OK Coindexter I'll make it simple. You seem to be collecting outstanding examples of mint technology. As do I---- sometimes. But, I'm just not critical of those who pay premiums for coins they view as art. The reason is many, but not all, coins were designed as works of art by recognised artists. And the fact is, older paintings often go up or down in value based on how they change through time. As do coins. If you object to all art, thats fine-- I don't have a very high opinion of the US Mint and their messing up artist's efforts. To each his own.
I just want to point out, without the distracting forces of replying to others, quoting and writing several paragraphs, that I have nothing against toners. I just won't pay any kind of premium for them simply because they have attractive colors. If the coin happens to have excellent surfaces, detail and luster I will pay a quality premium for it even if it happens to be a toner.
<< <i>I just want to point out, without the distracting forces of replying to others, quoting and writing several paragraphs, that I have nothing against toners. I just won't pay any kind of premium for them simply because they have attractive colors. If the coin happens to have excellent surfaces, detail and luster I will pay a quality premium for it even if it happens to be a toner.
I disagree whole heartedly and advise you to think twice before questioning peoples' intelligence based upon their collecting preferences. Two Morgan dollars of the same date, we'll say they're 1885 Os and that they are both MS65, put away in different environments in the year of issue tone differently. The first coin exhibits very little toning whatsoever as it happened to have been stored in a very dry and stable environment. The second coin displays a wide crecent of rainbow colors from 12 o'clock to five o'clock on the obverse after the fashion of popular bag toners. Neither coin was ever in circulation. Neither coin was in a famous collection. The coins share the exact same history (mintage, storage, present) but the toner will likely sell for more money than the non-toned coin.
I suggest if you are interested in collecting and studying the history contained in the toning, rather than the coin, you might consider ingots as they can be obtained significantly cheaper and you can watch history progress right before your very eyes.
Thanks for your fine example - How the coin is toned reveals the coins history; how it was stored – in a roll, in a mint bag, in an album, in paper etc.... If it has a nice gray patina we can deduce that it has not been dipped or cleaned.
If you don’t care about the coin’s history I would suggest that you collect replicas. Your lack of appreciation for a coins original surface concerns me for the well being of the coins that you do own.
<< <i>If it has a nice gray patina we can deduce that it has not been dipped or cleaned. >>
Can we?
<< <i>How the coin is toned reveals the coins history; how it was stored – in a roll, in a mint bag, in an album, in paper etc >>
Storage is history? Storage is a gap in usefulness. It is the time that lapsed between the point when America decided they didn't need those coins to function as money and the point when collectors decided they were interesting. The history isn't the 80 years the coins sat in a bank vault, it's the reason they did.
<< <i>If you don’t care about the coin’s history I would suggest that you collect replicas. Your lack of appreciation for a coins original surface concerns me for the well being of the coins that you do own. >>
As demonstrated above, storage is only a small, tiny, nearly insignificant part of the actual history involved in a coin. The reasons I collect have a lot more to do with the why and how of mintage than what happened afterwards.
A point of interest: not every original coin is toned (many aren't), and clearly, based on the 6,000 threads on this message board, not every toned coin is original. The two terms are not remotely synonymous, so you may want to reconsider your inferences.
As far as the coins I own are concerned, I'm happy to report that I'm an excellent curator. I have dipped a total of four coins in my life. You can read a little about it here if you like.
As a final note I have pointed out a few times in this thread that I have nothing against toners, I just refuse to pay a premium for them. The only way I would dip a coin in my collection is if I had reason to believe that it was AT. Due to my policy on toners, there's not much chance of that ever happening.
<< <i>Storage is history? Storage is a gap in usefulness. It is the time that lapsed between the point when America decided they didn't need those coins to function as money and the point when collectors decided they were interesting. The history isn't the 80 years the coins sat in a bank vault, it's the reason they did. >>
, mostly.
A coin has more historical significance to me when it has circulated as currency. This lends the coin a provenance, an anonymous provenance, to be sure, but really the provenance of the whole of America.
Surely, though, there are uncirculated coins that are the history of the United States as well. It's just a less tangible history to me.
Coins that were used according to their purpose reaffirm the American dream in my mind. These coins were used by people living it, by people who came here in hopes of living it and by people who worked very hard every day of their lives so that their children might live it. I say history is one of the main reasons I collect coins. And that is so. But it is also the people reflected in the coins that interests me. The many children, mothers, fathers, grandmas, grampas whoever spent this coin before me is a part of the history of this coin. This coin had a job, and it did its job well.
