you seen a before-and-after of a grungy brownish silver coin that been boiled in acetone? As much as I discounted the danger of acetone inhalation and explosion potential, this is a potentially catastrophic hazard. It's a exhaust-hood/breathing-mask operation. Only seen it done once. The technician had selected two likely 64C Morgans as candidates. They didn't POP!!! Glow is suggestable. The grunge removed from the interstitial canals, nooks and crannies on/in the frost of the surfaces allowed for a higher density of more highly reflective lustre "micro-areas". Two solid stolid 64B coins.
The discussion is far from arguing the number of angels on the pin of a needle. This argument is pretty straight forward IF the meaning of words is restricted to how they apply to metals. When the surface of a coin has acquired deep toning the surface of that coin is no longer original and no longer has fully original mint luster. I know that, 99% of the population would acknowledge that and in fact you know that. The writer I quoted, who is an award winning writer who has been writing about numismatics for over 20 years, recognizes that fact. The fact that this change had occurred isn’t speculation or subjective opinion. It’s cold, hard, scientific fact. You guys decided for some reason that rather than acknowledging that FACT to ignore the clear usage of the language to claim it doesn’t mean what it means when discussing surface oxidation on any other metal surface. Why? The only answer that makes sense to me is it was done for marketing reasons.
In my opinion, rather than torturing the language, the grading standards should have been changed to remove the words “fully original luster” or add the words “toning that has occurred naturally and is attractive”. That last phrase is somewhat subjective but when has grading not been subjective.
It’s very interesting how you keep making the same inane arguments about language, the meanings of words and the non-existent changes associated with them, and “99% of the population”, when I and others in this thread have already quite definitively refuted them.
What exactly have you refuted? Did you refute the fact that toning is a change in the surface metal of a coin? No. The metal has undergone a change. Did you refute the fact that the impact of that change is visible and in some cases dramatically so? No. Did you refute the fact that 99% of the population on the planet would acknowledge some change has occurred? No. Did you refute the opinion of a well known writer in the field of numismatics acknowledged that representing a coin where the surface of a coin has been altered is fraud? No. You haven’t refuted any of the points I’ve made so stop with the victory lap.
I’ve explained why the first three questions are meaningless and irrelevant to this discussion, and I’ll say now that the fourth one is a blatant misrepresentation of the opinion of someone else (not that one other person’s opinion really matters either). All of these questions can be answered by simply pointing out that you are using your own definitions of specific terms in the context of others’ statements and ignoring the actual intent of their usage. But as I wrote in the other thread, if reading comprehension were a strong suit we wouldn’t be having this discussion. That’s pretty much the root of all of this.
Wrong. I'm using the Webster's dictionary meaning of the words. The evidence of that is show 100 random people on the street two coins, one with toning like that Peace dollar and the other without and ask them which represents the coin as originally made. 100 of them will say the coin without toning represents the coin with fully original luster. This isn't a matter of opinion and the use of the words across any discussion of surface oxidation are understood exactly as I've outlined. Why is numismatics the exception? Finnancial benefit or an ego boost?
Actually, it's what many disciplines call a "term of art". But you're the Red Queen, so have at it
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@Rexford said:
Does anyone here know the definition of insanity?
Continuing to follow this thread?
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
People with some expertise in the matter think this coin is fully lustrous. Maybe we should ask some people who don't know anything about coin collecting, to be sure one way or the other?
@Rexford said:
Does anyone here know the definition of insanity?
Einstein's definition? The Wicked Witch of the West, Lenin and the Red Queen all differ.
The one about burning cash sending an MS64 Morgan in 11 times h> @MFeld said:
@Rexford said:
Does anyone here know the definition of insanity?
Yes. You and at least a couple of other posters are engaging in it.😉
the newest program from my new favorite podcast "drops" in another 2 minutes. When it's over I'm going to watch "Idiocracy" again. You're on your own. And sanity is not only relative, but over-rated
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@ricko said:
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
@crazyhounddog said:
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.
.
.
.
While I like your coin, your Forum manners can be improved.
