Poll: Would you have this coin repaired?

RYK · April 24, 2006 9:20AM

The holed 1792 half disme has been brought up here more than once. So has a plugged 1794 half dollar. Hypothetically, you are given the 1792 half disme with the requirement that you must hold it for five years, would you choose to have the hole fixed? For the sake of argument, let us assume that the "hole fixer" is an expert in his discipline, can show you examples of similar coins he has successfully repaired with an excellent cosmetic result, and he will charge 10% of the hammer price at the Heritage sale for his work. Let us also assume that no matter how terrific a job he does, the coin will still have naked eye evidence of previous damage, so there will be no potential for fooling the next buyer.

TheRegulator · April 24, 2006 9:29AM

Oops...

Voted for the wrong one. Meanter say it would lose its charm. You can't undo what's already been done.

Plus, in the pedigree, everyone would know you were the SOB who had it butchered a little more...

mgoodm3 · April 24, 2006 9:30AM

Beat up a lot already, won't improve much of anything to plug it.

ER · April 24, 2006 9:35AM

Sure, I'd ask Rick Gross to "make it look better".

OffMetal · April 24, 2006 9:36AM

Where is the "I would leave it alone because I think it has more character" choice?

But personally, I would really enjoy it more with the hole in it... That's a great coin!!

-Ben

ziggy29 · April 24, 2006 9:37AM

Don'tcha just wish you go back in time and slap someone silly just before they did this?

bhartman35 · April 24, 2006 9:45AM

I don't think the hole has any charm, but I don't see the point in "repairing" it. Plugging the hole doesn't bring back any of the details of the coin, and as others have said, everyone would know that you were the dumba__ that did it. A far more constructive thing to do would be to track down the story of the hole. (Who put it there and why.)

Incidentally, I know that's an expensive coin, but that wouldn't be a very attractive portrait of Liberty, even if it could be given wholeness. Half of her hair is flowing down and the other half looks like she's in a wind tunnel. Almost looks like an extreme mullet.

dizzyfoxx · April 24, 2006 9:51AM

There's only one possible answer IMHO, and that is #3.

fc · April 24, 2006 9:54AM

i picked #4. I still would like to own it though.

xphobe · April 24, 2006 9:57AM

<< Almost looks like an extreme mullet. >>

Or Sonic Hedgehog. Definitely in the running for worst US coin design, especially with the scrawny chicken reverse.

But it is History. I'd leave the hole, which is also History. Can never undo what's been done.

goose3 · April 24, 2006 10:35AM

After I was blown out of the water on the VG one....I considered bidding on this coin at possibly 5 or 6K (which I thought was nuts).

Last I checked, it's up to 9200 with the juice.

ColonialCoinUnion · April 24, 2006 10:49AM

Unless a repair was done so expertly as to be unnoticeable, I would find it more distracting and less desireable than an unrepaired, holed coin.

topstuf · April 24, 2006 10:59AM

The repair of a hole in a coin is just as much a part of its "history" as putting it there. The chance of finding who holed it is probably impossible. Most likely it was put there by Indians, but probably a long time ago. I'd fix it. Same as a dented fender. (Whoops....meant "quarter panel"

)

clutsy · April 24, 2006 11:02AM

" Don'tcha just wish you go back in time and slap someone silly just before they did this?"

ditto

Koinlink · April 24, 2006 11:08AM

I'd leave it alone.

Baley · April 24, 2006 11:11AM

I'll put it to you this way:

this coin is one of my all time favorites, and I have not and will not "have anything done" to it to "make it better"

(although, I've been told, "have that repaired and you've got a valuable coin, there!")

bhartman35 · April 24, 2006 11:17AM

<< The repair of a hole in a coin is just as much a part of its "history" as putting it there. The chance of finding who holed it is probably impossible. Most likely it was put there by Indians, but probably a long time ago. I'd fix it. Same as a dented fender. (Whoops....meant "quarter panel"

)

>>

What fun is it if you repaired it yourself? Then you know the history. Where's the mystery in that??

Unless you're going to make the hole good as new, I don't see the point. It would be like punching a hole in the Mona Lisa's eye and then just using a brown patch.

fcloud · April 24, 2006 11:21AM

My vote is leave it along. Although it may look better repaired, are you going to repair the scratches, too. then maybe an expert jewler would be able to add back the lines to remove the repair. I would much rather have the coin with the hole than repaired.

RYK · April 24, 2006 11:28AM

I voted #1. I personally would enjoy the coin more without the hole. At least by the images presented, Baley's hole looks far less obtrusive than the coin in the OP. In case FatMan reads this, I would just say "no" to dipping it.

BECOKA · April 24, 2006 11:33AM

If it were a permanent part of my collection I would leave it alone. If I knew I had to sell in 5 years as you say it might bring more if it were fixed.

