What is it about originality that makes it more desirable than an "unoriginal" coin? Is t

coinlieutenant · March 29, 2007 3:41PM

I thought Andy was joking in a different thread, but since he said it wasnt rhetorical, I'll bite.

I personally think that in order to understand why, one needs to understand the driving factor with coin collecting in general.

The hobby, IMHO, is driven by the following: Avarice, competition, beauty and an analytical and studious desire. This is the reason why the hobby is dominated by 99% males. Males, as a generality are genetically programmed to hunt and gather. We are competitive due to our hormone make up. Of the two sexes we are by far more stimulated by sight that females and men are, again generally, more logical and analytical thinkers than our female counterparts.

Lets say for just a moment that you buy into the above line of thinking. Why then is originality worth more than the same coin but unoriginal? Is it really worth more?

I wont give my opinions on that yet...but I wanted to get the thread started. What are you thoughts?

TwoSides2aCoin · March 29, 2007 3:49PM

I have two coins that look identical in 1967. By 1969, one develops haze. I bathe it. It looks identical again. After a few years, the haze re appears. I bathe it again ..yup, just soak a bit in acetone and voila, the haze is gone. It's now in the 1980s and I send the twins in for encapsulation.

In a few years time, the haze re appears on one of them twins.

One is original, the other is not. We can say there is no difference, but there is.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now about females.... I'm lost !
They're all original,... even with make-up and implants

Zoins · March 29, 2007 3:49PM

<< The hobby, IMHO, is driven by the following: Avarice, competition, beauty and an analytical and studious desire. This is the reason why the hobby is dominated by 99% males. Males, as a generality are genetically programmed to hunt and gather. >>

I guess that's another way of saying most women aren't interested in accumulating things that sit in safety deposit boxes

<< one needs to understand the driving factor with coin collecting in general [....] men are, again generally, more logical and analytical thinkers than our female counterparts. >>

I thought the reason many people give for coin collecting is OCD, not logic....

wondercoin · March 29, 2007 4:00PM

Today in the mail, I received (2) PR65DCAM Silver coins from the 1970's. I believe the coins graded PR65 merely because they were submitted in their ORIGINAL form and the coins had developed haze and some spots on them over the past 30+ years. The collector asked if there was anything I could do for him as he loved the underlying coins (including the deep cameo surfaces), but hated the haze and spots that had naturally developed all over them. I pointed out to the collector tonight that I could (free of charge of course) dip the coins and quite possibly improve the grade several points, not to mention possibly obtain blazing surfaces which could enhance the appearance of the DCAM surfaces even further, IF THAT IS WHAT HE DESIRED.

It did occur to me that here was an example of "originality" that made the coin greatly less desireable to this particular collector. Perhaps the analysis is a bit different for moderns that have hazed up, especially in the original govt. packaging spanning decades of time (and where often the conservation results in super eye appeal coins)?

Wondercoin

Unknown · March 29, 2007 4:02PM

This content has been removed.

Zoins · March 29, 2007 4:04PM

From what I've observed, very few people like original, hazed, proof surfaces, though there are a few ( ^^ ). Both haze and splotchy toning/tarnish are unsightly to me. I won't clean the coins but I'll also avoid them when I can. Of course, if enough people avoid these kinds of coins, dealers will be incentivized to "improve" them. Other than those two areas, I like original surfaces

CalGold · March 29, 2007 4:10PM

There are more people with pedestrian taste than refined, educated taste. Some of the worst music of all time has sold millions. Kiss, Aerosmith, Van Halen filled stadiums. Our finest symphony orchestras have to be subsidized to stay afloat.

The educated collector sees a dipped Bust coin and treats it like a leper. The newbie says WOW!

But never underestimate the power of money. Money talks. If the original coins bring the big money, fewer coins will be conserved. Collectors are lemmings. Dealers are lemmings too. They will follow the money.

Adage stated time and again: only buy pretty, eye appealing coins. Original is often not pretty. Some of the prettiest coins around have been dipped and then toned in albums, creating peripheral rings of color around silver centers. Do you want those or coins toned in drab browns and greys? Which coins have the WOW factor? The money goes to the pretty coin--the WOW coin. That is the trophy. Shun the browns and grey and what will become of them?

