Originality

[physics-fan3.14]

If you had to define what an original coin was, in one sentence, how would you do it?

 

We talk so much about original coins vs. cleaned coins, but what does original mean to you?

[bsshog40]

To me it's just something that doesn't look tampered with.

[PennyGuy]

I'd have to say......... Surfaces that are consistent with the age, grade, and metallic composition of the coin.

[coinman1794]

I'd have to say......... Surfaces that are consistent with the age, grade, and metallic composition of the coin.

 

 

The problem with using the age as a judgment factor is that coins were stored in many different types of environments, and oxidized at different rates, over the same period of time. It is not true, for instance, that all Bust coins that are completely original should look very dark, as many people have told me over the years. Silvery gray coins can be original too. Yet, there are virtually no circumstances in which they would survive completely brilliant, either.

 

The biggest hurdle to judging originality is the long period of time (more than 100 years) in which people have been dipping coins. Many coins were cleaned decades ago and have since re-toned to look completely original. If not for faint cleaning hairlines visible under the right lighting, one would swear such coins were utterly untouched. And so, how do we judge the coins that were dipped, leaving very little evidence of the crime, after developing a new skin of seemingly original patina?

 

The solution to these problems is simple, in my view. If you cannot find any evidence of cleaning or suspicion of having been dipped, you may refer to the coin as original. Otherwise, you need to remove the term original from numismatics altogether, as it can be quite impossible to tell in every instance.

 

[MarkFeld]

One which has not been altered, in any way, other than through its intended use and/or for via storage.

[CyberspaceVoid]

Mark, I agree with your definition, yet we see a lot of recent, vividly toned coins in respectable slabs that have had to be ATed (Taco Bell napkin or whatever) and yet they aren't marked as such indicating them to be "original". Where does one draw the line?

[erickso1]

One which has not been altered, in any way, other than through its intended use and/or for via storage.

 

Quick clarification I'd ask you Mark. Do you mean any type of storage? Or is there a line drawn depending on the originality of the storage (i.e. mint issued packaging, tab holders, albums, holders, etc?)

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

In a marketing sense, or academic numismatic sense, or collector sense?

[physics-fan3.14]

In a marketing sense, or academic numismatic sense, or collector sense?

 

All of the above. I realize that definitions may be different, so give me what ever you have got.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Someone with big glasses, that presents a professorial picture, once stated many years ago ATS, what could be the easiest and shortest definition to "original":

 

A coin not messed with.

 

I proclaimed this as an academic numismatic definition.

 

The marketing description was debated for several pages, and logic finally caused a concurrence (I say logic, but it was really weary acceptance of the cyber fistfight) that it would best be described as:

 

A coin without alterations, other than generally accepted practices by a trained numismatist that presented the coin in the original appearance intended, without tooling or enhancements to the design.

 

The collector definition came down to:

Any coin that meets the standard of the grade as described by ANA.

[Catbert]

Perhaps Justice Potter Stewart's definition of the obscenity/pornography threshold applies here too:

 

"I know it when I see it."

 

But then again, maybe I don't since many doctors are skillful deceivers.

[johnny9434]

that the coin has not been messed with in any way, shape or form

[physics-fan3.14]

Someone with big glasses, that presents a professorial picture, once stated many years ago ATS, what could be the easiest and shortest definition to "original":

 

A coin not messed with.

 

I proclaimed this as an academic numismatic definition.

 

The marketing description was debated for several pages, and logic finally caused a concurrence (I say logic, but it was really weary acceptance of the cyber fistfight) that it would best be described as:

 

A coin without alterations, other than generally accepted practices by a trained numismatist that presented the coin in the original appearance intended, without tooling or enhancements to the design.

 

The collector definition came down to:

Any coin that meets the standard of the grade as described by ANA.

 

John, I agree with your academic definition (and, its essentially the same one that Mark just gave). However, in reality, almost every coin has been messed with at some point. For your marketing description, what do you mean by generally accepted practices? And I completely disagree with your "collector" definition - a coin can meet the standard for the grade and still have been dipped or cleaned or washed.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Someone with big glasses, that presents a professorial picture, once stated many years ago ATS, what could be the easiest and shortest definition to "original":

 

A coin not messed with.

 

I proclaimed this as an academic numismatic definition.

