Your 1854 half should display 168 years of accumulated dirt. If it does not, it has been conserved/doctored but that does not mean that it will not make it into a "problem free" PCGS or NGC slab replete with a CAC sticker. Those three services determine when the fine line that separates "problem free" and "Details" has been crossed.
Your 1854 half should display 168 years of accumulated dirt. If it does not, it has been conserved/doctored but that does not mean that it will not make it into a "problem free" PCGS or NGC slab replete with a CAC sticker. Those three services determine when the fine line that separates "problem free" and "Details" has been crossed.
Remember that it's been in an envelope for 100 years and now a PCGS holder for 10 years. I suspect it may have had an old soap & water cleaning many years ago to get such surreal toning. There are absolutely no hairlines, though. None! It's spooky.
Anyway, PCGS loved the 54-O as well as the PCGS VF25 55-O below, and a PCGS rep even commented on both the 54-O and 55-O on the CU forums as being "choice" in a thread comparing coins of comparable wear but assigned different PCGS grades. Based upon these photos, they defended the grading and weren't concerned about the missing E given the overall look of the coin, though I can see the grade possibly being limiting for getting CAC approval.
Obviously, I like both coins, and whatever CAC decides won't change how I feel about them. I'm certainly not gonna do something dumb like cracking them out and hoping for a lower grade so it will be more likely to sticker.
I have never been able to satisfy myself as to the definition of "toning naturally" means. Of course I understand what artificial toning means, like the famous taco bell napkin experiment, or coated on olive oil and placed on the old oak window sill.
The Eldorado9 1905 Half...imo a wonderful piece-and I have never been able to have the ability to judge from a photo....has coloration tones, and the tones must have been caused by something. What is the the cutoff for an accepted conclusion of a piece being "naturally toned". Why is it natural? How dark is acceptable, or how light is acceptable to be rated as "naturally toned"? What is the criteria to judge the tone is "natural"? Personal appeal? There is an arbitrary aspect to the phrase that requires an opinion, but is absent guidance as to what is required for the opinion.
There is definitely a mystique and aura around "totally original" coins. The original proof set that was found in little paper envelopes in the attic, that great grandpa got from the mint in 1892. Those stories are legend. Many of the Eliasberg coins can be directly traced back to the Clapp collection, and from that collection directly to the mint. The thing that really turns me on with old original mint state coins is the underlying luster, under the color. As for your technical questions, originality does not magically imply attractiveness. Many originally toned coins are really ugly. The one's that are original and super attractive, like the coins above, are like rock stars of numismatics. You can generally tell if a coin has been cleaned, lightly dipped and naturally re-toned is harder and AT stuff abounds, and there are some telltales, but I am far from an expert.
There is definitely a mystique and aura around "totally original" coins. The original proof set that was found in little paper envelopes in the attic, that great grandpa got from the mint in 1892. Those stories are legend. Many of the Eliasberg coins can be directly traced back to the Clapp collection, and from that collection directly to the mint. The thing that really turns me on with old original mint state coins is the underlying luster, under the color. As for your technical questions, originality does not magically imply attractiveness. Many originally toned coins are really ugly. The one's that are original and super attractive, like the coins above, are like rock stars of numismatics. You can generally tell if a coin has been cleaned, lightly dipped and naturally re-toned is harder and AT stuff abounds, and there are some telltales, but I am far from an expert.
i will never claim to be an expert, but the more i study what others (some of you all are here) have been fortunate to see in hand for many years, i realize that i must begin to understand the factors (chemistry?) for "original" toning over time
i really liked the @JACAC discussion with @Seth_WitterCoin to help us understand how to reason about toned coins
.. and after i just watched the discussion again, my takeaway is simply that "AT" is not ok and we should be careful
i haven't personally learned a "hard lesson" yet .. but perhaps my strategy to exclusively collect stickered coins will limit the potential for being hurt by those who commit "crimes" against our hobby
Comments
Anyway, PCGS loved the 54-O as well as the PCGS VF25 55-O below, and a PCGS rep even commented on both the 54-O and 55-O on the CU forums as being "choice" in a thread comparing coins of comparable wear but assigned different PCGS grades. Based upon these photos, they defended the grading and weren't concerned about the missing E given the overall look of the coin, though I can see the grade possibly being limiting for getting CAC approval.
Obviously, I like both coins, and whatever CAC decides won't change how I feel about them. I'm certainly not gonna do something dumb like cracking them out and hoping for a lower grade so it will be more likely to sticker.
Here's a bit of originality for ya guys:
And one more, the Eliasberg 05-s, just cause it's such a great example.
The Eldorado9 1905 Half...imo a wonderful piece-and I have never been able to have the ability to judge from a photo....has coloration tones, and the tones must have been caused by something. What is the the cutoff for an accepted conclusion of a piece being "naturally toned". Why is it natural? How dark is acceptable, or how light is acceptable to be rated as "naturally toned"? What is the criteria to judge the tone is "natural"? Personal appeal? There is an arbitrary aspect to the phrase that requires an opinion, but is absent guidance as to what is required for the opinion.
I am old and my mind wanders. Do not hit me.
There is definitely a mystique and aura around "totally original" coins. The original proof set that was found in little paper envelopes in the attic, that great grandpa got from the mint in 1892. Those stories are legend. Many of the Eliasberg coins can be directly traced back to the Clapp collection, and from that collection directly to the mint. The thing that really turns me on with old original mint state coins is the underlying luster, under the color. As for your technical questions, originality does not magically imply attractiveness. Many originally toned coins are really ugly. The one's that are original and super attractive, like the coins above, are like rock stars of numismatics. You can generally tell if a coin has been cleaned, lightly dipped and naturally re-toned is harder and AT stuff abounds, and there are some telltales, but I am far from an expert.
i really liked the @JACAC discussion with @Seth_WitterCoin to help us understand how to reason about toned coins
i haven't personally learned a "hard lesson" yet .. but perhaps my strategy to exclusively collect stickered coins will limit the potential for being hurt by those who commit "crimes" against our hobby
I think you meant to type 'can't', not 'can'. I think. I am not sure now.
A couple very original proofs. Most have been cleaned, dipped, and have heavy hairlines....very few are pristine, and with fully original color.