<< <i> I am glad that I stirred the pot on this. If you did not realize, I dredged up a thread from 23 months ago!!! >>
I didn't even notice. An interesting observation is that there were only two replies to this thread 2 years ago. I wonder if the start up of NCS has really brought this topic to a boil as of late. Or was it just a slow night 2 years ago.
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 it depends on the collectibe. Apparently, vintage guitars are one of your areas of expertise and I, for one, cannot not argue your points. But, if I use paper collectibles to make my point, I will say that, without question, a carefully stored baseball card or magazine will always be more desirable than its worn counterpart. Naturally, there could be other factors such as signatures or the fame of the original owner that can change the value of the piece, regardless of condition. But, for the most part, there is no comparison.
what if an action #1 appeared in mint state. according to my collecting exp over the years, it simply does not exist. No one stored it properly back then. Standing offers by very wealthly persons for this exact book in excellent condition have gone unfufilled for years.
I would be suspicious of a copy that nice.
it appears coins, being a metal, can withstand a cleaning and become "better". (i guess.)
what if a method appears for comics? to make pages whole again, remove that yellow color, make it smell new again, etc... would you buy it or pay as much?
It can always be cleaned later... it cannot be "uncleaned". Time can make it go away from coins with honest wear?
I am all over the place, but this should be a very hot topic right now.
<< <i>I think it depends on the collectibe. Apparently, vintage guitars are one of your areas of expertise and I, for one, cannot not argue your points. But, if I use paper collectibles to make my point, I will say that, without question, a carefully stored baseball card or magazine will always be more desirable than its worn counterpart. Naturally, there could be other factors such as signatures or the fame of the original owner that can change the value of the piece, regardless of condition. But, for the most part, there is no comparison. >>
Yeah, collectors of anything set their own rules. Antiques? Keep 'em dirty. Paintings? A little restoration can't hurt. Silver tea sets? Make 'em shine! And on and on.....
Funny thing about guitars is that Fender got some odd ideas, and started to make NEW guitars with worn finishes, ding, nicks, and scratches. I forget what they called them, ("closet classics", or something like that), and sold them for a couple grand more than perfect new guitars. Go figure.
<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.>
Well ofcourse. The point to consider here is with all collectibles, no one knew what they would "some day" be worth. Therefore, the storage, handling etc. was never considered. If these cards, comics, etc. were stored in a perfect climate environment and never touched over the years they would ofcourse be priceless. This was not the "natural" thing to do. They were meant to be read, handled, placed in bicycle spokes, flipped etc. and therefore pristine examples are few and far between. In my opinion, coins are a different phenomena with respect to toning. Ofcourse a MINT example of an Action Comics #1 or a T206 Wagner would command "through the roof and to the stars" prices... this would be universally accepted.
I don't think a coin that is perfect, as original minted blast white MS68 condition would even approach the value of a multi-colored toned example in the same MS68 grade. In my opinion, what is universally accepted in coins is much more diverse than with any other collectible and I think history has proven that the naturally toned specimens create the greatest demand.
<< <i>Well ofcourse. The point to consider here is with all collectibles, no one knew what they would "some day" be worth. Therefore, the storage, handling etc. was never considered. If these cards, comics, etc. were stored in a perfect climate environment and never touched over the years they would ofcourse be priceless. This was not the "natural" thing to do. >>
100 years ago, cleaning coins was "the natural" thing to do. What if a coin were minted in 1905, lightly cleaned in 1906 and is now a gold toned beauty in 2005? That coin has plenty of history, doesn't it? For most people, the natural thing to do with coins was to have them rattling around in pockets with one goal, to spend them. Therefore, if we use the natural argument, a more desirable coin would have scratches and rim dings. I think the best way to look at this is to accept the idea that lightly dipping a dark, spotty, unnatractively toned coin is an option that can improve its appearance. Many of us, including myself would not even think of doing this, but some coins have been dipped very succesfully and I have seen them with my own eyes. I have also seen many many toned encapsulated coins that are ugly. Let's not pretend that they are nice looking. Silver is a very reactive metal, but if stored properly, it will only moderately oxidize with some nice subtle colors. When I see a heavily toned silver coin that coats the surface in erratic patterns, I always walk away.
<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? >
Me So what of it!! Ok Ok all kidding aside I have to admit I love to view a blast white, frosty silver coin, or a blazzing red copper penny not some crusty yucky brown coin. After all a coin is not made with tarnish on it at the mint, that is added over time and therefore is not original.
