Beware of rainbow toning

If you think something is nonsense, call it out and join the debate. Otherwise, you are the joke, so keep on ROFLing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Get off your damned high horse! I said that the view that was post posted "reminded" me of the one I posted. I was not "comparing" anything!

The veracity with which these "toned coin dealers" defend their business is amazing.

I do not "seek out" toned coins because I know that toning can be duplicated.

Get over it.

 

Or maybe the actual number of people who like toned coins isn't as great as you might think.

 

No one here disputes that coins can be colored or "toned" artificially; the question is can they be duplicated convincingly? And to that end, there have been several claims made by the anti-toning crowd, but no one has produced any evidence of a convincing market acceptable AT coin in the context of classics.

 

What is your level of discomfort when people praise toned coins and call them natural without presenting any facts or evidence to back up their claim?

 

In an auction, there are only two people that matter: the winning bidder and the underbidder. It really is that SIMPLE. And where there is money, there is a motivation for creating AT coins. And if there were coin doctors that out there as great as everyone here thinks, then Lehigh is right that the market would be flooded with them. A coin doctor could care less about the long term stability of the market.

 

If the coin doesn't have objective indicia of natural toning (e.g. normal colors, pattern, progression, elevation chromatics, pull away toning, or other indicators), then I would be uncomfortable if someone posted a questionable coin and heralded it around as NT.

 

What is your level of discomfort when people praise toned coins and call them natural without presenting any facts or evidence to back up their claim?

 

Who said there isnt any evidence to back up claim that a coin is naturally toned?

 

What evidence would one look for to prove NT?

 

With respect to raw coins, I have a big problem with it. Graded coins inherently have the approval of the professional graders that the toning on the coin is market acceptable. That said, if someone tells me that every graded coin is NT because the graders said so, I would have a problem with that as well. If you go through the 300 pages in the thread Post a Toned Coin, you will find it littered with AT coins and there is almost no backlash. In order to avoid fights on a daily basis, I stopped criticizing every coin posted in that thread.

And again, it isn't cut and dry with either AT or NT. Essentially, all we can do is assign a probability that the toning is AT or NT. Some coins are very clear cut and would be 99.9% AT or NT. Other coins have components and indicators of both AT & NT and determining the originality of the toning would basically become a coin flip.

What I really find interesting about the AT vs NT debate is the criticism that it is a best guess. We readily accept the subjective nature of coin grading until it comes to the subjective evaluation of toning which causes everyone to lose their minds. To me, it is pretty easy. If you don't like the determination of the graders and think a graded coin is AT, don't buy the coin, or at least, don't pay a premium.

 

Apparently you have commented without reading all of the posts in this thread. Diagnostics are discussed, even if only in passing throughout.

 

There is lot you can do to learn about natural toning. You can learn the color progression of naturally toned coins. I have looked at tons of original rolls from 50's 60's, to study what end roll toning looks like, original mint sets from the 1950's have very distinct patterns. Look at old whitman albums of unc jefferson nickels to learn how the silver ones tone differently than the clads. Learn what bag toning looks like. Learn what kennedys look like that were stored in velvet presentation cases, what toning you find in sealed proof sets, bulls eye toning that occurs in the lincolns in the 1970's proof set, look at the old famous collections from newman and pogue to see how original coins should look. The more you familiarize yourself with toning the more confident you will be. I understand there are people who dont like toning or don't understand it, but I really enjoy them

 

Some interesting links in your Tag Line Coinchemistry.

 

You seek to stir the pot with inflammatory posts then cry like a baby when people don't take kindly to your posts. Your intention was to insinuate that the 1882-S could be an artificially toned coin because the 1879-S that you posted had been gassed in its holder. Are you going to deny that?

And if you think that you don't like my posts, your displeasure pales in comparison for the contempt I have for the garbage you have posted in this thread.

 

An aspect that isn't discussed much is the half and half. Since toning is basically a chemical reaction , and as such normally produce reaction centers on the coin that serve as as loci for continuing reaction ( toning). If one was so inclined, AT gaseous treatment of those natural occurring sites, or the whole coin, could enhance such. Thus many of the factors used to "identify" natural toning could still be there as additional layers of (product/ corrosion/ toning ) developed, maintaining the sequence and thickness variations. Originally NT coins could become enhanced as NT/AT hybrids.

 

Edited: Oops! I see you meant something else. I do think the links in my signature line/profile are excellent resources.


I have decided to pursue a different career path and will be applying to medical school in the future. At first, I wanted to use "Coindoc2be," "coinRX," or something like it, but I felt that it would come off the wrong way given that I collect toners (among other things). So I picked chemistry, a subject that has always interested me... Perhaps still not the best choice in retrospect. (And the 2012 is when I joined the site, I think).

 

The original region of NT would still have the indicators, but the newer "add on" stuff should not, or do you disagree? That is why it is important to look at the entire coin. You do bring up interesting points that are often overlooked by both sides in threads like this.

 

Signature line.......my mistake.

 

I think people who use their handle to denote a level of education are insecure. There are many lawyers here, including myself, that don't need to include educational or professional level in their handle. Those that do, appear petty to me.