For the record, all I did was replicate what I speculated conditions inside treasury vaults could be like, and replicated that. Nothing fancy... But yes, pull away existed on those coins prior to dipping.
My objective was not to deceive people, it was to play around and see what could be done before spending substantial money on toned Morgans. In the process, I discovered that you can fake pull away toning. What I created was not just rim toning, and what I saw was enough to convince me the TPGs don't have a clue, and thus, I generally won't pay strong on rainbow toned coins with few exceptions.
I really don't want to give any more details than that so I'm not going to. I just think I am going to continue to comment in every single one of your threads as I please since you seem to enjoy my commentary so much.
I agree generally with the Colonel on this, a lot of good points and opinion in this thread.
You are not going to get chiseled in granite standards on older silver originality IMO. Much is aesthetic eye of the be(holder).
I try to keep in mind perfection in professional grading is unattainable. The goal is greatness. The marketplace has determined CAC holds a preeminent position.
Originality in my opinion is not usually that beautiful concentrically toned coin, Particularly when looking at a circulated coin. An old MS or proof coin can exhibit this, as by it's condition it has not seen the usual finger oils, dirt, environmental contaminant etc that a circulated coin has. Again yes there will be that nice slider exception, but that is the exception IMO. When you are talking about a 200 year old classic coin that has seen circulation and all of it's contacts and has had 200 years of that sitting on the coins surface you shouldn't expect to see the beautifully toned end result so many call original surfaces. I am sometimes amazed at what some call original "toned" circulated coins. Beautiful yes, original no.
I am not going to say this old circulated coin is original as I have no idea what kid dropped it on a dirt road, picked it up and cleaned it on his jeans 190 years ago, but IMO a circulated "original" as in not numismatically cleaned coin probably looks something like this.
@JRocco - that has the look of solid “originality” for sure, the high points being lighter than the fields is a tell to start with for me. Over time the biggest thing that makes me believe a well-circulated dark silver coin is likely strictly original, never been tidied, etc. is the dullness of the surfaces from a film of environmental gunk. I’m sure this could be faked as well, but when it looks “right” it’s a gut feeling.
It bugs me when people say acetone will never hurt a coin, because while it won’t necessarily make it a problem coin, you can still lose that film that sets apart the truly original pieces from the “tidied.” It’s often hard to see this without the coin in hand.
Here’s a couple pieces that look original at first glance (ETA: For those like me when I bought the 1826- my first bust half and I still have it ) but in-hand the glossiness is a clear tell that someone, at some point, conserved them.
…and great point on the toned pieces, sometimes conservation is the right move and yields a more beautiful piece. Sometimes it just makes a dark old coin that was original look like a dark old coin that no longer is.
The 1826 doesn’t look even close to original to me. The fields are much too light, relative to the protected areas around the stars and beneath the bust.
Is this original? Or did a graffiti artist find it in 1974 and go to town?
Very nice and attractive but that looks like an old cleaning that retoned most likely in an album 70 years ago. Rainbow toning on well circulated coins is almost always from having the original layer stripped off and the silver becoming reactive again. That isn’t to say market acceptance of never being cleaned is absolute as most 18th cen coins have been (pearl grey is a good sign of an old school soap bath).
Notice how your coin only has two layers of age and no smeg? It was stripped to pearl grey decades ago and retoned while protected by collectors over the following years so it didn’t pick up additional environmental contamination in haphazard and inconsistent fashion. Coins almost always do unless protected by mint bags in a vault for years or set aside by collector early which yours wasn’t as a well circulated example. It would be safe to bet there are some minor hairlines under that tone as a rule of thumb
I’ve always believed this coin to be completely original based on the underlying luster and the uniformity of the toning in the fields and on the devices. Opinions welcome though.
I’ve always believed this coin to be completely original based on the underlying luster and the uniformity of the toning in the fields and on the devices. Opinions welcome though.
Original enough to these eyes although in hand always helps and the reeds often tell the story.