<< <i>Well ofcourse. The point to consider here is with all collectibles, no one knew what they would "some day" be worth. Therefore, the storage, handling etc. was never considered. If these cards, comics, etc. were stored in a perfect climate environment and never touched over the years they would ofcourse be priceless. This was not the "natural" thing to do. >>
100 years ago, cleaning coins was "the natural" thing to do. What if a coin were minted in 1905, lightly cleaned in 1906 and is now a gold toned beauty in 2005? That coin has plenty of history, doesn't it? For most people, the natural thing to do with coins was to have them rattling around in pockets with one goal, to spend them. Therefore, if we use the natural arguement, a more desirable coin would have scratches and rim dings. I think the best way to look at this is to accept the idea that lightly dipping a dark, spotty, unnatractively toned coin is an option that can improve its appearance. Many of us, including myself would not even think of doing this, but some coins have been dipped very succesfully and I have seen them with my own eyes. I have also seen many many toned encapsulated coins that are ugly. Let's not pretend that they are nice looking. Silver is a very reactive metal, but if stored properly, it will only moderately oxidize with some nice subtle colors. When I see a heavily toned silver coin that coats the surface in erratic patterns, I always walk away. >>
Points heard and understood. Again, the diversity of this hobby is unique. If I were at a show with hundreds if not thousands of coins on display for sale, I for one might merely glance at a white coin but will gaze a toned one. And if the toned one suits me in eye appeal and price, it's in my collection
<< <i>Points heard and understood. Again, the diversity of this hobby is unique. If I were at a show with hundreds if not thousands of coins on display for sale, I for one might merely glance at a white coin but will gaze a toned one. And if the toned one suits me in eye appeal and price, it's in my collection >>
Dizzy. let' use your the beautiful commemorative you display here to drive the point home. This particular coin frames the devices nicely and all the colors are attractive without the overbearing brown or black that is often seen. The coin you show does not have one detracting area of color that jumps out at you. What I an trying to say is that your toned coin is one of the nice looking ones. But, so many toned coins have dark, defined areas of color that compete with the design. The portrait of Liberty and the splash of toning on her nose demand equal attention. To put it another way, a coin like that is original and ugly. If you would take that one over a once-dipped attractive white coin, then we are from different planets.
Everyone talks about "originality" but no one ever defines it. Some would say that a carefully conserved coin is "original"; some would not. Some would say a coin heavy with 100 years of tarnish/toning is original. But I have NEVER seen a coin come straight from the mint with tarnish or toning produced during the original production run, so how can that state be "original"?
In actuality "original" is used to confer legitimacy to our own personal bias about coin aesthetics at the expense of those who hold to opposite views.
I say to each his own. It's like arguing over what make of car is best; totally subjective and a waste of energy.
<< <i>Points heard and understood. Again, the diversity of this hobby is unique. If I were at a show with hundreds if not thousands of coins on display for sale, I for one might merely glance at a white coin but will gaze a toned one. And if the toned one suits me in eye appeal and price, it's in my collection >>
Dizzy. let' use your the beautiful commemorative you display here to drive the point home. This particular coin frames the devices nicely and all the colors are attractive without the overbearing brown or black that is often seen. The coin you show does not have one detracting area of color that jumps out at you. What I an trying to say is that your toned coin is one of the nice looking ones. But, so many toned coins have dark, defined areas of color that compete with the design. The portrait of Liberty and the splash of toning on her nose demand equal attention. To put it another way, a coin like that is original and ugly. If you would take that one over a once-dipped attractive white coin, then we are from different planets. >>
Well, not that I would buy any toned coin strictly because it's toned unless "I" thought it had great eye-appeal. However, in the same given grade of a coin that I'm looking for, I would pick a coin with toning over a coin that I felt had been alter.. I mean dipped So based on your analogy, I'm not sure what planet you're from
<< <i>In actuality "original" is used to confer legitimacy to our own personal bias about coin aesthetics at the expense of those who hold to opposite views. >>
<< <i>Well, not that I would buy any toned coin strictly because it's toned unless "I" thought it had great eye-appeal. However, in the same given grade of a coin that I'm looking for, I would pick a coin with toning over a coin that I felt had been alter.. I mean dipped So based on your analogy, I'm not sure what planet you're from >>
dizzy, I think all that toning is making you dizzy I know that when I see a kaleidescope of colors and shapes, I am not sure what to look at first. Maybe it once was a coin, but now, it is something else. Maybe a colorful garden or a pizza
<< <i>In actuality "original" is used to confer legitimacy to our own personal bias about coin aesthetics at the expense of those who hold to opposite views. >>
>>
"Original" simply means "original". My definition of that is unaltered, not intentionally changed, and derived from natural means either during a short or long period of time. I for one do not express my opinions at the expense of other collectors who hold opposite views. I simply express it to make my point on what I like to collect in the hobby and I listen to others' views on the subject and take away from it a better knowledge about coins in general.
