How important is Originality to you?
291fifth
Posts: 24,540 ✭✭✭✭✭
Ww hear a lot about cleaning, dipping, "conservation", artificial toning, etc. What about original coins that have NEVER been worked on. Is originality important to you? Is it something you look for? Is it something you will pay a premium for?
All glory is fleeting.
0
Comments
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I'll pay a huge premium for it, but I won't pay anything for coins that don't have it.
Take the average gold coin that has dirt in the cracks.
It might even have a more orange appearance.
Sometimes I see gold coins like this and I admire them.
Being in a holder gives me more assurance on the coin:
1. it is gold.
2. it is not fake.
3. Falls within a grade range +-1.
On the flip side, take a shiny as the sun gold coin. Obviously
it has been cleaned, but instead of it sitting raw, like it should be,
it is holdered in a NGC slab and given the grade MS62.
Well a TPG has given its blessing and the coin is more marketable now.
Also, I see this same problem in older holders, even PCGS. The darn coin
just shines and shines and shines. and it will be au55 :-/
yes.
talk about a gross coin below. (i know it is common, but do you own 3 of them? :-P)
i cannot seem to display some ebay hosted photos. here is the url to the auction.
shiny gold
John
I'd make some exceptions to that rule. For example, if I collected $20 Libs, I'd happily add a curated (and not strictly "original") SSCA 57-S to my collection. That's because the story of the coin's cleaning is a positive one.
Similarly, if a barely identifiable and encrusted Somers Island threepence was found under a church floor in Bermuda, and if it was professionally curated into a good looking XF with pretty much the right color, I wouldn't hesitate to own it.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
This is a reality check, at least for me...
Would you buy a 1840-D Quarter Eagle, totally original graded XF45,(greysheet @$6500) for the AU55 price (greysheet estimated at $16,000)?
I contend that few will pay that type of premium for an original coin.
Now let's ask this question a little differently...
Would you buy a 1840-D Quarter Eagle, totally original you personally feel it grades XF45 but it is in a TPG slab at AU55 at the same $16,000?
This is actually easier for me to do that buying the original XF45 at AU55 prices. The problem for us originality buffs is that it is hard to get that XF45 in a AU55 slab without dipping the originality out of the coin.
<< <i>The problem for us originality buffs is that it is hard to get that XF45 in a AU55 slab without dipping the originality out of the coin. >>
Totally agree. Which is why I believe its impossible to build a top registry set in early material without, in many cases, settling for inferior, conserved coins that are in high holders.
Originality probably is at the top of the list. The above look or some lessor tone is what I seek. Most often no premium has to be paid because many people do not care for this look on a coin. The look screams out original. Granted the coin could have been dipped quickly at some point but it sure has not been conserved into a piece of white trash like you see often these days. Lessor amounts of tone at the rim is more desireable but the above was the only example that was handy.
Of course you cannot get all of your coins to look like you want so even some blast white coins are owned. Atleast the blast white ones do not have the white trash look.
Ken
First, I am not sure what source you have for buying original Dahlonega gold at Greysheet, but do not spoil it by telling anyone else (espceially me)
Second, you can pick a coin with a narrower spread between XF and AU. Let's pick a 49-D QE: You have the choice of purchasing a crusty XF-45 for $5000 or a dipped, but attractive, AU-55 for $5000. Trends is $3500 for XF-45, $4500 for AU-50, and $7500 for AU-55. Both coins are in PCGS holders, and you feel that they are approprpiately graded. Which do you buy?
<< <i>Would you buy a crusty, original XF-45 for the same price as a dipped, but still attractive AU-55? >>
Yes, for the right coin.
Yes, for the right coin.
Well, sir, then you are one who puts his money where his mouth is. I strongly prefer originality and will pay strong money (Trends plus) for an original XF coin, but I would have a very difficult time with the hypothetical as posed.
I think in terms of a 400 dollar coin going for 600.
I would not buy the dipped, but attractive AU55. If the XF45 was a top of the grade XF45, there is where I would spend my $5k.
I wish Greysheet D & C mint gold was available. I just used those prices for an example as I had the Greysheet nearby.
