Intentional Album Toning

I have heard many times that some people use old albums such as Whitman folders to increase the chance of coins toning. I have also seen people claiming that this is AT because the intent of the collector using the album was to tone the coins. On the other hand, the coins are being allowed to tone slowly overtime...just like old Morgan Dollars toned in their mint bags.

So, which is it. Is putting our coins in a place such as an album where toning has a better chance of occurring...is that AT or NT?

My personal belief is...to be AT there must be an attempt to quickly tone a coin. This would include the use of chemicals or heat. Placing a coin in a coin album that results in toning is NT to me. But, what do you think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

natural, i think that AT is anything that involves chemicals or heat

 

I agree I think it is NT. How is it different if you place the coin not knowing that it will tone, or knowing that it will tone, the toning is the same.

 

Agreed, I recently posted pictures of some circulated silver FDR Dimes that I had placed on an old Whitman folder several years ago and hadn't looked at it since. I recently opened the folder to find the coins toned. Someone here suggested that had I expected the toning, it would have been AT and I disagree. That is why I started this thread...to see how others feel.

 

It is a question that will never be settled. The chemicals that cause toning in AT and NT coins are not exclusive to one or the other. Toning from the album is from the chemicals ( often sulfur containing cardboard) and are usually the same ones involved in NT. Temperature affects all chemical reactions, so it affects NT and AT both. There is no known scientific device that can tell if toning is AT or NT, only PET scanners that can tell if one is telling the truth as to their intent if they are responsible.

Length of time is not a reliable measure as time doesn't cause toning, it just measures how long the reactants are acting.

Jim

 

NT is going to happen eventually to almost every coin to some degree regardless of care. I agree that some of the albums may help this along but I dont consider it AT since one really has no idea or control over how the coins will look or how long it will take to tone. To me AT is rapidly altering a coins appearance using man made technigues that a coin would'nt normally come into contact with. With that said I must admit that some of these AT coins are very attractive so I think most people (myself included) will continue to ride the fence and enjoy a mixture of NT and AT coins in their collections.

 

Bravo, Doug. I couldn't agree more. However, I think we'll still be in the minority, because this definition also classifies baking and some liquid toning solutions as "NT" -- they still make a chemical change to the metal, instead of just depositing a pigment on it.

I would clarify that the term "oxidize" here doesn't necessarily mean "combine with oxygen". If the silver combines with any other element from oxygen's end of the periodic table, it's still "oxidizing" in the technical sense.

 

NT evolves the coin toning on its own, without any aids or chemicals. AT is about using chemicals, heat, etc to tone a coin. But I don't believe trying to speed up the process by placing a coin in an album will be AT, because originally, those albums were made to store coins.

 

What I'm saying is, letting the coin tone on its own rather than using anything else, other than an album. It may be the same chemicals, I don't know. But to me, it makes more sense leaving the coin in an album than putting it in a plastic container and pumping gasses into that container.

 

"Without any aids or chemicals", eh?

I guess it's annoying to be pedantic, but I might as well keep at it.

Air is composed of chemicals. Albums are composed of chemicals. Every material that your coins will ever touch is composed of chemicals.

Keep your coin in a hard vacuum, and it will never tone. Keep your coin in a highly "artificial" environment of "chemicals" like pure argon or helium, and it will never tone.

Put your coin in a paper album, and it will tone -- because of the chemicals present in that album, which in turn are there because of the album's artificial manufacture.

Put your coin in an "all-natural" environment -- sitting out on a rock somewhere, or buried in topsoil -- and it will tone even more quickly.

The chemical process of toning always requires chemicals. These chemicals can be supplied in a number of ways, and the process can happen slowly or quickly, intentionally or accidentally. The result, in terms of the coin's chemical and physical state, is the same -- metal on the surface of the coin is oxidized, forming a layer whose thickness falls into a particular range.

Trying to distinguish "artificial" from "natural" toning, when they both produce the same physical result, is just never going to work. It's like trying to adjust the value of a coin depending on how much greed or luck went into its last purchase -- "you got that nice XF 1895-S Morgan for $15, so even though FMV is $1200, I'm only going to give you melt for it." Yes, intent is important. No, it doesn't change the characteristics of the coin. And no, in my opinion, it doesn't change the coin's value.

 

I think diamonds could be used as an analogy here.... while it is possible to create diamonds in a factory using the same basic physical processes as are found in nature, these rapidly produced "artificial" diamonds have much less intrinsic value as those found in nature. Now if you found yourself a nice place deep in the earth to bury some coal, and were able to leave instructions (maybe a tweet?) to people in the future to go dig it up, you effectively would have produced a natural diamond in a manner analogous to album toning. I argue that this diamond would not be worth any less than one randomly found in nature - you simply placed the object in a location where conditions are right for the result to occur.

I dunno, just a thought

 

I agree with your analogy, right up to the last sentence I quoted.

I would argue that the "intrinsic" value of the "artificial" diamonds is the same as the value of identical "natural" diamonds. It's marketing by DeBeers and the diamond supply chain that promotes "natural" diamonds as somehow "superior", and that (highly successful) marketing preserves the price of the "natural" product (which, coincidentally, is only available through that same monopolistic supply chain). DeBeers is struggling to maintain the distinction (and their price premium), distributing test equipment and laser-inscribing serial numbers on their diamonds to distinguish them from synthetics.

 

Ahh yes, I debated using the word intrinsic.... that was a poor choice.

It really is the market value that's the big difference - some might argue that the artificial diamonds have higher ratings on the desirable attributes (especially clarity), and thus have higher intrinsic.

I stand corrected!

 

This seems very similar to how NT coins can command higher prices and respect over AT coins.

 

Doug, I liked what you had to say and I completely understand your point. This is a fine line and that's why I wanted to ask this question. To me, album toning is NT...and I completely agree with you that putting gases in a sealed container with a could would be AT...I know, it sounds like I'm contradicting myself, maybe I am. I have even heard of people putting the album in a sealed bag to concentrate the gases (that to me seems more AT...what where do you draw the line). On the other hand, toning is a natural process...so is preventing toning artificial as well? Is taking a blast white ASE and putting it in an intercept shield holder and placing it in ideal conditions so it won't tone AT too?

As crazy as it sounds, here is where I draw the line. If the coin is being stored in an accepted coin holder (so, album, 2x2, flip, original mint bags, ect.) that that holder results in the coin toning...then to me its NT. I also don't think that intent has anything to do with it in this case. For example, I recently opened an old Whitman folder of circulated 46-64 dimes that I hadn't seen in years. When I opened it...the coins were toned. When I placed them in the folder, I had no idea that would happen. IMHO, this is NT...even if the same gases resulted in the toning as are used on AT coins.

 

And if I'm putting my coins into Whitman folders while I'm enjoying my breakfast, and I happen to drop a few bits of scrambled egg into the bag when I'm putting the folders away, well, what could be more natural than that?

 

from my observation albums take time- like a decade or more

 

Yeah, and the synthetic diamond detection equipment seems very similar to the "coin sniffers", and the serial numbers etched onto mined diamonds seem very similar to "tamper-proof slabs". But beyond that, the analogy breaks down pretty quickly, I think. For example, it doesn't cover the practice of taking a slabbed coin and toning it inside the slab.