I think it is fairly obvious when a coin has been over-dipped. Nobody likes a lackluster dipped white coin. I will pay a premium for a nice looking coin, period. The toning might be a plus but can easily be a minus.
<< <i>I think it is fairly obvious when a coin has been over-dipped. Nobody likes a lackluster dipped white coin. I will pay a premium for a nice looking coin, period. The toning might be a plus but can easily be a minus. >>
Well said and I completely understand and appreciate that viewpoint.
VERY IMPORTANT... but lets put that aside for the moment. This is a great thread and this is what the forum is all about. If only there were more frank and blunt discussions about things that matter... IF THERE WERE A US COIN FORUM POST/THREAD OF THE DAY, THIS WOULD BE IT. Excellent thread. I will refrain from making the usual comments because I am sure some folks whom I greatly respect are tired of the usual soap box pitch I give on this subject.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>VERY IMPORTANT... but lets put that aside for the moment. This is a great thread and this is what the forum is all about. If only there were more frank and blunt discussions about things that matter... IF THERE WERE A US COIN FORUM POST/THREAD OF THE DAY, THIS WOULD BE IT. Excellent thread. I will refrain from making the usual comments because I am sure some folks whom I greatly respect are tired of the usual soap box pitch I give on this subject. >>
Coinkat, not to stir up any , but I don't know your opinions on the subject and regardless of what they are, I'd like to hear 'em
<VERY IMPORTANT... but lets put that aside for the moment. This is a great thread and this is what the forum is all about. If only there were more frank and blunt discussions about things that matter... IF THERE WERE A US COIN FORUM POST/THREAD OF THE DAY, THIS WOULD BE IT. Excellent thread. I will refrain from making the usual comments because I am sure some folks whom I greatly respect are tired of the usual soap box pitch I give on this subject. >
Having seen first hand a few of the quality coins in your collection coinkat; I can say that you know what a good looking coin is.
Here is another unoriginal coin from my collection:
I wanted an example of the date because of the urban legend associated with it...Link
I did not want to pay an arm and a leg for the curiosity, and Carson City Gold would not sell me his AU-53 , so I bought a lightly cleaned/market acceptable XF-40 for relatively cheap.
<< <i>Some would say a coin heavy with 100 years of tarnish/toning is original. But I have NEVER seen a coin come straight from the mint with tarnish or toning produced during the original production run, so how can that state be "original"? >>
Of course the coin wasn't struck with the toning on it BUT the toning is a natural consequence of the chemical reaction(s) that occurred during the time the coin was in storage. Its original in the sense that it has not been cleaned, dipped or otherwise messed with. Of course original is desireable but it has to be more than just original, it has to have eye appeal too. An original dog ugly POS will not be worth more than a specimen that has been undetectably dipped to a just struck blast white state (at least it won't be to me).
I generally prefer my commems to have toning on both the obverse and reverse. This Gettysburg however I picked up for the rim toning on the obverse, but also for the gorgeous blast white luster of the reverse. "The best of both worlds"!!!
okay... that is fair and I owe an apology to some of the new members to the forum.
I am a strong advocate of originality and I have posted threads here to the point that some are tired of hearing the same Old Coinkat complain about why the TPG companies are not able to offer an Original surfaces designation for early gold and type coins as well as other coins because I believe that there is market for original coins. If for one moment that you doubt what I am saying, please go into the archieves and do a search under Coinkat as the author and original surfaces as the subject. As much as I would like to go through the exercise of connecting a bunch of threads to this one, I choose not to because, I doubt that it will make a difference. I have made a case and I accept the word that has been passed down even though I disagree with it.
