Buyer Beware

[MikeKing]

or, You Can't Tell A Book By It's Cover

?

or, Pictures can lie

or, Pictures just don't always reveal the truth about a coin

and/or Descriptions can be way off.

 

So here's a coin I bought from a reputable dealer (no need for names and please don't guess or I'll have to have this post deleted), since the point of this post is just to re-demonstrate what we all need to get through our heads, as collectors.

 

The coin was described as 'original' which it is very far from.

My first photo is head on.

My second photo is tilted under a tungsten lamp and shows the hairlines and lighter toning in the lower left quadrant which was cleaned.

You can also see how the cleaned area has lighter and darker toning that is really only clearly visible depending on the orientation of the light.

What my second photo doesn't fully reveal, but does begin to show, are the chips taken out of the coin starting around 9 O'Clock and extending accross the lips, which, in hand, reflect light, revealing untoned silver. A recent series of dings that occurred recently = >20 yr ago (as determined by the holder), i.e., recent enough that it never toned over.

 

So, just FYI:

 

[braddick]

Wow. Looks pretty dang good to me (?)

[WinstonWare]

I’m not sure that I see the cleaning but I do see the chips of patination that have fallen off.

[MikeKing]

try this

[MikeKing]

and these nicks actually shine by reflecting light (doesn't show in photo), revealing "fresh" un-toned over exposed silver.

[WinstonWare]

Oh I did see that. I thought those were relatively recent slide marks. I didn’t realize that they were from a cleaning.

[bsshog40]

Well Mike I can see why you would be upset if you thought it a better looking coin when purchasing it. I'm sure this has had a cleaning in it's day but not recently. What you see as hairlines just don't look that way to me. Some type of contact/scrape would be my guess. I would think that if it had been harshly cleaned that the hairlines would be more dense than what is shown. The lines break up in spots which indicate that there was not a lot of pressure in what caused the lines. Of course, you have the coin in hand and can tell better, but by what I see, really doesn't stike me as that bad.

[James_OldeTowne]

We must remember, too, that "hairlines" does not instantly equate to "cleaned". In fact, I believe that the majority of hairlines are not the result of cleaning, but are merely incidental. In other words, I would fully expect many completely original coins to have patches of hairlines and abraded areas. In fact, a reallu really persnickety stickler might say that a truly original coin that was used for the purpose intended - circulation - SHOULD have some hairlines present.

 

The area I see on the subject coin does not appear to be the result of cleaning to me, and fits a reasonable definition of "original" PROVIDED I am interpreting the images correctly.

[ibyandsellsmith]

Do you have the sellers photos? That would be an interesting comparison.

And by the way, beautiful coin, it's just to bad you didn't get what you paid for.

[just-john]

Maybe it's the picture but the clasp on the shoulder looks like it was punched to me .First picture makes it seem to stand out from the rest of the coin and looks to round .

[MBA101]

I believe his complaint refers to the "damage" on the coin being more recent than the toning. If the damage had occurred prior to the toning, then no complaint, as the toning would be consistent. But there is untoned silver showing, so it is distracting and does not fit in with the rest of the coin.

[MikeKing]

thanks Dave.

 

Look, for anyone who thinks this coin is OK or that it looks OK, please look again. That's the whole point of my posting this. Not to argue whether or not it's hairlined or OK. It's not. I'm not calling myself an 'expert' but I've learned something over the years. Please take advantage of my offering my insight, I'm doing this so you can protect yourself (generic yourself) by knowing what to look for in a coin.

 

 

[Keleum]

Being one of the yourself(s). Are you saying the entire coin was cleaned or just where the pigmentation changes?

 

A more important question for me at least, is what are you going to do now? Do you return the coin to the dealer, I would expect a reputable dealer to give you full money back as it's a recent purchase.

[MikeInFL]

We must remember, too, that "hairlines" does not instantly equate to "cleaned". In fact, I believe that the majority of hairlines are not the result of cleaning, but are merely incidental. In other words, I would fully expect many completely original coins to have patches of hairlines and abraded areas. In fact, a reallu really persnickety stickler might say that a truly original coin that was used for the purpose intended - circulation - SHOULD have some hairlines present.

