• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Original Skin

65 posts in this topic

This term is bandied about in just about all Auction Descriptions. From my experience some of these descriptions are way off base.

 

What is your description of "Original Skin"?

 

NGC gives the definition as: Copper spots and streaks imply that a coin still has its "original skin," a term that is used widely within the coin business to describe pieces that have not been improperly cleaned and are thus natural in appearance. Typically, gold coins having original skin will show a fine layer of gentle haze in addition to whatever spotting is present. It may be that originality is an acquired taste that does not come quickly to the novice, but it is something that every buyer of gold coins should strive to understand and appreciate.

 

PCGS states this as the definition: PCGS - 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. PCGS did not list a definition for "Original Skin".

 

 

For me it is difficult to define. It's more like I know it when I see it. I agree with both NGC and PCGS as defined above.

 

 

I feel these two are the closest to "Original Skin" that I own or have owned:

 

 

1921PEACEDOLLAROBVA.jpg

 

Heritage_1853_Arrows_Qtr_ComboA.jpg

 

 

 

Please give your definition and examples here if you like. :)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, while I believe that an obviously circulated coin can accurately be described as "original", I don't think such a coin still has/retains its "original skin".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with Mark. When viewed objectively, it is extremely hard to believe that any coin that is 162 years old has never been altered in any manner at all.

 

I am not saying "never", I am just simply stating that the odds are that it has been altered, even to the slightest degree.

 

I will add, in all fairness, that the coins you presented have that "original look". But all original ... doubtful.

 

Not trying to disparage your coins at all. I like them, the quarter dollar the most out of the two.

 

 

I wanted to add one other small detail about what is original and what is not. You take for example, any coin that comes into this house is put into acetone to kill, or at least reduce, the amount of contaminants and germs on the coins. Currency, whether it is paper or coin, contains some of the most extreme collections of bacteria. Just think how many hands have touched the coin and where those hands have been? :eek:

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weren't all coins when they just left the US mint bright and shiny? So "original" would be at that time. Coins all will tone out in time due to manifold factors, handling, dirt, dust, infinitesimal layers of toning of various types.

 

Plus there are types of conservation, toning, etc. which do not strip away the original metal surface. There are gems that need to be cut to be worth anything or improve them like circumcision. But you can't put the genie back in the bottle as they say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading these responses it seems that there are two definitions of "original skin." One for circulated coins which acquire toning over a period of years, a good part of it after they were withdrawn from circulation, one for Mint State and Proof coins. Mint State and Proof pieces might have no toning at all, which most cases other than Morgan and Peace silver dollars, is unusual.

 

Here are a couple of Mint State pieces that I believe have never been dipped or cleaned since they were minted, but they have toned.

 

This 1860-O half dollar is a PCGS MS-64, CAC graded coin. I think that it is very high end for the grade. I have not able to capture exactly how it looks in photo so here are couple of differnet views with different light sources.

 

1860-OhalfdollarO.jpg1860-OhalfdollarR.jpg

 

These photos are a bit "juiced" to bring up more of the color when one views this piece in person.

 

1860-OhalfdollarO2.jpg1860-OhalfdollarR2.jpg

 

This 1876 Twenty Cent Piece is totally original so far as I'm concerned. If all of my double dimes were a nice as this piece, I would be a very happy collector, but they aren't.. This is a PCGS MS-65.

 

187620CtMSO_zpse0838d7c.jpg187620CtMSR_zpsd7ff6a27.jpg

 

This 1795 eagle is an example of a circulated piece of early gold. It got enough minor circulation marks to take down to PCGS AU-53, but I don't think it has ever been cleaned or enhanced.

 

1795EagleOB.jpg1795EagleRB.jpg

 

And here is an example of coin that was dipped and re-toned, which some people might claim is original. The 1837 Reeded Edge half dollar isn't original, but I liked the look and bought it. This has been graded by NGC as an MS-64. I have owned for three years, and it hasn't changed so I think it is stable.

