Originality

[Hard Times]

How about: Posting some coin images here where the poster can give their opinion on originality, or not, followed by debate?

 

Here are 3: Original? Or not? MO - all three are as close as to original as one can get these days each appears to have 'album' toning...... Anyone else?

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

 

 

[Hard Times]

Less original - i.e. most likely dipped in recent times:

 

[Hard Times]

Last one: Original? Probably dipped some time in the past but who knows?

 

[TonerGuy]

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

 

+1

[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?

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.

That's pretty much it, Bruce. For those of you who may be having a harder time with it, I'm not going to give you any lectures, but geeze, grab yourself some sense. The main event is the coin, not the label. As a matter of fact, the label is irrelevant. Just as an example, how does the surface on that coin look? Instead of asking, "original or cleaned," why not ask, "alive or dead?" And, to what degree? The latter, you see, you can assess with your own eyes. The former, you have to assess with your mind's eye. Did somebody clean the coin years ago? Oh, they didn't? Then, it's original. Oh, they did? Then, it's cleaned. What about that lovely tarnish? Oh, they didn't intend to tarnish it? Then, it's safe, it's NT. Wait a minute, they kept it in a cigar box? Then, it's AT, as cigars are supposed to be kept in cigar boxes, not coins. I know, dip the thing. No, that's doctoring. Conserve it. No, if you do it, that's cleaning. Pay somebody to conserve it. There you go. Now, you can collect it, you have permission.

 

I have to go. Lucky for you guys. I'm just getting warmed up.

[coinman_23885]

"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... Evaluate your coins with your eyes, not your mind's eye, and don't let anybody persuade you ever to do differently.

 

But theoretically speaking, aren't labels merely conventional shorthands for describing what one evaluates with his or her own eyes? Then why aren't labels relevant? Obviously a coin that is original has some physical differences from a piece that is unoriginal even if the difference is minor to you (e.g. die flow lines, luster, etc., etc.). Those differences make a difference based on individual taste. Some don't like coins that are unoriginal for various reasons.

 

P.S. While not all coins that are not 100% original pose long term storage problems, the originality may also tell one something about whether a coin is stable. A coin that is "AT" or that is cleaned and retoned or dirtied to make it appear original can be ticking time bombs. That almost original piece might turn out to be an eye sore in time. Alternatively, that blast white coin (that many collectors like - read as unoriginal) may have dip residue that turns and requires further dipping to prevent damage and to improve eye appeal (at the cost of luster).

[coinman_23885]

I'll also add one thing and qualify my agreement with Mr. Feld. I agree with his definition wholeheartedly, but would add that to me originality is not an all or nothing proposition. Rather, it is a spectrum and there are varying degrees of originality. I think this is often overlooked when discussing coins.

 

Many coins that are more than 200 years old have been tampered with in some way; however, they are market acceptable, have proved to be stable, and only infinitesimally smaller differences can be observed. This may represent the best that are available, and I would rank them as more original than overly dipped blast white 200+ year coins. In short, unoriginal does not necessarily equate to "bad" (as I think some posters are interpreting it to mean); rather, if given a choice between two coins with similar eye appeal, I prefer the more original piece.

[Catbert]

...but would add that to me originality is not an all or nothing proposition. Rather, it is a spectrum and there are varying degrees of originality. I think this is often overlooked when discussing coins.

 

An excellent point - there is a relative scale to originality. And, as an aside, I would assert that this scale may not be consistent with desirability either when it comes to eye appeal.

[Keigwin]

I think this is an "original" coin.

Lance.

 

[stman]

I think this is an "original" coin.

Lance.

 

 

 

My kinda coin!

[BillJones]

I am going to confine my discussion of "originality" to silver coins. Most copper pieces that have been messed with to make them "red" usually look horrible and are chemically unstable. Gold coins that have been poorly conserved take on the "white gold" appearance and are less desirable than their redder or coppery toned counterparts. Silver coins can benefit from conservation, and at times it is desirable to conserve them.

 

Most of the silver coins that collectors believe are "original" might better be called "original now." The trouble is without proper storage, away from moisture, constant light, chemicals like sulfur and tannic acids, or a host of other contaminants, silver will tarnish. The ultimate progression of that tarnish goes to gray to dark gray to black, which no one admires. "Crusty" has its limits. Few collectors want black coins or coins was blotchy toning that obscures the design devices of the piece. When it is possible conservation makes a coin more salable and sometimes more valuable.

 

The vast majority of older silver coins (70 years old or more) have been dipped or cleaned to one degree or another over time. After that has been done, the oxidation process begins again. If the coin has been properly rinsed of the agents that were used to remove the tarnish, and if the piece is stored properly, the progression of the re-toning process can take many years. Improperly rinsed coins can re-tone in a matter of weeks and usually the results are not pretty.