I know there are forum members who are doing a holded type set, maybe it would bring more from them

coinkat · April 24, 2006 11:37AM

I would leave it

Myqqy · April 24, 2006 11:57AM

Ugh..... fix the freakin' hole- at least it would be a little less ugly......

messydesk · April 24, 2006 11:57AM

The hole blends in nicely with the other damage. Leave it alone. I don't see it coming out of a plug job much better.

MikeInFL · April 24, 2006 3:06PM

I would leave this coin alone. However, I think that a well-done plugging is one of the very few examples of conservation that I agree with -- as long as it is not done to deceive someone but rather to restore the coin. Unfortunately, this coin has equally big scratch problems, so plugging the hole would only make a really bad coin just bad (from an asthetic perspective only -- I would die to own this coin even in this state). Therefore I voted to leave the coin as-is....Mike

Hoot · April 24, 2006 4:23PM

I'd have it expertly restored, including the major scratches. I find no romance or attraction in the vestiges of abuse, whether it be historical or not. If there was a known provenance that it hung around the neck of Sally Hemming, or Martha Washington, or Dolly Madison, (etc.) then I might reconsider. Restoration of the most expert kind leaves a trace, so I do not believe that on such an important piece it would go unnoticed, even if directly forgotten.

Hoot

PerryHall · April 24, 2006 4:34PM

<< I'd have it expertly restored, including the major scratches. I find no romance or attraction in the vestiges of abuse, whether it be historical or not. If there was a known provenance that it hung around the neck of Sally Hemming, or Martha Washington, or Dolly Madison, (etc.) then I might reconsider. Restoration of the most expert kind leaves a trace, so I do not believe that on such an important piece it would go unnoticed, even if directly forgotten.

Hoot >>

I didn't realize so many forum members liked holes in coins.

pocketpiececommems · April 24, 2006 11:11PM

Leave it alone. The hole gives it some class. You can tell by the wear around the hole that it was used. These coins weren't intended to remain BU!!!!!!!!!!!

Barndog · April 24, 2006 11:23PM

No way! Even more history to this coin with the hole.

keets · April 25, 2006 12:05AM

despite the fact that it's a historical issue and is romanticized as such, the coin as is a piece of crap and would remain so no matter how much money any buyer dumped onto it. at approximately $10k, i could think of better ways to "invest" my money and would pass on this dog.

slumlord98 · April 25, 2006 12:29AM

If it was repaired, it would have to be heated. After it was heated, it would take on the colors of an irridescent oil slick. If you can't appreciate the coin for what it is, leave it alone. And for anyone who would pay more for it after a repair, buy a different coin, No one will be fooled in the future.

This coin is a very high grade small head half dollar, 1795 O.126, that used to have a gigantic gash, but was otherwise an attractive coin. The mechanic heated the coin in order to move enough metal to hide the gash. Heating the coin caused it to tone these neon colors. ANACS missed the repair. If you think that a repair of the half disme would leave it looking better, remember how this coin turned out.

topstuf · April 25, 2006 1:09AM

The "mechanic" ....may... not need heat. I sent a couple of dollars to PE Stockton and got them back and without the pencil rubbings I had made, would not have even been able to ...locate.... the holes.

1870CC and 1795 dollars.

AMAZING work.

TorinoCobra71 · April 25, 2006 1:14AM

That poor ol' coin has already been beaten from pillar to post, whats pluggin a whole gonna do for it now?????

TC71

BobaFett72 · April 25, 2006 1:16AM

"Unless you're going to make the hole good as new, I don't see the point. It would be like punching a hole in the Mona Lisa's eye and then just using a brown patch."

....Mona Lisa with an eye patch... Gaaar! Pirates!

JadeRareCoin · April 25, 2006 1:30AM

<< The "mechanic" ....may... not need heat. I sent a couple of dollars to PE Stockton and got them back and without the pencil rubbings I had made, would not have even been able to ...locate.... the holes.

1870CC and 1795 dollars.

AMAZING work. >>

PE Stockton is no longer repairing coins. His son, Alan, is doing the repairs now. I have compared the work of P.E. to Alan's work and I can tell you that the father was the master of hole repairs. No comparison. The new stuff that is being holed and plugged is garbage. Like slumlord said, the silver repairs require that the color/patina of the coin to be destroyed. Unless a real pro like P.E. does the work, you are better off with a hole in the coin.

mrearlygold · April 25, 2006 1:39AM

I'd prefer to have one of those proof 69 moderns. Who would ever want one of those old things?

ER · April 25, 2006 1:45AM

<< despite the fact that it's a historical issue and is romanticized as such, the coin as is a piece of crap and would remain so no matter how much money any buyer dumped onto it. at approximately $10k, i could think of better ways to "invest" my money and would pass on this dog. >>

TwoSides2aCoin · April 25, 2006 2:15AM

from the standpoint of rarity.........it is what it is.
from the standpoint of numismatics, it will never be what it was.
from the standpoint of repair.... could you find me a good light bulb repairman while you're at it ?

