What constitutes an original coin?

[Afterword]

If a coin has been dipped, does loss of originality necessarily follow? Is there even a definitive definition of what constitutes an original coin?

[bstrauss3]

Yes. Dipping removes metal, hence no longer original.

[Afterword]

So a coin with a tiny nick or scratch is not original? Some loss of metal would occur.

[MarkFeld]

A coin that hasn't been messed with

 

And yes, dipping (regardless of how widely it is done and/or accepted) is messing with a coin and results in loss of originality.

[Afterword]

A coin that hasn't been messed with

 

And yes, dipping (regardless of how widely it is done and/or accepted) is messing with a coin and results in loss of originality.

 

 

 

 

Right, I do not see a need to get into what constitutes "messing with" again.

 

I am interested in an authoritative proclamation of what constitutes a coin's originality. Does ANA or PNG define what an original coin is for a collector?

[RWB]

It is mostly visual interpretation.

 

BTW - very few collectors or dealers have seen 19th and 20th century circulation coins as they came from the mint. This means that modern understandings of "original" are likely distorted by changes over time.

[johnny9434]

A coin that hasn't been messed with

 

And yes, dipping (regardless of how widely it is done and/or accepted) is messing with a coin and results in loss of originality.

amen to that

[Afterword]

It is mostly visual interpretation.

 

BTW - very few collectors or dealers have seen 19th and 20th century circulation coins as they came from the mint. This means that modern understandings of "original" are likely distorted by changes over time.

 

 

 

 

 

Or no authoritative understanding of what constitutes an original coin - just subjective opinion.

[MarkFeld]

It is mostly visual interpretation.

 

BTW - very few collectors or dealers have seen 19th and 20th century circulation coins as they came from the mint. This means that modern understandings of "original" are likely distorted by changes over time.

 

 

 

 

 

Or no authoritative understanding of what constitutes an original coin - just subjective opinion.

 

From the PCGS website (as I did not see a definition on the NGC site):

 

 

"original

A term used to describe a coin that never has been dipped or cleaned, or a coin struck from original dies in the year whose date it bears."

 

I think we could/should add to that, something along the lines of "or had any subtances added to and/or anything done to the surfaces" and refine further, from there.

[Afterword]

It is mostly visual interpretation.

 

BTW - very few collectors or dealers have seen 19th and 20th century circulation coins as they came from the mint. This means that modern understandings of "original" are likely distorted by changes over time.

 

 

 

 

 

Or no authoritative understanding of what constitutes an original coin - just subjective opinion.

 

From the PCGS website (as I did not see a definition on the NGC site):

 

 

"original

A term used to describe a coin that never has been dipped or cleaned, or a coin struck from original dies in the year whose date it bears."

 

I think we could/should add to that, something along the lines of "or had any subtances added to and/or anything done to the surfaces" and refine further, from there.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, as detailed as possible and from the top numeristic authority, beyond the TPGs. Nothing like this exist?

[MarkFeld]

It is mostly visual interpretation.

 

BTW - very few collectors or dealers have seen 19th and 20th century circulation coins as they came from the mint. This means that modern understandings of "original" are likely distorted by changes over time.

 

 

 

 

 

Or no authoritative understanding of what constitutes an original coin - just subjective opinion.

 

From the PCGS website (as I did not see a definition on the NGC site):

 

 

"original

A term used to describe a coin that never has been dipped or cleaned, or a coin struck from original dies in the year whose date it bears."

 

I think we could/should add to that, something along the lines of "or had any subtances added to and/or anything done to the surfaces" and refine further, from there.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, as detailed as possible and from the top numeristic authority, beyond the TPGs. Nothing like this exist?

 

Personally, I think the simpler, the better - something like the aforementioned "un-messed with" or "un-tampered with".

 

I am not aware of an authorative definition.

 

 

[Raisethis2]

Original to my way of thinking means "as minted". Now I understand that chatter and hits can occur to an original coin and to me that's acceptable but cigarette smoke, fingerprints, dipping etc. are original coin killers. Toning on an original coin is by definition tarnish but occurs naturally so it's an acceptable alteration to an original coin.

[MarkFeld]

Original to my way of thinking means "as minted". Now I understand that chatter and hits can occur to an original coin and to me that's acceptable but cigarette smoke, fingerprints, dipping etc. are original coin killers. Toning on an original coin is by definition tarnish but occurs naturally so it's an acceptable alteration to an original coin.

 

In the case of coins produced for circulation, fingerprints would naturally, as well. So why would toning be acceptable, but not fingerprints?

[Afterword]

I do not think any coin maintains its original status for long. The environment starts to work on it as soon as it is created.

 

To me, it is only original in the sense that it was minted with the proper authority and is not counterfeit.

[Raisethis2]

I've seen some great coins with very lofty grades with fingerprints just as big as a sewer cap. After some years they tend to show up. yuck.

