Originality

[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?

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.

 

James, when a coin is cleaned, it's cleaned.The fact that the person doing the cleaning isn't doing so in order to add to its value, is irrelevant.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

While I am not certain, I think James_EarlyUS is making a distinction in reference to intent, which I had interpreted was the thrust of the previous replies.

 

I could be wrong though, as usual. After all, I am the guy that used LtC. in a very horrible and disrespectful manner.

 

Please continue.

 

With Respect, Of Course.

John

[MarkFeld]

While I am not certain, I think James_EarlyUS is making a distinction in reference to intent, which I had interpreted was the thrust of the previous replies.

 

I could be wrong though, as usual. After all, I am the guy that used LtC. in a very horrible and disrespectful manner.

 

Please continue.

 

With Respect, Of Course.

John

 

John, I think he is, as well. But I don't see how intent affects whether a cleaning precludes a coin from being original.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Neither do I.

 

I would agree that it does not matter if I used toilet paper or a Bidet; residue and questionable appearance is still a detriment, upon detection by a third Party that considers it as less than original or acceptable (hopefully the third Party is not Mom-that "change your underwear" thing became very annoying at times).

 

However, he is stating what Originality means to him, in the context of replying to other Posts, and adding the intent of cleaning as a caveat, and that seems to be well within the borders of the OP Question of what Originality means to the person that replies.

 

As such, his reply has conformed to the Feld Rules of Hypothetical Response, in my very humble opinion.

 

As usual, I apologize for a long and meaningless reply.

 

Respects,

John

[RGT]

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.

 

James, in 1835 that coin would have likely just been rinsed in the closest horse trough and wouldn't have shown any signs of cleaning. If the coin was abrasively cleaned and then used in commerce and worn down to VG it could still appear original even though it had been cleaned at one time.

 

Like the AT/NT discussion, any attempt to include intent in the definition will render the definition unusable. The TPGs already tried it. They hired psychics to read the aura of each questionable coin to determine intent. NGC gave up on this effort early on due to the difficulty of finding reliable psychics. PCGS still has one on the payrole who they refer to as "the sniffer".

 

[RWB]

The Vulcan Academy of Science likely has the answer.

[James_OldeTowne]

James, when a coin is cleaned, it's cleaned.The fact that the person doing the cleaning isn't doing so in order to add to its value, is irrelevant.

Of course not: intent has nothing to do with whether a cleaned coin is cleaned. But I think the intent determines whether or not a cleaned coin is original.

 

Numerous times in history, coins have been cleaned during normal, expected everyday usage, and such coins should still be considered "original" despite being cleaned. They weren't altered in a nefarious way.

 

Or, as I stated, if a coin was cleaned by the mint, at the mint, prior to release to circulation, it should most definitely be considered still original at that point in its history.

[coinman_23885]

Of course not: intent has nothing to do with whether a cleaned coin is cleaned. But I think the intent determines whether or not a cleaned coin is original.

 

Or, as I stated, if a coin was cleaned by the mint, at the mint, prior to release to circulation, it should most definitely be considered still original at that point in its history.

 

So if two coins are hypothetically identical (please put aside that every coin is unique to a degree) and both have developed similar patterns of toning. Both coins are owned by separate individuals. Coin "A" is abrasively cleaned to remove the toning because the owner wants a blast white example, with what I would assume you would describe as a nefarious purpose. Meanwhile the owner of coin "B" spills a contaminant on the coin and an acetone treatment has proven insufficient. If the owner of coin "B" then cleans it in the same manner in an attempt to conserve the coin, and produces an identical blast white coin. Is it your position that coin "B" would be more original than coin "A" because allegedly the owner of coin "A" originally had a nefarious purpose (put aside any differences in appearance from cleaning and normal stochastic variance between coins - for this example, assume they are identical in quality and appearance)? I do not find this distinction particularly meaningful. Both coins have been molested and have lost characteristics associated with their former original selves; thus, they are clearly less original than they were previously (i.e. the coins are no longer 100% original).

