Options
What do you think happened to it?
Cladiator
Posts: 18,240 ✭✭✭✭✭
Old cleaning or just plain circulation that is crusting over? I'll post my beliefs after a bit.
ps. I don't own it and I'm not selling it.
ps. I don't own it and I'm not selling it.
0
Comments
Bigger photos or the coin in hand would certainly be helpful.
Regardless, it's a neat coin & thanks for sharing it with us...Mike
To support LordM's European Trip, click here!
At first glance I thought crusty circulated but looking at it longer makes me doubt my first take... the "crust" around the stars almost looks a little to uniform. Tough to tell from the pic.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
As for the coin, looks like something that might happen to a coin that spent time in circulation and had many fingers applied to it. The unprotected areas didn't build up tarnish at the same rate as the areas protected by higher design elements.
if not hair lined to heck and back it would probably still slab if no
other problems are evident on the rim and what not.
The name is LEE!
circulated much more then that one did yet have a nice consistent
coloration to the fields as well as the devices yet are known not
to tone/tarnish anywhere near as much as .900 fine silver?
also folks like DW in his blog would describe coins that look like that
as played with.
thoughts are welcome.
<< <i>if circulation caused that "look" how can we explain coins that
circulated much more then that one did yet have a nice consistent
coloration to the fields as well as the devices? >>
Because it circulated much more. Also how and where and when it was circulated could account for a different look. You may have some valid points but comparing that half dime to a much more worn hunk of gold is apples to oranges IMO.
<< <i>
<< <i>if circulation caused that "look" how can we explain coins that
circulated much more then that one did yet have a nice consistent
coloration to the fields as well as the devices? >>
Because it circulated much more. Also how and where and when it was circulated could account for a different look. You may have some valid points but comparing that half dime to a much more worn hunk of gold is apples to oranges IMO. >>
In order for a silver coin like that to become basically black in the protected areas
would lead me to think that it circulated enough where any point on the coin
could have also tarnished/became dirty. of course during its circulation the highest
of points would continue to be worn down... but eventually it was stored away
and nature would take over (tarnish).
You have points in the coins where a finger holding the coin could have
never reached yet have lighter colors. for example, the date area between
the numerals is lighter yet those are always well protected. By the head of
liberty and the star at 1 o'clock. On the reverse where it says half dime
is mighty powerful protected (huck finn heh) but yet shows that lightness.
well i am done making my case. we will never know for sure. i just know
i tend to avoid coins that have that look and would rather chase after
coins that appeal to me.
i also think that silver coins that have the same age of gold.. in the end
would eventually go black, more so then gold, by its very nature. unless
of course stored in an airtight manner like a canning jar or what not.