"pmh1nic wouldn't you just like to get your hands on that handful of 1790 something Large Cents that grade 67-69 just to see how original they are?"
Yes. Listen I live in the real world and understand the fact that it's a very rare happening when an early U.S. coin has somehow managed to get to the year 2003 without having been at leasted wiped with a cloth that has left hairlines on it. What I object to is those that use that reality to justify further munipulation of a coins surfaces (whether it's ATing, dipping, whizzing or whatever) to try an make the coin look like it's more original. I don't put removal of materials from a coins surfaces (such as PVC) to stop a destructive process.
Why can't we just accept the way a coin looks as history and happenstances have worked to result in its survival to this day in whatever condition it's in (with the exception of removal of chemical or other destructive contaminates) and accept that it's as original as time and circumstances have allowed. What would the value of blast white coins be that have never been dipped if the coins that have been dipped had not been? What would attractively toned coins be worth if never a doctored was able to reproduce that toning artifically? Why can't we just be satisfied to own a worn piece of history with the affects of its passage through time intact?
O.K., the old fart is off his soapbox .
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
Comments
"pmh1nic wouldn't you just like to get your hands on that handful of 1790 something Large Cents that grade 67-69 just to see how original they are?"
Yes. Listen I live in the real world and understand the fact that it's a very rare happening when an early U.S. coin has somehow managed to get to the year 2003 without having been at leasted wiped with a cloth that has left hairlines on it. What I object to is those that use that reality to justify further munipulation of a coins surfaces (whether it's ATing, dipping, whizzing or whatever) to try an make the coin look like it's more original. I don't put removal of materials from a coins surfaces (such as PVC) to stop a destructive process.
Why can't we just accept the way a coin looks as history and happenstances have worked to result in its survival to this day in whatever condition it's in (with the exception of removal of chemical or other destructive contaminates) and accept that it's as original as time and circumstances have allowed. What would the value of blast white coins be that have never been dipped if the coins that have been dipped had not been? What would attractively toned coins be worth if never a doctored was able to reproduce that toning artifically? Why can't we just be satisfied to own a worn piece of history with the affects of its passage through time intact?
O.K., the old fart is off his soapbox
Some collectors do. Bottom line is that people are looking for the almighty $ by making their coins look better at sale time.