Beware of rainbow toning

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by merrill01, Mar 27, 2015.

  1. V. Kurt Bellman

    V. Kurt Bellman Yes, I'm blunt! Get over your "feeeeelings".

    Really? Seriously? I kid you not. The very first ANA summer convention I ever went to - New York City - was it 1997? - I attended my first "Numismatic Theater" talk, NKA "Money Talks", and it was on rainbow toning and how to spot fakes. The guy, and I hope I still have the program stashed away so I can attribute it, said if you see green on a coin, it's a fake tone job. Said green cannot occur naturally, period. How can anybody take this niche seriously, whether he was right or wrong, with so much conflicting "testimony"?
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Coinchemistry 2012

    Coinchemistry 2012 Well-Known Member

    He is wrong. A number of the Battle Creek coins were green and were retrieved from original bags stored in vaults and left alone for years.
     
  4. Coinchemistry 2012

    Coinchemistry 2012 Well-Known Member

    I completely ripped this from someone else, but it is accurate.

    [​IMG]

    And the color descriptions are what matters; the 'color' chart is subject to limitations inherent with computers, etc.
     
  5. davidh

    davidh soloist gnomic

    Any guesses on which of these are/is AT and which are/is NT?
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]#5

    [​IMG]
    #6
    [​IMG]#7
    [​IMG]#8
    [​IMG]#9
    [​IMG]#10
     
  6. silverbullion

    silverbullion Active Member

    #2 and #3 seem to be NT
     
  7. silverbullion

    silverbullion Active Member

    The top 4 are most likely all NT, but I am not sure. So I stand by #2 and #3 at least.
     
  8. V. Kurt Bellman

    V. Kurt Bellman Yes, I'm blunt! Get over your "feeeeelings".

    Before I wade into this, and at the unwise risk of raising my blood pressure in a quest to document the self-evident, we need to agree on definitions of terms. I will endeavor to present examples of "sick" grades on brown splotchy toned coins, grades that have no logical explanation. Whether that coin ultimately sold for above the given grade's norm is of no interest to me. It is the premium inherent in its given grade that is the subject of my protest. IOW, if it got a 68 for no possible reason other than the tone, THAT is my key gripe. If someone bumps the price IN ADDITION TO the grade bump, that's just silly on steroids. Agreed?
     
  9. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    If you don't mind, I am going to use my own scale rather than simply AT or NT, OK?

    1) Borderline QT/MA
    2) MA
    3) Widely Accepted
    4) MA
    5) AT
    6) MA
    7) AT (where did you get that photo ;))
    8) MA
    9) Boderline QT/MA (but I don't believe coin looks like that photo)
    10) QT

    Btw, when evaluating the originality of toning, you need to examine both sides of the coin. Toning correspondence is an important criteria in weeding out AT coins. If you want to discuss any individual coin, let me know.
     
  10. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    My guess is that it was Bob Campbell, he made a video that is widely known throughout the numismatic community. I don't remember him saying that about green though. And if he did, he was wrong. It has already been pointed out that coins that have been plucked directly from sealed bags have shown emerald green toning. There is a big difference between this:

    [​IMG]

    and this:

    [​IMG]

    You gotta stop thinking in absolutes Kurt. They both have green toning, but only one of them is AT. Btw, that was the single coolest AT coin I have ever owned. Don't know what NGC was thinking with that one!
     
  11. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    I posted that back on page 7, it was widely ignored!
     
  12. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    Kurt, come on. I thought you were saying that bidiots were overpaying for brown mottled toned coins at auction. Now you are claiming that PCGS is bumping grades for ugly toning. I have never seen that. I look forward to seeing some of your examples. Are your sure that you are not confusing your grading standards with theirs. The TPGs will often ignore unattractive toning and grade the coin independent of the toning rather than penalize the grade of the coin for its ugliness. Are you sure you are not expecting the penalty?
     
  13. V. Kurt Bellman

    V. Kurt Bellman Yes, I'm blunt! Get over your "feeeeelings".

    In all honesty yes, I am expecting a penalty for uglosity. If it's okay to reward for eye appeal, and I agree it is, then why not the converse also? If eye appeal rates a bump, but brown tobacco spit doesn't at least establish a ceiling, where's the sense?

    By the way, thanks for the '46 Roosy picture. Let's call that example number one. Ugly as sin to me. Why the star? I frankly can't imagine a world where that '46 is considered attractive. I have a nearly overwhelming desire to dip that coin.

    It's gotten out of hand, Lehigh. I was brought a very colorful coin excitedly by a member at one of our local coin clubs. The center had physically been bulged. It had clearly been torched at very high temperature. Except for the bulge, the color by itself wasn't all that suspect compared to some I've seen. I have a real problem with that. Look, you have a business to work. Good for you. I wish you well. The uncertainty, obtuse vocabulary, and moving goalposts lead me to not want to play. Oh, and showing that 81-D Roosy to me didn't help me feel any better about this. And with a superlative indication too? Wow.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2015
    19Lyds likes this.
  14. eddiespin

    eddiespin Fast Eddie

    Lehigh, do you recall that guy on the PCGS forums who sold the members there a bunch of toned coins which the members loved, then, years later, came back and confessed the coins were "doctored," and those same members hated those same coins? Whether you do or not, it happened.

    I just have two more questions. My first is, whose eyes were those members using to evaluate those coins? They weren't using their eyes, as their eyes loved the coins, then hated the very same coins. Can we agree they were using their mind's eye to evaluate those coins? Can we agree they weren't looking at the coins, but at something in their minds that was extrinsic to the coins?