 

The area I see on the subject coin does not appear to be the result of cleaning to me, and fits a reasonable definition of "original" PROVIDED I am interpreting the images correctly.

 

James, It would seem to me that harilines all in one direction would be more indicitative of a cleaning rather than circulation being the origin of the hairlines, no? Thoughts?....Mike

[James_OldeTowne]

Mike, I hate to be a pest, but I think that the word "cleaned" carries such a connotation, and invokes such a negative response (all too often, an over-reaction) that I think the word must be used with care. I understand what you're saying is the point of the opening post, but here is where I think it digresses to the detriment of the point you wanted to make:

 

The coin was described as 'original' which it is very far from.

I don't agree that the coin is "far from" original - at least from the images. A coin can be perfectly 100% original and get a rim ding or a hairline scratch today, yet still be considered "original". It's a matter of degrees, so this is subjective, but I would contend that the dealer in question did not mislead by calling the coin "original".

 

Had he said "100% original" or "completely original" or "indisputably original", that would be a different story.

 

I know, it's nitpicking, but again, the word "original" is so important that I think the degrees of originality should at least be part of the discussion.

 

My second photo is tilted under a tungsten lamp and shows the hairlines and lighter toning in the lower left quadrant which was cleaned. You can also see how the cleaned area has lighter and darker toning that is really only clearly visible depending on the orientation of the light.

Here, I have a quibble with the use of the word "cleaned". The coin does not look cleaned to me, but it does look scraped, abraded or otherwise damaged. I just don't think "cleaned" applies since it is ludicrous to think somebody would clean a tiny portion of a coin like that yet leave the rest of it untouched (again, this is going by the images).

 

Anyhow, again I apologize if I'm seeming argumentative. But there's so much confusion about what constitutes "original", "cleaned", "damaged" and the varying degrees in between that I'd hate for any newbies who happen upon this thread to misunderstand the issues. Thanks for your patience in letting me respond.

[MikeInFL]

James,

 

No need to apologize, at least to me, as I didn't read your response as argumentative. To the contrary, I thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

 

That said, I must admit to having not read carefully enough as I didn't notice that the hairlines were limited to one area of the coin. Given this to be the case, I understand (and agree with) your point that the coin may not be cleaned necessarily and the hairlines could have been the result of circulation or mishandling rather than overt cleaning, but neither can I rule out a cleaning, and I would yeild to MK who has the coin in-hand to assess it...

 

However, I'm going to get a bit anal about the use of the word "original". To me, at least, "original" means 100% original. As opposed to "original looking" or "appearing original" -- which signify something less conclusive. Incidentally, this concern is in-line with the comments I made to your auction description thread. However, I am, admittedly, a bit anal about word choice....

 

Again, thanks for your response, I appreciate it...Mike

[James_OldeTowne]

James,

 

No need to apologize, at least to me, as I didn't read your response as argumentative. To the contrary, I thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

 

That said, I must admit to having not read carefully enough as I didn't notice that the hairlines were limited to one area of the coin. Given this to be the case, I understand (and agree with) your point that the coin may not be cleaned necessarily and the hairlines could have been the result of circulation or mishandling rather than overt cleaning, but neither can I rule out a cleaning, and I would yeild to MK who has the coin in-hand to assess it...

 

However, I'm going to get a bit anal about the use of the word "original". To me, at least, "original" means 100% original. As opposed to "original looking" or "appearing original" -- which signify something less conclusive. Incidentally, this concern is in-line with the comments I made to your auction description thread. However, I am, admittedly, a bit anal about word choice....

 

Again, thanks for your response, I appreciate it...Mike

Mike, I remember your comments regarding the sample auction description and did indeed note it for future reference. Thanks for responding, and I applaud your stance and appreciate your contributing to the discussion for other readers's benefit!

 

 

[xJack]

I can see why you you'd be disappointed - that dusky toning can mask a lot of problems, one of which is old cleaning, or a group of hairlines that are the result of removing surface gunk, etc...

 

The "chipping" is of real concern, though, does the coin appear to have been dropped or crushed?

 

Who's the TPG? What did they grade it?

 

[MBA101]

that dusky toning can mask a lot of problems, one of which is old cleaning, or a group of hairlines that are the result of removing surface gunk, etc...