<< <i>... Coins that were used according to their purpose reaffirm the American dream in my mind. These coins were used by people living it, by people who came here in hopes of living it and by people who worked very hard every day of their lives so that their children might live it. I say history is one of the main reasons I collect coins. And that is so. But it is also the people reflected in the coins that interests me. The many children, mothers, fathers, grandmas, grampas whoever spent this coin before me is a part of the history of this coin. This coin had a job, and it did its job well. Just my inexperienced thoughts. -Amanda >>
Amanda, This is one reason I like coins dated prior to 1800. Any coin dated prior to 1800 might have passed throught George Washington's hands. (He died in Dec 1799).
In your opening post of this thread you mention that you are into history. To me, coins are historical pieces so where they have been and how they were used is of historical significance. That would include, at what time they were taken out of circulation and how they were stored.
From what I understand from what you are writing, you find only the design to be of historical significance. That is why I mentioned that you might look into replicas.
A point of interest: not every original coin is toned (many aren't), and clearly, based on the 6,000 threads on this message board, not every toned coin is original. The two terms are not remotely synonymous, so you may want to reconsider your inferences
Yes yes, I am aware of both of these issues, but differ in your final assessment. Assume for a moment that you are skilled in picking out original skinned coins. You may find them more interesting in that they tell some historical story. You may find that of some value. I do.
<< <i>Assume for a moment that you are skilled in picking out original skinned coins. You may find them more interesting in that they tell some historical story. You may find that of some value. I do. >>
I don't need to assume this, because as it happens I am skilled at picking out original coins. Just because I don't think a lot of bright colors are necessary for a coin to be of value doesn't mean I don't know what unfooled with coins look like.
I think you missed my point in the earlier posts, so let me simplify a little: the only history contained in toning is the history heat, moisture and a select few chemicals (mostly sulfur).
I could collect replicas except for one problem - they're not real. Just like a lot of the crazy colors that show up on suposedly original coins.
Yes, ccr, that was me with the weird Morgans Reg Sets. LOL. Frank did some Morgs but mostly Frankies & dimes. Sure miss the little pug man.
<< Storage is history? Storage is a gap in usefulness…. The history isn't the 80 years the coins sat in a bank vault, it's the reason they did. >>
<<< , mostly.>>>
I can think of a few cases where the storage is the history that makes a coin desirable & valuable. An average MS-64 Canadian dime with the Pittman name on the slab brings a prem over a regular MS-64 Canadian dime beause it was stored in some rich banker’s vault. Redfield Dollars bring a prem not because Levare Redfield didn’t use them to pay his taxes but because he stored them in his basement. Ted Binion’s Dollars bring a prem not because they were used in his casino but because he stored them buried in the desert. Or maybe the story of sex, drugs, rock n roll, & murder. Battle Creek coins bring a prem because of the way they were stored. Why are Wyatt Raymond’s coins famous? Because he stored them in Wyatt Raymond holders. The S.S Central America Gold Eagles are historic because they were stored on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean for 149 years. Why are GSA CC Dollars so much more desirable to collectors over an identical non-GSA CC Dollar? Not because of the Bland-Allison Act but because they were stored in the US Treasury for about 90 years. I get Coindexter’s drift though, the political reasons some coins for example, the Flying Eagle Cents, 3Cents & 20 Cents coins were minted but unwanted by the public & stashed away in drawers & jars are interesting to learn about.
Change that we can believe in is that change which is 90% silver.
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose, Cardinal.
Advanced collector of BREWERIANA. Early beer advertising (beer cans, tap knobs, foam scrapers, trays, tin signs, lithos, paper, etc)....My first love...U.S. COINS!
Personally I agree with coindexter. I like blast white, frosty devices in coins. Not only would I NOT pay a premium, I would not pay bid, because a lot of the toning out there is suspect, and if it is AT, then that hurts the base value, much less a premium. No thanks to color!
I've never been a big fan of rainbow morgans, but I can see why people find them beautiful. Coins that I like are VF-XF specimens with perfect even grey toning, especially barber quarters and halves. I very much like that buffalo that amanda has in her sig, too.
What I'm not a big fan of is blast white coins, unless they are moderns, in which case I can't stand anything except blast white.