 

With regards to your comment about mint cleaning, again I would take some exception to this statement. If a coin is routinely treated (as planchets are washed or treated, etc., at the mint before striking) and this is a normal part of the process as the coins are supposedly struck, then I would agree that these are "original." However, let's play devil's advocate and say that mint employee Bob has a cold sneezes and spews snot onto the surface of the coin and he decides to wipe it abrasively with a Lysol wipe. Keep in mind that it has still not left the mint. Would you still consider this coin "original"?.

 

In short, I think intent is irrelevant to originality, though it is a spectrum and not an all or nothing phenomenon. If a coin has been altered or tampered with in any way from its original striking condition (assuming standard protocol and not employee mint tampering), then I would consider it 100% original. Anything else is less than 100% original.

 

[Kurtdog]

James, when a coin is cleaned, it's cleaned.The fact that the person doing the cleaning isn't doing so in order to add to its value, is irrelevant.

Of course not: intent has nothing to do with whether a cleaned coin is cleaned. But I think the intent determines whether or not a cleaned coin is original.

 

Numerous times in history, coins have been cleaned during normal, expected everyday usage, and such coins should still be considered "original" despite being cleaned. They weren't altered in a nefarious way.

 

Or, as I stated, if a coin was cleaned by the mint, at the mint, prior to release to circulation, it should most definitely be considered still original at that point in its history.

Wow. Needless to say, I agree with the professor on this one.

[James_OldeTowne]

Of course not: intent has nothing to do with whether a cleaned coin is cleaned. But I think the intent determines whether or not a cleaned coin is original.

 

Or, as I stated, if a coin was cleaned by the mint, at the mint, prior to release to circulation, it should most definitely be considered still original at that point in its history.

 

So if two coins are hypothetically identical (please put aside that every coin is unique to a degree) and both have developed similar patterns of toning. Both coins are owned by separate individuals. Coin "A" is abrasively cleaned to remove the toning because the owner wants a blast white example, with what I would assume you would describe as a nefarious purpose. Meanwhile the owner of coin "B" spills a contaminant on the coin and an acetone treatment has proven insufficient. If the owner of coin "B" then cleans it in the same manner in an attempt to conserve the coin, and produces an identical blast white coin. Is it your position that coin "B" would be more original than coin "A" because allegedly the owner of coin "A" originally had a nefarious purpose (put aside any differences in appearance from cleaning and normal stochastic variance between coins - for this example, assume they are identical in quality and appearance)? I do not find this distinction particularly meaningful. Both coins have been molested and have lost characteristics associated with their former original selves; thus, they are clearly less original than they were previously (i.e. the coins are no longer 100% original).

 

With regards to your comment about mint cleaning, again I would take some exception to this statement. If a coin is routinely treated (as planchets are washed or treated, etc., at the mint before striking) and this is a normal part of the process as the coins are supposedly struck, then I would agree that these are "original." However, let's play devil's advocate and say that mint employee Bob has a cold sneezes and spews snot onto the surface of the coin and he decides to wipe it abrasively with a Lysol wipe. Keep in mind that it has still not left the mint. Would you still consider this coin "original"?.

 

In short, I think intent is irrelevant to originality, though it is a spectrum and not an all or nothing phenomenon. If a coin has been altered or tampered with in any way from its original striking condition (assuming standard protocol and not employee mint tampering), then I would consider it 100% original. Anything else is less than 100% original.

Basically, I propose that ANY thing done to a coin without nefarious purpose, but rather as a normal, expected possible action that occurs during a coin's intended service cycle, cannot detract from how "original" it is.

 

So if Bob at the mint has to wipe snot off a coin with the only thing at hand, which happens to be sandpaper, and the coin leaves the mint that way as part of it's normal lifespan, then the coin is original.