 

Over time a silver coin will turn gray. Given proper storage that color can be very stable in the toning process can be so slow that collector will not notice it during his lifetime, even if he keeps the coin for many decades.

 

Some silver coins develop very colorful toning that is the result of contact with certain contaminates under conditions that are not fully understood. If they were fully understood coin doctors would have replicated the process given the large financial incentives involved. In its natural form this a very unusual, which way coins with striking natural or natural looking toning are scarce and valuable.

 

Bottom line: Originality is more of a perception than a reality. Many of the coins that we view as original have had something done to them in the past. The key is whether or not surfaces have been altered to a degree where they are esthetically displeasing. When that occurs the coin is deemed as "cleaned," "whizzed," "polished," or "burnished" and judged to be commercially less acceptable.

 

[newprepper]

So it seems to be common knowledge that certain albums will tone coins. If you knowingly use one of these albums are you considered to be doctoring your coins? If that is the case, are these coins considered original and NT?

[MarkFeld]

So it seems to be common knowledge that certain albums will tone coins. If you knowingly use one of these albums are you considered to be doctoring your coins? If that is the case, are these coins considered original and NT?

 

If one collector places a coin in an album, not thinking or caring whether it will tone, while another does so with the hope that the coin tones, it would be wrong/unfair to label (only) the latter a coin doctor.

[BillJones]

So it seems to be common knowledge that certain albums will tone coins. If you knowingly use one of these albums are you considered to be doctoring your coins? If that is the case, are these coins considered original and NT?

 

Envelopes tone coins too. As a collector when I bought a coin that needed "a little color" I had some old coin envelops that I gotten from Gimbals department store when I bought pieces there. I found that when I stored a copper or silver coin in one of them for three to five years, the coins acquired a natural looking color. During this period my coin budget was far smaller than it is now, and I sometimes I had compromise between rarity and originality.

 

At any rate this method worked fairly consistently and quite often when it came time to sell or trade an item dealers viewed the coins as perfectly acceptable. When I told one dealer what I had done with a piece I was offering him, he said, "What difference does it make? The coin looks perfectly natural now."

 

If you think of it, how does original toning form on a piece? It often got there through that storage devices that were used to protect and display the coins. In a way you are replacing that which was removed in much the same way as the first layer of toning was formed.

 

[erickso1]

In the series I collect I would consider these "original". But this is also why I looked for clarification from Mr. Feld as to storage as it pertains to originality.

 

[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... Evaluate your coins with your eyes, not your mind's eye, and don't let anybody persuade you ever to do differently.

But theoretically speaking, aren't labels merely conventional shorthands for describing what one evaluates with his or her own eyes? Then why aren't labels relevant? Obviously a coin that is original has some physical differences from a piece that is unoriginal even if the difference is minor to you (e.g. die flow lines, luster, etc., etc.). Those differences make a difference based on individual taste. Some don't like coins that are unoriginal for various reasons.

No, labels are abstractions. That's what you're missing. You're looking at the coin, sure. But, are you really seeing it? How can you be, when your mind is elsewhere? Get your mind off the abstractions. Put it back on the coin, and keep it there. Describe the coin. Describe its technical strengths and weaknesses. Describe its surface. Describe its color. Describe its eye appeal, or lack thereof. Describe what's right with it, and what's wrong with it, and add, when it's right, and subtract, when it's wrong. See the coin for what it is, without regard to leaning on abstractions, which, again, are meaningless. That's how one evaluates coins. In my humble view, anyway.

[coinman_23885]

But theoretically speaking, aren't labels merely conventional shorthands for describing what one evaluates with his or her own eyes? Then why aren't labels relevant? Obviously a coin that is original has some physical differences from a piece that is unoriginal even if the difference is minor to you (e.g. die flow lines, luster, etc., etc.). Those differences make a difference based on individual taste. Some don't like coins that are unoriginal for various reasons.

 

No, labels are abstractions. That's what you're missing. You're looking at the coin, sure. But, are you really seeing it?... Describe its technical strengths and weaknesses. Describe its surface. Describe its color. Describe its eye appeal, or lack thereof. Describe what's right with it, and what's wrong with it, and add, when it's right, and subtract, when it's wrong.

 

Yes I am really seeing the coin, and I am using those labels that you reject to describe some of the technical strengths and weaknesses of the coin. Again, I think you are under the mentality that those of us who prefer original coins are looking only to labels without describing the quality of the coin. This is not what we are saying at all.