 

183750centsO.jpg183750centsR.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to think of original skin as being the surface of the coin in its current state so long as it's not been altered mechanically or chemically, save for natural wear. Not everyone's definition but it works for me. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Here are a couple of Mint State pieces that I believe have never been dipped or cleaned since they were minted, but they have toned.

 

 

As always some very nice coins Bill. I have to wonder why you think they have never been cleaned (cleaned to include with soap and water).

 

Starting in this country in or about 1687 we had an outbreak of Measles, a few years later Yellow Fever. I could go on and on and continue to list throughout our history all the plagues that we have encountered and I have even read on numerous occasions that people were cognisant (even back then) of the germs and filth that came with money changing hands and would routinely clean money before handling it very much due to Yellow Fever and other diseases that have killed millions throughout the times we are speaking of.

 

I will also note that when Pratt designed the incused Indian Head design, one of the main opposition arguments about it was that the design would increase the amount of germs and spread diseases. May have been wrong in that is was no more of a carrier than the normal relief designed coins, but none the less it is something people have been aware of for centuries.

 

Most of those coins you presented above were during the period of the Bubonic Plague and Yellow Fever epidemics.

 

Am I wrong in thinking that possibly folks back in that time, who were extremely fearful of catching the "fever" would not have done as historians have mentioned, and cleaned any money they came into contact with?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great coins Bill Jones!

 

Can you explain something for me. You said the 1837 CBH was dipped and has re-toned. How can you tell when looking at the photo? I think the coin is beautiful and would like to improve my knowledge so that's why I'm asking.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The assumption that every coin has been cleaned in some way shape or form to me is a bit of a small view of things when there were millions upon millions of coins minted and they found there way into every nook and cranny in this country and other countries. There was a trio of Busties that sat in a bank vault for 150 years that Mike King obtained for a time and were posted here a few years ago that had never been tampered with. Just because a coin is still here today does not mean it sat in a collectors collection and was "cared for" all these years. Yes there are fewer coins that have not been touched than have been. But sheer volume dictates that there are survivors and will always be. And truly original examples that have not been in the caring hands of collectors will not necessarily be attractive to many.

 

I submit to you that these have never been cleaned in any sort of way

 

1827 O-131

1827O-131AU50.jpg

1827O-131AU50r.jpg

 

1795 O-116

1795O-116F15.jpg

1795O-116F15r.jpg

 

1813 O-107

1813O-107AU50.jpg

1813O-107AU50r.jpg

 

Just a sampling. I have many others that I would also use as examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I submit to you that these have never been cleaned in any sort of way

 

While you might be correct, I submit to you that you have no way of knowing, one way or another. And because of that, I prefer to use language such as "These coins appear not to have been cleaned".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

 

I agree all are great coins. Even though the 1837 has been dipped and has re-toned, I find this to be an attractive coin. I will often choose a dipped coin over an original skin coin that is not so appealing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of those coins you presented above were during the period of the Bubonic Plague and Yellow Fever epidemics.

 

Am I wrong in thinking that possibly folks back in that time, who were extremely fearful of catching the "fever" would not have done as historians have mentioned, and cleaned any money they came into contact with?

 

The knowledge that germs cause diseases is a relatively new concept. Diseases were once thought to be caused by imbalance of "the four humors in the body." (Don't ask me what they were. When I read it I decided not to clutter my mind with such useless information.) If those factors got out of balance, people got sick. It was one of the reasons why doctors thought that bleeding a patient was a way to cure him.

 

During the yellow fever epidemics in Philadelphia during the 1790s and early 1800s, one of the ways to prevent the spread of the contagion was to pull a small cannon up and down the streets and fire it intermittently. This was according to an article I read years ago by Dr. Warren Lapp, a medical doctor, who was one of the founders of the Early American Coppers Club.

 

People could not understand and cleaning and sanitation prevented disease. During the Civil War military leaders placed a low priority on cleanliness until organizations like the American Sanitary Commission provided practical evidence to the contrary. Still during the Civil War a soldier stood an equal or better chance of dying in camp than he did on the battlefield.

