Original Skin

[BillJones]

I fear that those of you have taken the purist point of view concerning the term "original skin" are going end up with a bunch of dipped coins if you are going to buy the pieces that "looked the same to General Grant as they do to us." The simple fact of the matter is that silver and copper tarnish and gold gets a seasoned look to it because of the copper that is in the coin alloy. About the only older silver coins that have an "original skin" by the "General Grant" definition are Morgan and Peace dollars that were stored in bags safe from the light and the elements for many years.

 

Perhaps, "original skin, toned" will please you. Otherwise every coin that has not been messed with will need to have a paragraph written about to explain its state of preservation. Advanced collectors and expert dealers, who have a good eye, know what we mean. I think the others should get on board and stop splitting hairs.

 

[jpcienkus]

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.

 

 

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.

 

Thanks for your thoughts Bill. I've read the term "dipped and re-toned" many times. I'm not 100% convinced I know what to look for and I want to understand it better. You've helped shed some light on this for me. I appreciate it.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I fear that those of you have taken the purist point of view concerning the term "original skin" are going end up with a bunch of dipped coins if you are going to buy the pieces that "looked the same to General Grant as they do to us." The simple fact of the matter is that silver and copper tarnish and gold gets a seasoned look to it because of the copper that is in the coin alloy. About the only older silver coins that have an "original skin" by the "General Grant" definition are Morgan and Peace dollars that were stored in bags safe from the light and the elements for many years.

 

Perhaps, "original skin, toned" will please you. Otherwise every coin that has not been messed with will need to have a paragraph written about to explain its state of preservation. Advanced collectors and expert dealers, who have a good eye, know what we mean. I think the others should get on board and stop splitting hairs.

 

We are close to being in agreement even if we are coming from different point of views. If I have a near impossible time finding a like it originally looked Flying eagle so be it. I don't need a term invented to drive uo the value of a tarnished/toned coin.

 

Also if you want to sell me a coin worth $500 typing up a paragraph (like I am doing on the cell, not even a real keyboard) is not that much trouble. If you want to sell a 68 Mustang for top dollar it just is going to take some typing on Craig'sBay. A $1,000 92 Accord you can get away with "runs, clean title".

 

Why must we call a coin which does not look original, original? MS64 already exists. If the grading service would be kind enough to add a few sentences or words describing anything over a certain value that would be kind of them. This original thing just sounds like a marketing ploy to fool us newbies.

 

Consider this two ridiculous ads:

 

Hey, I have a 98 MarkVIII original skin which has started every time I tried it this year for sale for just $40,000. Original skin all around. ORIGINAL SKIN folks. Just like Jerome Bettis could have bought in 1998! This is the FACTORY ORIGINAL pain. FACTORY ORIGINAL SKIN chrome left on the wheels with some valuable patina growing on em. ORIGINAL COW SKIN leather seats. $40,000 PM me if interested.

 

And if this sells I have an ORIGINAL SKIN 97 Aurora I just drove yesterday right next to it for sale for the same amount.

 

Neither one lies at all. Just you would probably want to slap me when you showed up.

[BillJones]

Why must we call a coin which does not look original, original? MS64 already exists. If the grading service would be kind enough to add a few sentences or words describing anything over a certain value that would be kind of them. This original thing just sounds like a marketing ploy to fool us newbies.

 

I believe that there is string here that discussed the amount of time that third party graders spend on assigning a grade to coin. It seems that some believe that 15 seconds a side is sufficient. It won't be for me, but that's me. I'm slow, and I would not fit in as grader anyway.

 

At any rate after the coin reaches a certain value the cost of grading it goes up to $125 (or at least it did for years ago) now matter how long you are prepared to wait for it to be done. All you get when it comes back is the usual date, mint mark (if any), grade and maybe a variety number if you requested and paid for it. If you had to have one of those write-ups in addition to that, I'm sure you would be paying a lot more.

 

SEGS holders sometimes have some of those comments, and if you own the coin, you might wish they weren't there. I can't remember the exact wording, but years ago a dealer I knew, with whom I did a lot of business, had SEGS holder that read something like, "cleaned, planchet defect, re-toned." "I'm going to have good time selling that one," he commented. I think that's why PCGS used those mysterious numbers for problem coins when they started putting them on holders. A number looked less offensive than, "This coin sucks."