 

Original does not necessarily mean that a coin is eye appealing or that it is more desirable than a more attractive but less original piece. There are plenty of coins that are completely original, but that have dark, splotchy and/or otherwise unattractive toning and diminished luster. I wouldn't touch these with a ten foot pole. Again, originality is one of many factors that enter into the decision of whether to buy a coin, and as I stated previously, it is a spectrum. When confronted with two coins of similar eye appeal, I prefer the more original piece. In other words, I like to have my cake and eat it too. This procedure might necessarily mean that it will take me years to find the right coin, but when I do, I'll have something that I can truly appreciate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kurtdog]

But theoretically speaking, aren't labels merely conventional shorthands for describing what one evaluates with his or her own eyes? Then why aren't labels relevant? Obviously a coin that is original has some physical differences from a piece that is unoriginal even if the difference is minor to you (e.g. die flow lines, luster, etc., etc.). Those differences make a difference based on individual taste. Some don't like coins that are unoriginal for various reasons.

No, labels are abstractions. That's what you're missing. You're looking at the coin, sure. But, are you really seeing it?... Describe its technical strengths and weaknesses. Describe its surface. Describe its color. Describe its eye appeal, or lack thereof. Describe what's right with it, and what's wrong with it, and add, when it's right, and subtract, when it's wrong.

Yes I am really seeing the coin, and I am using those labels that you reject to describe some of the technical strengths and weaknesses of the coin. Again, I think you are under the mentality that those of us who prefer original coins are looking only to labels without describing the quality of the coin. This is not what we are saying at all.

 

Original does not necessarily mean that a coin is eye appealing or that it is more desirable than a more attractive but less original piece. There are plenty of coins that are completely original, but that have dark, splotchy and/or otherwise unattractive toning and diminished luster. I wouldn't touch these with a ten foot pole. Again, originality is one of many factors that enter into the decision of whether to buy a coin, and as I stated previously, it is a spectrum. When confronted with two coins of similar eye appeal, I prefer the more original piece. In other words, I like to have my cake and eat it too. This procedure might necessarily mean that it will take me years to find the right coin, but when I do, I'll have something that I can truly appreciate.

You have no argument from me in your second paragraph. You're beating a dead horse, there. In your first paragraph, while I'd have preferred you'd have chosen a better descriptive term than my "mentality," your vocabulary aside, I can see from that paragraph you still don't get it. Let me just ask you this. Why is it so important to you to be able to label a coin "original?" My definition of that, your definition of that, and the next person's definition of that, are all different, aren't they? Sure they are. An early 19th Century coin may pass the test of originality for me, but not for you. Yet, we can both see and describe and rationally discuss what's compromised on the surface of said coin, can't we? And, that's what's important, that's all that's important, and that's all that I'm saying. You call that coin "cleaned," I call it "original," and where does that leave us, but in an argument over an abstract, meaningless standard? PCGS adopts your version of that standard over mine, and that coin I'm calling "original" goes off the market. NGC adopts my version of it over yours, and the coin goes back on the market. Why? "Original" depends on the side of the street one happens to be on? That's some standard by which to evaluate and collect coins, don't you think? While I wouldn't rate it near as irrational as that "NT/AT" standard, it's still unintelligible, and meaningless. Forget it. You don't need it. You can see what's going on on a coin, and you know enough to deduct for it, if it's negative. Take your bearing from that, the coin. Forget about the labels. You don't need them. And, I'll add, they do us more harm than good. Sorry for the lecture.

[coinman_23885]

[Why is it so important to you to be able to label a coin "original?" My definition of that, your definition of that, and the next person's definition of that, are all different, aren't they? Sure they are. An early 19th Century coin may pass the test of originality for me, but not for you.

 

It's a matter of being precise. The definition of originality is not variable and it is standard. As I said previously, however, it is a spectrum. There are physical differences in coins among each degree or point in the spectrum. Things like luster, die flow lines, and even toning to some degree (based on the thickness and wavelength of the reflected light producing the colors) etc., can all be objectively measured and quantified to reasonable degrees of precision/accuracy.

 

With this said, perhaps you would find it useful to distinguish between a coin being completely "original" and "being original enough" for a personal collection. I can see there being variance in the latter, but the former has a precise meaning and I think you are conflating your terminology here.

 

You call that coin "cleaned," I call it "original," and where does that leave us, but in an argument over an abstract, meaningless standard?

 

Please see my comments above. On another note, these differences are not meaningless. As I alluded to earlier, stability can be dependent on a coin's originality to some degree and non-original coins have a higher chance of turning due to whatever means has been used to manipulate them.

