Is this the same coin?

[DirtyGoldMan]

I do not like to diss someone else's coin while it is for sale, but since it was brought up by someone else, Michael is correct. There is a staple scratch in the left obverse field, which I could not live with. (I was going to post such after the coin was sold.) It is best seen in the Heritage photo posted to this thread. Without it, this coin is a lock 65, possible 66. If it were possible to laser the scratch out (and I do not know what is possible), I would be in favor of doing so.

(Dr.), you'd seriously be in favor of lasering the scratch out, if possible?

and

 

Mark, as far as I am concerned, the scratch is a real downer (there, I am dissing the coin again ) . If the Mona Lisa had a tear in the canvas, would you not try to repair it?

[MikeKing]

I would have nothing against lasering the staple scratch if such would be impossible to detect without >10X magnification...the coin is beautiful and rare enough to be worth preserving.

[MarkFeld]

I would have nothing against lasering the staple scratch if such would be impossible to detect without >10X magnification...the coin is beautiful and rare enough to be worth preserving.

Mike (and RYK), but what about future owners not being aware of the lasering?

[Tradedollarnut]

Just blow a little cigar smoke on it...

[DirtyGoldMan]

I would have nothing against lasering the staple scratch if such would be impossible to detect without >10X magnification...the coin is beautiful and rare enough to be worth preserving.

Mike (and RYK), but what about future owners not being aware of the lasering?

 

What future owner? I would keep it forever.

 

If the lasering were truly impossible to detect, the future owner would be happy that he has a nice coin.

 

Look, I am not interested in conserving coins to make them into something they should not be. Dipping XF coins to make them look AU, dipping AU coins to make them look BU, wildly toning coins, puttying hairlines, etc. But to undue an accident of handling by a collector which permanently mars an otherwise terrific coin, if this could be done in such a way that no one could detect by conventional means, I am in favor of it.

[MikeInFL]

I would have nothing against lasering the staple scratch if such would be impossible to detect without >10X magnification...the coin is beautiful and rare enough to be worth preserving.

Mike (and RYK), but what about future owners not being aware of the lasering?

 

What future owner? I would keep it forever.

 

If the lasering were truly impossible to detect, the future owner would be happy that he has a nice coin.

 

Look, I am not interested in conserving coins to make them into something they should not be. Dipping XF coins to make them look AU, dipping AU coins to make them look BU, wildly toning coins, puttying hairlines, etc. But to undue an accident of handling by a collector which permanently mars an otherwise terrific coin, if this could be done in such a way that no one could detect by conventional means, I am in favor of it.

 

RYK,

 

That seems to be a fairly slippery slope you've just gone down. How do you rectify the difference between removal of a scratch provided it is not detectable, with AT or lasering, that are equally undetectable? Is detectability the decision point? Is the "accidental" nature of the problem that tips the scales? Is it the rarity of this particular example? Some combination of the two?

 

Just wondering...Mike

 

p.s. Personally, I view all of the above as methods of artificially improving a coin and worry, like Mark, if the "improvements" will continue to be mentioned when selling to future purchasers. Thus I do not condone improvement of coins in any way -- but YMMV.

[okbustchaser]

I would have nothing against lasering the staple scratch if such would be impossible to detect without >10X magnification...the coin is beautiful and rare enough to be worth preserving.

Mike (and RYK), but what about future owners not being aware of the lasering?

 

What future owner? I would keep it forever.

 

If the lasering were truly impossible to detect, the future owner would be happy that he has a nice coin.

 

Look, I am not interested in conserving coins to make them into something they should not be. Dipping XF coins to make them look AU, dipping AU coins to make them look BU, wildly toning coins, puttying hairlines, etc. But to undue an accident of handling by a collector which permanently mars an otherwise terrific coin, if this could be done in such a way that no one could detect by conventional means, I am in favor of it.

 

RYK,

 

That seems to be a fairly slippery slope you've just gone down. How do you rectify the difference between removal of a scratch provided it is not detectable, with AT or lasering, that are equally undetectable? Is detectability the decision point? Is the "accidental" nature of the problem that tips the scales? Is it the rarity of this particular example? Some combination of the two?