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

I fear that those of you have taken the purist point of view concerning the term "original skin" are going end up with a bunch of dipped coins if you are going to buy the pieces that "looked the same to General Grant as they do to us." The simple fact of the matter is that silver and copper tarnish and gold gets a seasoned look to it because of the copper that is in the coin alloy. About the only older silver coins that have an "original skin" by the "General Grant" definition are Morgan and Peace dollars that were stored in bags safe from the light and the elements for many years.

 

Perhaps, "original skin, toned" will please you. Otherwise every coin that has not been messed with will need to have a paragraph written about to explain its state of preservation. Advanced collectors and expert dealers, who have a good eye, know what we mean. I think the others should get on board and stop splitting hairs.

 

I agree with you. I don't think there is any doubt that coins in their original mint cellophane have not been cleaned, dipped, altered, etc. However, there are countless examples of silver coins in mint cellophane that have lost their luster, copper coins that have lost some redness, etc. Are we not to consider these coins as "original"?

[KeyMan64]

I fear that those of you have taken the purist point of view concerning the term "original skin" are going end up with a bunch of dipped coins if you are going to buy the pieces that "looked the same to General Grant as they do to us." The simple fact of the matter is that silver and copper tarnish and gold gets a seasoned look to it because of the copper that is in the coin alloy. About the only older silver coins that have an "original skin" by the "General Grant" definition are Morgan and Peace dollars that were stored in bags safe from the light and the elements for many years.

 

Perhaps, "original skin, toned" will please you. Otherwise every coin that has not been messed with will need to have a paragraph written about to explain its state of preservation. Advanced collectors and expert dealers, who have a good eye, know what we mean. I think the others should get on board and stop splitting hairs.

I must respectfully disagree. It is not a purist point of view in my opinion. It is the simple use of the English dictionary. I have been collecting for enough decades to know what is meant by those that use the term "Original Skin" and how they have been brain washed by the marketing departments of corporations, authors, auction houses etc into believing that the word "Original" now means the exact opposite. It makes no sense to obliterate the definition of words.

 

As for what I buy and have bought, many Mercury Dimes come white and that is well known by yourself and others that have been collecting even longer. There is no need to worry about what I may or may not buy since I am not one to believe any flowery sales/marketing descriptions since I only rely on photos/in-hand examinations. I never said ANYTHING about only buying or being a fan of blast white/dipped coins. I do not buy or deal in dipped out coins with impaired surfaces. I do know that a certain TPG ruined a very expensive Morgan Dollar by over-dipping/processing/stripping a coin of toning which in turn also destroyed the surface which had contained luster. That's not something I would ever risk doing.

 

No one was questioning that metals exposed to different elements will change. I don't understand why that is a part of your response.

 

"Original skin, toned" would not please me. Please refer to the dictionary for a definition of the word original. I tried to help above. Pleasing me would involve NOT using the word Original and not giving in to the crazy flowery language of marketers that are trying to brain wash people.

 

"Otherwise every coin that has not been messed with will need to have a paragraph written about to explain its state of preservation." I disagree, please see my very first two word suggestion below.

 

"Advanced collectors and expert dealers, who have a good eye, know what we mean." Yes, even those of us that know how to use a dictionary know what you mean, even if your word choice is misplaced.

 

"I think the others should get on board and stop splitting hairs." I think people should get on board with this new thing called the dictionary or am I so totally insane with this line of thinking?

 

How about a proposal of acceptable terms that do not involve redefining words:

 

Naturally Toned - I bet even the advanced collectors, expert dealers AND NEWBIES would know what is meant by this.

Rainbow Toned

Textile/Bag Toned

Target Toned

Lightly Naturally Toned

Dark Naturally Toned

Artificially Toned

Untoned White (silver coins)

Gray (circulated silver)

Mostly Gray with some protected luster (EF45-AU)

...there are millions of options that do not involve lying to people and do not require paragraphs of information to support said lies...

 

Feel free to let your "creativity and dictionary," used together, be your guide.

 

Bill, you are a brilliant numismatist, no one is questioning that, not even myself. You deserve a ton of respect! That being said, trying to re-write the dictionary should not be the job of any numismatist.

