A coin being corroded is a matter of definition Chris, not one of open or closed mindedness. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. A collector not minding the corrosion being there, on that I will agree with you. That is a matter of taste or choice. And choice is never right or wrong, it just is.
I am responding more to US collectors labeling coins with green patina as "environmental damage", yet pay 100x normal prices for "toning". So what is the difference between toning that occurs while buried versus toning that occurs because you stored a coin improperly too close to a sulfur source? Corrosion as in the surface actively destroyed and taken away I agree with you. However, most dug coins I see I would not label corrosion if all toning is not labeled corrosion. As a background, I used to help my neighbor find coins. We found tens of thousands of them together, so I am very familiar with the condition these coins come in.
Here is another one I was happy to leave as is. I do not think there are any doubts as to it having been in the ground...
Playing in mud and metal detecting, those are different hobbies. One from my past and one possibly for the future.
As a general rule any coin that has that green patina you speak of has suffered from corrosion. I define a coin that has suffered from corrosion as one having damaged surfaces or even pitting. And if you were to remove that green patina, that is what you would find underneath it. As for what the hobby refers to as toning, I have posted a great many times that if allowed to progress unchecked that toning will indeed lead to corrosion also, once it reaches its terminal stage. But until that terminal stage is reached, toning is not corrosion. And that is not just my personal opinion, but the opinion of virtually all involved in the hobby. That is the difference.
I thought corrosion and green patina are two different things, at least from my perspective. Depending on the metal content, a copper coin can develop a healthy smooth greenish patina (much like a copper roof top), without much pitting and corrosion. After all, we do not replace copper roofs and turrets when they oxidize. Corrosion can be centuries away. No? I also believe that the climate we live in can have an effect on our comprehension and our experience with green coins. "Copper surfaces form tough oxide-sulfate patina coatings that protect underlying copper surfaces and resist corrosion for a very long time." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_in_architecture Some photos and link to natural green patina vs. corrosion (green or any colour)... http://metaldetectingworld.com/cleaning_coin_p3_patina.shtml
Link for Treashunt... http://metaldetectingworld.com/cleaning_preservation_coin.shtml All I'm saying, is that I prefer the top half of this coin...
I'm pretty sure that at least a couple of scientific facts have managed to change into different and new facts, within my lifetime. I'm sure yours as well. I beg to differ. Choice can most definitely be right or wrong, good or evil, etc. It is our understanding of the situation and open-mindedness that allows us to make the right one.
I guess hlw I look at it Doug is neither hard green patina nor colorful toning will be removed. For both you never know what the surfaces look like underneath, but since they will never be removed does it really matter? Therefor, I personally believe its silly of US collector to pay huge premiums for toning but turn their noses up at green patina imho.
That green patina you are talking about is called many things, green patina, bronze disease, and verdigris. But plain and simple verdigris is what it is. And for verdigris to be able to form it has to destroy at least part of the metal, it literally eats into the surface of the metal. And if metal is destroyed that is corrosion. Again, plain and simple. But people call it a patina because it sounds better than calling it corrosion. Corrosion has a derogatory connotation to it, patina does not. That is because patina merely refers to a color, any color. And color does not necessarily refer to corrosion. If you remove verdigris from a coin you will always see that the underlying surface of the metal was damaged when compared to the surrounding metal not covered by the verdigris. The difference is quite obvious. The same is true with copper roofs, and it is also obvious to see if you have ever restored one, as I have. When you strip away the green (the verdigris) and you also strip away the brown (the normal color of oxidized copper) and compare one area to the other, it is quite easy to see where the verdigris damaged the underlying metal. Now the protection of both toning or a patina that you mention, yes that is true, it does form a protective layer. But that does not mean that there was no damage done by that green patina (the verdigris). That initial damage is always there. But once that patina is formed the action of it upon the metal is greatly slowed down. And it is that way that way that it offers a sort of protection.
But in many cases that green patina has been removed, and in every single one the underlying damage is there. That cannot be disputed. You may think as you like.