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
I believe your new icon is staring me in the eye and putting me on the spot...
It's not my coin. I ripped the photo from the Pinnacle inventory. Shhhhh...
I would not buy the dipped, but attractive AU55. If the XF45 was a top of the grade XF45, there is where I would spend my $5k.
Dipped is not always bad. The coin below was from the Bass Collection (hoard, if you ask me). It had PVC damage and was conserved. It has a very attractive in hand appearance--frankly looks like quite a few of the nicer Green Pond half eagles, IMO. Would you pass on it because it is not original? (I didn't.)
I wish Greysheet D & C mint gold was available. I just used those prices for an example as I had the Greysheet nearby.
Darn! I had this fantasy of you PMing me the source of this original D gold at Greysheet!
Tom P,
A lot of that "old, crusty" pitch really gets old .
Please expound on this. I would love to hear the other side of the issue. I believe there are cases when crusty (or at least crusty-looking) is worse than dipped.
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
I personally disagree with this emphatically and this is my opinion on the subject... To me, a dipped coin is an altered coin, not in a bad way per se but albeit, altered and one that has been stripped of its' originality. Now I'm not saying it is a terrible thing to do by any means because I realize some collectors really enjoy the coins to appear as the way they were first created. I also collect sportscards and in a very small way, I compare this to a trimmed or otherwise altered vintage baseball card where the card is made to appear as the owner wishes. I know this analogy is like comparing apples and oranges because a coin is dipped to achieve a certain desired look and a sportscard is trimmed to make an un-ethical attempt to increase its' value. My altered baseball card analogy probably is better suited for coins that are artificially toned to make an un-ethical attempt at increasing their value. The bottom line to this convoluted post
Did nature intend for my half eagle to be PVC contaminated? Would it be better to leave the stuff on the coin and allow it to slowly destroy the surface?
What if the same coin is caked in mud...is it okay to brush the mud off? Is it okay to rinse the coin in water? How about soap and water?
What about the SS Republic & Central Americia coins? Should they have been left on the bottom of the ocean as nature intended? Or brought up and left caked in rust?
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>Did nature intend for my half eagle to be PVC contaminated? Would it be better to leave the stuff on the coin and allow it to slowly destroy the surface?
What if the same coin is caked in mud...is it okay to brush the mud off? Is it okay to rinse the coin in water? How about soap and water?
What about the SS Republic & Central Americia coins? Should they have been left on the bottom of the ocean as nature intended? Or brought up and left caked in rust? >>
All of these examples are reasons for conservation. The difference is that I believe "Conservation" should be limited to preserving a coin's originality by removing harmful contaminants. In your examples that appears to be the case.
<< <i>Okay, Dizzy,
Did nature intend for my half eagle to be PVC contaminated? Would it be better to leave the stuff on the coin and allow it to slowly destroy the surface?
What if the same coin is caked in mud...is it okay to brush the mud off? Is it okay to rinse the coin in water? How about soap and water?
What about the SS Republic & Central Americia coins? Should they have been left on the bottom of the ocean as nature intended? Or brought up and left caked in rust? >>
There is certainly a distinct difference between dipping a coin to "save its' life" as opposed to remove toning, this is simply common sense. I guess I should have been more descriptive as not to sound so narrow minded.
Originality is a continuum and I wouldn't pass on the Bass Collection half eagle.
If I manage the coin market with a wish, I wish the coins market consisted of correctly graded, original coins, in holders.
Your viewpoint here points out the real problem with staking out a hard position. The very next coin considered is likely to need an exception to that position.
I think what I am learning is.... Buy the coin, buy the coin, buy the coin... not the holder and that would include grade and originality.
The fact is, many toned coins look absolutely horrible. I, like most of us, prefer a lightly and evenly toned coin over a repeatedly dipped white coin. However, an au-55 lightly dipped coin over an xf-45 "original" is a fairly easy decision. Am I imagining this or would some of you really take the xf-45 over the au-55? If the au-55 were abrasively cleaned or scratched, the xf-45 would be the obvious choice, but if the au-55 were dipped briefly, resulting in coin with swirling luster, I would take the au-55.