[KeyMan64]

I agree with you. I don't think there is any doubt that coins in their original mint cellophane have not been cleaned, dipped, altered, etc. However, there are countless examples of silver coins in mint cellophane that have lost their luster, copper coins that have lost some redness, etc. Are we not to consider these coins as "original"?

No, they should NOT be considered ORIGINAL. They are TONED! I wish everyone would stop obliterating the English Language by taking the very first baby step and STOP using the word ORIGINAL. There are so many other words in the English Language that will meet our needs. Please, let's start using them.

 

...please make suggestions but please leave out the word Original.

 

[MarkFeld]

I agree with you. I don't think there is any doubt that coins in their original mint cellophane have not been cleaned, dipped, altered, etc. However, there are countless examples of silver coins in mint cellophane that have lost their luster, copper coins that have lost some redness, etc. Are we not to consider these coins as "original"?

No, they should NOT be considered ORIGINAL. They are TONED! I wish everyone would stop obliterating the English Language by taking the very first baby step and STOP using the word ORIGINAL. There are so many other words in the English Language that will meet our needs. Please, let's start using them.

 

...please make suggestions but please leave out the word Original.

 

 

Not messed with

or

Not (yet) doctored

[KeyMan64]

 

Not messed with

or

Not (yet) doctored

Thanks Mark! I certainly believe that to be the intent behind many of the adjectives used to describe a coin. It gets right to the point.

[BillJones]

I don't know why you people are so hot under the collar about this "original skin" nomenclature. If other collectors know what you mean, which in the trade is as Mark says, "not messed with," why are you having a cow over this?

 

What really matters is if you are conveying a message to other collectors and dealers about whether or not a piece has been processed or doctored. That is the important point.

 

If you want to start playing with the language, go ahead and try, but I'll warn you it is a slippery slope. Back in the 1970s, before the Sheldon numerical grading came into common usage, dealers used all kinds of flowery language to sell their merchandise. There was no standard nomenclature, other than the adjective grades, and they played all kinds of games in conjunction with those. "So BU you will need sunglasses to look at the coin" could mean anything from a fresh, out the bag 19th century Morgan dollar finish, to dipped to the point where the coin was as dull as paste. White = BU.

 

"Lovely toning" could be anything from the stuff the toner guys pay buckets of money for today, to marsh mud, to AT. In those days AT was mainly used to cover polishing. It was not used to enhance the value for "toner people" because there were very few "toner people.

 

[AHFreak]

I agree with you. I don't think there is any doubt that coins in their original mint cellophane have not been cleaned, dipped, altered, etc. However, there are countless examples of silver coins in mint cellophane that have lost their luster, copper coins that have lost some redness, etc. Are we not to consider these coins as "original"?

No, they should NOT be considered ORIGINAL. They are TONED! I wish everyone would stop obliterating the English Language by taking the very first baby step and STOP using the word ORIGINAL. There are so many other words in the English Language that will meet our needs. Please, let's start using them.

 

...please make suggestions but please leave out the word Original.

 

 

how about "Unmolested"???

 

Id rather go with original.

 

I happen to deal a lot with proofs, and SMS coins from the 50's and 60's... coins that were minted, and then assembled in to sets and put into cellophane.... When I pull any one of those coins out of cello, regardless of what the coin looks like.. Brilliant white, hazy, toned, dulled, colored, spotted, speckled, sprinkled, freckled, etc.... I DEFINE SAID COIN AS HAVING ORIGINAL SKIN!

 

When I find a 1950 proof that hasn't been dipped or stripped, conserved or whatever..... I love or hate that coin for having ORIGINAL SKIN..... Im not sure which side of the discussion I am on here, because I don't really know if this is a debate type of conversation... I surely don't know why or what this conversation does or is trying to do.... Can someone help me out?

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Hmmm.....we have the technology now to clear this up. All you need is to measure the reflected light off the coin. I bet there is even an app for that. Couple this with a machine which can measure scratches and kther defects and you won't need to worry about a grader's bias. Though I fear the second machine might be a couple years away.

 

I just don't like flowery prose. Mark earlier hit it. Unmessed with is preferable in my loud opinion.

