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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

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

What am I missing?

 

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 ?

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

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

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.

 

I would say that yes, it is AT, but only because a substance was deliberately put on to "age" it, which is not normally done in the processing of coins at a mint. Now if that was the normal part of minting, then it would not be AT, because it would be the norm and you would not be able to get one that is not toned immediately. Even if this is is the only coins (type/year) that had this process applied to, it is AT in that it was done purposely and extraneously.

Now if something was done at the mint in processing where this effect happened to it several years after the minting, and it happened to all or nearly all of the coins over time, then it would probably be considered by some as NT, and others as AT. Because the 'intent' to have them tone would not be there, but the process would have been there for some other reason. This is one of the problems, IMO, with labeling the difference with NT and AT as 'intent'. Rather, I think it should be more linked to both 'deliberate' in altering the color, where the purpose of doing something was to alter the color in a fashion that allows some to appreciate them more than if they weren't altered, and to the analysis of the actual toning and colors that appear. A NT toned coin would be one that had no 'deliberate' (where you could actually list what about it was unnatural) change in appearance other than what could appear normally. Since all coins capable of reacting with the environment can eventually tone (tarnish) over time if given the proper circumstances (not being in an absolutely sterile and non-reactive environment) then the natural progression is to tarnish (i.e. tone). It can be beautiful and it can be ugly. For silver, the end result can be black.

But to call NT and AT indistinguishable, IMO, is not correct. NT coins show the toning in their crevices and raised designs differently, and colors are limited as to palette. Wild colors that don't occur in NT coins are of course a giveaway, as is toning that evenly goes over the entire design, not impeded by different heights and depths of designs. There are a lot more ways to tell, and there will be some coins where it is not easy, if near impossible to be sure, but many of the coins can be identified as AT or NT. Basically the difference is air transported chemical reaction over time (naturally, not sped up), where the laying of the toning is NT, and sped up air or gaseous or heat or chemically treated coins (AT) that do not and cannot duplicate the natural beauty that is created by NT.


Be that as it may, the coins Siggi showed are gorgeous, and the effect of the AT is nice to see.

 

Any toning that has happened by accident can be reproduced by intent. It may take decades, but it even that probably isn't true.

There are lots of bad ways to AT a coin -- methods that produce results like BUncirculated posted earlier, results that nobody with sense would mistake for NT. But I think Doug and I agree that some AT methods produce results indistinguishable from NT. They're the same physical processes, in some cases applied over the same amount of time.

I don't believe that the mental processes of the person who put the coin away have any influence on the chemical processes that tone the coin.

I agree that there's a difference between doing something to tone a coin intentionally and doing that same thing "by accident". I just don't agree that the result on the coin is different, and therefore I can't see why it should affect the coin's value.

 

I did state purposely or accidentally.