 

Just wondering...Mike

 

p.s. Personally, I view all of the above as methods of artificially improving a coin and worry, like Mark, if the "improvements" will continue to be mentioned when selling to future purchasers. Thus I do not condone improvement of coins in any way -- but YMMV.

 

If the repair really is undetectable then as a prospective future owner I don't care if a dealer tells me that it was done. Properly repairing this kind of damage is no different then removing the dreaded green goo from silver. I don't expect the dealer to tell me he had to remove PVC either.

[TomB]

I would have nothing against lasering the staple scratch if such would be impossible to detect without >10X magnification...the coin is beautiful and rare enough to be worth preserving.

Mike (and RYK), but what about future owners not being aware of the lasering?

 

What future owner? I would keep it forever.

 

If the lasering were truly impossible to detect, the future owner would be happy that he has a nice coin.

 

Look, I am not interested in conserving coins to make them into something they should not be. Dipping XF coins to make them look AU, dipping AU coins to make them look BU, wildly toning coins, puttying hairlines, etc. But to undue an accident of handling by a collector which permanently mars an otherwise terrific coin, if this could be done in such a way that no one could detect by conventional means, I am in favor of it.

 

RYK,

 

That seems to be a fairly slippery slope you've just gone down. How do you rectify the difference between removal of a scratch provided it is not detectable, with AT or lasering, that are equally undetectable? Is detectability the decision point? Is the "accidental" nature of the problem that tips the scales? Is it the rarity of this particular example? Some combination of the two?

 

Just wondering...Mike

 

p.s. Personally, I view all of the above as methods of artificially improving a coin and worry, like Mark, if the "improvements" will continue to be mentioned when selling to future purchasers. Thus I do not condone improvement of coins in any way -- but YMMV.

In my opinion, RYK is not starting down a slippery slope, but is rather jumping from a plane without a parachute.

[DirtyGoldMan]

I would have nothing against lasering the staple scratch if such would be impossible to detect without >10X magnification...the coin is beautiful and rare enough to be worth preserving.

Mike (and RYK), but what about future owners not being aware of the lasering?

 

What future owner? I would keep it forever.

 

If the lasering were truly impossible to detect, the future owner would be happy that he has a nice coin.

 

Look, I am not interested in conserving coins to make them into something they should not be. Dipping XF coins to make them look AU, dipping AU coins to make them look BU, wildly toning coins, puttying hairlines, etc. But to undue an accident of handling by a collector which permanently mars an otherwise terrific coin, if this could be done in such a way that no one could detect by conventional means, I am in favor of it.

 

RYK,

 

That seems to be a fairly slippery slope you've just gone down. How do you rectify the difference between removal of a scratch provided it is not detectable, with AT or lasering, that are equally undetectable? Is detectability the decision point? Is the "accidental" nature of the problem that tips the scales? Is it the rarity of this particular example? Some combination of the two?

 

Just wondering...Mike

 

p.s. Personally, I view all of the above as methods of artificially improving a coin and worry, like Mark, if the "improvements" will continue to be mentioned when selling to future purchasers. Thus I do not condone improvement of coins in any way -- but YMMV.

 

For me, it is the accidental nature of the scratch that gives me some leeway. I would not try to undo normal wear and tear, nor would I create a color that did not previously exist.

 

Well, here is one major difference. I would favor the improvement to enhance my enjoyment of the coin, not for turning a profit, the reason that most "improvements" are done today. If I ever needed to sell the coin, I would disclose the improvement to the potential buyer. Obviously, I will not live forever, and I cannot control what happens to future potential buyers down the line.

 

If the Coin Genie™ appeared and told me that as owner of the coin, she could make the scratch go away, but when I was done with the coin, the scratch would be returned (or the coin would be destroyed), I would take the deal. As hard as I tried, as cool as the coin otherwise is, I could not get over the scratch. It's a real bummer. It's the proverbial "scratch with the coin attached", not a coin with a scratch.

 

I also like the PVC analogy, although one could argue that removal of PVC prevents further damage to the coin and is therefore always warranted. How often is it disclosed? Probably almost never.