 

There is nothing at all sacred about the word "original". It is simply misused today by many folks as a way to proclaim how some coins are "better" than others according to their own definition. I would never want someone else's definition of "original" imposed on me.

 

From the most basic standpoint, how can any normally circulating coin be called "original" if it ends up in a collection, which is not where normal coins were intended to be? They were intended to be used and dirtied and scratched and scraped and handled, not hoarded into coin collections.

 

So I guess one could conclude that the most truly "original" state that a coin can possibly be in is to still be in circulation.

[physics-fan3.14]

James, when a coin is cleaned, it's cleaned.The fact that the person doing the cleaning isn't doing so in order to add to its value, is irrelevant.

Of course not: intent has nothing to do with whether a cleaned coin is cleaned. But I think the intent determines whether or not a cleaned coin is original.

 

Numerous times in history, coins have been cleaned during normal, expected everyday usage, and such coins should still be considered "original" despite being cleaned. They weren't altered in a nefarious way.

 

Or, as I stated, if a coin was cleaned by the mint, at the mint, prior to release to circulation, it should most definitely be considered still original at that point in its history.

 

There is a lot of argument about intent in this thread (which has produced some excellent discussion). My view on the "intent" issue is this: I have no idea what the person's intent was. He didn't leave a log, didn't leave a note, I didn't talk to him. All I can see is the coin. If the coin appears cleaned today, I don't care what the person's intent was. It is cleaned, and is thus not original.

 

The same can be applied to toning - I don't care what the intent of the person was. All I care about is the result. If the coin has attractive Wayte Raymond toning, it doesn't matter that the coin was put in the album with intent of toning it - the results are consistent with normal storage methods and is perfectly natural. How can you determine the intent of the collector? You cannot. You can only observe the result and determine if it is consistent with normal processes.

 

An even further extension can be applied to the nonsense of "cabinet friction" and circulated coins receiving uncirculated grades. If there is wear on the high points, I have no idea if the coin circulated or spent a century in a velvet lined case. All I know is what the coin looks like today. If it has wear, or has toning, or has cleaning marks, I do not know the intent - and thus, in my opinion, it is irrelevant. All I can do is examine the coin, and decide if it is consistent with normal usage.

[Hard Times]

James, when a coin is cleaned, it's cleaned.The fact that the person doing the cleaning isn't doing so in order to add to its value, is irrelevant.

Of course not: intent has nothing to do with whether a cleaned coin is cleaned. But I think the intent determines whether or not a cleaned coin is original.

 

Numerous times in history, coins have been cleaned during normal, expected everyday usage, and such coins should still be considered "original" despite being cleaned. They weren't altered in a nefarious way.

 

Or, as I stated, if a coin was cleaned by the mint, at the mint, prior to release to circulation, it should most definitely be considered still original at that point in its history.

 

There is a lot of argument about intent in this thread (which has produced some excellent discussion). My view on the "intent" issue is this: I have no idea what the person's intent was. He didn't leave a log, didn't leave a note, I didn't talk to him. All I can see is the coin. If the coin appears cleaned today, I don't care what the person's intent was. It is cleaned, and is thus not original.

 

The same can be applied to toning - I don't care what the intent of the person was. All I care about is the result. If the coin has attractive Wayte Raymond toning, it doesn't matter that the coin was put in the album with intent of toning it - the results are consistent with normal storage methods and is perfectly natural. How can you determine the intent of the collector? You cannot. You can only observe the result and determine if it is consistent with normal processes.

 

An even further extension can be applied to the nonsense of "cabinet friction" and circulated coins receiving uncirculated grades. If there is wear on the high points, I have no idea if the coin circulated or spent a century in a velvet lined case. All I know is what the coin looks like today. If it has wear, or has toning, or has cleaning marks, I do not know the intent - and thus, in my opinion, it is irrelevant. All I can do is examine the coin, and decide if it is consistent with normal usage.

 

+1 Well said.......

