Can environmental damage ever actually be attractive? (1848 large cent)

Can environmental damage ever actually be attractive?

I submit to you that- under certain rare circumstances on copper and copper-nickel coins- it can be, when it results in a contrasting "CircCam" appearance like this.

I scooped this 1848 cent up from my friend's dealer case on a recent visit. It was not an expensive coin.

Technically it's only a VG or so, gradewise. And I am willing to bet you that if (purely hypothetically) I were to submit this coin to PCGS or NGC for certification (which I would not, given its modest value), it would almost certainly come back with a "details" grade, noted as "environmental damage".

See those darker fields? Set off against the lighter devices on the higher points of the design, I think they look great. And in hand, the coin has much better eye appeal than a lot of other large cents I've seen in this grade range.

Here's the thing, though: microporosity. Those darker surfaces in the fields (and also a little on Liberty's jawline) have the just the tiniest bit of granularity to them. Not porosity, really, but microporosity. It's very faint and subtle. In hand, the surfaces look mostly smooth and normal.

What happened here, I suspect, is that sometime in the 19th century, when it was still a piece of pocket change, this coin went through some environmental conditions which gave it a touch of porosity on its surfaces. Later, it went back into circulation, acquiring slight rub on the high points, which smoothed off that whisper of roughness in those areas, and gave it the handsome "two-tone" appearance we see now.

Technically, it's enviro-damaged. But you need magnification or high-res photos to see that. In hand, it looks great to me. I personally think it's a very handsome coin, for a modest circulated example in this grade.

There also appears to be some repunching of the date, maybe. I do not know the Newcomb variety here.

 

@SensibleSal66 - you say "found". Did you dig that one? If so, it's in pretty remarkable shape for a ground find. I once found an 1882 about that nice. It was only half an inch in the ground, and very well preserved for having spent more than a century in the dirt. There was a similarly nice 1868 (also quite shallow) a few feet away, which is probably the most valuable IHC I ever dug.

 

Beinvenue, @Sebastien Legrand!

 

Sometimes, if the soil isn't too acidic (like I believe can happen in pine forests), those "found in the woods" coins can come up surprisingly well preserved. The 1868 and 1882 cents I mentioned finding were also under some trees (live oaks), next to some slave cabins at an old plantation site. So a similar sort of setup to your cellar hole.

Here are a pair of 1798 cents found down here in coastal SE Georgia by dig buddies of mine - father and son. The son also found an incredibly nice 1798/7, which was featured in Coin World after I acquired it.

Notice that both of these are the Sheldon-166 variety, with the telltale dramatic reverse die crack. I suspect a keg of those must have been shipped to this area by around 1800 or so.

These are also technically enviro-damaged coins that happen to be attractive, but they're attractive in spite of the microporosity, not because of it.

 

Yes! Precisely! Another CircCam coin which was actually made more attractive by the "environmental damage".

 

Oh, perhaps you missed this, then.

Or this...

 

Oh, I bought it for my sell/swap/giveaway inventory, so it’s not a longterm “keeper” for me. I’d need something a bit higher-end for my personal collection. But I do like it.

It’s perfectly stable, I’m sure, and in no danger of any kind of deterioration. In fact, as described above, it’s really not all that bad in the first place.

I might treat it with a little Renaissance Wax, if I can find what I did with that. But it doesn’t really need any treatment, as far as I can tell.

 

You’re so right as that pertains to Ancients. I mean, what, after all, are some of those patinas that collectors prize so much, other than old “environmental damage”?

@ZoidMeister’s 1582 Ernestus from Liège is another prime example of that. It didn’t pass muster at PCGS for a straight-grade, but definitely scores in the eye appeal department.