Need your opinion - Auction house terminology.

There's a few different ways of looking at it. One would be it's an advertising technique to use that adjective, merely an example of the same kind of thing we see every day. And not just in the numismatic world.

Another would be to consider that it's semi-unique to Laura. Those who are familiar with her writing over the years should be able to recall that one of her biggest complaints is and always has been that we keep seeing the "same old coins" over and over again in auction offerings. And what she always wants, and ask for, are "fresh" coins. So when a coin comes along that hasn't been seen on the market for some time, or perhaps only once in recent years, it would be kind of natural for her to refer to that coin as being "fresh". In other words it's a matter of degree kind of thing. And/or the way different people choose to assign definitions to words - to one it means this, to another it means that.

Yet another would be that it is just an example of the same old thing that we have seen for the past 14-15 years. There is and always has been a finite number of coins out there and very, very, few of them are newly discovered - though it is often claimed that they were. Pretty much all of them have been in one person's or another's collection for years, sometimes decades, and before that they were in yet another's collection, and another's and another's - going back o the time they were minted. The thing is most of the time those auction records are out there, to be found, for those who choose to look for them. But the coins that are referred to today are seldom recognized as being the coins found in those old records. This is usually because there was nothing remarkable about them back then to make them worthy of notice. They may have been considered Gems (for those that were raw), or 64's or 65's - but 64's and 65's abound - they are nice, but just another coin. Even 66's were around, but in fewer numbers.

But put one in a 67 slab - and now you've got something ! Something worth writing about, taking notice of, and advertising it as such. This is because, not that long ago, 67's simply didn't exist ! Or if they did they were in such low numbers as to be true scarcities, maybe even rarities. But if one looks around, 67's are hardly uncommon in today's world. But yet they are still treated as such because for as long as any of us can remember - there simply weren't any ! And THAT is what people remember. Today's world hasn't been around long enough for it to sink into people's memories, largely because most aren't even aware of it yet.

Short and sweet, it's the fact that they are, today, in 67 slabs that makes them "fresh" !

 

In the past 20 years you could count on your fingers the number of newly discovered coins - and still have fingers left over. I wouldn't be surprised if you could go back 50 years and do the same thing !

Point - it's how one defines "fresh" that matters. The same thing is true of most words we use day after day.

 

I completely agree. But then did you really think that anybody was talking about coins that were unremarkable ?

Ya see Jaelus, your comments are just another example of the definition thing. And granted, mine as well.

Everybody, literally everybody, has different definitions, different meanings that they personally assign to almost all words ! So no matter what is said a great many people will take it, understand it, in a great many and different ways.

 

To put it another way, every single coin that is newly minted is a "fresh" coin, a coin that is new to the market - by any definition. So fresh coins are all around us - every day !

But who cares ?

Point - it is only coins that ARE remarkable, in one way or another, that matter. At least in this discussion.

 

That was kind of the whole point of my comments Books, which is essentially the same comment I've been making in quite a few posts in recent times - the definition thing. When it comes to meaning and understanding everything hinges on the definitions used, not only by those making the comments, but by those reading them as well.

This whole thread started out over use of the word fresh being used to describe a single coin. Along the way other terms and words were thrown in, some by me and some by others. In the article referenced fresh was the word used, and questioned by this thread. But that coin could also have been described as - newly discovered, remarkable, newsworthy, noteworthy, special - and the list of engrandizing adjectives goes on. They pretty much all imply the same thing and at various times they are pretty much all used in the same way.

And, in my opinion, that's all this was, the word fresh was used to engrandize the coin.

And arguing about or disputing the terms I have used - that's nothing more than the definition thing again. My initial comments were not to dispute anything ! They were merely to point out that there ARE several different ways in which the word used - fresh - can be interpreted or understood to mean. Just like there are several different ways the words I have used can be interpreted or understood to mean. And thus providing more fodder for those who wish to dispute my comments.