 

Frankly, the issue is probably moot. The coin has obviously been around the block quite a bit. If it were improvable in the manner which I suggested, it probably would already be done. Perhaps, in the future, there will be a way to do so.

[bsshog40]

I didn't even get past the first page before this reply. I think the coins are different. What minor scratches there are, look like in different places to me. JMO

[MarkFeld]

If the repair really is undetectable then as a prospective future owner I don't care if a dealer tells me that it was done

Many others would care, however.

[okbustchaser]

If the repair really is undetectable then as a prospective future owner I don't care if a dealer tells me that it was done

Many others would care, however.

 

If it is possible to do so in a truely indetectable manner then how do you know another scratch hasn't already been repaired? Given that premise then it truly makes no difference.

[JRocco]

If the repair really is undetectable then as a prospective future owner I don't care if a dealer tells me that it was done

Many others would care, however.

 

Agree.

While I would bet a large sum that RYK's intentions are noble and HE would not try to benefit from the "doctoring", the same could not be said at a future point in time when the people aware of the coins history are no longer involved with the coin.

You can't be a "little pregnant" and you can never accept "good doctoring" of a coin.

My opinion.

[IGWT]

Great discussion that deserves a thread of its own.

 

[gmarguli]

Yes, they appear to be the same coin.

 

Based on the Legend pictures (which may not give an accurate representation of the coin), the coin has clearly been worked. For the description to read: Both sides have clear, very clean, deep, ORIGINAL, and glittering mirrors. would be a joke. However, it is very possible that they over lit the picture and it removed all traces of the oxidation / toning shown in the Heritage pictures.

 

It's be interesting to know if the certification number is the same as when it sold in Heritage. If so, the changed look is the result of different lighting. If not, then highly likely worked and Legend officially gets labeled a wannabe for calling the coin ORIGINAL.

[chinook]

1. Same coin.

 

2. Michael, I do not believe SageRad meant anything negative towards you.

 

3. I agree with TomB.

 

4. I agree with Gmarguli.

[michael]

i am not dissing anyones coin...... this is a false lie and thinly veiled accusation which i would like you to kindly correct in this post this is unfair unwarrented stab at me

 

Speaking negatively, whether factually or as an opinion, about a coin is, in my mind, dissing or knocking it. Talking about a scratch on the coin, therefore, is dissing the coin, and it is a fact that you dissed the coin. I meant no disrespect to you, and you are free to diss or compliment coins as you wish. My accusation was neither thinly veiled (it was not veiled at all) nor was it a false lie (as you clearly discussed the scratch on the coin above).

 

I personally try to avoid knocking or dissing coins for sale offered by numismatic friends or relations. I think it is bad karma.

 

absolutely not true at all i in no way said the coin was bad or dissing it or knocking it but there is a staple scratch in the coin which it is and it has been dipped which it has

 

if a former owner of a coin tesll something about it and why they sold it is no way dissing anyones coin and it is not your place to tell me how i am dissing someone when i am not and you have ryk done this more than once when i was on the pcgs boards and i really do not appreciate it at all

 

if there is a scratch on the coin which there is right in the obverse focal point of the coin it is clear to me i am not dissing it. it is a clear fact

 

your thinly veiled threat to me accusing me falsely again is clearly wrong as you can make your own statements not sit here in judgment of me or ask me first before making absurd statements

 

so tell me sage did i ever say the coin was terrible or bad or a problem coin------NO

 

you got your facts incorrect i nevrer knocked anyones coins the coin it was it is and this is not bad karma at all

 

again another thinly veiled threat and judgment on me and my motives and how karma is cause and effect and so something bad like this will happen to me

 

i stand that you owe me and these boards an apology

[MikeInFL]

i am not dissing anyones coin...... this is a false lie and thinly veiled accusation which i would like you to kindly correct in this post this is unfair unwarrented stab at me

 

Speaking negatively, whether factually or as an opinion, about a coin is, in my mind, dissing or knocking it. Talking about a scratch on the coin, therefore, is dissing the coin, and it is a fact that you dissed the coin. I meant no disrespect to you, and you are free to diss or compliment coins as you wish. My accusation was neither thinly veiled (it was not veiled at all) nor was it a false lie (as you clearly discussed the scratch on the coin above).