 

The marketing description was debated for several pages, and logic finally caused a concurrence (I say logic, but it was really weary acceptance of the cyber fistfight) that it would best be described as:

 

A coin without alterations, other than generally accepted practices by a trained numismatist that presented the coin in the original appearance intended, without tooling or enhancements to the design.

 

The collector definition came down to:

Any coin that meets the standard of the grade as described by ANA.

 

John, I agree with your academic definition (and, its essentially the same one that Mark just gave). However, in reality, almost every coin has been messed with at some point. For your marketing description, what do you mean by generally accepted practices? And I completely disagree with your "collector" definition - a coin can meet the standard for the grade and still have been dipped or cleaned or washed.

 

Thank You for your reply.

 

As a point of clarification, these were not my definitions; as stated, these were the ATS discussion consensus definitions. My only part was applying a label to the professors' definition. For some reason, I have a cloudy vision of you actually being involved with the discussion at the time.

 

So, it is not what I mean when discussing generally accepted practices, nor is it me you would disagree with.

 

I stand only in concert with my interpretation of an academic numismatic definition, and consider all other definitions folly and good talk and discussion over a beer.

 

Respectfully,

John

[physics-fan3.14]

For some reason, I have a cloudy vision of you actually being involved with the discussion at the time.

 

I do not participate ATS, so I would not have been involved. Thank you for your clarification.

[MarkFeld]

One which has not been altered, in any way, other than through its intended use and/or for via storage.

 

Quick clarification I'd ask you Mark. Do you mean any type of storage? Or is there a line drawn depending on the originality of the storage (i.e. mint issued packaging, tab holders, albums, holders, etc?)

 

"Any type of storage" language can be tricky. I didn't want to make my one sentence so long that it would amount to cheating. But preferably, in order to qualify, the storage would be of the type typically and reasonably intended for coins. There is a potential complication/problem when intent enters into the equation. And ditto for odd types of storage, regardless of intent.

[MarkFeld]

Mark, I agree with your definition, yet we see a lot of recent, vividly toned coins in respectable slabs that have had to be ATed (Taco Bell napkin or whatever) and yet they aren't marked as such indicating them to be "original". Where does one draw the line?

 

I would not agree with your statement that "we see a lot of recent, vividly toned coins in respectable slabs that have had to be ATed ".

 

Also, the fact that a coin is awarded a grade (rather than a no-grade) does NOT mean that the grading company is representing it as "original". As just one major example, dipped coins are not original, yet countless examples have been graded.

[Kurtdog]

If you had to define what an original coin was, in one sentence, how would you do it?

 

We talk so much about original coins vs. cleaned coins, but what does original mean to you?

You ask me, it's just another meaningless label. What are you collecting, coins, or meaningless labels? Look at the coins with your eyes, and take your mind's eye off the meaningless labels.

[physics-fan3.14]

If you had to define what an original coin was, in one sentence, how would you do it?

 

We talk so much about original coins vs. cleaned coins, but what does original mean to you?

You ask me, it's just another meaningless label. What are you collecting, coins, or meaningless labels? Look at the coins with your eyes, and take your mind's eye off the meaningless labels.

 

I don't know anyone who labels this? I'm asking - when you look at a coin, what in your minds eye does originality mean? Or do you not care about it - which is also a valid opinion.

[rrantique]

Original Referring to any aspect of a coin that retains its original state. Original toning means natural, not retoned or cleaned. Original lustre means undisturbed lustre that hasn’t been enhanced through artificial methods.

[Walkerfan]

A coin that has not been dipped or chemically altered. A coin that has (usually) been allowed to tone, regardless of where it was stored. Said storage method can cause or accelerate toning IMHO but NOT cause surface damage or other damaging chemical reactions. Also, a coin whose surfaces have not been scratched or otherwise marred, since leaving the Mint.

[MarkFeld]

A coin that has not been dipped or chemically altered. A coin that has (usually) been allowed to tone, regardless of where it was stored. Said storage method can cause or accelerate toning IMHO but NOT cause surface damage or other damaging chemical reactions. Also, a coin whose surfaces have not been scratched or otherwise marred, since leaving the Mint.

 

Are you saying that a coin which has acquired surface damage, naturally (as in through storage, etc.) shouldn't be labeled "original"?

 

[stman]

I'll just say 99% of what I see collectors and dealers calling original..... isn't IMO.

 

Same for "Rainbow and Crusty."