[KeyMan64]

Why hot under the collar? I prefer passionate about the English language and preventing additional barriers to entry within the realm of coin collecting. It's that simple.

 

There should be no warning to use the English language properly. The warnings should be retained for the unsavory and unscrupulous people.

 

As stated earlier in some form... if you are an experienced numismatist, expert grader....or whatever it all was, then you would know what the heck the phrase means. Why not enable yourself to clearly communicate to everyone, not just those that have been brain washed by the long standing marketers of the industry? This has the ability to enable a barrier to entry and arse-backwards when it comes to the dictionary especially. My kids are in elementary school and know how to use a dictionary. This should be the barrier to entry, not the snobbish 70 years of experience. Yes, experience is a wonderful thing that everyone needs to go through AND WILL given enough time but why make it harder for the newer collectors? Why obliterate the English language? These things make no sense to me and some others believe it or not.

 

As for Naturally Toned/ Unmolested/ Undoctored etc, all get the point across although I would select Natuarally Toned or another expression that is not rooted in negativity. Molested and doctored both have a negative connotation. There are plenty of words in the English language where the root is deemed positive. Added Bonus: Naturally Toned is already used within the industry and understood.

[MarkFeld]

N

Why hot under the collar? I prefer passionate about the English language and preventing additional barriers to entry within the realm of coin collecting. It's that simple.

 

There should be no warning to use the English language properly. The warnings should be retained for the unsavory and unscrupulous people.

 

As stated earlier in some form... if you are an experienced numismatist, expert grader....or whatever it all was, then you would know what the heck the phrase means. Why not enable yourself to clearly communicate to everyone, not just those that have been brain washed by the long standing marketers of the industry? This has the ability to enable a barrier to entry and arse-backwards when it comes to the dictionary especially. My kids are in elementary school and know how to use a dictionary. This should be the barrier to entry, not the snobbish 70 years of experience. Yes, experience is a wonderful thing that everyone needs to go through AND WILL given enough time but why make it harder for the newer collectors? Why obliterate the English language? These things make no sense to me and some others believe it or not.

 

As for Naturally Toned/ Unmolested/ Undoctored etc, all get the point across although I would select Natuarally Toned or another expression that is not rooted in negativity. Molested and doctored both have a negative connotation. There are plenty of words in the English language where the root is deemed positive. Added Bonus: Naturally Toned is already used within the industry and understood.

 

I suppose you also have a problem with the term "first strike" in reference to coins that are shipped from the Mint by a certain date, regardless of when they were actually struck?

[coinman_23885]

I suppose you also have a problem with the term "first strike" in reference to coins that are shipped from the Mint by a certain date, regardless of when they were actually struck?

 

I think most of the regular posters here do.

[KeyMan64]

Oh God, Yes!

[MarkFeld]

I suppose you also have a problem with the term "first strike" in reference to coins that are shipped from the Mint by a certain date, regardless of when they were actually struck?

 

I think most of the regular posters here do.

 

I'm glad to hear it. There sure seem to be a lot of collectors or investors who will pay extra money for such labels.

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

I agree with you. I don't think there is any doubt that coins in their original mint cellophane have not been cleaned, dipped, altered, etc. However, there are countless examples of silver coins in mint cellophane that have lost their luster, copper coins that have lost some redness, etc. Are we not to consider these coins as "original"?

No, they should NOT be considered ORIGINAL. They are TONED! I wish everyone would stop obliterating the English Language by taking the very first baby step and STOP using the word ORIGINAL. There are so many other words in the English Language that will meet our needs. Please, let's start using them.

 

...please make suggestions but please leave out the word Original.

 

 

You shouldn't work yourself up over words. All languages and definitions change over time. And there's several different dictionaries; none are really the standard. You could pick out almost any word from a dictionary and have beef with it. For example, "natural"...as in "naturally toned". The first definition that Google gives for the word "natural" is "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."

 

That would mean a coin that's been sitting in a Wayte Raymond album (or any album for that matter) that has toned over several years would not be "naturally" toned, since a human put the coin in the album.

 

That definition would also mean that babies aren't "natural". Or if you planted a tree, it wouldn't be "natural", since you caused its existence.

 

Language can never be as exact as mathematics. The best you can do is close enough to convey your message.