You show disrespect for the OP by displaying a coin with eye appeal.
Totally contrary to the stated focus of the thread.
180 degrees OT.
Borderline trolling.
No attractive coins allowed.
Jeez
Holy molla you guys are absured ok lets start off here. my grammer and shits off but back to the topic i forgot the first ? Cuz you all are petty im kind of new to coin collecting. but you all dont collect currency cuz if i would have said money someone would have wanted to start it with me but back to my statement you all dont collect coinage to argue with people it should be about what you like, you like peace, go peace dollar,better put that comma and a bunch more puncuation or someone will have it. "my eyes are not ment for that illitetate text" i know its the hobby of the kings per say but some people like it too so be conciderate of what they like. Im into pennys. I like those whitemen or whitemore books they have out im not exactly sure but penny booksq. you all dont want a collorful books like i get it you have a 1909 wheatie to the 58 ms64 or higher grade red gem pops if i believe thats what they call them then. A red brown book, toner book, brown book, error/varities book ext. Like die deteration book. You get the different possabilitys you could have with them whatever your perfered coin is. Like if your in silver or whatever get a book all dcam then all Cam ect. Ok i get you like true coins no imperfections MS68 or higher nice class but its called coin collecting for a reason becuse we got to collect them its 2021 if im out and about and i see a "TONER" for sell right price you bet im going to pick that up because its a great eye apeal and also a great colorful book filler but back to it they all have the different catagorys fruits and vegatables i believe thats called a metaphor. we see your nice coin by the way.. but if they or the mint just made a bunch of silver quarters at the mint then 1 of the prosseses are to wash them after they are cut into planchets and they dont drain out the tank and now their printing thats the wrong word for that but whatever printing pennys and the copper mixs with the other minerals i better say zinc or someones ass will catch on fire like really whats wrong with you's you know who you are just get over it and if you knew who i was or what ive done and been threw you'd be suprized of me for even talking like this but the drama is obsered back too it when the minerals that happened at the mint in their wash bin so then now thats still in its origanal oragen state or whatever you call it defenetly no expert here just saying a little but whoever it is let them apprecate what they like and you apprecate what you like and maybe give different looks on things you dont like just you dont like it doesnt mean it shouldnt be here like i said im new to coin collecting but y now good looking pictures and what "RICKO AT THE TOP SAID HE SAID WAY BETTER THAN ME"
@Rexford said:
Does anyone here know the definition of insanity?
Yes. You and at least a couple of other posters are engaging in it.😉
Repeating something and expecting a different result is NOT insanity. This is some made-up line that has nothing to do with the reality of insanity or mental illness. If it were, then starting up a lawnmower or outboard motor is insanity. No.
Sorry, but I just get sick of reading and hearing this false definition BS all the time.
And the OP is silly to not understand and conform to proper definitions within a given discipline.
@Rexford said:
Does anyone here know the definition of insanity?
Yes. You and at least a couple of other posters are engaging in it.😉
Repeating something and expecting a different result is NOT insanity. This is some made-up line that has nothing to do with the reality of insanity or mental illness. If it were, then starting up a lawnmower or outboard motor is insanity. No.
Sorry, but I just get sick of reading and hearing this false definition BS all the time.
And the OP is silly to not understand and conform to proper definitions within a given discipline.
.
.
Um. I really think that you EXPECT the lawnmower to start when you yank its cord.
Expecting it to to something different, like singing opera, now that's insanity.
@Rexford said:
Does anyone here know the definition of insanity?
Yes. You and at least a couple of other posters are engaging in it.😉
Repeating something and expecting a different result is NOT insanity. This is some made-up line that has nothing to do with the reality of insanity or mental illness. If it were, then starting up a lawnmower or outboard motor is insanity. No.
Sorry, but I just get sick of reading and hearing this false definition BS all the time.
And the OP is silly to not understand and conform to proper definitions within a given discipline.
.
.
Um. I really think that you EXPECT the lawnmower to start when you yank its cord.
Expecting it to to something different, like singing opera, now that's insanity.