 

Another factor in the old coins carry disease theory is that virtually disease germs and viruses die within a couple of hours of being exposed to light and air.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The knowledge that germs cause diseases is a relatively new concept.

 

I was not aware that one would ever seriously consider the year 1340 as "relatively new". Apparently even then people had their suspicions that touching an intangible object that had contact with the dead could in itself transfer the disease.

 

The Black Death was terrifyingly, indiscriminately contagious: “the mere touching of the clothes,” wrote Boccaccio, “appeared to itself to communicate the malady to the toucher.”

 

He might not have known to call it a germ at that time but he sure did understand the consequences and transmittal of a disease. They also understood to burn the hell out of the clothing and ships that carried those afflicted.

 

I would not consider the year 1788 as being "relatively new' either. However that is when Edward Jenner was working on the world's first vaccine which was used to treat smallpox.

 

Diseases were once thought to be caused by imbalance of "the four humors in the body."

 

Yes, and there are still "quacks" in existence even today in the year 2015.

 

I would imagine you could find someone pulling a small cannon down the street today in hopes of eradicating AIDS or finding a cure for cancer. ;)

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion those definitions are absolutely ridiculous! If you want to say a coin has not been tampered with besides "exposure to elements", then say that BUT original...is just THAT! Original, as produced by the United States Mint, without tarnish, spots, dirt, grime, slime or whatever else. How can a coin be original if some of the luster ORIGINALLY FROM THE UNITED STATES MINT has possibly been eaten away by tarnish? How is that possible?

 

Why some people want to impose their own creativity on the Dictionary Definitions is way beyond me.

 

ORIGINAL (as it pertains to an object that is created):

belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning (NOT 200 YEARS LATER WITH LOTS OF FREAKING TARNISH PEOPLE):

 

new; fresh; inventive; novel:

(NOT 200 YEARS LATER WITH LOTS OF FREAKING TARNISH PEOPLE)

 

created, undertaken, or presented for the first time:

(NOT 200 YEARS LATER WITH LOTS OF FREAKING TARNISH PEOPLE)

 

an original work, writing, or the like, as opposed to any copy or imitation:

(NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN MODIFIED BY 200 YEARS OF FREAKING TARNISH PEOPLE)

 

:mad::blahblah::o(tsk):censored::makepoint:(shrug):news:doh!:frustrated::screwy::pullhair:???:facepalm:rantrant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The phrase can mean different things in different places.

 

In auction descriptions, the term is sometimes used to make a horribly ugly, nearly terminally-toned treasure a little more marketable.

 

To me, the important aspect is preservation of original surface texture and flowlines. I'm sure there are some perfectly white, very old silver coins that have been carefully protected and therefore have never corroded (toned). These are the very definition of "original skin" - the original surfaces are still "as minted."

 

To a chemist or engineer, even a little toning equates to chemical degradation of the coin's surfaces. It couldn't possibly be original if corroded. Rusty cars aren't offered for sale as original...... From a hobbyist perspective, most of us would use the term to describe a coin that is plausibly un-altered, un-boinked, un-doctored, un-dipped, un-improved, or un-cleaned. On average, 100 year-old coins are supposed to look 100 years old, depending on more variables than can possibly be accounted for (humidity, local chemical environment, temperature, handling, adjacent album materials, envelopes, bags, planchet impurities, surface contamination, oils, strain hardening, micro-crystalline structure of the metal, previous dips, camel hair brushing, rose thorn treatments, etc) . In some series coins that are plausibly unaltered are hard to find.

 

It's like the eternal AT/NT debate. "Acceptable" and "unacceptable" looks exist and a whole lot of grey area in the middle (maybe even 50 shades). There is no universal consensus on what exactly constitutes an "original" look, though 9 out of 10 dentists surveyed once did agree on something.

