Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
At what point does the level of toning or "crust" make a coin a poor candidate for receiving a bean
This subject can certainly vary depending on the age of the series but in the experience of the group how much crust is too much? Or is there such a thing as too much? I imagine that the go to answer is that once the luster is impaired it is too much, but is there any definitive line on this. As an example here is a rather crusty WLH, do you think that this look would be seen as a negative when being evaluated for a bean (it may or may not have already been sent in), or would this be seen as a positive and considered as heavy original toing. Photos curtesy of Mark Goodman, so you know they are accurate and of high quality. Please feel free to post your own crusty coins as well.
Comments
As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart opined in the ‘Jacobellis vs Ohio’ pornography case “I have reached the conclusion . . . that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”
I have a subset of coins I have accumulated that I call my ‘fuglyfuls’. A reasonable collector could look at one and decide it was ugly, and another could determine it was beautiful, and each be correct, or incorrect. I did not buy any of them with stickers and they all have stickers now. If the Aurora Borealis flavor of graduated, elevation chromatic, neon rainbow toning is the High Renaissance of coin color, then coins like your example, and my ‘fuglyfuls’, are the Giacomettis.
Walk up to to Michelangelo’s David and your first thought is ‘magnificent’, and your middle thoughts are ‘magnificent’ and your final thought is ‘magnificent’. Walk up to your first Giacometti and your initial thought is ‘what the hell is this?’ But you can’t stop looking at it. The longer you look, the more you feel. And you walk away realizing that you first thought you were looking at a crudely slapped together stick figure, when all the time you were staring into humanity’s struggle to survive and the ultimate sense of futility that comes with it. And you think ‘magnificent’.
So if I looked at your coin and thought ‘that is some pretty heavy toning’ and that was all I got from it, I would say that the toning weakened its chances. But I look at it and I think ‘I see nice luster under the toning in the fields and iridescent orange toning blooming up through around the devices like the heat from a wildfire pushing through the smoke and I would say to myself ‘I see it’.
A quickly imaged ‘fuglyful’
If someone with talent imaged it, you would better see what I mean. You kind of see it on the reverse where there is an overall pewter coloring with lustered rims and fiery orange toning burning through. I have sent in 7 coins in this ‘genre’ and 6 passed. Not the right coins for many. Probably didn’t help you much…😕 but I tried.
Great answer from TheClamMan!
My answer will be much less eloquent, but perhaps more universally applicable. Whatever a coin looks like, and whatever the issues it may have, it deserves a bean if a very skilled and knowledgeable buyer should be expected to be comfortable buying the coin at the assigned grade.
Compare that standard to the PCGS method, which seems to assign "the most appropriate grade", regardless of whether or not anyone will actually like it at the grade. Not that either approach is right or wrong, of course.
PCGS has a broader responsibility and a wider market than CAC does. If PCGS certified only “CAC worthy” coins, it would soon be out of business because the universe of acceptable coins is too small.
I have coins that have been dipped and have re-toned over time that I find very pleasing. JA probably will not agree. Both of our opinions have limited importance because there are collectors who have different tastes.
For example, I doubt that this piece would get CAC approval. NGC graded it AU-53.
This one might get CAC approval. PCGS graded it EF-45, but I paid fairly strong AU money for it. May be I was crazy, but the early U.S. coin market is a different animal from those who only collect "Walkers, Morgan Dollars and Commems."
CAC rewards originality. With that said the coin obviously cannot border environmentally damaged and luster must be commensurate for the grade.
I don't know about CAC. but for the toning has gone too far when a silver coin turns black.
I also think that it is gone too far on a Proof coin when it kills the mirrors. I have seen this on some totally original Barber dimes, quarters and haves that received very high grades. Yes, the coins have never been dipped, but when the luster has been dulled to nothing by toning, it's a not a great Proof coin in my opinion.
This one is only graded PR-64, but I loved it the first time I saw it.
This dime is graded PR-66. but it is close to "going too far." The mirrors pop up when you see it under strong light.
When it impacts luster that is needed for the assigned grade. Consider the variances by series and grade range it is different per coin/series and grade. It can be preferable in some combinations on the mid/lower side of the spectrum. That is until it broach’s environmental damage
Here ya go, the first time I saw this one was a lot viewing at a HA auction sometime back. Luster challenged for sure bc of heavy patina/tone impacting it. I asked the gent next to me while in lot viewing (DWn) how on Earth could this have a bean with little luster in a 62 holder? We both agreed this was an issue. I did not bid on it but remembered it for its striking toning and lack of luster. I had a chance to buy it at a show a couple years later and did. So impacted luster for the grade, but great tone and eye appeal nonetheless for a series that has a lot of issues that keep most from getting the sticker. So my answer would be each coin is judged on its own, luster, toning, originality, etc. etc. So tone and luster are only 2 variables in the eq.
Best, HT
Great looking coin by the way.
To me this coin is all about the reverse being FB so I was not tough enough on the obverse. Big mistake even though I got it at a good price.
Here’s a Franklin half that i bought on the world’s hub for problem coins. I should have returned it as the pictures don’t do justice to the black halo around Ben’s pate, but the prices were running on the cheap side so I got this beauty midway between two recent auction prices. I’ll bet I can flip it on great collections as “toned” anyway. P.s. yes this coin has been to our hosts but was not accepted.
I’m going to rephrase the question into: show me a coin in an NGC old fattie holder with or without bar code that didn’t get a sticker, was rejected by mr John and his team. I’ll start. Here’s a fugly Mercury dime with full bands but no CAC
No bean for you.
And the records show I bought that beauty on eBay in 2012 from seller hnai.com? Could that be heritage numismatic auctions inc? Is even heritage using eBay as a dump? 💩
Not accepted when it went to CAC In late July/early august of last year.
P.s. hey beavis, does that look like a relaunched mint mark to you