The definition still holds . . .
Z
But when it doesn't start ten times, to expect it to start the eleventh is what? Whatever it is it isn't insanity!
It doesn't change the FACT this is NOT A DEFINITION OF INSANITY! It's just some old quote misattributed to Einstein, Ben Franklin, and even Narcotics Anonymous that has nothing to do with the actual definition of insanity but is repeated ad nauseam.
@Rexford said:
Does anyone here know the definition of insanity?
Yes. You and at least a couple of other posters are engaging in it.😉
Repeating something and expecting a different result is NOT insanity. This is some made-up line that has nothing to do with the reality of insanity or mental illness. If it were, then starting up a lawnmower or outboard motor is insanity. No.
Sorry, but I just get sick of reading and hearing this false definition BS all the time.
And the OP is silly to not understand and conform to proper definitions within a given discipline.
.
.
Um. I really think that you EXPECT the lawnmower to start when you yank its cord.
Expecting it to to something different, like singing opera, now that's insanity.
The definition still holds . . .
Z
But when it doesn't start ten times, to expect it to start the eleventh is what? Whatever it is it isn't insanity!
It doesn't change the FACT this is NOT A DEFINITION OF INSANITY! It's just some old quote misattributed to Einstein, Ben Franklin, and even Narcotics Anonymous that has nothing to do with the actual definition of insanity but is repeated ad nauseam.
Maybe a better definition of insanity is taking anything posted to this thread too seriously.
Maybe a better definition of insanity is taking anything posted to this thread too seriously.
Perhaps, but I haven't lost track of reality or am incapacitated by psychosis. Perhaps reading this thread after the first page has me approaching insanity.
@Rexford said:
Does anyone here know the definition of insanity?
Yes. You and at least a couple of other posters are engaging in it.😉
Repeating something and expecting a different result is NOT insanity. This is some made-up line that has nothing to do with the reality of insanity or mental illness. If it were, then starting up a lawnmower or outboard motor is insanity. No.
Sorry, but I just get sick of reading and hearing this false definition BS all the time.
And the OP is silly to not understand and conform to proper definitions within a given discipline.
The word "insanity" is commonly used in reference to certain behaviors and not just to a specific disorder upon which you appear to be focused. See 3a and 3b from Merriam-Webster below.
"Definition of insanity
1dated : a severely disordered state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder
2law : unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand that prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or that releases one from criminal or civil responsibility
3a: extreme folly or unreasonableness
the insanity of violence
His comments were pure insanity.
b: something utterly foolish or unreasonable
the insanities of modern life"
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
The word "insanity" is commonly used in reference to certain behaviors and not just to a specific disorder upon which you appear to be focused.
That's all well and good, but is that insanity "original"?
@MFeld said:
The word "insanity" is commonly used in reference to certain behaviors and not just to a specific disorder upon which you appear to be focused.
That's all well and good, but is that insanity "original"?
500, here we come.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MasonG said:
Ask a machinist, a locksmith, a gun maker, a seamstress and a horse trainer what "bolt" means.
Report back when you have the correct definition.
Nice try Mason but we’re talking about something much more basic, whether or not the surface of any metal where oxidation has occurred can still be referred to as being fully original or worse having “fully original luster”. I’ve given several examples where this very basic change occurs and in none of them would the surfaces be described as full original. If you show any individual a bolt (gun, machine, lock, etc.) no one would identify them as being the same object. Show anyone a coin, fence, airframe, car hood, etc where oxidation has occurred in the surface of the metal and ask them is this the original condition of those objects they would say no. Show anyone examples of the toned and untoned Walkers pictured earlier in the tread and ask them which looks more original or which has more “shine” they will say the coin without the toning. Your attempt at creating an analogy between examples of bolts and the discussion of toning falls far short. The only thing worse was the mention of Usian .
Perhaps a better analogy would have been to ask if the general public or one of the MDs on this board understands what “Thick Headed” means or if that term confuses them.
I’m no Dr. but I’ll go out on a limb that when one hears that term they don’t go into a rant about skull density but rather just link this thread.
