The toner that separates the men from the boys.

What am I, chopped liberty? None of you big guns has answered my humble question of whether this coin's reverse could possibly be bag toning. The difference in toning was one of the first things I noticed about the coin, and, not even considering this to be a different kind of toning (due to my inexperience), assumed the coin had moved within the bag. I understand that the consensus is "album or envelop," but could this type of toning have been produced in a bag? Possible odds?

Regarding originality, I'd like to press my idea of a few posts ago a bit further. I would submit, playing devil's advocate, that, if the ATer were so talented that he could produce such a stunning, credible obverse, he would possess enough knowledge to know that a mismatched reverse might arouse suspicion in the potential buyer. Therefore, the fact that the reverse is differently-toned is stronger evidence for natural toning, not against it. (In fact, since both sides of this coin offer attractive toning—one stunning, one pleasing—I doubt an ATer would have bothered to tone the other side, risking botching the coin as a whole. I would assume ATers would start with common, blast white specimens; less to risk.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I might go $250

 

It's at times like that when I try to remember we were all ignorant once, and remain ignorant of what we don't know.

Thanks for the clarification....Mike

 

I don't consider myself a "big gun", but I would answer your question with "extremely unlikely".

I've never seen that type of toning on a GSA dollar, for instance, and we know they came from bags.

However, there are others who collect and look at these coins far more than I -- it's far astray from my focus on early copper and type coins.

A thought-provoking line of logic, but flawed in my eyes. First, the intelligent coin doctor might conclude as you have, that introducing a different toning type might lead collectors to raise their eyebrows, and might throw that out in hopes of using reverse psychology. Second, that coin could have been unattractively toned on the reverse and the doctor dipped it and retoned in an attempt to hide this defect. Third, and most importantly, I try not to apply logic on those who seek to deceive me, as, in my experience, it generally is a poor predictor of deviant/unlawful/deceitful behavior -- often defined as doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons and fundamentally illogical.

 

With that rainbow color it might go for that in San Francisco. I'm just saying...

 

You're too modest. Thanks for your sense of that. I guess I think of album toning as more pronouncedly "ring-like." Envelop toning makes more sense to me.

Good points, particularly the third, which sorta sums everything up.

Bottom line, I can't imagine this obverse to have been ATed (based on what I learned on the Toning Premium Thread). If it were, the boundary between NT and AT could be considered to have been erased—and I don't have the sense that anyone here thinks we're there yet. So, the questionable side would have to be the reverse. Given this, I'm more persuaded by your second point than your first—but mostly think the odds are much greater that this is an original coin.

Thanks again for indulging my "speculating."

 

Agreed. NT can easily be faked by an expert in doctoring. This, IMHO is one of the most important aspects of TPGs, as authentication is as important as grading. They do have abilities to detect AT that the average collector does not have--tests for artificial surfaces, and microscopic examination, if necessary. All we have is a loupe, a good eye, and good judgement.

 

While bag toning can be replicated, it certainly isn't easy. Personally, I don't depend on the TPG's to set the boundary between AT and NT. If it resides in TPG plastic, I judge the toning for myself and if I think the toning is attractive and market acceptable, I will consider buying the coin. The more questionable the toning, the less premium I will pay for the coin despite the attractiveness of the patina.

 

I have to say this sounds contradictory. If this (or "any") kind of toning can be duplicated—if there's no boundary between AT and NT, what quality about this toning convinces you it's NT?

 

I think you meant AT.

 

I'm not sure that he did... I don't think Doug is convinced that it is AT or NT, nor sees anything that convinces him otherwise ; )

 

To clarify, if, (and its not as easy as some may think), a doctor replicates the manner in which NT coins tone to begin with, is it AT at all, or just NT that someone intentionally allowed to happen? This is the type of AT/NT boundary Doug is referring to. Yes, TPG are pretty good now at throwing out burn jobs and chemically applied toning, and toned coin collectors can take some comfort in that. However, since toning is a chemical process, IF someone knew it well enough and controlled it well enough then is it really AT or just NT on purpose versus accidental? Its similar to arguments about fakes, if someone produces a fake so good no one can ever tell its a fake, is it still a fake?

 

This is a tricky area. I see a difference between a "chemically-true" ATed coin and a stereotypical "fake." With respect to fakes, "originality" is what's at stake. One pays for the "concept" of a Rembrandt painting or a Gucci handbag (not that I equate the two), regardless of whether the Rembrandt was largely painted by his assistants or the fake Gucci handbag's craftsmanship is equal to the original.

However, I have a harder time distinguishing if a "chemically-true" ATed coin is conceptually any different from a naturally-toned one. Time-wise, storage-wise, etc., where do you draw the line?

 

Then I am not understanding you correctly!

 

No, but you have to admit those two sentences seem contradictory.