Coindexter, you must have legal training !! You certainly are tenacious in arguing your points. However, despite any quantity of verbiage, any degree of prosecutory acumen, and any popular trends to the contrary, I will always find beautifully and naturally toned coins to be more desirable than their dipped white counterparts. As some may recall, I once coined the term "dehistoricization" to describe conservation and dipping - hardly a process that would be endorsed by a student of history.
In any case, we may certainly agree to disagree ...
but the classic coins we collect today are a long ways removed from their date of birth. Attractive natural toning adds not only eye appeal, but also a visible proof of the coin's careful preservation since the time of issue. It spotlights the age and history of the coin in a positive way, and distinguishes it from widgets that were just mass produced this morning. Most of all, it makes the coin more pretty to look at !!!
My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable !
It's a wonder that the thread almost died three years ago. Some of the contributors haven't contributed in a long time, but they were certainly articulate.
I was just finding out that my ex wanted a divorce around the time this thread originally came out which is why I must have missed it. There's no way I would have stayed out of the fray with all of the color bashing going on....some folks just don't have a clue...even if you sold them one.
I love the ones that say say the mint intended them to look a certain way (untoned)....lol In most cases the coins we are talking about are business strikes......the mint intended them to circulate so if that didn't happen becuase collectors pulled them from circulation them I am quite sure the mint would not have had a comment on whether a coin owner cleaned the coin or left it original. Why would they care?
Collect what you want....widgets or works of art...it's your money
<< <i>Coindexter, that's fine, and I understand your points. But you will end up owning the more generic looking specimens, while the truly beautiful naturally toned specimens will go to collectors like me who are willing to pay that premium. I am fine with that ... less competition for the good stuff !!!
I had a nice high grade collection of white untoned coins going. Someone told me to collect them this way. Well, I never looked at them and I came to the conclusion that this was nothing more then an investment to me. They were quickly sold and I started collecting toners exclusively. Now I look at my collection a lot. Yes, every once in awhile a blast white coin will grab my eye, but it will seldom hold it....... I always have to pay a premium from the toners I want. If I don't there are six guys behind me that are willing even in today's climate. Judgement Day is selling day in coins. I'm sure That I will be be rewarded or my kids are going to have be a little poorer when I'm dust. I certainly understand the OP's point of view to have great respect for it. I just don't agree. I think coins are works of art and that's part of the reason I collect them. I'm a designer. The other reason I collect coins is the history. At the end of the day, " To twine ownself be true"...............MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
This was indeed a great thread. Too bad two of the principal members of it have not visited the forum since 2006.
I tend to agree with Coindexter, but only to an extent. I don't care for toning, I find it distracting and in many cases, a detriment to the coin. I would certiainly never pay a premium for it, and had I the choice I would go with the non-toned version.
I have a small selection of coins that ARE toned, and they make up the majority of my "trade/Sell" list---but there is not much market for natural toning on a 1969 cent.
BUT- I would never dip any coins that were naturally toned either. I would just simply not buy them, biding my time to find the coin that suited my collecting interests. There's nothing I need that badly to accept something I didn't really want.
Reading back over this thread, I find this statement to be one of the more ridiculous from the standpoint of collecting:
Storage is history? Storage is a gap in usefulness. It is the time that lapsed between the point when America decided they didn't need those coins to function as money and the point when collectors decided they were interesting.
If a coin's "usefulness" is more important than it's storage and preservation, then the market value of all regular issue U.S. coins should increase with greater wear. The coins that were stored uncirculated in vaults should be worth the least, while those that circulated heavily and were most "useful" should carry the highest premium.
Of course there are collectors who collect circulated specimens, and I applaud that. But market values for coins have always correlated directly, not inversely, with condition and state of preservation. So yes, the storage is extremely important from a collecting perspective, as it is the conduit by which coins come to us in a higher state of preservation. Coins with the most extraordinary colors are frequently those that sat in undisturbed storage for the longest times, whether in a Mint bag or an album or old-time cabinet.
By the way, let's reiterate that while patination is a natural process, dipping is not. Artifical whitening, stripping, "conservation," cleaning, dipping ... these procedures erase history (I call it "dehistoricization"), and create artificial, unnatural surfaces. (I have no problem, however, with the removal of debris using simple solvents that do not affect the toning.)
I'd like to see more discussions about AW vs. NW (artificially white vs. naturally white), which can be an interesting topic, and is just as relevant as the perennial AT vs. NT diatribes.
