Thread: The good side of artificial toning

Good evening folks,

This is not a common knowlidge but these beauties are AT and was done so in the mint in the 30´s. You can even find some that have fingerprints from the mint employes.

I have seen some samples that are missing the AT after early cleaning and the medals are just not the same.

Please explain how fingerprints on a coin are an indicator of AT from the mint.

What am I missing?

You're not missing anything Mike, you just aren't understanding. Those medals, every example, were intentionally toned by the mint that made them.

the finish on the medals is known as "antique bronze" and they are artificially aged at the mint.

Richard

I really really like those. Since I have no clue what they are, how much do those generally cost?

Look out Siggi,
here comes another me!

Now the question becomes , if the mint did it intentionally is it really AT ?

Originally Posted by rzage

Now the question becomes , if the mint did it intentionally is it really AT ?

I have a set of these coins too, I have wondered the same. The only answer I can come up with is if it was done at the mint it isn't AT. In this case it is part of the design. I have seen "cleaned" versions of these coins and they just look horrible. I'm sure some will disagree with my opinion but so be it. No matter what anyone thinks, this set of the coins that were released in the 30's are some of the most interesting and beautiful coins ever made by any country at anytime.

There are a number of products that manufacturers of castings in bronze and pewter use to give the finished casting an antiqued look to it for effect.

When I was in high school, we did bronze and pewter castings in shop class, and after polishing and buffing out the rough edges and all, we antiqued the piece by coating in a solution, letting it set for about 5 minutes, then wiped off the excess with a rag, and what was left had an antiqued and patina look to it.

Originally Posted by rzage

Now the question becomes , if the mint did it intentionally is it really AT ?

Of course it is. Especially since the primary difference between AT and NT is intent.

Originally Posted by rzage

Now the question becomes , if the mint did it intentionally is it really AT ?

Natural toning, occurs naturally without any intentional influence to cause the toning to occur. Like leaving a silverware set in it's case and not using it, or opening the case, the toning, or tarnish, occurs naturally.

Since the Mint caused this to happen, it would be artificial.

This was not even known among Icelandic collectors until recently,

What is intersting and I am looking into it ( if I find a way ) the medals were mentioned in 1930 in the US coin paper numismatists ( I think I spelled it wrong )

Would be very cool to see what they wrote about.

Siggi

Originally Posted by BUncirculated

Natural toning, occurs naturally without any intentional influence to cause the toning to occur. Like leaving a silverware set in it's case and not using it, or opening the case, the toning, or tarnish, occurs naturally.

So does choosing a particular kind of case, one known to accelerate toning, constitute "natural" or "artificial" toning? What if you put a bit of egg product in the case? What if you put in some paper -- just for protection, of course -- that happens to have been exposed to egg products in the past?

If the difference between artificial and natural toning is just a matter of intent, then it's useless to discuss it. If you can look at a coin and discern the intent of each person who's handled it in the past, you should use your gift for something a lot more ambitious than mere coin collecting.

Originally Posted by -jeffB

So does choosing a particular kind of case, one known to accelerate toning, constitute "natural" or "artificial" toning?

If you purposely, or even accidentally, place a coin in a case or holder known to cause toning, it's artifical.

Originally Posted by -jeffB

What if you put a bit of egg product in the case? What if you put in some paper -- just for protection, of course -- that happens to have been exposed to egg products in the past?

That would be artificial as well, because those items are known to cause toning to occur.

Originally Posted by -jeffB

If the difference between artificial and natural toning is just a matter of intent, then it's useless to discuss it. If you can look at a coin and discern the intent of each person who's handled it in the past, you should use your gift for something a lot more ambitious than mere coin collecting.

This was done by using heat, to create a rainbow tone pattern. It was intentionally done, more likely to add a premium to the price of the coin. It's artificial toning and the clue it is, this coin is a copper-nickle clad and wouldn't usually tone in this manner, if it tones at all.

By placing a coin into anything that is known to cause toning to occur, such as the items you've mentioned above, it still falls under the AT category because the cause was influenced by someone using agents known to cause toning.

Originally Posted by BUncirculated

By placing a coin into anything that is known to cause toning to occur, such as the items you've mentioned above, it still falls under the AT category because the cause was influenced by someone using agents known to cause toning.

I would agree with you, IF they knew it. But what about the ones who did NOT know it ?

That's one of the reason why there is no difference between AT and NT. And yes, that even applies to heat. For there are cases where coins were stored in the attic where temperatures can reach 180 degrees. But the person did so unknowingly. Thus it would be NT.

You never know, for a fact, that a coin has been artificially toned unless 1 of 2 things is true. 1 - you can physically detect chemicals on the coin used to color it. Or 2 - the person who did it admits to you they did it.

Other than that, all you can do is guess. You can never know. Yes, it can be an educated guess.