 

 

 

A coin of this age is supposed to have heavy toning, whether it be light in color, or dark, depending on how it was stored. Removing said toning will reveal circulation marks that are often much more distracting than the toning was (for me anyway). And I believe that this is the original toning of the coin, from what Mike has told me and judging by the pics. If the coin had been harshly cleaned and re-toned, the look is different. The surfaces would have a polished look and would also have a more difficult time re-toning, so the toning would look different. And yes, you can see hairlines through the toning on a harshly cleaned coin in proper lighting.

[MarkFeld]

James,

 

No need to apologize, at least to me, as I didn't read your response as argumentative. To the contrary, I thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

 

That said, I must admit to having not read carefully enough as I didn't notice that the hairlines were limited to one area of the coin. Given this to be the case, I understand (and agree with) your point that the coin may not be cleaned necessarily and the hairlines could have been the result of circulation or mishandling rather than overt cleaning, but neither can I rule out a cleaning, and I would yeild to MK who has the coin in-hand to assess it...

 

However, I'm going to get a bit anal about the use of the word "original". To me, at least, "original" means 100% original. As opposed to "original looking" or "appearing original" -- which signify something less conclusive. Incidentally, this concern is in-line with the comments I made to your auction description thread. However, I am, admittedly, a bit anal about word choice....

 

Again, thanks for your response, I appreciate it...Mike

Well, if people are going to get anal about the use of words, I guess I might as well participate too.

 

I agree that the term "original" should nean 100% so. But realistically, unless the owner/seller of a coin has been with it during its entire existence, he has no way of knowing if it is (100%) "original" or not. Accordingly, I believe that advertising a coin as "original looking" or "appearing original" as opposed to "original" is a more appropriate/honest way of describing/providing an opinion of it.

[James_OldeTowne]

I agree that the term "original" should nean 100% so. But realistically, unless the owner/seller of a coin has been with it during its entire existence, he has no way of knowing if it is (100%) "original" or not.

That's exactly what I think also, which is why I use the term "original" to mean 90% or more original. It should mean "100%", but I believe it can't.

 

I feel certain that many coins that have been thought of as being 100% "original" are not so. Contrarily, I am also certain that many coins that do not look 100% original actually are.

 

This is why, to me, the term "original" used all by itself does mean "has the appearance of being original", because that's really the best we can do.

 

When I do believe that a coin actually may in fact be 100% truly original, I will state "completely original" or "wholly original" in my descriptions.

 

But I understand the reasons for the opposing point of view.

 

As an aside, consider a coin that was plucked right off the mint dies when it was struck in 1812, placed in an evacuated and sealed, temperature-controlled glass container and allowed to remain in exactly the same condition as it was from the day it was struck. Ironically, that to me would be an UN-original coin, because it never was used for the purpose that it was intended - that is, to circulate. From the standpoint of a perfectionist, really, an "original" coin should often have some of the detractions - hairlines, pinscratches, digs, holes, bumps, nicks and discolorations - that most collectors try to avoid. It is from their intended purposes that coins gain such detractions, yet that is an irrefutable part of their "originality".

 

In other words, if a coin is never allowed to partake of it's original purpose, then can it really be an original coin?

 

Great debate!

[MikeInFL]

For those interested in reading more opinions on the topic, here's a pertinent post ATS:

 

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=541622

[MikeInFL]

Here's another example.... Please consider the following coin, a coin that I bought at a show, only to get home and find it had been cleaned/hairlined despite examining it very closely at the table.

 

 

The lesson being, sometimes you can't trust your own eyes, particularly in "show" lighting...Mike

 

p.s. lesson #2 -- Know who you buy from. In this case, the coin was purchased from a dealer who stands behind his product and accepted the return after both of us had returned home.

 

[edmerlr]

You know that you Guys are going to drive each other crazy when you try to discuss “hairlines” and “original” in the same paragraph as Bust Halves.

 

More than likely I do not have the years of experience as you Guys in the collecting of Early American Silver coins.

 

I graduated directly into Bust Halves after years of only collecting Lincoln and Indian Head Cents. …and I collected these “copper” coins only in MS condition. Collecting these coins my primary concerns were only “Brown,” “Red-Brown,” “Red,” NT or AT.

 

Jumping into Busties – Hell bent for leather, which was my style back then – I ended up with original coins, cleaned coins, heavily dipped coins, hairlined coins. Because I had never collected (very old) silver coins before and because I didn’t take the time to do my homework, I ended up with more problem coins, than “good coins” – but (darn it!) I sure had the coins.

 

Fast forward a couple of years: Now I knew what I was doing. I spent a lot of time and money weeding out the “problem coins.” What I discovered during this time is that hairlines mean different things to different people. I also learned that the presence of hairlines (as far as affecting a coin’s value) is just as subjective as the grading.

 

In my search for “better coins” I even found coins with hairlines in NGC and PGCS slabs. I found coins that looked as if they were shined up in the center area with a jeweler’s cloth in ANACS slabs with NO notation of being “cleaned” or “wiped.”

 

At first I believed that the presence hairlines was ONLY a clear indication of cleaning and/or improper wiping. But now I believe that parallel hairlines could also be caused while the coin is in circulation – imagine what a dirty thumb covered with grit and grime could do if it was drug for an inch across the coin.

 

“Original?” What in the heck is original? This is probably one of the most improperly used words in describing Bust Halves. How did we ever get there?

 

As far as I am concerned the word original does NOT apply to any coin after its very first day in circulation. Isn’t “190 year old original” coin an oxymoronic phrase? Perhaps a “190 MINUTE old original” could be truly called original, but the old Busties - I don't think so. (Sadly I know that I still must use the word “original,” if applicable, when I sell a coin, because I will get more for it if I do.)

 

Again “subjective” has to come into play. What is acceptable to each of us is different. Sometimes we wear the buyer/collector hat, sometimes we wear the seller hat, and sometimes we wear the buyer/investor hat. It is even amazing how our own personal definition of what is, or is NOT, acceptable can change every time we put on a different hat.

 

Bottom Lines:

 

(1) You Guys could go back and forth for days on this subject.

 

(2) I could type another 10,000 words on this subject. …but I don’t feel like it.

 

I just wanted to share my thoughts.

 

Regards,

 

Ed Richter

 

[rexcat]

Mike, it always sucks when what should be one of the most enjoyable moments of the hobby, seeing a new purchase for the first time is snuffed by a coin being disappointing or below your expectation.

 

No warm fuzzy feelings in that…

 

Mail the little bugger back and buy again.

 

 

 

 

 

However, I'm going to get a bit anal about the use of the word "original". To me, at least, "original" means 100% original. As opposed to "original looking" or "appearing original" -- which signify something less conclusive. Incidentally, this concern is in-line with the comments I made to your auction description thread. However, I am, admittedly, a bit anal about word choice....

 

 

Nice point Mark, coins don’t talk, so no one knows how a coin actually came to appear as it does now or at any point in it’s past.

 

I don’t know when the phrase "original" or "original looking" started being used to describe toned coins, but it seems to be used these days to describe any coin that is not brilliant white.

 

The owner of Greater Milwaukee Coin told me when he was just breaking into the coin business working for a large dealer back in the fifties it was normal practice to dip everything silver that came in, collectors wanted nice bright old coins at that time it seems.

 

My how times have changed…

 

[xJack]

that dusky toning can mask a lot of problems, one of which is old cleaning, or a group of hairlines that are the result of removing surface gunk, etc...

 

 

 

A coin of this age is supposed to have heavy toning, whether it be light in color, or dark, depending on how it was stored. Removing said toning will reveal circulation marks that are often much more distracting than the toning was (for me anyway). And I believe that this is the original toning of the coin, from what Mike has told me and judging by the pics. If the coin had been harshly cleaned and re-toned, the look is different. The surfaces would have a polished look and would also have a more difficult time re-toning, so the toning would look different. And yes, you can see hairlines through the toning on a harshly cleaned coin in proper lighting.

 

I agree with everything you said there. I was basically stating that with a dusky grey toning, you might miss those hairlines the first few times you look at a coin.

 

But when you get it home and look six more times, you're ticked because you didn't pick up on it sooner.