    And, let's just say, this guy submits to a lie detector test, in fact, a hundred lie detector tests, and they all come back, he was lying, he didn't "doctor" the coins. He was bored, and funning. Do those members go back to loving the coins?

    My second question is, is that how you evaluate coins, with your mind's eye? If it is, that's where we depart. That's it. There's nothing more.
     
  15. green18

    green18 Unknown member Sweet on Commemorative Coins Supporter

    Eddie, folks huncker down with what they see. They follow a trend , what is popular, what is 'in'......Those folks that you describe were attenuating.....till the truth came out. Shock and disbelief. How sad.....
     
  16. green18

    green18 Unknown member Sweet on Commemorative Coins Supporter

    And I'm an idiot. Goodnight folks......
     
  17. eddiespin

    eddiespin Fast Eddie

    But how do they know what the truth is, Ken? First they think it's the toning is good, then they think it's the toning is "doctored," then a hundred lie detector tests tell them the truth is the toning is back to good. Is that how we should evaluate coins? Ah, I know that's not how I do it.
     
  18. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    Rather than use complex terms like "mind's eye" I would rather just explain why those people changed their minds about the coins. Obviously, they liked the appearance of the toning and thought is was attractive enough to purchase. Did they evaluate the toning using their own standards or were they relying solely on the market acceptability provided by PCGS? I don't know, but it seems to me that there are enough kool-aid drinkers on the PCGS forum to think they relied solely on PCGS.

    Once they were provided with the information that they had been duped and that the coins were indeed AT, it is reasonable that their opinion would change for two reasons. First, every subsequent view of those coins would remind them of the fact that they were duped. That is not something that I would want to feel when I look at something that I supposedly cherish. It doesn't even matter if they should bear any responsibility for being duped, that information alone is enough to sour your opinion of owning that coin. Second and more importantly, the coin has lost monetary value if the person paid a premium for the coin. The PCGS label gives toned coins a measure of liquidity because it represents their seal of approval that the coin is not AT. Once that seal is gone, so is the liquidity that it provides. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to be upset after finding out that what they paid for is worth much less than what they paid.

    As to your follow up question, my guess is that even if they found out that the guy is lying, the negative impact of the entire experience and humiliation involved would force those collectors to part with those coins.

    My collecting practices are not nearly as dependent as those of the people you referenced in your story. If you look at my E-Bay store, I proudly announce that I deal in Appalachian Toned Jefferson Nickels. It is widely believed that these coins are artificially toned. However, I have owned a number of them and find the toning exquisite. I don't care about their reputation because their beauty along with the fact that they reside in NGC plastic gives them enough liquidity that I can still buy and sell them. My opinion of Appalachian Jefferson nickels is that the toning falls into the Borderline QT/MA category. Honesty, I don't know if they are AT or NT, and I don't really care. With respect to coins that I purchase for the intent to sell at a profit, I am more careful in my selection. I tend to stay away from coins that are questionably toned for the very reasons that started this thread.
     
  19. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    In my experience, both PCGS & NGC tend to ignore unattractive toning rather than penalize for it unless the toning impacts the luster on the coin. Personally, I wouldn't mind if they penalized for ugliness, but they just don't do it.

    With regards to the 46 Rosy, you are welcome to your opinion but I paid $82 for it and sold it for $95. Without the toning, it would be lucky to yield $15. The reason is simple. Not very many look like this:

    [​IMG]

    but millions look like this:

    [​IMG]


    I hate to tell you, but I think most people would find that coin attractive, NGC certainly did. I can tell you from personal experience, it is not easy to get a star designation from NGC.
     
  20. eddiespin

    eddiespin Fast Eddie

    OK. So you don't care you may have beed "duped" on the Appalachians, is that a fair statement? If it means anything, if I had those, I certainly wouldn't care. There's nothing wrong with them. The ones you've shown, here, anyway, are technically very good.

    You know what my next question is, right? Why, then, does "AT" even matter to you? Is it simply because that's the insanity you have to go along with to predict whether a coin will play in the plastic? Do you understand? Is that all there is, or is there something more?
     
  21. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    I wasn't "duped" on the Appalachians, I went into it with my eyes wide open. In fact, a very prominent member of both Cointalk, the NGC forum, and the PCGS forum reached out to me via PM on the NGC board to warn me about the history and questionable nature of the toning on the Appalachian Hoard. This was my response to him in 2008:

    As you can see, I knew they had questionable toning and knew that their liquidity and value was tied to the plastic in which they reside.


    You already know the answer to your question. The money makes it matter. If toned coins didn't drive price premiums, it wouldn't matter. But they do, and in some instances, the premium can be many multiples of the established price guide (you know that as well). Furthermore, it isn't just about one coin. It is about the stability of the marketplace. People pay extra for coins with pretty toning because they have faith that the TPGs can successfully and consistently weed out coins with questionable toning. Personally, I think they do an excellent job of exactly that. Some strays make their way into holders and get a few people in an uproar but it hasn't undermined the underlying confidence of the consumer. The OP and others have claimed that replicating market acceptable toning is an easy endeavor and happens routinely. If that were the case, the populations would skyrocket, the confidence would be lost, and the toned market would collapse. Therefore, anyone who is invested in the toned coin market must in their own financial self interest take a position against artificially toned coins.

    For my own personal collecting tastes, AT doesn't really matter so long as I can ensure the liquidity of my investment. TPG plastic gives me that liquidity. That said, I have purchased cheap raw AT coins in the past simply because I thought they were pretty and I wanted to study them. The blue 1949-D Jefferson Nickel that I put on the AT of my toning scale resides in my personal album collection. Why? Cause it is my collection, I can put anything I want in there.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page