I agree Sunnywood...discussions pertaining to AW vs. NW are pertinent and interesting. NW coins are my preference, albeit a judicious dipping of ugly coatings would not be amiss in some cases. Cheers, RickO
What it comes down too is that one man's numismatic trash is another's treasure. Everyone has different tastes and interests, and without that variance in collecting preferences it would be a very unexciting hobby. I can appreciate the OP's view as that is his collecting preference. I do enjoy a little color on my coins, and that is the route that I have chosen too take. I will gladly leave him my "Trash" in exchange for his!
I remember this thread. When Coindexter started taking on Laura on page 1 I knew it would be a good piece of entertainment so I decided to remain a spectator.
Mojo
"I am the wilderness that is lost in man." -Jim Morrison- Mr. Mojorizn
<<I have often said exactly what Coindexter said in his first post to this thread. If I wanted lots of color I'd collect art, but I don't. I collect coins>>
I've always been semi-offended by that statement/attitude and take umbrage with it.
I feel it's narrow minded.
The irony is that I do collect toned coins and only black and white typical works of art.
Pencil sketches and original b/w photo's.......I don't like oil or watercolors or such.
Weird, eh?
To twine ownself be true...............MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Comments
<< <i>I wouldn't grade a collectors acumen based on the color of his/her coins however. >>
-Amanda
I'm a YN working on a type set!
My Buffalo Nickel Website Home of the Quirky Buffaloes Collection!
Proud member of the CUFYNA
mint technology. As do I---- sometimes. But, I'm just not critical of those who pay premiums for coins they view
as art. The reason is many, but not all, coins were designed as works of art by recognised artists. And
the fact is, older paintings often go up or down in value based on how they change through time.
As do coins. If you object to all art, thats fine-- I don't have a very high opinion of the US Mint
and their messing up artist's efforts. To each his own.
Color on it's own isn't enough.
<< <i>I just want to point out, without the distracting forces of replying to others, quoting and writing several paragraphs, that I have nothing against toners. I just won't pay any kind of premium for them simply because they have attractive colors. If the coin happens to have excellent surfaces, detail and luster I will pay a quality premium for it even if it happens to be a toner.
Color on it's own isn't enough. >>
----
Good point! I agree.
I suggest if you are interested in collecting and studying the history contained in the toning, rather than the coin, you might consider ingots as they can be obtained significantly cheaper and you can watch history progress right before your very eyes.
Thanks for your fine example - How the coin is toned reveals the coins history; how it was stored – in a roll, in a mint bag, in an album, in paper etc.... If it has a nice gray patina we can deduce that it has not been dipped or cleaned.
If you don’t care about the coin’s history I would suggest that you collect replicas. Your lack of appreciation for a coins original surface concerns me for the well being of the coins that you do own.
<< <i>If it has a nice gray patina we can deduce that it has not been dipped or cleaned. >>
Can we?
<< <i>How the coin is toned reveals the coins history; how it was stored – in a roll, in a mint bag, in an album, in paper etc >>
Storage is history? Storage is a gap in usefulness. It is the time that lapsed between the point when America decided they didn't need those coins to function as money and the point when collectors decided they were interesting. The history isn't the 80 years the coins sat in a bank vault, it's the reason they did.
<< <i>If you don’t care about the coin’s history I would suggest that you collect replicas. Your lack of appreciation for a coins original surface concerns me for the well being of the coins that you do own. >>
As demonstrated above, storage is only a small, tiny, nearly insignificant part of the actual history involved in a coin. The reasons I collect have a lot more to do with the why and how of mintage than what happened afterwards.
A point of interest: not every original coin is toned (many aren't), and clearly, based on the 6,000 threads on this message board, not every toned coin is original. The two terms are not remotely synonymous, so you may want to reconsider your inferences.
As far as the coins I own are concerned, I'm happy to report that I'm an excellent curator. I have dipped a total of four coins in my life. You can read a little about it here if you like.
As a final note I have pointed out a few times in this thread that I have nothing against toners, I just refuse to pay a premium for them. The only way I would dip a coin in my collection is if I had reason to believe that it was AT. Due to my policy on toners, there's not much chance of that ever happening.