How about the coin that was dipped 20 years ago and retoned beautifully in a nice cardboard holder?
For me, a truly original coin would be one that was carefully plucked from the mint at the time of issue and stored in an inert environment. Now given that criteria, how many of us have "original" coins?
Assuming both coins are priced fairly? I'd take the original XF every time because I would enjoy it more than the dipped AU.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I don't think this is true at all. I think those who truly appreciate a NT coin realize that any coin at any time can be made to look blast white and original to the day it was minted. To reverse the process back again, naturally, would take years and it would never regain the originality and natural look that it once had. That being said, I don't despise a nice blast white coin and would buy one if it suited me. However, I would buy a toned coin for its' originality many times over before a white one.
and cleaning?
A 150 year old half eagle should not shine like the sun unless it has all
its original luster and like the above poster said, stored in an inert environment.
So when you see a MS62 sitting in a brand new slab reflecting the sun so much
it blinds you, you have to wonder what someone did to it.
Originality is important in the antique business, let alone coins. You want the piece
to not have been altered. The look of age gives it character. You look at the coin
and see times toll on its surface.
Cleaning it wipes that history away and all you have is a shiny "widget". Albiet expensive.
I want my gold coins to look old, somewhat dirty (people have dirty hands), and have eye
appeal that I find desirable.
<< <i>I think some of us are getting a little carried away with the original toning is wonderful issue. I suspect that many of us really do not like the toning on our coins and rationalize by saying, "I love my original coin." >>
that is complete and utter Bull Excrement!
Would you take an antique rocking chair from the 1700's and take a sand blaster to it to remove marks, stains, or abrasions?
Would you take an early 1900's Model-T and fix a few minor dents here and there with bondo?
What if you had a T-206 Honus Wagner with a tobacco stain on the front from its' original packaging. Would you try to remove it with some sort of cleaning agent?
Or an Action Comics #1 with cream or brownish pages, would you try to clean them with the same cleaning agent used on the Wagner?
My point is they, like vintage toned coins, are all antiques and by the natural process of "mother nature" and "father time", have developed into an original preserved piece of history.
I'll pick strike and design clarity over color everyday. I want to find a coin that shows what the design was supposed to be. It might have color highlights, but I don't shop for color. It might be white, but I don't require that it had NEVER been dipped.
Not to start a fight....but I would pass on that commem that Dizzy is displaying in a heartbeat. The color detracts from the coin, and isn't attractive. The fact that it's "original" isn't important to me.
White and toned both have a place in my collection. The white has to be realistic, (i.e. no white bust coins!, or overdipped lackluster coins), and the color has to be reasonable, (appearing natural, and not distracting).
All that said, I'm not sure I would pass a test on "original" vs. "conserved". If it looks good by normal collecting standards, it'll probably look pretty good to me.
<< <i>I hesitate to get into this discussion since I don't have the same "color" fetish that some do.....But......
I'll pick strike and design clarity over color everyday. I want to find a coin that shows what the design was supposed to be. It might have color highlights, but I don't shop for color. It might be white, but I don't require that it had NEVER been dipped.
Not to start a fight....but I would pass on that commem that Dizzy is displaying in a heartbeat. The color detracts from the coin, and isn't attractive. The fact that it's "original" isn't important to me.
White and toned both have a place in my collection. The white has to be realistic, (i.e. no white bust coins!, or overdipped lackluster coins), and the color has to be reasonable, (appearing natural, and not distracting).
All that said, I'm not sure I would pass a test on "original" vs. "conserved". If it looks good by normal collecting standards, it'll probably look pretty good to me. >>
I respect the opinions of this post. I know the toning on my new Gettysburg certainly isn't for everyone. Thank goodness for that and thank goodness that any type of toning isn't for everyone. These things command enough of a premium as it is
And here's an example of a coin that, in all likelyhood, was dipped at some point. But I found it very appealing.