[coinman_23885]

James, when a coin is cleaned, it's cleaned.The fact that the person doing the cleaning isn't doing so in order to add to its value, is irrelevant.

Of course not: intent has nothing to do with whether a cleaned coin is cleaned. But I think the intent determines whether or not a cleaned coin is original.

 

Numerous times in history, coins have been cleaned during normal, expected everyday usage, and such coins should still be considered "original" despite being cleaned. They weren't altered in a nefarious way.

 

Or, as I stated, if a coin was cleaned by the mint, at the mint, prior to release to circulation, it should most definitely be considered still original at that point in its history.

 

There is a lot of argument about intent in this thread (which has produced some excellent discussion). My view on the "intent" issue is this: I have no idea what the person's intent was. He didn't leave a log, didn't leave a note, I didn't talk to him. All I can see is the coin. If the coin appears cleaned today, I don't care what the person's intent was. It is cleaned, and is thus not original.

 

The same can be applied to toning - I don't care what the intent of the person was. All I care about is the result. If the coin has attractive Wayte Raymond toning, it doesn't matter that the coin was put in the album with intent of toning it - the results are consistent with normal storage methods and is perfectly natural. How can you determine the intent of the collector? You cannot. You can only observe the result and determine if it is consistent with normal processes.

 

An even further extension can be applied to the nonsense of "cabinet friction" and circulated coins receiving uncirculated grades. If there is wear on the high points, I have no idea if the coin circulated or spent a century in a velvet lined case. All I know is what the coin looks like today. If it has wear, or has toning, or has cleaning marks, I do not know the intent - and thus, in my opinion, it is irrelevant. All I can do is examine the coin, and decide if it is consistent with normal usage.

 

+1 Well said.......

 

+2

[coinman_23885]

So if two coins are hypothetically identical....

 

Basically, I propose that ANY thing done to a coin without nefarious purpose, but rather as a normal, expected possible action that occurs during a coin's intended service cycle, cannot detract from how "original" it is....

 

There is nothing at all sacred about the word "original". It is simply misused today by many folks as a way to proclaim how some coins are "better" than others according to their own definition. I would never want someone else's definition of "original" imposed on me.

 

I agree with Jason here insofar as it is often impossible to determine someone's intent, especially when the manipulations in question may have happened more than a century ago. The result is the most important.

 

I also don't understand what you mean by having someone else's definition imposed on you. No one is attempting to impose anything on anyone, and I would never suggest that wholly original coins are necessarily "better" than a slightly less original coin with superior eye appeal. As I stated before, there are coins that have splotchy dark toning that are likely original. In that case, I certainly would prefer a dipped and nicely retoned piece over the former. If a collector likes cleaned or AT coins, more power to him. He can collect whatever he wants and call them whatever he wants; however, just because he refers to his coins as original, does not make them necessarily so.

 

From the most basic standpoint, how can any normally circulating coin be called "original" if it ends up in a collection, which is not where normal coins were intended to be?

 

Because originality in this scenario refers to a coin that has not been tampered with or altered. It doesn't follow that because a coin was intended to be circulated, that uncirculated pieces have been tampered with from their initial state. Indeed, all coins start out uncirculated before they enter the channels of commerce. The purpose of the coin/intent to be circulated is irrelevant to me.

 

P.S. I apologize for my lack of a better hypothetical about "Bob" the imaginary mint employee. I just couldn't think of any other scenario where a coin would be cleaned abrasively at the mint.

[James_OldeTowne]

It is very easy and very common for a coin to have 20 points of wear (i.e., it grades EF), yet by rather white, yet not be manipulated in any nefarious way. So, why can't that coin be just as 100% original as the one that happened to get lucky and tone medium-grey? And why can't a coin that does get cleaned, but subsequently wears off 10 points and looks exactly like it never was cleaned also be 100% original? (All the above assume no nefarious processing of course.) And why can't a coin that picked up an innocent cleaning, not intended for any nefarious purposes, also not be considered "original" if it subsequently took on it's normal duties in circulation?