Laura Sperber has posted that collectors of proof gold shun coins with any haze whatsoever. If the people who are paying top dollar for proof gold want it haze free, it makes little difference if those on sidelines lament the conservation of proof gold. When those that wring their hands about the loss of original coins step up and offer a higher price for hazed "original" gold, which is unlikely to be original any way, then the paradigm will change.

And of course if the TPGs award luster rather than penalizing coins for being unoriginal or awarding points for originality, what do you think will happen? Like it or not, the big two TPG have influence in the market.

CG

RedTiger · March 29, 2007 4:19PM

For the average collector, especially the new collector, processed coins are often more desirable. That is what drives the market to process the coins. It is mostly old school collectors that know what original coins look like, and seek them out. In the blog, the dealer said something like 90% of collectors don't know the difference. That may be an exaggeration, but I think it is a valid point. If people didn't pay more for coins after they were processed, then no one would take the time and risk to do what they do and NCS would have very few customers.

Like I said in the other thread, it is very difficult to be absolutely certain that a coin is original. A coin may look original, however, given 100 experts, on most coins a few are going to dissent, or express doubt, or hedge. Very few classic coins are going to score 100 out of 100 with no hedging, no matter how nice the coin looks.

If another expert took some coins, dipped them and then took a few years to retone them, a lot of those coins are going to get high marks for originality and get a good number of "original" votes from the hypothetical panel of 100 experts.

Maybe ten years ago, I met a collector who specialized in California fractional gold. Even way back then, his opinion was that the grading companies get so many processed coins that they don't know what original is anymore. This was many years ago. Nowadays it seems like so-called dirty gold is the exception, and that a high percentage of collectible gold coins have been enhanced in some way, so much so that even casual collectors can see what has happened.

Zoins · March 29, 2007 4:39PM

Here is a question. Why does it seem that so much of the blame for this situation is assigned to (unknowledgeable) collectors? If the unoriginal coins weren't available to be purchased, many collectors wouldn't ask doctors to make them and may even leave the hobby, thus preserving more coins by their lack of participation. To me, it seems that more of the blame has to go to the dealers and/or doctors that alter the coins in the name of profit. Collectors that ask for coins to be conserved share the blame but they are probably a very small portion of total collectors that like unoriginal coins. Perhaps the blame is assigned to collectors in frustration because people feel there is nothing that can be done about the dealers and/or doctors?

coinlieutenant · March 30, 2007 1:58AM

No one seems to be answering why the coin is desirable...only that it is.

bidask · March 30, 2007 2:01AM

<< No one seems to be answering why the coin is desirable...only that it is. >>

It sounds like your suggesting it has something to do with the sexes!?

bidask · March 30, 2007 2:07AM

<< I thought Andy was joking in a different thread, but since he said it wasnt rhetorical, I'll bite.

I personally think that in order to understand why, one needs to understand the driving factor with coin collecting in general.

The hobby, IMHO, is driven by the following: Avarice, competition, beauty and an analytical and studious desire. This is the reason why the hobby is dominated by 99% males. Males, as a generality are genetically programmed to hunt and gather. We are competitive due to our hormone make up. Of the two sexes we are by far more stimulated by sight that females and men are, again generally, more logical and analytical thinkers than our female counterparts.

Lets say for just a moment that you buy into the above line of thinking. Why then is originality worth more than the same coin but unoriginal? Is it really worth more?

I wont give my opinions on that yet...but I wanted to get the thread started. What are you thoughts? >>

Is it because a virgin is more desirable than a non virgin? But after your married to the coin, it really doesn't make a difference? ( Edit to add, as long as your happy with your purchase)

Zoins · March 30, 2007 2:09AM

<< Is it because a virgin is more desirable than a non virgin? >>

Or could it be that a woman that doesn't bathe is more desirable than one that does?

coinlieutenant · March 30, 2007 2:10AM

Try and relate original coins' traits to what makes any collector want any coin...given the driving factors I described below (or others you can think of). Has nothing to do with the sexes...that was a sidebar.

Cladiator · March 30, 2007 2:12AM

There seems to be a blurring of the lines with this subject lately. I think there are two distinct facets of the originality debate.

The difference between a classic coin that has not been molested and a classic coin that has been dipped, cleaned, AT'd, etc... is one.

The difference between a modern coin that develops haze and a modern coin that has had this haze dipped off is the second.