<< <i>Storage is history? Storage is a gap in usefulness. It is the time that lapsed between the point when America decided they didn't need those coins to function as money and the point when collectors decided they were interesting. The history isn't the 80 years the coins sat in a bank vault, it's the reason they did. >>
A coin has more historical significance to me when it has circulated as currency. This lends the coin a provenance, an anonymous provenance, to be sure, but really the provenance of the whole of America.
Surely, though, there are uncirculated coins that are the history of the United States as well. It's just a less tangible history to me.
Coins that were used according to their purpose reaffirm the American dream in my mind. These coins were used by people living it, by people who came here in hopes of living it and by people who worked very hard every day of their lives so that their children might live it. I say history is one of the main reasons I collect coins. And that is so. But it is also the people reflected in the coins that interests me. The many children, mothers, fathers, grandmas, grampas whoever spent this coin before me is a part of the history of this coin. This coin had a job, and it did its job well.
Just my inexperienced thoughts.
-Amanda
I'm a YN working on a type set!
My Buffalo Nickel Website Home of the Quirky Buffaloes Collection!
Proud member of the CUFYNA
<< <i>
<< <i>... Coins that were used according to their purpose reaffirm the American dream in my mind. These coins were used by people living it, by people who came here in hopes of living it and by people who worked very hard every day of their lives so that their children might live it. I say history is one of the main reasons I collect coins. And that is so. But it is also the people reflected in the coins that interests me. The many children, mothers, fathers, grandmas, grampas whoever spent this coin before me is a part of the history of this coin. This coin had a job, and it did its job well. Just my inexperienced thoughts. -Amanda >>
Amanda,
This is one reason I like coins dated prior to 1800. Any coin dated prior to 1800 might have passed throught George Washington's hands. (He died in Dec 1799).
-Jerry
Maybe we should argue whose coin was the best at sitting in the bank vault.
From what I understand from what you are writing, you find only the design to be of historical significance. That is why I mentioned that you might look into replicas.
A point of interest: not every original coin is toned (many aren't), and clearly, based on the 6,000 threads on this message board, not every toned coin is original. The two terms are not remotely synonymous, so you may want to reconsider your inferences
Yes yes, I am aware of both of these issues, but differ in your final assessment. Assume for a moment that you are skilled in picking out original skinned coins. You may find them more interesting in that they tell some historical story. You may find that of some value. I do.
<< <i>Assume for a moment that you are skilled in picking out original skinned coins. You may find them more interesting in that they tell some historical story. You may find that of some value. I do. >>
I don't need to assume this, because as it happens I am skilled at picking out original coins. Just because I don't think a lot of bright colors are necessary for a coin to be of value doesn't mean I don't know what unfooled with coins look like.
I think you missed my point in the earlier posts, so let me simplify a little: the only history contained in toning is the history heat, moisture and a select few chemicals (mostly sulfur).
I could collect replicas except for one problem - they're not real. Just like a lot of the crazy colors that show up on suposedly original coins.
<< Storage is history? Storage is a gap in usefulness…. The history isn't the 80 years the coins sat in a bank vault, it's the reason they did. >>
<<<
I can think of a few cases where the storage is the history that makes a coin desirable & valuable.
An average MS-64 Canadian dime with the Pittman name on the slab brings a prem over a regular MS-64 Canadian dime beause it was stored in some rich banker’s vault.
Redfield Dollars bring a prem not because Levare Redfield didn’t use them to pay his taxes but because he stored them in his basement.
Ted Binion’s Dollars bring a prem not because they were used in his casino but because he stored them buried in the desert. Or maybe the story of sex, drugs, rock n roll, & murder.
Battle Creek coins bring a prem because of the way they were stored.
Why are Wyatt Raymond’s coins famous? Because he stored them in Wyatt Raymond holders.
The S.S Central America Gold Eagles are historic because they were stored on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean for 149 years.
Why are GSA CC Dollars so much more desirable to collectors over an identical non-GSA CC Dollar? Not because of the Bland-Allison Act but because they were stored in the US Treasury for about 90 years.
I get Coindexter’s drift though, the political reasons some coins for example, the Flying Eagle Cents, 3Cents & 20 Cents coins were minted but unwanted by the public & stashed away in drawers & jars are interesting to learn about.
PS - Why the "either or"?? I collect both.
This is just not true and I'm not sure if you're being serious or a troll at this point...
Actually... this IS true.... Cheers, RickO
Personally I agree with coindexter. I like blast white, frosty devices in coins. Not only would I NOT pay a premium, I would not pay bid, because a lot of the toning out there is suspect, and if it is AT, then that hurts the base value, much less a premium. No thanks to color!