[TonerGuy]

 

In the case of coins produced for circulation, fingerprints would naturally, as well. So why would toning be acceptable, but not fingerprints?

 

So toning AND fingerprints mean extremely original --

 

Would these fingerprints on an MS67 be acceptable to you ?

 

I love the coin but hate the fingerprints... if it didnt have the fingerprints this one would have already been sold... DAMN !

 

[Curry]

I'm going to answer this maybe in the best of abilities. The term original means present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest. Wouldn't that mean a coin be fresh from the mint without touch from human or air to react to? Wouldn't that mean a coin is only "original" for a few seconds since the air around it will work on it as soon as it's minted?

[Walkerfan]

Undipped, unabraded, no wear and no fingerprints. Toning is OK and expected to a degree depending upon storage.

[realone]

Typically when an original coin is established the collector will pay more for said coin, and rightly so. No price guide takes that into account unfortunately. But astute collectors know when they see it and in the end that is all that counts. No platinum sticker yet for truly original coins probably because there is no way to guarantee a coin is truly original but it shouldn't stop one from trying to obtain such an example.http://boards.collectors-society.com/images/icons/default/exclamation.gif

[MarkFeld]

Undipped, unabraded, no wear and no fingerprints. Toning is OK and expected to a degree depending upon storage.

 

As is commonly used, the term "original" applies to both uncirculated and circulated coins.

[MarkFeld]

 

In the case of coins produced for circulation, fingerprints would naturally, as well. So why would toning be acceptable, but not fingerprints?

 

So toning AND fingerprints mean extremely original --

 

Would these fingerprints on an MS67 be acceptable to you ?

 

I love the coin but hate the fingerprints... if it didnt have the fingerprints this one would have already been sold... DAMN !

 

 

You're changing the subject. Whether fingerprints are acceptable on that MS 67 coin is a question which pertains to grading, not originality.

[physics-fan3.14]

There is no definitive definition from any authority, that I am aware of.

[Catbert]

While the quest to definitively define the term "original" is admirable, I don't find the debate to be very illuminating since I don't believe one can comprehensively define the term. I simply try to find and own "original looking" coins and don't claim that I'll always be successful.

[Walkerfan]

Undipped, unabraded, no wear and no fingerprints. Toning is OK and expected to a degree depending upon storage.

 

As is commonly used, the term "original" applies to both uncirculated and circulated coins.

 

That's true. I am so used to MS coins that I forgot.

[jpcienkus]

Undipped, unabraded, no wear and no fingerprints. Toning is OK and expected to a degree depending upon storage.

 

As is commonly used, the term "original" applies to both uncirculated and circulated coins.

 

That's true. I am so used to MS coins that I forgot.

 

Shame on you. You need to send me one of your MS Walkers as a penalty for making that mistake. Your choice of coin!

[RWB]

If collectors will send me all their gold and silver coins, I will examine them and return only the totally, 100% original -- in my opinion. This will be a slow process, so do not hold your breath ---.

 

I'll keep the nasty, unoriginal coins so collectors will not be bothered or offended by them any longer.

[TonerGuy]

 

You're changing the subject. Whether fingerprints are acceptable on that MS 67 coin is a question which pertains to grading, not originality.

 

Not really. You made the point that fingerprints are as original as toning - some would argue that toning and an MS67 grade are diametrically opposed. However, your most recent comment would insinuate that you might believe that fingerprints should effect grading.

 

So if you think toning and fingerprints are indicators of originality thus neither should effect grade.

 

It seems as though NGC agrees with this postulate. So my point doesnt really change the subject. It merely puts originality into context.

 

The above coin is original to you. Therefore in your opinion should fingerprints effect grade ?

[MarkFeld]

 

You're changing the subject. Whether fingerprints are acceptable on that MS 67 coin is a question which pertains to grading, not originality.

 

Not really. You made the point that fingerprints are as original as toning - some would argue that toning and an MS67 grade are diametrically opposed. However, your most recent comment would insinuate that you might believe that fingerprints should effect grading.

 

So if you think toning and fingerprints are indicators of originality thus neither should effect grade.

 

It seems as though NGC agrees with this postulate. So my point doesnt really change the subject. It merely puts originality into context.

 

The above coin is original to you. Therefore in your opinion should fingerprints effect grade ?

 

I disagree that indicators of originality (whether prints or toning) shouldn't have an effect on grade. Dark, ugly, wholly original looking toning can negatively impact a coin's grade, due to the eye-appeal component of grading. Ditto for large, unsightly prints.

[RWB]

"Ditto for large, unsightly prints."

 

Yep. Saw a tourist in DC last weekend wearing some. From a distance, I thought it was two small boys fighting....

[jpcienkus]

"Ditto for large, unsightly prints."

 

Yep. Saw a tourist in DC last weekend wearing some. From a distance, I thought it was two small boys fighting....

 

Now that's funny. Very good Roger! Bravo! Bravo!