 

As I originally said, I think the term "original skin" is just a marketing term used to describe a coin with neutral or below average eye-appeal. If there's nothing else better to say about a coin's eye-appeal, people will just say it has "original skin".

 

Now that I think of it, do you have a problem with the term "skin" too? From what I can find, all definitions of the word "skin" involve the outer layer of something. So technically, a silver or gold coin doesn't have skin.

[$ilverHawk]

 

Thank you Carl for that lesson.

 

De nada. No me podia abstener.

 

Carl

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wdrob]

 

Thank you Carl for that lesson.

 

De nada. No me podia abstener.

 

Carl

 

 

hahahaha! You arrogant ... well - I can't believe you actually took that as genuine. Some people.

 

 

 

 

[leeg]

Wow.

 

Just Wow, is all I have to say.

[KeyMan64]

Mr. Smith Guesser,

 

Yes, I thought of those things when it comes to the word naturally. I decided to take the approach that there is balance somewhere and I am also open to suggestions as I have mentioned a couple of times. I am not going to go wild trying to argue for or against the term Naturally Toned. We could defer to another industry term, Market Acceptable Toning?...although that could be debated by some as well. With regards to the word original, it just has no place in being used for a toned coin. It's . It's contradictory.

 

As for skin, the word can be used as a covering or outer layer. I am not a fan of it but I certainly understand/accept it when a coin has taken on an outer layer of dirt/grime/slime/corrosion etc etc. The closest I could possibly define original skin would be to refer to the unaltered surfaces of the coin, as produced by the mint on the day it was produced, displaying maximum luster and original color...or something like that. Ugh, I'm tired.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

More years ago than I care to remember or admit, a hobbyist that was (to me) a very knowledgeable fellow, taught me the meaning, to him, of original.

 

he had access to, and many examples of original pieces. Slowly, over time, I was able to ascertain on my own the slight, subtle - and sometimes not so subtle...especially with Morgans - "haze" a coin has that is original. I have found only a few in the last 10 - 15 years. When I do, I always buy it.

 

I guess, with me, it is a " you know it when you see it" thing. I was probably taught incorrectly, though. The gentleman that taught me did imbibe Jamisons in what some would describe egregious amounts.

[MarkFeld]

More years ago than I care to remember or admit, a hobbyist that was (to me) a very knowledgeable fellow, taught me the meaning, to him, of original.

 

he had access to, and many examples of original pieces. Slowly, over time, I was able to ascertain on my own the slight, subtle - and sometimes not so subtle...especially with Morgans - "haze" a coin has that is original. I have found only a few in the last 10 - 15 years. When I do, I always buy it.

 

I guess, with me, it is a " you know it when you see it" thing. I was probably taught incorrectly, though. The gentleman that taught me did imbibe Jamisons in what some would describe egregious amounts.

 

But there are a great many "original" Morgan's without haze.

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

Mr. Smith Guesser,

 

Yes, I thought of those things when it comes to the word naturally. I decided to take the approach that there is balance somewhere and I am also open to suggestions as I have mentioned a couple of times. I am not going to go wild trying to argue for or against the term Naturally Toned. We could defer to another industry term, Market Acceptable Toning?...although that could be debated by some as well. With regards to the word original, it just has no place in being used for a toned coin. It's . It's contradictory.

 

As for skin, the word can be used as a covering or outer layer. I am not a fan of it but I certainly understand/accept it when a coin has taken on an outer layer of dirt/grime/slime/corrosion etc etc. The closest I could possibly define original skin would be to refer to the unaltered surfaces of the coin, as produced by the mint on the day it was produced, displaying maximum luster and original color...or something like that. Ugh, I'm tired.

 

English is frustrating man. Sometimes it's easier to describe what something is not, rather than what it is.

 

I've thought about this "naturally toned" thing in the past. To get around the problem with the definition of "natural", we could say "slowly, unintentionally toned". The opposite (artificially toned) would be "rapidly, intentionally toned". But if I used those terms, no one would know what I'm talking about. So I'm just gonna stick with the standard.

 

But I do understand what you're saying about "original". Coins don't originally come toned from the mint....yet. However, you could also argue that the original surface is immediately lost after a coin is ejected from the press. That's because as soon as any metal surface (excluding gold) is exposed to the humidity in the air, it begins to deteriorate, even if you can't see it.