I think there is a monumental difference between the two subjects. When I think of the "originality debate" I don't even consider those hazed moderns to be a part of it. In my opinion this debate is about old coins that have been altered. So, for me, a modern dipped clean of it's haze is fine but a classic dipped clean of it's previous 100+ years of life is not.

To directly answer the main question of the thread, the quote below from another forum member sums up exactly how I feel about the subject and I'll bet a great many other collectors agree as well.

<< When a coin is cleaned or doctored, it no longer has the magical ability to take me on a mental journey to its time of issue. Instead, all I get is a vision of some jerk abusing the coin in his basement laboratory. >>

Zoins · March 30, 2007 2:30AM

<< There seems to be a blurring of the lines with this subject lately. I think there are two distinct facets of the originality debate.

The difference between a classic coin that has not been molested and a classic coin that has been dipped, cleaned, AT'd, etc... is one.

The difference between a modern coin that develops haze and a modern coin that has had this haze dipped off is the second.

I think there is a monumental difference between the two subjects. When I think of the "originality debate" I don't even consider those hazed moderns to be a part of it. In my opinion this debate is about old coins that have been altered. So, for me, a modern dipped clean of it's haze is fine but a classic dipped clean of it's previous 100+ years of life is not. >>

Why is one unacceptable and the other acceptable for you? Is it because of either, both or neither of the following:

(a) classic coin toning is more eye appealing than modern coin haze?

(b) classic coin history is more important than modern coin history?

Cladiator · March 30, 2007 2:35AM

<< 

<< There seems to be a blurring of the lines with this subject lately. I think there are two distinct facets of the originality debate.

The difference between a classic coin that has not been molested and a classic coin that has been dipped, cleaned, AT'd, etc... is one.

The difference between a modern coin that develops haze and a modern coin that has had this haze dipped off is the second.

I think there is a monumental difference between the two subjects. When I think of the "originality debate" I don't even consider those hazed moderns to be a part of it. In my opinion this debate is about old coins that have been altered. So, for me, a modern dipped clean of it's haze is fine but a classic dipped clean of it's previous 100+ years of life is not. >>

Why is one unacceptable and the other acceptable for you? Is it because of either, both or neither of the following:

(a) classic coin toning is more eye appealing than modern coin haze?

(b) classic coin history is more important than modern coin history? >>

If an 1875 Seated Half Dollar developed haze on it shortly after it was released by the mint and someone dipped that haze off I don't think I'd have a problem with that. Taking age old tone off a classic coin is taking it's personality away and damaging it's historic value. Taking haze off a modern coin is merely taking a distracting film away, the coin simply by being young can not have the historic value...it will one day but not while it's a modern.

Regulated · March 30, 2007 2:36AM

I have always thought that most coin collectors hope to attain coins that have surfaces that are as close to the way they were minted as possible (I suppose I should add here that collectors of circulated coins generally would say that they want their coins to look as close to the way they did in the wild as possible). If that is the case, an "original" coin is as close as you can get to that condition, being that dipping or other conservation methods alter the surfaces of the coin on a microscopic level, taking it further from the ideal "as struck" state.

If a coin has toned, you cannot untone it: in order to remove toning, collectors soak coins in an acidic solution that removes the outer layer of the coin. While some people would say that this outer layer is the result of a chemical reaction and isn't really "original" to the piece, looking at the surface of a dipped coin under an electron microscope will show you that its surface is WILDLY different from that of an "original" piece (whether it is toned or not).

That being said, there are certain coins that are original, but ugly (or butt ugly, if you prefer). I wouldn't presume to say that an original, unattractive piece is more desirable than a carefully dipped, attractive one; however, given the choice between two coins of similar eye appeal and grade, I will always choose the piece that I believe to be unsullied.

bidask · March 30, 2007 2:46AM

<< I have always thought that most coin collectors hope to attain coins that have surfaces that are as close to the way they were minted as possible (I suppose I should add here that collectors of circulated coins generally would say that they want their coins to look as close to the way they did in the wild as possible). If that is the case, an "original" coin is as close as you can get to that condition, being that dipping or other conservation methods alter the surfaces of the coin on a microscopic level, taking it further from the ideal "as struck" state.

If a coin has toned, you cannot untone it: in order to remove toning, collectors soak coins in an acidic solution that removes the outer layer of the coin. While some people would say that this outer layer is the result of a chemical reaction and isn't really "original" to the piece, looking at the surface of a dipped coin under an electron microscope will show you that its surface is WILDLY different from that of an "original" piece (whether it is toned or not).