I have sent letters to PCGS, NGC and ANACS and no TPG company seems to be interested in the cause. I respectfully disagree with them. I recognize that I am on the losing side, but as Jefferson Smith said, "The lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for". And I can't imagine that anyone here would find either Frank Capra or Jimmy Stewart offensive. I think that is the Readers' Digest condensed version. If anyone here feels I have played alittle fast and loose with the facts... I yield the floor to you.
edited to add: Chris, I appreciate your comments
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>okay... that is fair and I owe an apology to some of the new members to the forum.
I am a strong advocate of originality and I have posted threads here to the point that some are tired of hearing the same Old Coinkat complain about why the TPG companies are not able to offer an Original surfaces designation for early gold and type coins as well as other coins because I believe that there is market for original coins. If for one moment that you doubt what I am saying, please go into the archieves and do a search under Coinkat as the author and original surfaces as the subject. As much as I would like to go through the exercise of connecting a bunch of threads to this one, I choose not to because, I doubt that it will make a difference. I have made a case and I accept the word that has been passed down even though I disagree with it.
I have sent letters to PCGS, NGC and ANACS and no TPG company seems to be interested in the cause. I respectfully disagree with them. I recognize that I am on the losing side, but as Jefferson Smith said, "The lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for". And I can't imagine that anyone here would find either Frank Capra or Jimmy Stewart offensive. I think that is the Readers' Digest condensed version. If anyone here feels I have played alittle fast and loose with the facts... I yield the floor to you. >>
Boy are we in agreement! I think that would be an excellent designation on slabs for those who truly appreciate original surfaces... You got my vote!
I think there are plenty of collectors who would appreciate that!
Given the questions, disagreements, and debate that go on here regarding "Natural Toning" vs. "Artificial Toning", and the after-the-fact second guessing of what the grading companies determine, do you think it's really an easy task for the grading services to identify "Original Surfaces" vs. "Unoriginal(?) Surfaces"?
I'm not knowledgeable enough to take sides.....Just really want to know if a single, well executed dipping can be universally identified as such, or if an old dipping/retoned coin is really easy to pick out of a group of "never been touched" coins.
For instance, I'm ASSUMING the Barber quarter I posted earlier in this thread had been dipped, but that's only a guess based on it's age, and white color. For all I know, it was carefully stored in a dry place in an airtight enclosure. With coin in hand, would an expert be able to definitively tell me differently??
I went back to take a second look at the 1892 Barber Quarter. If I were a grader and had the "original surafces" option available to me, this coin would not qualify. And please understand that is not a slap at you or your coin. Its just highly likely that this coin was dipped along the way and it is still attractive. Compare your 1892 quarter to the 1902 Morgan which looks original.
The original surfaces designation is more to assist in preserving original coins and separating what I view as lower end material for the grade and quality original coins. There should be a secod tier market for original coins. To me, this designation is significant for early type and gold and keys for the series of coins collected by date that have a significant following. Case and point... how many truly original 1892-s Morgans exist in AU50 and higher? The answer is very disturbing from my perspective. And my response to a disturbing answer is ... What can we do as collectors and as those that have taken enough of an interest in this hobby to do the right thing for future generations of collectors? The bottom line is that the population of original coins is shrinking at a fast pace and once its gone... well that's it. I would like to do something to prevent it and so far it has been a losing battle.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I went back to take a second look at the 1892 Barber Quarter. If I were a grader and had the "original surafces" option available to me, this coin would not qualify. And please understand that is not a slap at you or your coin. >>
No problem! 1) I don't think the coin makes the man. 2) I already essentially offered it as an example of a "non-original" coin, and have little doubt based on probability alone that it has been dipped. I just changed my opinion in the later post for sake of arguement.
<< <i>Compare your 1892 quarter to the 1902 Morgan which looks original. >>
I guess you still don't have an answer to my question. How does one tell? Particularly from a photo??
If we offered a selection of coins, (including these two as examples), to a dozen expert and experienced graders, (or originality arbitrators) , would they be able to come to an overwhelming consensus on what IS and what ISN'T original?
Would they do better than those judging AT vs. NT?
While I am not trying to avoid answering your question, I will start with the proposition that grading coins has a subjective component and that will never change...