[mommam17]

I sometimes describe my commems as original. That usually means they are toned and haven't been messed with in any way. To me, it's a numismatic way of talking.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

More years ago than I care to remember or admit, a hobbyist that was (to me) a very knowledgeable fellow, taught me the meaning, to him, of original.

 

he had access to, and many examples of original pieces. Slowly, over time, I was able to ascertain on my own the slight, subtle - and sometimes not so subtle...especially with Morgans - "haze" a coin has that is original. I have found only a few in the last 10 - 15 years. When I do, I always buy it.

 

I guess, with me, it is a " you know it when you see it" thing. I was probably taught incorrectly, though. The gentleman that taught me did imbibe Jamisons in what some would describe egregious amounts.

 

But there are a great many "original" Morgan's without haze.

 

But (there is always a "but", but you know that), I don't buy them.

[MarkFeld]

More years ago than I care to remember or admit, a hobbyist that was (to me) a very knowledgeable fellow, taught me the meaning, to him, of original.

 

he had access to, and many examples of original pieces. Slowly, over time, I was able to ascertain on my own the slight, subtle - and sometimes not so subtle...especially with Morgans - "haze" a coin has that is original. I have found only a few in the last 10 - 15 years. When I do, I always buy it.

 

I guess, with me, it is a " you know it when you see it" thing. I was probably taught incorrectly, though. The gentleman that taught me did imbibe Jamisons in what some would describe egregious amounts.

 

But there are a great many "original" Morgan's without haze.

 

But (there is always a "but", but you know that), I don't buy them.

 

"But" why not ?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

More years ago than I care to remember or admit, a hobbyist that was (to me) a very knowledgeable fellow, taught me the meaning, to him, of original.

 

he had access to, and many examples of original pieces. Slowly, over time, I was able to ascertain on my own the slight, subtle - and sometimes not so subtle...especially with Morgans - "haze" a coin has that is original. I have found only a few in the last 10 - 15 years. When I do, I always buy it.

 

I guess, with me, it is a " you know it when you see it" thing. I was probably taught incorrectly, though. The gentleman that taught me did imbibe Jamisons in what some would describe egregious amounts.

 

But there are a great many "original" Morgan's without haze.

 

But (there is always a "but", but you know that), I don't buy them.

 

"But" why not ?

 

 

That is a good question, and although I have a nagging thought about the motive it is asked, I will answer.

Within the context of original, those coins with such a designation tend to be very expensive, to me.

I find that the hazy examples are not as expensive and I think the reason is that many collectors, maybe the majority, lean toward something not being attractive or appealing when the haze is present, or maybe there is a feeling that the haze is detrimental or the coin was doctored in some fashion. So, I am happy to buy it for a price acceptable to me. In the end, that is all that matters to me.....that I like it. I am not buying it for somebody else.

[MarkFeld]

More years ago than I care to remember or admit, a hobbyist that was (to me) a very knowledgeable fellow, taught me the meaning, to him, of original.

 

he had access to, and many examples of original pieces. Slowly, over time, I was able to ascertain on my own the slight, subtle - and sometimes not so subtle...especially with Morgans - "haze" a coin has that is original. I have found only a few in the last 10 - 15 years. When I do, I always buy it.

 

I guess, with me, it is a " you know it when you see it" thing. I was probably taught incorrectly, though. The gentleman that taught me did imbibe Jamisons in what some would describe egregious amounts.

 

But there are a great many "original" Morgan's without haze.

 

But (there is always a "but", but you know that), I don't buy them.

 

"But" why not ?

 

 

That is a good question, and although I have a nagging thought about the motive it is asked, I will answer.

Within the context of original, those coins with such a designation tend to be very expensive, to me.

I find that the hazy examples are not as expensive and I think the reason is that many collectors, maybe the majority, lean toward something not being attractive or appealing when the haze is present, or maybe there is a feeling that the haze is detrimental or the coin was doctored in some fashion. So, I am happy to buy it for a price acceptable to me. In the end, that is all that matters to me.....that I like it. I am not buying it for somebody else.

 

Thanks, John. My only motive in asking was curiosity.