I like the gunk in devices, darker outlines around the devices, lighter tone in the fields that were exposed to rub, lack of uniformity anywhere
questionable(further inspection) the wet/splotchy look of the Obv. It could have been a darker toned original coin that was delicately lightened a bit.
At some point it is all conjecture and the look is more important than guessing it’s history. That is a look most collectors would be quite happy with given its grade. Over the prolific number of white AUs out there that is a treasure
I’ve always believed this coin to be completely original based on the underlying luster and the uniformity of the toning in the fields and on the devices. Opinions welcome though.
Original enough to these eyes although in hand always helps and the reeds often tell the story.
I like the gunk in devices, darker outlines around the devices, lighter tone in the fields that were exposed to rub, lack of uniformity anywhere
questionable(further inspection) the wet/splotchy look of the Obv. It could have been a darker toned original coin that was delicately lightened a bit.
At some point it is all conjecture and the look is more important than guessing it’s history. That is a look most collectors would be quite happy with given its grade.
-my free opinion
My guess is once delicately lightened, but still attractive and desirable.
I too like the 1819, while I would say it isn't totally original, it is more original than a lot out there. You can see the areas of lightening. One can also see it was stored at one time in pvc laden plastic flip and that is why there are green pvc remnants in between the devices on the lower half of the reverse by the leaves & berries, arrows and by 50C. But this issue will not stop the grading co's slabbing/grading it or preventing CAC from sticking it.
I too like the 1819, while I would say it isn't totally original, it is more original than a lot out there. You can see the areas of lightening. One can also see it was stored at one time in pvc laden plastic flip and that is why there are green pvc remnants in between the devices on the lower half of the reverse by the leaves & berries, arrows and by 50C. But this issue will not stop the grading co's slabbing/grading it or preventing CAC from sticking it.
I agree with @realone about the PVC being a possibility, PVC has been know to cause/contribute the wet look toning as well.
One member claims to be able to mimic "pull away" toning. I'd very much like to see a magnified example showing just a few letters, numerals, or stars faked.
As for originality, there are too many variables with vintage coins. A great deal depends on what you know and how closely you wish look at a coin's surface. Honest wear, luster, and color are hard to duplicate when using the correct light and unusual powers of magnification. It's probably best to agree that f something looks natural to the eye, it's good enough.
Any opinions on the originality of this coin. I had my doubts because it seemed too perfect with respect to the surfaces and toning when I received it. The seller said that the coin was set aside by his grandfather and had been in an envelope for about 100 years. Regardless of whether it's original or had an old soap and water cleaning long ago (there are no hairlines), it really is amazing (a "superb gem VF30") and I will likely submit it to CAC in the future for their opinion.
Comments
For the record, all I did was replicate what I speculated conditions inside treasury vaults could be like, and replicated that. Nothing fancy... But yes, pull away existed on those coins prior to dipping.
My objective was not to deceive people, it was to play around and see what could be done before spending substantial money on toned Morgans. In the process, I discovered that you can fake pull away toning. What I created was not just rim toning, and what I saw was enough to convince me the TPGs don't have a clue, and thus, I generally won't pay strong on rainbow toned coins with few exceptions.
I really don't want to give any more details than that so I'm not going to. I just think I am going to continue to comment in every single one of your threads as I please since you seem to enjoy my commentary so much.
You are not going to get chiseled in granite standards on older silver originality IMO. Much is aesthetic eye of the be(holder).
I try to keep in mind perfection in professional grading is unattainable. The goal is greatness. The marketplace has determined CAC holds a preeminent position.
Of course there is always room for improvement.
questionable(further inspection) the wet/splotchy look of the Obv. It could have been a darker toned original coin that was delicately lightened a bit.
-my free opinion
One member claims to be able to mimic "pull away" toning. I'd very much like to see a magnified example showing just a few letters, numerals, or stars faked.
As for originality, there are too many variables with vintage coins. A great deal depends on what you know and how closely you wish look at a coin's surface. Honest wear, luster, and color are hard to duplicate when using the correct light and unusual powers of magnification. It's probably best to agree that f something looks natural to the eye, it's good enough.