Even with PCGS, NGC and ANACS, there are those collectors who believe the grade assigned to their coin(s) was not what it should have been. I won't go into further exampleshere... so let's say solely for our purposes here in this thread that the percentage for accurately graded coins is 85-90% the first time through a TPGH service. Even if originality can only be graded to a standard of 85-90%, it is better than not having that service designation at all.
I still maintain that originality can be judged and protected by the TPG companies. It is a service that can and should be offered. Will there be mistakes? The answer is yes. Should not the effort be made to improve what services are being offered to collectors CONSIDERING originality is something that is important to them?
I think the answer is yes. I think some of the coins posted here are original and are worthy of this designation. However, I wil be blunt, the designation is most needed with EF and AU graded coins especialy early Gold, THROUGH NO MOTTO LIBERTY, and early type through the Seated Series. Why? Because these coins in original condition have been slaughered as badly as Buffalos in the 1880's and it needs to stop.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
"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?"
You haven't talked to my local dealer .
I showed him the following 1835 Bust Quarter and 1892 Barber Quarter. Hated them and said all his customers want white coins. I asked him where he was going to find a white 1835 Bust Quarter? No answer.
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
<< <i>A lot of that "old, crusty" pitch really gets old .
Tom >>
Tom, this is an interesting comment. I thought that everyone preferred orginality for gold to the extent the coins could be found. Can you please elaborate?
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Comments
<< <i> I am glad that I stirred the pot on this. If you did not realize, I dredged up a thread from 23 months ago!!! >>
I didn't even notice. An interesting observation is that there were only two replies to this thread 2 years ago. I wonder if the start up of NCS has really brought this topic to a boil as of late. Or was it just a slow night 2 years ago.
edited: can't substract years.
<< <i>
<< <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 it depends on the collectibe. Apparently, vintage guitars are one of your areas of expertise and I, for one, cannot not argue your points.
But, if I use paper collectibles to make my point, I will say that, without question, a carefully stored baseball card or magazine will always be more desirable than its worn counterpart. Naturally, there could be other factors such as signatures or the fame of the original owner that can change the value of the piece, regardless of condition. But, for the most part, there is no comparison.
what if an action #1 appeared in mint state. according to my collecting
exp over the years, it simply does not exist. No one stored it properly back
then. Standing offers by very wealthly persons for this exact book in excellent
condition have gone unfufilled for years.
I would be suspicious of a copy that nice.
it appears coins, being a metal, can withstand a cleaning and become "better".
(i guess.)
what if a method appears for comics? to make pages whole again, remove
that yellow color, make it smell new again, etc... would you buy it or pay
as much?
It can always be cleaned later... it cannot be "uncleaned".
Time can make it go away from coins with honest wear?
I am all over the place, but this should be a very hot topic right now.
<< <i>I think it depends on the collectibe. Apparently, vintage guitars are one of your areas of expertise and I, for one, cannot not argue your points.
But, if I use paper collectibles to make my point, I will say that, without question, a carefully stored baseball card or magazine will always be more desirable than its worn counterpart. Naturally, there could be other factors such as signatures or the fame of the original owner that can change the value of the piece, regardless of condition. But, for the most part, there is no comparison. >>
Yeah, collectors of anything set their own rules. Antiques? Keep 'em dirty. Paintings? A little restoration can't hurt. Silver tea sets? Make 'em shine! And on and on.....
Funny thing about guitars is that Fender got some odd ideas, and started to make NEW guitars with worn finishes, ding, nicks, and scratches. I forget what they called them, ("closet classics", or something like that), and sold them for a couple grand more than perfect new guitars. Go figure.
Well ofcourse. The point to consider here is with all collectibles, no one knew what they would "some day" be worth. Therefore, the storage, handling etc. was never considered. If these cards, comics, etc. were stored in a perfect climate environment and never touched over the years they would ofcourse be priceless. This was not the "natural" thing to do. They were meant to be read, handled, placed in bicycle spokes, flipped etc. and therefore pristine examples are few and far between.
In my opinion, coins are a different phenomena with respect to toning. Ofcourse a MINT example of an Action Comics #1 or a T206 Wagner would command "through the roof and to the stars" prices... this would be universally accepted.
I don't think a coin that is perfect, as original minted blast white MS68 condition would even approach the value of a multi-colored toned example in the same MS68 grade. In my opinion, what is universally accepted in coins is much more diverse than with any other collectible and I think history has proven that the naturally toned specimens create the greatest demand.