That being said, there are certain coins that are original, but ugly (or butt ugly, if you prefer). I wouldn't presume to say that an original, unattractive piece is more desirable than a carefully dipped, attractive one; however, given the choice between two coins of similar eye appeal and grade, I will always choose the piece that I believe to be unsullied. >>

Yes but there is an argument that a dipped coin actually enhances the concealed luster of an original coin and thus its value. If that is true, doesn't luster play a big role in overall eye appeal and therefore have its place. ( Just asking, not practicing)

Zoins · March 30, 2007 2:48AM

It seems like there are two parallel issues:

- Originality
- Eye appeal

The problem with classic coins seems to occur when Originality coincides with Negative Eye Appeal.

- Many collectors seek coins without negative eye appeal, independent of originality
- Many dealers seek profit which may involve removing unappealing originality

It seems like the solutions would be either:

- Teach collectors to pay premiums for original, unappealing coins
- Teach dealers/doctors to forgo profit by preserving unsalable coins

There is some effort to teach people to appreciate dirty gold but, on a large scale, are either of these solutions really viable? What other solutions are there?

Regulated · March 30, 2007 2:51AM

While dipping enhances the apparent luster on a coin, the truth is that what you are seeing are not die flow lines imparted to the coin when it was struck. You are seeing fresh metal that has been exposed by essentially melting off a thin layer of the coin. There are actually electron micrographs of coins before and after normal dipping that dramatically illustrate this point.

I guess my point is that the real luster on a dipped coin has been removed.

Coinosaurus · March 30, 2007 2:51AM

<< Just asking, not practicing >>

It's OK to admit it. I like original coins a lot, but some coins *should* be dipped, IMHO. I would have no problem dipping a modern proof that had gone hazy, for example.

Regulated · March 30, 2007 2:55AM

I also think that we need to make a distinction between dipping a coin in EZest and removing haze from a coin's surface with acetone or another chemical that does not drastically alter the coin's surface.

Ronyahski · March 30, 2007 3:09AM

<< I think there is a monumental difference between the two subjects. When I think of the "originality debate" I don't even consider those hazed moderns to be a part of it. In my opinion this debate is about old coins that have been altered. So, for me, a modern dipped clean of it's haze is fine but a classic dipped clean of it's previous 100+ years of life is not.

To directly answer the main question of the thread, the quote below from another forum member sums up exactly how I feel about the subject and I'll bet a great many other collectors agree as well.

<< When a coin is cleaned or doctored, it no longer has the magical ability to take me on a mental journey to its time of issue. Instead, all I get is a vision of some jerk abusing the coin in his basement laboratory. >>

>>

I'm with you on these points. Originality is subjective. Even classics that have, say, spent 50 years in an album retoning after a light cleaning can transport you back. You have to draw your own line.

Now we store our coins in plastic slabs. The newly dipped coins have a fresh start but have lost 50 -200 years of their life, and in 50 years from now may look exactly like they do now, dipped white. Or just as likely they'll develop some haze, dipping residue spots, or some unattractive toning. Time to dip again. For me, not a bright future for these coins (pun intended).

MrEureka · March 30, 2007 3:15AM

Art Kagin used to say that what we really collect is stories, and that stories sell. What he meant, more or less, is that the coins don't mean all that much without the history behind them, and the more colorful the history, the better. From that perspective, it makes perfect sense that a coin is most appreciated when it looks like it popped right out of history and into our hands. The "originality" helps us connect to the coin's story. Hence, my new sig line.

coinkat · March 30, 2007 3:18AM

Andy:

Great post and a new sig line to match...

Well done as usual

mrearlygold · March 30, 2007 3:20AM

<< Art Kagin used to say that what we really collect is stories, and that stories sell. What he meant, more or less, is that the coins don't mean all that much without the history behind them, and the more colorful the history, the better. From that perspective, it makes perfect sense that a coin is most appreciated when it looks like it popped right out of history and into our hands. The "originality" helps us connect to the coin's story. Hence, my new sig line. >>

Excellent

Zoins · March 30, 2007 3:24AM

<< Art Kagin used to say that what we really collect is stories, and that stories sell. What he meant, more or less, is that the coins don't mean all that much without the history behind them, and the more colorful the history, the better. From that perspective, it makes perfect sense that a coin is most appreciated when it looks like it popped right out of history and into our hands. The look of authenticity helps us connect to the coin's story. Hence, my new sig line. >>