@MFeld said:
The word "insanity" is commonly used in reference to certain behaviors and not just to a specific disorder upon which you appear to be focused.
That's all well and good, but is that insanity "original"?
Hmmm...nature vs nurture?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@MasonG said:
Ask a machinist, a locksmith, a gun maker, a seamstress and a horse trainer what "bolt" means.
Report back when you have the correct definition.
Nice try Mason but we’re talking about something much more basic, whether or not the surface of any metal where oxidation has occurred can still be referred to as being fully original or worse having “fully original luster”. I’ve given several examples where this very basic change occurs and in none of them would the surfaces be described as full original. If you show any individual a bolt (gun, machine, lock, etc.) no one would identify them as being the same object. Show anyone a coin, fence, airframe, car hood, etc where oxidation has occurred in the surface of the metal and ask them is this the original condition of those objects they would say no. Show anyone examples of the toned and untoned Walkers pictured earlier in the tread and ask them which looks more original or which has more “shine” they will say the coin without the toning. Your attempt at creating an analogy between examples of bolts and the discussion of toning falls far short. The only thing worse was the mention of Usian .
Perhaps a better analogy would have been to ask if the general public or one of the MDs on this board understands what “Thick Headed” means or if that term confuses them.
I’m no Dr. but I’ll go out on a limb that when one hears that term they don’t go into a rant about skull density but rather just link this thread.
Another flawed analogy. We’re talking about metals, specifically silver. Silver when exposed to the environment, regardless of whether it’s a coin, cup or fashioned in some other shape for some other use will oxide or tarnish. When that oxidation occurs we recognize a change has occurred. We don’t make believe it didn’t happen to claim the object has its full original luster. Anyone that looks at the object knows that is not the case. So why do you pretend the change hasn’t occurred? Is it to go along to get along?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Perhaps the full original luster is still present as presented by the, uh-hem leaders in this industry.
Perhaps not, but if this chemical reaction happens over time and say long periods of time. Then would not this be happening in the first few minutes after production? Scientifically, it does though you may not see it.
Maybe they did not see it either even after 70 years.
Sorry: Wrong thread
Good news!
Although I expected this Peace dollar tomorrow- the USPS tracking shows it is delivered later this afternoon! Sadly I am at work and won't get a chance to photograph it until sometime tomorrow afternoon.
Comments
This is truly sad. I’m a fan of toning and expect to see some level of toning on a 70+ year old coin. It’s disappointing to see a coin that was slabbed in what was called 95% “white” deteriorated to this point. My question would be with toning this dark will dipping help or will the coin end up looking washed out?
Or ask a sprinter.😉
“Usain Bolt
Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt is still known as the fastest man alive. Though he retired in 2017 (and had lost a race or two), the eight-time Olympic gold medalist currently holds the official world record for both the men's 100-meter and 200-meter sprints, which he achieved at the 2009 World Championships in Berlin.Jul”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
One man's interesting is another man's tedious, I suppose...
Nice try Mason but we’re talking about something much more basic, whether or not the surface of any metal where oxidation has occurred can still be referred to as being fully original or worse having “fully original luster”. I’ve given several examples where this very basic change occurs and in none of them would the surfaces be described as full original. If you show any individual a bolt (gun, machine, lock, etc.) no one would identify them as being the same object. Show anyone a coin, fence, airframe, car hood, etc where oxidation has occurred in the surface of the metal and ask them is this the original condition of those objects they would say no. Show anyone examples of the toned and untoned Walkers pictured earlier in the tread and ask them which looks more original or which has more “shine” they will say the coin without the toning. Your attempt at creating an analogy between examples of bolts and the discussion of toning falls far short. The only thing worse was the mention of Usian
.
Toning not altering? Metallurgy pre-school.
"excepting gold coins, in which only the copper oxidizes, chemical reactions can vary for each and all of the other metal alloys used for coinage in their various interactions with various chemically active elements in the atmosphere". Fewer angels killed, more reader over-informed.