<< <i>Well ofcourse. The point to consider here is with all collectibles, no one knew what they would "some day" be worth. Therefore, the storage, handling etc. was never considered. If these cards, comics, etc. were stored in a perfect climate environment and never touched over the years they would ofcourse be priceless. This was not the "natural" thing to do. >>
100 years ago, cleaning coins was "the natural" thing to do. What if a coin were minted in 1905, lightly cleaned in 1906 and is now a gold toned beauty in 2005? That coin has plenty of history, doesn't it? For most people, the natural thing to do with coins was to have them rattling around in pockets with one goal, to spend them. Therefore, if we use the natural argument, a more desirable coin would have scratches and rim dings.
I think the best way to look at this is to accept the idea that lightly dipping a dark, spotty, unnatractively toned coin is an option that can improve its appearance. Many of us, including myself would not even think of doing this, but some coins have been dipped very succesfully and I have seen them with my own eyes. I have also seen many many toned encapsulated coins that are ugly. Let's not pretend that they are nice looking. Silver is a very reactive metal, but if stored properly, it will only moderately oxidize with some nice subtle colors. When I see a heavily toned silver coin that coats the surface in erratic patterns, I always walk away.
Me So what of it!!
Chris
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
<< <i>
<< <i>Well ofcourse. The point to consider here is with all collectibles, no one knew what they would "some day" be worth. Therefore, the storage, handling etc. was never considered. If these cards, comics, etc. were stored in a perfect climate environment and never touched over the years they would ofcourse be priceless. This was not the "natural" thing to do. >>
100 years ago, cleaning coins was "the natural" thing to do. What if a coin were minted in 1905, lightly cleaned in 1906 and is now a gold toned beauty in 2005? That coin has plenty of history, doesn't it? For most people, the natural thing to do with coins was to have them rattling around in pockets with one goal, to spend them. Therefore, if we use the natural arguement, a more desirable coin would have scratches and rim dings.
I think the best way to look at this is to accept the idea that lightly dipping a dark, spotty, unnatractively toned coin is an option that can improve its appearance. Many of us, including myself would not even think of doing this, but some coins have been dipped very succesfully and I have seen them with my own eyes. I have also seen many many toned encapsulated coins that are ugly. Let's not pretend that they are nice looking. Silver is a very reactive metal, but if stored properly, it will only moderately oxidize with some nice subtle colors. When I see a heavily toned silver coin that coats the surface in erratic patterns, I always walk away. >>
Points heard and understood. Again, the diversity of this hobby is unique. If I were at a show with hundreds if not thousands of coins on display for sale, I for one might merely glance at a white coin but will gaze a toned one. And if the toned one suits me in eye appeal and price, it's in my collection
<< <i>Points heard and understood. Again, the diversity of this hobby is unique. If I were at a show with hundreds if not thousands of coins on display for sale, I for one might merely glance at a white coin but will gaze a toned one. And if the toned one suits me in eye appeal and price, it's in my collection
Dizzy. let' use your the beautiful commemorative you display here to drive the point home. This particular coin frames the devices nicely and all the colors are attractive without the overbearing brown or black that is often seen. The coin you show does not have one detracting area of color that jumps out at you. What I an trying to say is that your toned coin is one of the nice looking ones. But, so many toned coins have dark, defined areas of color that compete with the design. The portrait of Liberty and the splash of toning on her nose demand equal attention. To put it another way, a coin like that is original and ugly. If you would take that one over a once-dipped attractive white coin, then we are from different planets.
This is in an old rattler holder and looks very original to my eye.
Chris
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
In actuality "original" is used to confer legitimacy to our own personal bias about coin aesthetics at the expense of those who hold to opposite views.
I say to each his own. It's like arguing over what make of car is best; totally subjective and a waste of energy.