When the history is original and colorful, there doesn't seem to be any issue at all because the coins are preserved and sell for large premiums. I think the issue is when the history is not colorful and is actually unappealing. I've noticed that most of the people favoring full originality coins do not comment on unappealing originality. To preserve more coins I think one or more of the following are needed:

- Train collectors to appreciate original coins that they currently consider unappealing
- Train collectors to pay premiums for original, unappealing coins (if they can't be convinced they are pretty)
- Train dealers to seek less profit by preserving coins and selling for lower prices if necessary

I probably contribute to the problem simply by avoiding original, unappealing coins.

MrEureka · March 30, 2007 3:28AM

Zoins - When I said "colorful", I was referring to the story, not to the toning.

Zoins · March 30, 2007 3:29AM

<< Zoins - When I said "colorful", I was referring to the story, not to the toning. >>

Sorry if I misread, I didn't necessarily mean toning but with pleasant history. The issue with unappealing originality still stands. What are people's solutions to unappealing originality?

Regulated · March 30, 2007 3:30AM

The only solution is to buy coins that you find aesthetically appealing. Then, it doesn't matter much that some pieces out there are original and unattractive.

MrEureka · March 30, 2007 3:32AM

What are people's solutions to unappealing originality?

They either clean them, doctor them or leave them alone. But this is a separate issue. For the moment, we're just trying to understand why originality matters at all.

Zoins · March 30, 2007 3:33AM

<< The only solution is to buy coins that you find aesthetically appealing. Then, it doesn't matter much that some pieces out there are original and unattractive. >>

But if there's less demand and lower prices for original, unattractive coins, won't dealers and doctors be incentivized to conserve the unattractive, unsalable coins, thus continuing the problem of more coins being stripped and dipped?

Regulated · March 30, 2007 3:37AM

But if there's less demand and lower prices for original, unattractive coins, won't dealers and doctors be incentivized to conserve the unattractive, unsalable coins, thus continuing the problem of more coins being stripped and dipped?

If you aren't buying stripped and dipped coins, then it shouldn't matter. The fact is that as long as there have been coin collectors, there have been individuals who try and enhance the appearance of coins. There is NOTHING that will stop doctoring and conservation. The best thing that an individual can do is try and preserve "original" coins that they find attractive. Let the doctors play with ugly coins and try to save as many nice, original pieces that you can.

Zoins · March 30, 2007 3:44AM

<< But if there's less demand and lower prices for original, unattractive coins, won't dealers and doctors be incentivized to conserve the unattractive, unsalable coins, thus continuing the problem of more coins being stripped and dipped?

If you aren't buying stripped and dipped coins, then it shouldn't matter. The fact is that as long as there have been coin collectors, there have been individuals who try and enhance the appearance of coins. There is NOTHING that will stop doctoring and conservation. The best thing that an individual can do is try and preserve "original" coins that they find attractive. Let the doctors play with ugly coins and try to save as many nice, original pieces that you can. >>

Thanks. This sounds like a reasonable solution. You can't save them all.

DeusExMachina · March 30, 2007 4:35AM

<< Art Kagin used to say that what we really collect is stories, and that stories sell. What he meant, more or less, is that the coins don't mean all that much without the history behind them, and the more colorful the history, the better. From that perspective, it makes perfect sense that a coin is most appreciated when it looks like it popped right out of history and into our hands. The "originality" helps us connect to the coin's story. Hence, my new sig line. >>

This post best articulates why I like dirty coins. Thanks Andy.

coinlieutenant · March 30, 2007 6:41AM

I think that about sums it up...Kagin speaks to the major issue. In regards to the driving factors of the market that I mentioned, original effects would be subjective. One person very well may find an original coin less beautiful than a dipped coin. Or the market tastes at one time may make competition for unoriginal coins higher than for original ones.

I should have included a fifth drive for collecting...owning and preserving history.

What is it about originality that makes it more desirable than an "unoriginal" coin? Is t

Comments

Leave a Comment

What is it about originality that makes it more desirable than an &quot;unoriginal&quot; coin? Is t

Comments

Leave a Comment

What is it about originality that makes it more desirable than an "unoriginal" coin? Is t