I'm imagining the author of this post can do thin-film interference quite well. And more than a handful of others here too
Either of us could do it twice as well with a rotating image, tons better with a few examples in-hand.
YMMV
Ask @FredWeinberg and he'll say "Errors"
I’ve explained why the first three questions are meaningless and irrelevant to this discussion, and I’ll say now that the fourth one is a blatant misrepresentation of the opinion of someone else (not that one other person’s opinion really matters either). All of these questions can be answered by simply pointing out that you are using your own definitions of specific terms in the context of others’ statements and ignoring the actual intent of their usage. But as I wrote in the other thread, if reading comprehension were a strong suit we wouldn’t be having this discussion. That’s pretty much the root of all of this.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Well its also a variety 1944 s repunched date 44 shows quite nicely at the bottom of the 4's .
I dont believe that dipping would do anything to improve. It may make it dull, and lets say it does remove it ....it wont be gone for long...it may retone not for the better....and I would feel like I was just unloading a problem coin on another.
Now if someone wants it as is now no worries....buy it ,but I've never had someone come back to me on a coin deal.....be it cash or trade.
I don't roll that way....to dump my bad on you.
"That's why I wander and follow La Vie Dansante"
The point is that it does not alter the flow lines that create luster, but only potentially obscures them if the layer of tone is heavy enough. The bigger point is that it seriously doesn’t matter at all and this is more nitpicking about something that truly has no bearing upon our usage of the word “original” as meaning “unmolested”.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Or a cross-bow hunter.
My interest in this thread and the quality of my input are devolving in parallel
1) I don't disagree. I totally reject this. I won't take the time to refute it.
2) completely agree
@pmh1nic
Here's another example of
"That's why I wander and follow La Vie Dansante"
I'm just following along for the comedy at this point......
That’s certainly understandable.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Or Vulcan .... tick tick tick.... tick tick tick.... (rimshot) devolving
Pretty much what I expected.
tick tick tick..... (rimshot)
.
.
.
.
tick.......
Wrong. I'm using the Webster's dictionary meaning of the words. The evidence of that is show 100 random people on the street two coins, one with toning like that Peace dollar and the other without and ask them which represents the coin as originally made. 100 of them will say the coin without toning represents the coin with fully original luster. This isn't a matter of opinion and the use of the words across any discussion of surface oxidation are understood exactly as I've outlined. Why is numismatics the exception? Finnancial benefit or an ego boost?
I understand the nitpicking comment but that opens up the question of why the redefining of the words were necessary in the first place. Everyone that sees a toned coin knows the appearance of the coin has changed from the time the coin was minted and just a little bit of investigation reveals why the change in appearance has occurred. This isn't a mystery. If the powers that be decided a heavily toned coin should still be graded MS-67, 68, 69 and 70 then change the description for those grades to include coins that have toned. As the author of the paragraph I quoted noted, to claim a dipped coin is "original" is fraud because the surface of the coin has been altered from its original state. I disagree with him that it is only fraud when discussing the coin with a beginner. And if a dipped coin shouldn't be referred to as original why should a coin where the surfaces have been altered by environmental factors (sometimes dramatically so) be referred to as original or worse, that the coin has fully original luster?
So this would be another example of a coin where the toning has progressed to a point where removing it would do more harm than good. How do you keep it from deteriorating further?
On the flip side, while I wouldn't call the coin very attractive I still appreciate that the toning represents almost 200 years of American history. How often do you get to hold 200 years of history in your hand.
Wrong. Toning has disrupted the flow lines to the point where that disruption has caused an observable change in the appearance of the coin. As for unmolested, the coin has been "molested" by environmental factors to the point where the appearance has been dramatically altered.
Does anyone here know the definition of insanity?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Actually, it's what many disciplines call a "term of art". But you're the Red Queen, so have at it
Yes. You and at least a couple of other posters are engaging in it.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Continuing to follow this thread?
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
People with some expertise in the matter think this coin is fully lustrous. Maybe we should ask some people who don't know anything about coin collecting, to be sure one way or the other?
Einstein's definition? The Wicked Witch of the West, Lenin and the Red Queen all differ.