<< <i>
<< <i>Points heard and understood. Again, the diversity of this hobby is unique. If I were at a show with hundreds if not thousands of coins on display for sale, I for one might merely glance at a white coin but will gaze a toned one. And if the toned one suits me in eye appeal and price, it's in my collection
Dizzy. let' use your the beautiful commemorative you display here to drive the point home. This particular coin frames the devices nicely and all the colors are attractive without the overbearing brown or black that is often seen. The coin you show does not have one detracting area of color that jumps out at you. What I an trying to say is that your toned coin is one of the nice looking ones. But, so many toned coins have dark, defined areas of color that compete with the design. The portrait of Liberty and the splash of toning on her nose demand equal attention. To put it another way, a coin like that is original and ugly. If you would take that one over a once-dipped attractive white coin, then we are from different planets. >>
Well, not that I would buy any toned coin strictly because it's toned unless "I" thought it had great eye-appeal. However, in the same given grade of a coin that I'm looking for, I would pick a coin with toning over a coin that I felt had been alter.. I mean dipped
<< <i>In actuality "original" is used to confer legitimacy to our own personal bias about coin aesthetics at the expense of those who hold to opposite views. >>
<< <i>Well, not that I would buy any toned coin strictly because it's toned unless "I" thought it had great eye-appeal. However, in the same given grade of a coin that I'm looking for, I would pick a coin with toning over a coin that I felt had been alter.. I mean dipped
dizzy, I think all that toning is making you dizzy
<< <i>
<< <i>In actuality "original" is used to confer legitimacy to our own personal bias about coin aesthetics at the expense of those who hold to opposite views. >>
>>
I will pay a premium for a nice looking coin, period. The toning might be a plus but can easily be a minus.
<< <i>I think it is fairly obvious when a coin has been over-dipped. Nobody likes a lackluster dipped white coin.
I will pay a premium for a nice looking coin, period. The toning might be a plus but can easily be a minus. >>
Well said and I completely understand and appreciate that viewpoint.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>VERY IMPORTANT... but lets put that aside for the moment. This is a great thread and this is what the forum is all about. If only there were more frank and blunt discussions about things that matter... IF THERE WERE A US COIN FORUM POST/THREAD OF THE DAY, THIS WOULD BE IT. Excellent thread. I will refrain from making the usual comments because I am sure some folks whom I greatly respect are tired of the usual soap box pitch I give on this subject. >>
Coinkat, not to stir up any
Having seen first hand a few of the quality coins in your collection coinkat; I can say that you know what a good looking coin is.
Chris
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I wanted an example of the date because of the urban legend associated with it...Link
I did not want to pay an arm and a leg for the curiosity, and Carson City Gold would not sell me his AU-53
<< <i>Some would say a coin heavy with 100 years of tarnish/toning is original. But I have NEVER seen a coin come straight from the mint with tarnish or toning produced during the original production run, so how can that state be "original"? >>
Of course the coin wasn't struck with the toning on it BUT the toning is a natural consequence of the chemical reaction(s) that occurred during the time the coin was in storage. Its original in the sense that it has not been cleaned, dipped or otherwise messed with. Of course original is desireable but it has to be more than just original, it has to have eye appeal too. An original dog ugly POS will not be worth more than a specimen that has been undetectably dipped to a just struck blast white state (at least it won't be to me).
I am a strong advocate of originality and I have posted threads here to the point that some are tired of hearing the same Old Coinkat complain about why the TPG companies are not able to offer an Original surfaces designation for early gold and type coins as well as other coins because I believe that there is market for original coins. If for one moment that you doubt what I am saying, please go into the archieves and do a search under Coinkat as the author and original surfaces as the subject. As much as I would like to go through the exercise of connecting a bunch of threads to this one, I choose not to because, I doubt that it will make a difference. I have made a case and I accept the word that has been passed down even though I disagree with it.
I have sent letters to PCGS, NGC and ANACS and no TPG company seems to be interested in the cause. I respectfully disagree with them. I recognize that I am on the losing side, but as Jefferson Smith said, "The lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for". And I can't imagine that anyone here would find either Frank Capra or Jimmy Stewart offensive. I think that is the Readers' Digest condensed version. If anyone here feels I have played alittle fast and loose with the facts... I yield the floor to you.
edited to add: Chris, I appreciate your comments
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>okay... that is fair and I owe an apology to some of the new members to the forum.
I am a strong advocate of originality and I have posted threads here to the point that some are tired of hearing the same Old Coinkat complain about why the TPG companies are not able to offer an Original surfaces designation for early gold and type coins as well as other coins because I believe that there is market for original coins. If for one moment that you doubt what I am saying, please go into the archieves and do a search under Coinkat as the author and original surfaces as the subject. As much as I would like to go through the exercise of connecting a bunch of threads to this one, I choose not to because, I doubt that it will make a difference. I have made a case and I accept the word that has been passed down even though I disagree with it.