 

If a prior owner's "intent" cannot be ascertained under any circumstances (and I agree with that)... then I wonder how useful the word "original" really is with regard to collecting coins, and that's really the reason I'm taking a "devil's advocate" stance on this.

 

"Original" should mean: in identical condition as it was when it left the doors of the mint.

 

(And I guess that after all this discussion, that is my answer to the OP.)

 

But virtually not even a single coin in existence is going to be "original" in that case.

[coinman_23885]

And why can't a coin that does get cleaned, but subsequently wears off 10 points and looks exactly like it never was cleaned also be 100% original? (All the above assume no nefarious processing of course.)

 

While circulation can help reduce and obscure hairlines from cleaning, I have never seen or heard of a scenario where the initial cleaning is 100% undetectable (even among those who have attempted to produce artificial wear to lessen the hairlines). With this said, I trust your cataloging experience from Scottsman, and I take you word for it. With this said, the issue would become moot at that (very rare) point in time. Moreover, as I stated, I don't see this as a binary character trait.

 

If a prior owner's "intent" cannot be ascertained under any circumstances (and I agree with that)... then I wonder how useful the word "original" really is with regard to collecting coins, and that's really the reason I'm taking a "devil's advocate" stance on this.

 

"Original" should mean: in identical condition as it was when it left the doors of the mint....But virtually not even a single coin in existence is going to be "original" in that case.

 

I see a use for the term "original" and to me it is more than a binary label (i.e. this goes beyond being "wholly original" versus "wholly unoriginal"), but rather a concept describing a spectrum of states. The concept can and should be applied relative to other coins. Some coins are more original than others (and hence the reason that I would qualify such a description and elaborate beyond simply stating that a coin is "original.") As such, a coin that has had a minor dip early in its life and has since retoned nicely, may be more original than a recently dipped coin or one that has been dipped to death. In the strictest sense, I still wouldn't consider it absolutely 100% original. I think this would apply to significantly less than 1% of all coins.

[C.I.]

James post above makes a point. Original could be defined as how the coin left the mint. And he is also correct that virtually no coin would meet that criteria. I prefer Irv's (rrantique) post as original refering to the original aspects of the coin seen on page 2 of this post. A simplier term might be any coin "altered".

 

Altered being any method used to change originality or natural progression of the metal or coin.Toning may occur do to its position in the original mint bags. Most (including me) would agree that is original toning. But what about those envelopes or albums? While many would say that is just as natural, I would disagree. That type of storage is known to alter metal surfaces or accelerates the natural progression. Dipping to brighten up a dull surface coin is altering the coin natural progression of the surface metal.The list of possibilities is very long.

 

I would agree with many post that most older coins have been altered at some point in time. Add that with knowing it is almost impossible for graders to determine what is and what is not original (use whatever definition you want), the term "original" is quite diluted except for those very few coins where there is virtually no question on their originality. And that is why I prefer collecting GSA's (or any government original sealed packaging). And although they could be altered, most would agree their pedigree of originality sets them above the rest. Maybe instead of highlighting a coin being "details", the services should look at highlighting those coins which are certified (without question) as being "original".

 

Chet

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

I know that some folks can't stand the word because of the potential negative connotations... but I like the word "un-molested". To me, that best indicates what I consider the most desirable aspect of a coin that hasn't been messed with.

[JVC]

Excellent thread and great comments by all. I collect morgans and agree that most, but not all have been altered in some way. The GSA morgans being the exception.

 

I will not buy a coin that is believed to be original, but is unattractive because of excessive toning. I have never understood the grading services giving a coin a grade of 58 for a slight rub and then giving a MS grade to another coin with more hits and marks than you can count.

[Catbert]

I have never understood the grading services giving a coin a grade of 58 for a slight rub and then giving a MS grade to another coin with more hits and marks than you can count.