 

I personally try to avoid knocking or dissing coins for sale offered by numismatic friends or relations. I think it is bad karma.

 

absolutely not true at all i in no way said the coin was bad or dissing it or knocking it but there is a staple scratch in the coin which it is and it has been dipped which it has

 

if a former owner of a coin tesll something about it and why they sold it is no way dissing anyones coin and it is not your place to tell me how i am dissing someone when i am not and you have ryk done this more than once when i was on the pcgs boards and i really do not appreciate it at all

 

if there is a scratch on the coin which there is right in the obverse focal point of the coin it is clear to me i am not dissing it. it is a clear fact

 

your thinly veiled threat to me accusing me falsely again is clearly wrong as you can make your own statements not sit here in judgment of me or ask me first before making absurd statements

 

so tell me sage did i ever say the coin was terrible or bad or a problem coin------NO

 

you got your facts incorrect i nevrer knocked anyones coins the coin it was it is and this is not bad karma at all

 

again another thinly veiled threat and judgment on me and my motives and how karma is cause and effect and so something bad like this will happen to me

 

i stand that you owe me and these boards an apology

 

Michael,

 

I don't want to get in the middle here, but I will anyway...

 

I think you and RYK just differ in your approach to how to discuss a coin when it is for sale. I can appreciate his postion, just like I can appreciate your position. I didn't read any threat into RYK's post, nor did I read any false allegations or judgemental comments. You err on the side of (brutal) honesty, RYK errs on the side of caution. Both have their place.

 

In short, I do not think he owes you any such apology. Just agree to disagree and let it go. You both have valuable insight into not only this coin but also coins in general, and I would like to see that discussion continue for all our benefit.

 

Please let it go. Thank you...Mike

[DirtyGoldMan]

i am not dissing anyones coin...... this is a false lie and thinly veiled accusation which i would like you to kindly correct in this post this is unfair unwarrented stab at me

 

Speaking negatively, whether factually or as an opinion, about a coin is, in my mind, dissing or knocking it. Talking about a scratch on the coin, therefore, is dissing the coin, and it is a fact that you dissed the coin. I meant no disrespect to you, and you are free to diss or compliment coins as you wish. My accusation was neither thinly veiled (it was not veiled at all) nor was it a false lie (as you clearly discussed the scratch on the coin above).

 

I personally try to avoid knocking or dissing coins for sale offered by numismatic friends or relations. I think it is bad karma.

 

absolutely not true at all i in no way said the coin was bad or dissing it or knocking it but there is a staple scratch in the coin which it is and it has been dipped which it has

 

if a former owner of a coin tesll something about it and why they sold it is no way dissing anyones coin and it is not your place to tell me how i am dissing someone when i am not and you have ryk done this more than once when i was on the pcgs boards and i really do not appreciate it at all

 

if there is a scratch on the coin which there is right in the obverse focal point of the coin it is clear to me i am not dissing it. it is a clear fact

 

your thinly veiled threat to me accusing me falsely again is clearly wrong as you can make your own statements not sit here in judgment of me or ask me first before making absurd statements

 

so tell me sage did i ever say the coin was terrible or bad or a problem coin------NO

 

you got your facts incorrect i nevrer knocked anyones coins the coin it was it is and this is not bad karma at all

 

again another thinly veiled threat and judgment on me and my motives and how karma is cause and effect and so something bad like this will happen to me

 

i stand that you owe me and these boards an apology

 

Michael,

 

I don't want to get in the middle here, but I will anyway...

 

I think you and RYK just differ in your approach to how to discuss a coin when it is for sale. I can appreciate his postion, just like I can appreciate your position. I didn't read any threat into RYK's post, nor did I read any false allegations or judgemental comments. You err on the side of (brutal) honesty, RYK errs on the side of caution. Both have their place.

 

In short, I do not think he owes you any such apology. Just agree to disagree and let it go. You both have valuable insight into not only this coin but also coins in general, and I would like to see that discussion continue for all our benefit.

 

Please let it go. Thank you...Mike

 

I am sorry if I hurt Michael's feelings.

 

Now, can we get back to discussing how we can remove the scratch?