I have sent letters to PCGS, NGC and ANACS and no TPG company seems to be interested in the cause. I respectfully disagree with them. I recognize that I am on the losing side, but as Jefferson Smith said, "The lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for". And I can't imagine that anyone here would find either Frank Capra or Jimmy Stewart offensive. I think that is the Readers' Digest condensed version. If anyone here feels I have played alittle fast and loose with the facts... I yield the floor to you. >>
You got my vote!
I think there are plenty of collectors who would appreciate that!
nice commems... I like them both.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Given the questions, disagreements, and debate that go on here regarding "Natural Toning" vs. "Artificial Toning", and the after-the-fact second guessing of what the grading companies determine, do you think it's really an easy task for the grading services to identify "Original Surfaces" vs. "Unoriginal(?) Surfaces"?
I'm not knowledgeable enough to take sides.....Just really want to know if a single, well executed dipping can be universally identified as such, or if an old dipping/retoned coin is really easy to pick out of a group of "never been touched" coins.
For instance, I'm ASSUMING the Barber quarter I posted earlier in this thread had been dipped, but that's only a guess based on it's age, and white color. For all I know, it was carefully stored in a dry place in an airtight enclosure. With coin in hand, would an expert be able to definitively tell me differently??
Or is it? How do I REALLY know?
I went back to take a second look at the 1892 Barber Quarter. If I were a grader and had the "original surafces" option available to me, this coin would not qualify. And please understand that is not a slap at you or your coin. Its just highly likely that this coin was dipped along the way and it is still attractive. Compare your 1892 quarter to the 1902 Morgan which looks original.
The original surfaces designation is more to assist in preserving original coins and separating what I view as lower end material for the grade and quality original coins. There should be a secod tier market for original coins. To me, this designation is significant for early type and gold and keys for the series of coins collected by date that have a significant following. Case and point... how many truly original 1892-s Morgans exist in AU50 and higher? The answer is very disturbing from my perspective. And my response to a disturbing answer is ... What can we do as collectors and as those that have taken enough of an interest in this hobby to do the right thing for future generations of collectors? The bottom line is that the population of original coins is shrinking at a fast pace and once its gone... well that's it. I would like to do something to prevent it and so far it has been a losing battle.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>TommyType:
I went back to take a second look at the 1892 Barber Quarter. If I were a grader and had the "original surafces" option available to me, this coin would not qualify. And please understand that is not a slap at you or your coin. >>
No problem!
1) I don't think the coin makes the man.
2) I already essentially offered it as an example of a "non-original" coin, and have little doubt based on probability alone that it has been dipped. I just changed my opinion in the later post for sake of arguement.
<< <i>Compare your 1892 quarter to the 1902 Morgan which looks original. >>
I guess you still don't have an answer to my question. How does one tell? Particularly from a photo??
If we offered a selection of coins, (including these two as examples), to a dozen expert and experienced graders, (or originality arbitrators)
Would they do better than those judging AT vs. NT?
Even with PCGS, NGC and ANACS, there are those collectors who believe the grade assigned to their coin(s) was not what it should have been. I won't go into further exampleshere... so let's say solely for our purposes here in this thread that the percentage for accurately graded coins is 85-90% the first time through a TPGH service. Even if originality can only be graded to a standard of 85-90%, it is better than not having that service designation at all.
I still maintain that originality can be judged and protected by the TPG companies. It is a service that can and should be offered. Will there be mistakes? The answer is yes. Should not the effort be made to improve what services are being offered to collectors CONSIDERING originality is something that is important to them?
I think the answer is yes. I think some of the coins posted here are original and are worthy of this designation. However, I wil be blunt, the designation is most needed with EF and AU graded coins especialy early Gold, THROUGH NO MOTTO LIBERTY, and early type through the Seated Series. Why? Because these coins in original condition have been slaughered as badly as Buffalos in the 1880's and it needs to stop.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>original >>
Modern Crap.
also Original!
You haven't talked to my local dealer
I showed him the following 1835 Bust Quarter and 1892 Barber Quarter. Hated them and said all his customers want white coins. I asked him where he was going to find a white 1835 Bust Quarter? No answer.
All of the above are in my Type Set.
<< <i>A lot of that "old, crusty" pitch really gets old .
Tom >>
Tom, this is an interesting comment. I thought that everyone preferred orginality for gold to the extent the coins could be found. Can you please elaborate?
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)