NGC AU-58:
<< <i>I have yet to see someone respond that they preferred dipped blast white or shiny yellow gold...so who the heck is buying all that stuff? >>
I think the buyers fall primarily into three groups: 1) Those who DO care about originality but don't realize they're buying something other than original; 2) Those who DON'T care about originality but who don't care to admit it; 3) Those who know so little about what they're buying that they don't know what originality is or that they might have a choice.
<< <i>
<< <i>I have yet to see someone respond that they preferred dipped blast white or shiny yellow gold...so who the heck is buying all that stuff? >>
I think the buyers fall primarily into three groups: 1) Those who DO care about originality but don't realize they're buying something other than original; 2) Those who DON'T care about originality but who don't care to admit it; 3) Those who know so little about what they're buying that they don't know what originality is or that they might have a choice. >>
....trying to figure out which category I'm in......
I'd add a category, 4) Those who allow for reasonable deviation from "original".
jim d
<< <i>Questions:
Would you take an antique rocking chair from the 1700's and take a sand blaster to it to remove marks, stains, or abrasions?
Would you take an early 1900's Model-T and fix a few minor dents here and there with bondo?
What if you had a T-206 Honus Wagner with a tobacco stain on the front from its' original packaging. Would you try to remove it with some sort of cleaning agent?
Or an Action Comics #1 with cream or brownish pages, would you try to clean them with the same cleaning agent used on the Wagner?
My point is they, like vintage toned coins, are all antiques and by the natural process of "mother nature" and "father time", have developed into an original preserved piece of history. >>
For every example you gave, I would not even attempt to restore or use cleaning agents.
However, I would address your examples by saying that the items are worth less because of mother nature and father time's influence. A collectible in its original packaging with bright clean graphics is worth leaps and bounds more than the stained or sun-faded example. Some Action Comics have more "brownish pages" than others and they are worth much less.
IMO, a deeply toned brownish colored silver coin could spell trouble. The toning might be so heavy that it goes beyond the outer layer of metal. In this case, the "natural" tarnish or oxidation falls into the damage category.
If an ugly, deeply toned coin is dipped once, it could improve the appearance, and in turn, the value. I would not dip any valuable coin myself because I am afraid of the outcome, but I would buy one that was encapsulated and white. I prefer a light to medium peripheral toning that does not detract from the beauty of the design. Deep, blotchy, multi-colored oxidation is interesting to look at a on a silver tea set, but not on a coin.
An interesting and divergent concept of original comes from an area of collecting that I watch, but don't participate in.
When it comes to vintage guitars, there are two types of original:
1) Those guitars that were probably owned by essentially non-players that sat in cases for the last 50 years. They look as pristine as the day they were made.
2) Those guitars that were probably owned by touring musicians. They have stains, scratches, worn frets and fingerboards, chipped paint, and generally look awful.
They both will sell for some amazing prices.....just not to the same people.
<< <i>Another point......
An interesting and divergent concept of original comes from an area of collecting that I watch, but don't participate in.
When it comes to vintage guitars, there are two types of original:
1) Those guitars that were probably owned by essentially non-players that sat in cases for the last 50 years. They look as pristine as the day they were made.
2) Those guitars that were probably owned by touring musicians. They have stains, scratches, worn frets and fingerboards, chipped paint, and generally look awful.
They both will sell for some amazing prices.....just not to the same people. >>
I think some of us are getting a little carried away with the original toning is wonderful issue. I suspect that many of us really do not like the toning on our coins and rationalize by saying, "I love my original coin."
That is an interesting perspective. What if we have collective sour groups and have deluded ourselves, since we cannot afford proof gold and uncirculated Dahlonega gold, that it is better to have dirty and crusty pieces?
<< I have yet to see someone respond that they preferred dipped blast white or shiny yellow gold...so who the heck is buying all that stuff? >>
I think the buyers fall primarily into three groups: 1) Those who DO care about originality but don't realize they're buying something other than original; 2) Those who DON'T care about originality but who don't care to admit it; 3) Those who know so little about what they're buying that they don't know what originality is or that they might have a choice.
Mark, that is an excellent answer to one of the great coin questions of our time. I have been guilty of all three at one time of another.