 

Moreover, from an aesthetic level, many collectors would note the difference. Each coin is a work of art. It is hard to faithfully reproduce hundreds of years of subtle natural toning for instance. The eye appeal may make the coin scarce compared to its other counterparts. This is a quality that many, including myself, find venerable. If you don't like 100% original coins or are willing to compromise, then that is absolutely acceptable. Nevertheless, this doesn't render the label any more capricious or meaningless as a result.

 

Forget about the labels. You don't need them. And, I'll add, they do us more harm than good. Sorry for the lecture.

 

I don't mind engaging in a debate with you; that's healthy and what the forums are for. I don't consider it a lecture. With this said, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. There are discernible differences between truly original coins, somewhat original coins, and mostly unoriginal coins or however you would like to denominate the series or degrees of originality. Some reasons include stability, aesthetics, rarity, and historical value. Not everyone values these; however, if you look at recent pricing information, I think you will see that the coins that are realizing the most (read as those in the greatest demand) are much more original than is standard for the series with some exceptions.

[coinman_23885]

This has been a fun and engaging thread.

[James_OldeTowne]

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.

"Good enough to evade the sniffer"

 

(in a humorous sense)

[James_OldeTowne]

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

... but in a more serious tone, I think a cleaned coin can be original, and some un-cleaned coins are not original, therefore I personally don't see contention between the two terms.

[MarkFeld]

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

... but in a more serious tone, I think a cleaned coin can be original, and some un-cleaned coins are not original, therefore I personally don't see contention between the two terms.

 

James, please provide examples and/or explain that?

 

Thanks.

[originalisbest]

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?

 

There are definitely degrees of it. From "obviously untouched" to "horribly mangled/wiped/scrubbed" there are the shades in between. 100% untouched is best, as well as I guess you could call them 95%, where it may have been dipped slightly, but you honestly couldn't tell (unless you dipped it yourself) -- totally market acceptable sort of thing.

[Kurtdog]

This has been a fun and engaging thread.

Kenny, we'll agree to agree on that one.

[James_OldeTowne]

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

... but in a more serious tone, I think a cleaned coin can be original, and some un-cleaned coins are not original, therefore I personally don't see contention between the two terms.

 

James, please provide examples and/or explain that?

 

Thanks.

Sure. Imagine today is some day in 1835. You are walking along with a half-dollar in your hand and accidentally drop it into a mud puddle. You pick the coin back up and not wanting to risk losing it, decide it's better kept in your pocket.

 

Are you going to just do so? Of course not. Rather, you're going to clean the mud off of the coin before you stick it in your pocket.

 

Fast forward 175 years and consider how a TPG might grade the coin when they see the old hairlines? Yep.... CLEANED.

 

But to me, despite the cleaning, it can still be an original coin!

[James_OldeTowne]

As to uncleaned coins that are not original, that's pretty obvious. If some kid in a high school chemistry lab copper-plates a steel cent, the coin would not be cleaned, but also would not be original.

[coinman_23885]

This has been a fun and engaging thread.

Kenny, we'll agree to agree on that one.

 

[MarkFeld]

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

... but in a more serious tone, I think a cleaned coin can be original, and some un-cleaned coins are not original, therefore I personally don't see contention between the two terms.

 

James, please provide examples and/or explain that?

 

Thanks.

Sure. Imagine today is some day in 1835. You are walking along with a half-dollar in your hand and accidentally drop it into a mud puddle. You pick the coin back up and not wanting to risk losing it, decide it's better kept in your pocket.

 

Are you going to just do so? Of course not. Rather, you're going to clean the mud off of the coin before you stick it in your pocket.

 

Fast forward 175 years and consider how a TPG might grade the coin when they see the old hairlines? Yep.... CLEANED.

 

But to me, despite the cleaning, it can still be an original coin!

 

Thanks James. Why do you consider the cleaned coin to be original?

[James_OldeTowne]

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

... but in a more serious tone, I think a cleaned coin can be original, and some un-cleaned coins are not original, therefore I personally don't see contention between the two terms.

 

James, please provide examples and/or explain that?

 

Thanks.

Sure. Imagine today is some day in 1835. You are walking along with a half-dollar in your hand and accidentally drop it into a mud puddle. You pick the coin back up and not wanting to risk losing it, decide it's better kept in your pocket.

 

Are you going to just do so? Of course not. Rather, you're going to clean the mud off of the coin before you stick it in your pocket.

 

Fast forward 175 years and consider how a TPG might grade the coin when they see the old hairlines? Yep.... CLEANED.

 

But to me, despite the cleaning, it can still be an original coin!

 

Thanks James. Why do you consider the cleaned coin to be original?

Because the person cleaning it performed his action incidental to the original intended use of the coin. He didn't clean (or "doctor") the coin with intent to increase its collectable value.

 

When the mint cleans coins (at the mint), they are still clearly original when they enter circulation.