<< <i>Rick Kay sold this one to me - sure hope it's NT!
PS - Why the "either or"?? I collect both. >>
Didn't you read the fine print? "ALL SALES FINAL!"
Specializing in 1854 and 1855 large FE patterns
<
If that's all you guys are seeing in a coin's tone then I agree that you should collect paintings
What I'm not a big fan of is blast white coins, unless they are moderns, in which case I can't stand anything except blast white.
<< <i> I very much like that buffalo that amanda has in her sig, too.
Why thank you.
I just changed it today, it used to be this:
-Amanda
I'm a YN working on a type set!
My Buffalo Nickel Website Home of the Quirky Buffaloes Collection!
Proud member of the CUFYNA
In any case, we may certainly agree to disagree ...
Best,
Sunnywood
and one for Coindexter ...
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>but it has become clear to me that the only way to safely own toners is to never pay a premium for them. >>
By "safely" own, I assume you mean as a secure investment? Which coins have proven to be the "safest" investments over the years?
<< <i>Fun and interesting read. >>
It's a wonder that the thread almost died three years ago. Some of the contributors haven't contributed in a long time, but they were certainly articulate.
I love the ones that say say the mint intended them to look a certain way (untoned)....lol In most cases the coins we are talking about are business strikes......the mint intended them to circulate so if that didn't happen becuase collectors pulled them from circulation them I am quite sure the mint would not have had a comment on whether a coin owner cleaned the coin or left it original. Why would they care?
Collect what you want....widgets or works of art...it's your money
<< <i>Coindexter, that's fine, and I understand your points. But you will end up owning the more generic looking specimens, while the truly beautiful naturally toned specimens will go to collectors like me who are willing to pay that premium. I am fine with that ... less competition for the good stuff !!!
Nice toning is like icing on the cake!!
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I tend to agree with Coindexter, but only to an extent. I don't care for toning, I find it distracting and in many cases, a detriment to the coin. I would certiainly never pay a premium for it, and had I the choice I would go with the non-toned version.
I have a small selection of coins that ARE toned, and they make up the majority of my "trade/Sell" list---but there is not much market for natural toning on a 1969 cent.
BUT- I would never dip any coins that were naturally toned either. I would just simply not buy them, biding my time to find the coin that suited my collecting interests. There's nothing I need that badly to accept something I didn't really want.
Storage is history? Storage is a gap in usefulness. It is the time that lapsed between the point when America decided they didn't need those coins to function as money and the point when collectors decided they were interesting.
If a coin's "usefulness" is more important than it's storage and preservation, then the market value of all regular issue U.S. coins should increase with greater wear. The coins that were stored uncirculated in vaults should be worth the least, while those that circulated heavily and were most "useful" should carry the highest premium.
Of course there are collectors who collect circulated specimens, and I applaud that. But market values for coins have always correlated directly, not inversely, with condition and state of preservation. So yes, the storage is extremely important from a collecting perspective, as it is the conduit by which coins come to us in a higher state of preservation. Coins with the most extraordinary colors are frequently those that sat in undisturbed storage for the longest times, whether in a Mint bag or an album or old-time cabinet.
By the way, let's reiterate that while patination is a natural process, dipping is not. Artifical whitening, stripping, "conservation," cleaning, dipping ... these procedures erase history (I call it "dehistoricization"), and create artificial, unnatural surfaces. (I have no problem, however, with the removal of debris using simple solvents that do not affect the toning.)
I'd like to see more discussions about AW vs. NW (artificially white vs. naturally white), which can be an interesting topic, and is just as relevant as the perennial AT vs. NT diatribes.
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
The quote that SW just highlighted again is one of those that is just plain idiotic.
siliconvalleycoins.com
Visit my son's caringbridge page @ Runner's Caringbridge Page
"To Give Anything Less than Your Best, Is to Sacrifice the Gift" - Steve Prefontaine
Mojo
-Jim Morrison-
Mr. Mojorizn
my blog:www.numistories.com
I've always been semi-offended by that statement/attitude and take umbrage with it.
I feel it's narrow minded.
The irony is that I do collect toned coins and only black and white typical works of art.
Pencil sketches and original b/w photo's.......I don't like oil or watercolors or such.
Weird, eh?
To twine ownself be true...............MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......