Longacre · April 25, 2006 3:14AM

It's damaged already. I don't see any sense in damaging it more (even if done expertly).

BillJones · April 25, 2006 3:34AM

<< despite the fact that it's a historical issue and is romanticized as such, the coin as is a piece of crap and would remain so no matter how much money any buyer dumped onto it. at approximately $10k, i could think of better ways to "invest" my money and would pass on this dog. >>

If I written a simlar response to a post about modern coins, I'd been getting a personal attack from you.

My own opinion is if I could not afford a better one, I'd pass on owning one, as I have done with the 1796-7 half dollar.

dtkk49a · April 25, 2006 3:53AM

I wish coins like that half disme came with a autobiography. Think about that half disme. Chances are some well known people held that coin in thier hand at one time. Ah, if it could only tell its story.............

keets · April 25, 2006 4:26AM

If I written a simlar response to a post about modern coins, I'd been getting a personal attack from you.

no you wouldn't, my reply has nothing to do with an arguement you can't seem to let go of and a shoulder chip you can't seem to brush off and forget. my reply would be the same for any dog-coin from any era with severe damage that some would actually consider "doctoring" to improve the appearance of the coin. as a matter of fact, i'm really amazed that some would consider "doctoring" this coin, considering the strong feelings about such practices and regardless of the issue's status. it only proves one thing to me; the time honored American ideal of the double standard is alive and well, even in Numismatics.

relayer · April 25, 2006 4:46AM

No, because then you'd have a scratched up patched up coin instead of a scratched up holed coin.

But I voted #3 instead of #4

CharlotteDude · April 25, 2006 5:30AM

RYK,
it looks pretty beat up already & I'm not confident any repair to the hole would make it look that much better. Of course, you could always send it to NGC and have them conserve it via NCS, it'll have a good shot of making it into one of NGC's holders then!

the 'dude

dthigpen · April 25, 2006 5:31AM

Definitely not.

RYK · April 25, 2006 6:04AM

as a matter of fact, i'm really amazed that some would consider "doctoring" this coin, considering the strong feelings about such practices and regardless of the issue's status. it only proves one thing to me; the time honored American ideal of the double standard is alive and well, even in Numismatics.

I disagree, and since I am one of those who is amazing to you, I will give you my rationale. Either way, the coin is a "problem coin". I personally would enjoy the coin more without the hole and might be willing to trade one problem for another (a "patch" for a "hole"). This is in no way trying to make the coin better than it is (ie. Dipping for Dollars™), and I would not misrepresent the coin to the next owner for personal profit.

keets · April 27, 2006 11:18AM

my reply would be the same for any dog-coin from any era with severe damage that some would actually consider "doctoring" to improve the appearance of the coin. as a matter of fact, i'm really amazed that some would consider "doctoring" this coin, considering the strong feelings about such practices and regardless of the issue's status. it only proves one thing to me; the time honored American ideal of the double standard is alive and well, even in Numismatics.

I disagree, and since I am one of those who is amazing to you, I will give you my rationale. Either way, the coin is a "problem coin". I personally would enjoy the coin more without the hole and might be willing to trade one problem for another (a "patch" for a "hole"). This is in no way trying to make the coin better than it is (ie. Dipping for Dollars™), and I would not misrepresent the coin to the next owner for personal profit.

i added a bit to your cut/paste, it reads better when i'm not quoted out of context.

BillJones · April 27, 2006 11:33AM

Filling holes has never been viewed as "doctoring." If it is done well, it's fairly obvious that the work has been done so that the coin can't be passed as a “no problem” piece to a knowledgeable buyer. On the other hand repairing a hole makes the coin more esthetically pleasing and usually adds some value to the piece if it is done well.

For example someone mentioned that a holded 1792 half disme had recently sold for $15K. I think it would be a safe bet that the buyer will have that coin repaired.

RYK · April 27, 2006 11:37AM

For example someone mentioned that a holded 1792 half disme had recently sold for $15K. I think it would be a safe bet that the buyer will have that coin repaired.

That was the original premise of this thread.

michael · April 27, 2006 11:37AM

Would you have this coin repaired?

oh yes and it would look so good it would get slabbed by a leading pricing service

BillJones · April 27, 2006 11:39AM

<< For example someone mentioned that a holded 1792 half disme had recently sold for $15K. I think it would be a safe bet that the buyer will have that coin repaired.

That was the original premise of this thread.

>>

So someone paid $15K for THIS piece.

!!!!!!

Poll: Would you have this coin repaired?

Comments

Leave a Comment