 

I know what I think it looks like, at least in one series. Show me a coin and I'll give you my opinion. Other opinions will be different. More than a few of them will be better informed than my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for "Original Skin," that can only mean Original Mint Luster, as produced by the United States Mint. My opinion of course...and what also seems to be in line with an English Dictionary. ;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we are on a US Coin forum, I assumed we were using an English dictionary as opposed to any other dictionary...such as Spanish. I know, assuming things is bad but I did it anyway. I think corporations that employ marketing professionals create their own mumbo-jumbo dictionary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The knowledge that germs cause diseases is a relatively new concept.

 

"I was not aware that one would ever seriously consider the year 1340 as "relatively new". Apparently even then people had their suspicions that touching an inanimate object that had contact with the dead could in itself transfer the disease."

 

Please elaborate on your reference to the year 1340 vis a vis "germs". I tried to find a reference to germ theory dating to 1340 and found nothing. I did find references much later but not 1340.

 

Jenner's cow pox experiments/observations took place in 1796 and results were published in 1798. The year 1788 was actually the date of a small pox outbreak in Gloucestershire, England that prompted Jenner to observe that people infected with Cow Pox did not become infected with Small Pox.

 

In the interest of factual replies, I can cite several sources.

 

Carl

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pero estamos definiendo original utilizando el diccionario español por lo que está muy lejos.

 

 

 

 

"We are defining original using Spanish dictionary therefore it is very far away." Very easy translation. Don't get your point.

 

Let's get back to commentary on the OP's post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please elaborate on your reference to the year 1340 vis a vis "germs". I tried to find a reference to germ theory dating to 1340 and found nothing. I did find references much later but not 1340.

 

Try The History Channel: Black Death website Carl. There have been many documentaries that I have not only read about but watched on the History Channel.

 

It speaks of what Bill was saying as well, however I was only stating that there were some people that are documented to have known that a disease could be transferred via intangible objects. So not everyone was 'bloodletting' to cure the evil curse of the Gods.

 

This section elaborates:

 

“THE BLACK DEATH”

Even before the “death ships” pulled into port at Messina, many Europeans had heard rumors about a “Great Pestilence” that was carving a deadly path across the trade routes of the Near and Far East. (Early in the 1340s, the disease had struck China, India, Persia, Syria and Egypt.) However, they were scarcely equipped for the horrible reality of the Black Death. “In men and women alike,” the Italian poet Giovanni Boccaccio wrote, “at the beginning of the malady, certain swellings, either on the groin or under the armpits…waxed to the bigness of a common apple, others to the size of an egg, some more and some less, and these the vulgar named plague-boils.” Blood and pus seeped out of these strange swellings, which were followed by a host of other unpleasant symptoms–fever, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, terrible aches and pains–and then, in short order, death. The Black Death was terrifyingly, indiscriminately contagious: “the mere touching of the clothes,” wrote Boccaccio, “appeared to itself to communicate the malady to the toucher.” The disease was also terrifyingly efficient. People who were perfectly healthy when they went to bed at night could be dead by morning.

 

Interesting stuff but I may have unintentionally placed too much focus on how nasty money is and strayed from the OP's original intent. I will discontinue my attempted foray into epidemiology and the association with coins by simply stating this:

 

If they were of the state of mind that simply touching a victim's clothes could transfer the disease, then I am quite certain that anyone who was brave enough to take the money from the dead man's pockets - cleaned it as quick as possible.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please elaborate on your reference to the year 1340 vis a vis "germs". I tried to find a reference to germ theory dating to 1340 and found nothing. I did find references much later but not 1340.

 

Try The History Channel: Black Death website Carl. There have been many documentaries that I have not only read about but watched on the History Channel.

 

It speaks of what Bill was saying as well, however I was only stating that there were some people that are documented to have known that a disease could be transferred via intangible objects. So not everyone was 'bloodletting' to cure the evil curse of the Gods.