The one about burning cash sending an MS64 Morgan in 11 times h> @MFeld said:
the newest program from my new favorite podcast "drops" in another 2 minutes. When it's over I'm going to watch "Idiocracy" again. You're on your own. And sanity is not only relative, but over-rated
I certainly am, at the very least.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
So this thread morphed from a Peace dollar with some crappy toning but a nice strike to this?? Amazing.
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
Am I the only one who learned anything from the other thread? LOL
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Finnegans Wake for the PCGS forum.
That chain may be broke but it’s still working and looks to be fully original.
Is this awesome thread on grammar, words and their definitions still going . . . . . ?
.
.
.
.
Which one of you was my High School linguistics teacher . . . . . . ?
A segue for your nocturnal enjoyment . . . . . . .
.
.
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?
BONGO-BONGO HE SAY RICKO AT THE TOP SAID SPELLING ......
Repeating something and expecting a different result is NOT insanity. This is some made-up line that has nothing to do with the reality of insanity or mental illness. If it were, then starting up a lawnmower or outboard motor is insanity. No.
Sorry, but I just get sick of reading and hearing this false definition BS all the time.
And the OP is silly to not understand and conform to proper definitions within a given discipline.
.
.
Um. I really think that you EXPECT the lawnmower to start when you yank its cord.
Expecting it to to something different, like singing opera, now that's insanity.
The definition still holds . . .
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?
But when it doesn't start ten times, to expect it to start the eleventh is what? Whatever it is it isn't insanity!
It doesn't change the FACT this is NOT A DEFINITION OF INSANITY! It's just some old quote misattributed to Einstein, Ben Franklin, and even Narcotics Anonymous that has nothing to do with the actual definition of insanity but is repeated ad nauseam.
Maybe a better definition of insanity is taking anything posted to this thread too seriously.
Perhaps, but I haven't lost track of reality or am incapacitated by psychosis. Perhaps reading this thread after the first page has me approaching insanity.
Discussion is good and sometimes you just have to work through the problem…Repeatedly
Another bolt pictured with two other forum members.
The word "insanity" is commonly used in reference to certain behaviors and not just to a specific disorder upon which you appear to be focused. See 3a and 3b from Merriam-Webster below.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insanity
"Definition of insanity
1dated : a severely disordered state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder
2law : unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand that prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or that releases one from criminal or civil responsibility
3a: extreme folly or unreasonableness
the insanity of violence
His comments were pure insanity.
b: something utterly foolish or unreasonable
the insanities of modern life"
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That's all well and good, but is that insanity "original"?
500, here we come.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Perhaps a better analogy would have been to ask if the general public or one of the MDs on this board understands what “Thick Headed” means or if that term confuses them.
I’m no Dr. but I’ll go out on a limb that when one hears that term they don’t go into a rant about skull density but rather just link this thread.
My Ebay Store
Hmmm...nature vs nurture?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Is this the thread for the Airing of Random Grievances?
Because...
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
It’s for some to restart their Adderall.
Originality and attractiveness are not measured with the same yardstick
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Another flawed analogy. We’re talking about metals, specifically silver. Silver when exposed to the environment, regardless of whether it’s a coin, cup or fashioned in some other shape for some other use will oxide or tarnish. When that oxidation occurs we recognize a change has occurred. We don’t make believe it didn’t happen to claim the object has its full original luster. Anyone that looks at the object knows that is not the case. So why do you pretend the change hasn’t occurred? Is it to go along to get along?
Perhaps the full original luster is still present as presented by the, uh-hem leaders in this industry.
Perhaps not, but if this chemical reaction happens over time and say long periods of time. Then would not this be happening in the first few minutes after production? Scientifically, it does though you may not see it.
Maybe they did not see it either even after 70 years.
Sorry: Wrong thread
Good news!
Although I expected this Peace dollar tomorrow- the USPS tracking shows it is delivered later this afternoon! Sadly I am at work and won't get a chance to photograph it until sometime tomorrow afternoon.
peacockcoins