 

That's because there is a market grading factor for eye appeal in addition to technical grading. "That's just the way it is, baby."

[mintcollector]

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?

 

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

 

Great question, great thread!

 

I can do it in one word; NATURAL.

 

Disclaimer: To be fair, I do NOT like overtly 'toned' coins. It is only fair for me to state this, as I am sure certain dealers and collectors who know my collecting style are probably disagreeing with my one word assessment.

 

Respectfully yours,

 

'mint'

[JJSingleton]

Although I have not read the entire thread, what I have read is very interesting. I am not sure the OPs request to define originality in a single sentence does justice to the topic, although it certainly is an interesting exercise.

 

I have always believed originality has to be looked at on a continuum and is really just another one of many characteristics of a coin to be opined. In assessing originality one does not start at unoriginal on the continuum and then look for signs of originality, in fact it is just the opposite. One starts at original and then looks for signs that indicate a lack of originality.

 

So in an effort to comply with the OPs request, I would simply say that:

 

An original coin is one that has survived to date where the coin's surfaces are consistent with its use in either circulation or collector storage, and does not show any signs of damage or being tampered with.

 

OK, a pretty long sentence. Maybe not so simple.

[MarkFeld]

Although I have not read the entire thread, what I have read is very interesting. I am not sure the OPs request to define originality in a single sentence does justice to the topic, although it certainly is an interesting exercise.

 

I have always believed originality has to be looked at on a continuum and is really just another one of many characteristics of a coin to be opined. In assessing originality one does not start at unoriginal on the continuum and then look for signs of originality, in fact it is just the opposite. One starts at original and then looks for signs that indicate a lack of originality.

 

So in an effort to comply with the OPs request, I would simply say that:

 

An original coin is one that has survived to date where the coin's surfaces are consistent with its use in either circulation or collector storage, and does not show any signs of damage or being tampered with.

 

OK, a pretty long sentence. Maybe not so simple.

 

Nicely done John, and it's very good to see you post!

[physics-fan3.14]

An original coin is one that has survived to date where the coin's surfaces are consistent with its use in either circulation or collector storage, and does not show any signs of damage or being tampered with.

 

OK, a pretty long sentence. Maybe not so simple.

 

That sentence captures the essence of the issue succinctly, and I agree with it 100%.

[James_OldeTowne]

An original coin is one that has survived to date where the coin's surfaces are consistent with its use in either circulation or collector storage, and does not show any signs of damage or being tampered with.

 

OK, a pretty long sentence. Maybe not so simple.

That sentence captures the essence of the issue succinctly, and I agree with it 100%.

I have no argument against it either. I would still submit that during normal use in circulation, coins may become cleaned, hairlined and/or altered for non-numismatic and non-nefarious reasons, and therefore qualify as "original".

[JJSingleton]

An original coin is one that has survived to date where the coin's surfaces are consistent with its use in either circulation or collector storage, and does not show any signs of damage or being tampered with.

 

OK, a pretty long sentence. Maybe not so simple.

That sentence captures the essence of the issue succinctly, and I agree with it 100%.

I have no argument against it either. I would still submit that during normal use in circulation, coins may become cleaned, hairlined and/or altered for non-numismatic and non-nefarious reasons, and therefore qualify as "original".

James, you are correct and it is why my sentence is not so simple. In fact it is a cop out because the crux of the matter is defining "consistent". By using that in the sentence it entitles everyone to agree but what we are agreeing on is different in everyone's view of what is consistent.

[coinman_23885]

An original coin is one that has survived to date where the coin's surfaces are consistent with its use in either circulation or collector storage, and does not show any signs of damage or being tampered with.

 

OK, a pretty long sentence. Maybe not so simple.

 

That sentence captures the essence of the issue succinctly, and I agree with it 100%.

 

I agree, and I like it. He accurately summarized about 7 pages of material in 3 lines.