[Walkerfan]

A coin that has not been dipped or chemically altered. A coin that has (usually) been allowed to tone, regardless of where it was stored. Said storage method can cause or accelerate toning IMHO but NOT cause surface damage or other damaging chemical reactions. Also, a coin whose surfaces have not been scratched or otherwise marred, since leaving the Mint.

 

Are you saying that a coin which has acquired surface damage, naturally (as in through storage, etc.) shouldn't be labeled "original"?

 

 

Mark, No---let me clarify. If it toned while in storage, such as with an old NGC Fattie or ANACS holder, then I feel that this would be just fine and acceptable and should still be considered original but, if the surface damage was a scratch, an abrasion or the like, then, yes, that should NOT be considered original. IMO. Those are just my guidelines and my thinking.

[Kurtdog]

"Original" is a label, just as "cleaned" is a label, just as "AT" and "NT" are labels. I'm telling you take your mind's eye off those labels and put your eyes back on the coin where they belong and keep them there. Labels are for detectives, not coin collectors. Evaluate your coins with your eyes, not your mind's eye, and don't let anybody persuade you ever to do differently. That's what I'm saying. Is it you don't understand it? Or is it you're already that hung-up on meaningless labels you just have to have that definition?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

"Original" is a label, just as "cleaned" is a label, just as "AT" and "NT" are labels. I'm telling you take your mind's eye off those labels and put your eyes back on the coin where they belong and keep them there. Labels are for detectives, not coin collectors. Evaluate your coins with your eyes, not your mind's eye, and don't let anybody persuade you ever to do differently. That's what I'm saying. Is it you don't understand it? Or is it you're already that hung-up on meaningless labels you just have to have that definition?

 

That is very original (winky thing insert here).

[Kurtdog]

"Original" is a label, just as "cleaned" is a label, just as "AT" and "NT" are labels. I'm telling you take your mind's eye off those labels and put your eyes back on the coin where they belong and keep them there. Labels are for detectives, not coin collectors. Evaluate your coins with your eyes, not your mind's eye, and don't let anybody persuade you ever to do differently. That's what I'm saying. Is it you don't understand it? Or is it you're already that hung-up on meaningless labels you just have to have that definition?

That is very original (winky thing insert here).

So I've been told, before. But I don't care.

[physics-fan3.14]

"Original" is a label, just as "cleaned" is a label, just as "AT" and "NT" are labels. I'm telling you take your mind's eye off those labels and put your eyes back on the coin where they belong and keep them there. Labels are for detectives, not coin collectors. Evaluate your coins with your eyes, not your mind's eye, and don't let anybody persuade you ever to do differently. That's what I'm saying. Is it you don't understand it? Or is it you're already that hung-up on meaningless labels you just have to have that definition?

 

I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say. I prefer to buy coins that are "original" in my opinion. I don't like cleaned or AT or dipped or polished or any of the other things that strip away that "originality." Yes, its a label - but its a label I absolutely want applied to my coins. I'm trying to find out what that means to you.

 

Are you saying that you like cleaned or AT coins? If so, that's up to you - but if not, what do you prefer? Do you like coins that haven't been tampered with? I would call those original coins, but you can apply whatever label you want to them - just please tell me what you call them and how you make that decision. That's all I'm asking.

[Bruceswar]

"Original" is a label, just as "cleaned" is a label, just as "AT" and "NT" are labels. I'm telling you take your mind's eye off those labels and put your eyes back on the coin where they belong and keep them there. Labels are for detectives, not coin collectors. Evaluate your coins with your eyes, not your mind's eye, and don't let anybody persuade you ever to do differently. That's what I'm saying. Is it you don't understand it? Or is it you're already that hung-up on meaningless labels you just have to have that definition?

 

I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say. I prefer to buy coins that are "original" in my opinion. I don't like cleaned or AT or dipped or polished or any of the other things that strip away that "originality." Yes, its a label - but its a label I absolutely want applied to my coins. I'm trying to find out what that means to you.

 

Are you saying that you like cleaned or AT coins? If so, that's up to you - but if not, what do you prefer? Do you like coins that haven't been tampered with? I would call those original coins, but you can apply whatever label you want to them - just please tell me what you call them and how you make that decision. That's all I'm asking.

 

I think what he is saying is he likes not to have any labels on coins and just let the coins speak for themselves.

[coinman_23885]

One which has not been altered, in any way, other than through its intended use and/or for via storage.

 

This.