 

This section elaborates:

 

“THE BLACK DEATH”

Even before the “death ships” pulled into port at Messina, many Europeans had heard rumors about a “Great Pestilence” that was carving a deadly path across the trade routes of the Near and Far East. (Early in the 1340s, the disease had struck China, India, Persia, Syria and Egypt.) However, they were scarcely equipped for the horrible reality of the Black Death. “In men and women alike,” the Italian poet Giovanni Boccaccio wrote, “at the beginning of the malady, certain swellings, either on the groin or under the armpits…waxed to the bigness of a common apple, others to the size of an egg, some more and some less, and these the vulgar named plague-boils.” Blood and pus seeped out of these strange swellings, which were followed by a host of other unpleasant symptoms–fever, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, terrible aches and pains–and then, in short order, death. The Black Death was terrifyingly, indiscriminately contagious: “the mere touching of the clothes,” wrote Boccaccio, “appeared to itself to communicate the malady to the toucher.” The disease was also terrifyingly efficient. People who were perfectly healthy when they went to bed at night could be dead by morning.

 

Interesting stuff but I may have unintentionally placed too much focus on how nasty money is and strayed from the OP's original intent. I will discontinue my attempted foray into epidemiology and the association with coins by simply stating this:

 

If they were of the state of mind that simply touching a victim's clothes could transfer the disease, then I am quite certain that anyone who was brave enough to take the money from the dead man's pockets - cleaned it as quick as possible.

 

 

 

 

Nice citation, however, germ theory was not postulated as early as 1340. There may have been reports of disease but that is not the same as attributing disease to germs (bacteria) And I do not see any response regarding Jenner. Earliest germ theory was postulated in the 1500's. The reference to inanimate objects as a causation for disease is clearly wrong. Interesting how you conjecture with citations on the behavior of people faced with an unknown disease vector.

 

Now let's get back to the OP's post.

 

Carl

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great coins Bill Jones!

 

Can you explain something for me. You said the 1837 CBH was dipped and has re-toned. How can you tell when looking at the photo? I think the coin is beautiful and would like to improve my knowledge so that's why I'm asking.

 

Thanks.

 

183750centsO.jpg183750centsR.jpg

 

I based my opinion about this piece upon many years of personal observation. When I was a younger collector I bought a number of white, dipped silver coins. Those purchases were not "off the wall" in the 1960s and '70s because white coins were "in" and toned coins were either "out" or something that was collected by those "who listened to a different drummer." A number of these coins re-toned over time. More often than not the toning was not attractive. Sometimes the re-toning kept going until it ruined the coin. I have never held a coin until it reached that state, but I have seen examples of it. The cause stemmed from the fact that the dipping solution was not properly rinsed and neutralized from the coin's surfaces.

 

This 1837 half dollar reflects that general look to me. The toning seems to lie on the surface of the coin, not IN the coin as it does on the 1860-O half dollar and the 1876 Twenty Cent Piece that I posted earlier. This sort of toning that appears to lie on the surface is also a sign of AT, but I don't think that was case with this coin. It simply toned to its present state after being dipped, with perhaps a push from so long term storage in a coin envelope.

 

What I have written does contain a bit of conjecture, I will admit, but it's a reflection of what I've seen in the past. I bought this piece because I thought that it was attractive, and the price was very fair. It's as simple as that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Original Skin probably should be used for a coin with an outer surface that looks like it did when the coin first went into circulation. Anything else seems like a marketing term contrived to make a toned/rusted coin seem factory new.

 

Consider if I buy an original skin Flying eagle penny, I want one that looks like what General Grant would have gotten brand new in circulation.

 

Now if I want to sell that pretty sharp Indian head I have with them cool blues showing on it I can use all kinds of "extreme rainbow toner" adjective strings on fleabay. Calling it original seems to imply that is how it looked new.

 

I do cars and furniture. There are plenty of sleezy sellers in both worlds. (There are guys in malls in St Louis selling used mattresses in bags!)

 

You all have some amazing coins and an equally amazing knowledge of their histories and production processes. Just keep the terms simple and honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites