do you like original early commems?not the dipped blast white ones

[michael]

are you thinking of putting a set of early commems together?

 

a type set i think of 50 pieces?

or a complete 144 piece set?

or maybe just a few special coins?

maybe an oregon set?

or the four civil war early commems?

 

what is your fav early commem??

 

michael

 

[mommam17]

Hi Michael. I`m putting together a 50 piece type set and have now reached 42 coins. I do go buy doubles and PDS sets when the right coins comes around. I buy blast and toned coins. A nice coin is a nice coin! Also buy only PCGS and NGC coins mostly 65 and 66, although recently picked up some real nice 64`s. The ship on the Pilgrim started my interest in these coins in 1968 and by the early 1980`s I had a nice 50 piece set. I sold most of it in 1991. In 1998 I certified my 20 coins I had left and have been having fun buying them the last 5 years. 2 cheaper coins I had a hard time finding the right coin for me was the Lynchburg and the Long Island. Also the flat coins that really show the bagmarks, Bay Bridge, Bridgeport, and Cincinnati can be tought. I love the prooflike coins and in PL NGC holders I have a 64 Columbian and in 65 I have a Booker T and a New Rochelle. In 1970 I got my favorite Christmas present ever when I got one an Antietam and was shocked when the next box I opened contained a Gettysburg. I still have them with the Antietam in an PCGS 65 hoder and the GEttysburg in an NGC 64 holder. I tnink there are 5 Civil war commems, Antietam, Gettysburg, Grant, Stone Mt., and the Lincoln. I love these classics and seldom buy anything else. Ok, enough rambling and good luck if you pursue there coins.

[TomB]

Excellent post, mommam17!

 

All beautiful, original coins are welcome to stay with me as long as they like. The entire 144 piece set seems mammoth to me, but the 50 piece set seems like something that might be interesting. I have never tried to assemble it and never will and only own a handful of commems. However, even though none are monsters, they are all extremely pretty.

[Wihlborg]

Michael,

 

I am in the process of putting a complete 144-piece set together. I like blast white coins as much as nicely toned ones so my set has both. The key thing about toning to me is that it MUST be pretty. I do not like dirty, ugly, blotchy or streaky toning or toning that looks like it is sitting on top of the coins surface. I would rather have a blast white coin over any coin with the above type of toning.

 

Although I do like monster toned coins I can not justify the outrageous premiums being asked for them when I can buy a blast white coin of the same given quality that I will like just as much for far less, leaving me more funds to buy my next coin.

 

Frankly, I find the ongoing debate over which type (toned or blast white) of coin is better quite funny. Some on the toning only side will say that all those blast white coins have been dipped till the cows came home and are therefore inferior to an ‘original’ toned coin. Others on the blast white side will point to the fact that the coin doctors have been perfecting their techniques and the quality of their work so good that it is now almost impossible to tell if a toned coin is original or not.

 

I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Not all blast white coins have been dipped, and not all toned coins just came from the doctor’s office. If a blast white coin still has great luster where is the problem? Didn’t it come from the mint looking like that? And if a coin has pretty toning that looks original should I immediately believe it has been doctored? As long as the coin has great eye appeal isn’t that what we should be concerned with?

 

Let me make it clear that I am not talking about those coins that have been dipped to the point where the luster has been impaired, or those coins that are toned in colors or patterns that are obviously not original.

 

Coin collectors are human, and as such they all have different tastes as to what they like. Some will like blast white coins. Others will only want coins that are toned in the most wonderful colors, and over the years the preference for one or the other has changed a number of times from toned to blast white and back again.

 

Which coin is better, toned or blast white? Don’t as me. Everyone has to pay his or her own money and buy what he or she likes.

 

Here is a link to my set

 

John

 

[mommam17]

jwhilborg- I totally agree with your post on white vs toned coins, and also about paying big prices for monster coins. I see many coins with unattractive toning in 65 and 66 slabs that I would not own. My very favorite commems have peripherial toning that is a different from the rest of the coin. Like a coin that is mostly lavender with gold peripherial color. I would never limit myself to just blast or toned coins. I love them both.

[Wihlborg]

Hi mommam17,

 

My very favorite commems have peripherial toning that is a different from the rest of the coin. Like a coin that is mostly lavender with gold peripherial color.

 

Here's one you should like. It a Roanoke graded MS-67 by NGC.

[Wihlborg]

here's the reverse.

[mommam17]

Yes, very beautiful. I remember looking at your set and the one coin I remember is the colorful Columbian. What outstanding color!!!!!

[Wihlborg]

Thanks mommam17,

 

Yes, that Columbian is very nice. It is a funny coin in that at first glance it does not look that nice. It really needs to be rotated under a light for the colors to be fully appreciated.

 

John

 

[TomB]

Nice Roanoke, John. It's got really beautiful tab toning.