A Comment On A Dealer Website That I Found Disturbing

[WinstonWare]

You guys crack me up

 

Greg makes a good point about bright white coins. That is actually the reason that I bought this Antietam. The toning isn’t necessarily attractive (it’s better in hand) but it does imply that it hasn’t been dipped. I wouldn’t have purchased this coin if it were bright white.

 

[MarkFeld]

Perhaps much of the market chooses to be uninformed? What I don't know won't hurt me...

Greg, that is certainly a fair point. I have no idea what % of uninformed buyers choose to be uninformed, vs. what % don't go to the trouble to be uninformed, yet still are.

[MBA101]

All this talk of "White" coins reminds me of one of my last visits to my dealer (wholesaler). He was having his son dip a whole stack of Morgans while we were conducting business. I asked him about it and he said that his customer needed them all nice and clean, because that was the way his customer's customers liked them. Condition notwithstanding.

[WinstonWare]

All this talk of "White" coins reminds me of one of my last visits to my dealer (wholesaler). He was having his son dip a whole stack of Morgans while we were conducting business. I asked him about it and he said that his customer needed them all nice and clean, because that was the way his customer's customers liked them. Condition notwithstanding.

 

 

That’s terrible! What were you buying there?

[MBA101]

 

 

That’s terrible! What were you buying there?

 

I believe that I bought an 1885 S $20 NGC MS 61 on that visit, and picked up a couple of coins sent out for certification.

 

Mind you that he is a wholesaler with low overhead who makes money more on moving huge amounts of inventory rather than retailing coins with a big markup. So most of his customers are dealers with special needs.

[TomB]

RGT posted a very good suggestion regarding user definitions of the term original. Many of us use the term frequently, and it might be a case where we are not intending the identical thing even though we use the same word. Since this thread was begun with a discussion of a mid-grade, circulated half dollar, I will define my usage of the term as it applies to that case.

 

In my opinion, the term original should be applied to those coins that, once removed from circulation, have not been exposed to intentional surface manipulation or alteration. Depending on their storage, these coins will change appearance at varying degrees with time. Additionally, after a period of time few will be identical in appearance with respect to how they looked immediately after being pulled from circulation. This happenstance-created skin will be original, in my opinion, and efforts to change or improve the look of the coin will result in stripping away of the original skin.

 

Others may or may not agree with my usage of the term, but it makes logical sense to me and has helped me over the years in my collection.

[Frank Provasek]

 

Maybe you and Tom can tell us what you define as original skin for a circulated coin and we can all learn something. (thumbs up

 

Most dealers use ORIGINAL SKIN in reference to strictly Mint State coins, to describe the frost that can been easily destroyed by dipping (yet the dipped coin is still considered Mint State)

 

For circulated coins, the term ORIGINAL SURFACES is more appropriate.

 

You can still lighten a circulated coin by removing DIRT and still have original surfaces. No need to call people who do it UNETHICAL SCUM.

 

Here is a coin that I removed the dirt and gunk from with lighter fluid and a q-tip

 

[RGT]

I find myself agreeing with both Tom and Frank. I like Tom's definition of original. That's what I had in mind for circulated coins but I could never say it so clearly. I also think that the term original skin is not the most accurate term that could be used for original circulated coins. The coins really don't have original skin or original surfaces. They do develop a skin though and maybe it should be called "natural skin". But then we would end up having long NS/AS discussions and be right back where we are today.

 

I think the bottom line is that we need to be clear about what we mean when we use these terms, even if the terms we use may not be the most descriptive. Changing the numismatic vocabulary is much more difficult than simply defining the current one.

 

Frank, it's hard to tell from the smallish pictures but I think I liked the coin better before you lightened it up. I rarely see a circulated coin that gets improved by cleaning, even if it's only removing dirt. It tends to leave an un-natural appearance. I also see some green on that coin. Is that PVC residue and do you need to use some acetone on it?

[RGT]

I just found a post ATS that relates to this subject. Another sad case of a coin pimp who sold a coin's virginity for cold cash.

 

1869-S Half Dime

[pendragon1998]

Stupid joke; never mind.

[Frank Provasek]

Frank, it's hard to tell from the smallish pictures but I think I liked the coin better before you lightened it up. I rarely see a circulated coin that gets improved by cleaning, even if it's only removing dirt. It tends to leave an un-natural appearance. I also see some green on that coin. Is that PVC residue and do you need to use some acetone on it?

 

The 19 in the date and even the letters in LIBERTY are clearly more visible after removing the dirt. I don't think it was PVC, since it was stored in a canvas bag. I made that image 7 years ago as an experiment, the coin was sold as junk silver.